Are we all not sinners?

Ah, but of course. Yes, i understand what you were saying, and i completely agree. with every unrepentant sin, the world is slightly darker. is that what you meant?

I know you haven't really used it in this context, but in answer to your questions, no, I do not take things on faith. Now if that mysterious being told me to live my life as he told me, and showed me that he is all that he claims to be (omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, whatnot) in some form other than a book that anybody could have concocted, in some form that would prove that he is, then I would believe that he exists without a shred of doubt.

Yes, yes. It took me a minute to think up somethign like that.
I'm not gonna get into the whole "God makes rocks too heavy to lift" thing, But i can make my point in other ways, God wants us to love him, What stops him from giving us proof NOW? At least back then he had a son to spread the word.

Don't forget I'm playing devil advocate, meaning I am not representing my true belief. I encourage Jikanu to read over what I and Vasu discussed to see why omnipotence and omniscience aren't compatible.

To play along with the idea that I will show that omnipotence and omniscience can co-exist, I will further my argument:

An event A may lead to consequences (futures) which we here conveniently term A1, A2, A3, etc. We have to mention specifically that the frame of reference in this consideration is a particular person in universe U1, let's say it's ours. It's important in that the Multiverse theory proposes that different futures may stem from the same event in different universes (not too hard to get but when we look at the holistic view of multiversal occurrences, it produces a rather interesting effect for the existence of Deity). Also, Einstein's notion of simultaneity of time points will also be explored (meaning past, present and future occur simultaneously in spacetime coordinates!).

With that set, we proceed with the experiment:

From A, one can proceed to the future A1 or A2 or A3, etc.

Omnipotence means God can influence anything along the way from A to any of the futures of A. Omniscience implies God knows exactly which future of A will be locked in, let's say A1 for our universe U1. Now combine the two, that God can influence anything along the way from A to A1, rendering a change in direction to, say A2. Since God knew that A1 would happen, he should not change the course because in doing so, that fact that he knew A1 would happen was false because what actually happens is A2. Arguing that he knows both A1 and A2 will happen is clearly nonsensical (You can't, for example, be on time and late for work at the same time). At this point, yes, omnipotence and omniscience aren't compatible.

Let's take a look at the multiverse U1, U2, U3, etc. The principle here is that the universes cannot interact with each other so I will design my multiverse in this way: each U1, U2, U3, etc. is a set of spacetime coordinates intersecting at the point A (much like a coordinate system with infinite axes - this is hypergeometry, don't bother trying to visualise it). Now have I met the requirement that the univserses don't interact with each other? I have. They intersect at event A and then proceed in their own planes. Each universe has its own set of A1, A2, A3... . Being omniscient, God surely knows which consequence of A in its respective universe will occur. Being omnipotent, God can change A -> A1 in U1 to A -> A1 in U2. Now the interesting effect is that the future event of A that God sees is identical! So by changing from path in U1 to the one in U2 makes absolutely no difference.

The flaw in that design, yes, you may have spotted it already is that: given the extra information, we must specify at the beginning that God must have known that A -> A1 in U1 and not U2. So here's the thing that will play with your mind: each universe is a virtual reality, meaning that they can be identical so U1 and U2 are just the same constructs branching in different virtual dimensions but ultimately interchangeable.

Another flaw in the design is that what if God changes A -> A1 from A -> A2. Now it's obvious whether they're in the same universe or different universes will make a difference. Now for simplicity's sake, let's say it's A -> A1 in U1 changed to A -> A2 in U2 by God's omnipotence. God's omniscience tells God that one of them has to occur. However, it doesn't need to be that way. Remember these are two separate universes, meaning from one event A, A1 will occur in U1 and A2 will occur in U2. God sees both of these. So where's the change of future that I spoke of? It's the existence of both universes that is the change. What if the change happens in the same universe? It has been shown that it is nonsensical because in the same universe, only one outcome exists. The power to change anything relies heavily on the multiversal model. In essence, to speak of omnipotence and omniscience is to assess the multiversal model.

I'm planning to talk to about the simultaneity of time but it's too late now. You can google it. lol

I understand... so essentially omnipotence and omniscience are compatible if the multiverse theory is true, right?

Well, that's the argument I present in support of my devil advocate's contention.

I invite everyone to examine it and bring this discussion forward. =]

I just realised that the multiverse theory is incompatible with a perfect god. See, if god is perfect, then his creation is perfect. So if one universe is perfect with its path, then the rest aren't, therefore creation is imperfect, bringing a paradox.

Lam, you've just about encapsulated most all of my preferred understanding of the world. Gj, I'd rep you but I can't again.



Not necessarily true. There is no implication that any universe is ''perfect with its path,'' a multi-verse exists because of different choices made by different individuals at different times, not any single one being more or less ''perfect'' than any other; perfect itself being a human value-judgement that has no implication on what actually is.


The example from Islam that lam had in his post is a good example of what I'm (inadequately) trying to say.

Alright, now on to the stone!

LMAO. Thanks a lot Lam for explaining it clearly.