Replies

That which is timeless cannot observe or partake in time; likewise that which is omniscient cannot be omnipotent—i.e. an omniscient deity cannot change its mind, ergo is not omnipotent.

It seems to me you cannot subject God to the Law of the Excluded Middle. That would be to commit a category error.

We are made in His image, not the other way around. The image cannot dictate terms to the "original" of which it is an image.

Try as you might, you cannot reduce God to human categories without grossly misrepresenting the divine nature.

Or so it seems to me, FWIW.

Plus how do you know "for a fact" that "That which is timeless cannot observe or partake in time?" You are unavoidably in time; you cannot step out of it. So how do you know what a timeless Being knows, or does, in what for Him is an eternal Now that you do not sense at all?

Thanks so much for writing, kosta!

Kosta: That which is timeless cannot observe or partake in time; likewise that which is omniscient cannot be omnipotent—i.e. an omniscient deity cannot change its mind, ergo is not omnipotent.

betty boop: It seems to me you cannot subject God to the Law of the Excluded Middle. That would be to commit a category error.

I think you are confusing the fallacy of false dichotomy or false dilemma with the valid logical excluded middle argument. Be it as it is, the latter would be "if you don't believe in God then you must be a socialist" (you see a lot of that false dichotomy here of FR).

On the other hand, that which partakes in time is not timeless is not a logical fallacy any more than saying that which dies is not immortal. And if you are omniscient then you know what all your choices will be and can't change them, therefore you are not omnipotent.

Besides, why can't I subject God to logic given that you seem to subject him to your own definitions, such as that he is omnipotent, omniscient, timeless, the first cause, etc.? Or, given that God is described as loving, caring, jealous, etc. If he is subject to human emotions and passions then he should be subject to human logic as well. You can't have it both ways.

We are made in His image, not the other way around. The image cannot dictate terms to the "original" of which it is an image.

Talk about forced conclusions! Who says we are made in his image? What proof do you have to offer? So, your conclusion that an "image cannot dictate terms to the 'original' of which it is an image", while logically true, is not a true conclusion because the truth of the statement on which it rests is without any proof. It would be a valid conclusion provided the assumption about us being in God's image were positively true rather than "true by fiat".

Besides, it's not just the image, but also in likeness of God, which is another problem. Are any of us God-like? Who is willing to raise the hand first on this one?

Try as you might, you cannot reduce God to human categories without grossly misrepresenting the divine nature

Anyone who says anything about God reduces him to human categories (or are you going to deny that too?). Why is it some can and I can't? How can believers say God exists when they insists he "existed" before existence existed?

Because then such a "being" would not be timeless, would it be? You used the (superficially) compelling argument with knitting the sweater. It doesn't change the knitter, so why should it change God to create. The answer, of course, is because God is said not only to have knitted a sweater but actually became one!