Post by Admin on Dec 24, 2020 2:11:51 GMT
I didn't.
You seem to have been conflating the original premise with something you want it to read and the tone of your reply before last was a bit intemperate.. Remember what I said earlier about emotion and (personal) psychology playing an important part in religious matters? I do.
If you don't want snark, don't give it. As for the premise, I'm not reading anything that isn't written in the title. The premise is that God can do anything. If you see something else, it is you who are reading things that aren't there. Need I also point out that this is not a debate about the existence of God? If anything, it's a debate about omnipotence, and I just happen to agree with your esteemed colleagues at Stanford. However, surely you noticed how they said "maximally powerful," as opposed to "omnipotent." That's clever.
I say omniscience doesn't include the ability to know things that can't be known,
To which (assuming you mean "can't be known by God"), the same rebuttal of logical incoherence applies. And, as we have not discussed omniscience here I am not sure why you would even want to open a second front. Perhaps if God knows everything then He knows that, despite all claims to the contrary He cannot actually do what cannot be done, which is why He does not try?
Whether he will or won't is irrelevant to whether or not he can. (See thread title.)
...and omnipotence doesn't include things that can't be done.
This appears a sudden change from your previous claim that an omnipotent being can do literally anything, and here I fully agree with you.
Unlike Rick, I did not neglect to mention that. As I said, I already explained that long before you came strutting in here with your invalid dragon analogy.
But the OP's premise (ie, the conditional you acknowledge) does not exclude intrinsic impossibilities. Therefore, if God can do anything, then there's nothing he can't do.
But here you are just contradicting what you said above. There is no reason why intrinsic possibilities (or potential) would not apply equally in the instance of a God which might be able to do such-and-such, and one who definitely can do it.
I don't believe in the existence of werewolves and vampires, but I would still answer the question. But if it were you asking me - and not that it would do any good - I would be sure to include a disclaimer with every post to remind you that I do not believe in werewolves and vampires and that I'm just following the premise as stated.
It doesn't destroy my argument to point out that he could be both visible and invisible simultaneously given the premise as stated - it bolsters it.
In which case then, why does a God, whose will is supposedly to bring all to salvation, not fulfil his own will and do it, by doing just as you describe, something quick and easy? And what would it look like, being half on and half off? No points for special pleading.
These are not my exceptions, nor are they the OP's. They're yours. The premise of this discussion is that God can do anything.
So with all that out of the way...
If God can do anything, can he make a mistake?