Sure, yes. If he does.
But just because we can conceive of God being omniscient doesn't constrain him or empower him. It doesn't mean he IS omniscient, and it doesn't mean all the paradoxes we anticipate are inevitable.
They are inevitable paradoxes if such terms are applied, as understood, in the same reality.
One can remove such paradoxes by reality only allowing one (or none), or by changing the meaning of the terms.
You have suggested only one is allowed / in play at any given moment, but, as I have argued, this still requires a changing of the meanings, as, with the words as currently understood, any moment of omniscience precludes that notion of Free Will, even if it is not "active" while Free Will is in play.
Presumably, God - and his powers, preceded our invention of the terms of omniscient and omnipowerful.
We have to allow for the likelihood omniscient and omnipowerful are inadequate, human words.
Inadequate they may be, but a better term would be
inaccurate.
We have an understanding of what those terms mean.
They tend to create paradoxes, as identified, so those words, with the meanings given, and applied to a single reality, are troublesome.
If one still wants to use those words but with different meanings then the onus is to explain that meaning.
At best, here, all we have is the acceptance that the current meaning is inadequate, but let's still God "omniscient", or "omnipotent" - without ever explaining the new meaning behind those words.
(For the sake of this discussion, I am granting that God exists, but - I am not simply white-listing every god-power many would attribute to him.
I understand that, and I am highlighting that your arguments, as presented, are flawed, for the reasons given.
The point is, what would it even look like? Since we can't see the future, we can't know that it's been tampered with.
So it is unscientific and thus a matter of faith.
Yes, strictly speaking, of course. But we're granting a framework here, wherein God exists, right?
Yes.
And, perhaps, picking apart what some have previously attributed to God.
I don't think we disagree in that regard, only in the manner / arguments to try to do that.
Sure, but it can fall under philosophy. I am an atheist too, but I can grant a framework and examine its logic - with God as easily as Tolkienian magic.
Sure, and it is with the logic of your arguments I am mostly disagreeing with.
Wait. Remind me what I'm trying to deny?
"Deny" was the wrong word, so apologies.
What I meant was that you are arguing for X rather than not-X, but actually only managing to support not-X with your argument, as I have attempted to highlight and explain previously.
Think of it as analogous to a discussion about Tolkienian magic.
Even if discussing that, if a character was described as
omniscient we would be having the same arguments.
I.e. logic is as logic does.
The only way out would seem to be semantic.
Yet...
The semantic arguments about the meaning of these woods is a whole kettle of fish.
I do not feel that the discussion of a hypothetical God's whims need to be boxed in by the limited definitions of our human words for them.
Sure, but the words we use do have the meanings we ascribe to them.
If it is shown that X and Y can not logically co-exist in the same reality, yet it is a given that they do, then either X or Y do not mean what we have assumed them to mean.
I.e. it is a matter of semantics.
Even you, above, have said:
"
Presumably, God - and his powers, preceded our invention of the terms of omniscient and omnipowerful.
We have to allow for the likelihood omniscient and omnipowerful are inadequate, human words."
This is an argument about semantics.
I am simply pointing out that God deciding to give humans Free Will does not
have to result in a paradox
unless and until someone raises the issues of
- Omniscience and the fixed definition of it, and
- the assumption that God's abilities adhere to it and therefore it must be a paradox.
We can happily talk about any and all X and Y co-existing until such time as we want to put meaning behind X and Y.
To say that
omniscience and
Freewill can happily co-exist and not result in a paradox until someone raises the issue of what those words might mean is... baffling to me.
Or are you really saying that we can claim things while not having an understanding of what we are claiming?
Philosophical. Not comforting.
It becomes comforting when you see it as the end of the line of the issue.
i.e. to "semantics" becomes comforting when one can simply go "ah, it's just a matter of changing the definition then," without ever explaining what the new definition is, such that arguments that use the new meaning are no longer invalid etc.
It's comforting when it becomes a handwave.
I'm an atheist, like, presumably, you.
Yes.
Again, suspension of disbelief. How does Tolkien's magic work, etc?
It's not about suspending disbelief but rather just an intellectual look at the claims and the system / environment in which they are claimed to operate.
Belief or disbelief never comes into it.
And I'm all for that, which is why I'm still here.
So, to summarise:
It
is a matter of semantics if you want to avoid the paradoxes.
What do you suggest the new meanings should be so as to avoid those paradoxes.
If it's just a case of "oh, our words are insufficient" then that is a comforting appeal to semantics.
I'd rather an honest "I don't know".
And if it helps: I don't know, either.