You still have not logically substantiated your position, and therefore I'm assuming you have no rationale for it.

As to your question here, it is simply an issue of postulating an absurdity, thinking that you have won the day. It's not logical to deal in absurdities. When we say that God is omniscient, we are undeniably talking about all things that are proper objects of knowledge. What you're asking is, "If God knows everything, does he know what it's like to not know everything?" It's an absurd proposition, betraying a misapprehension of the character of God. It also plays into the law of contradiction, demanding that God be able to know all and not know all in tandem, which is a false paradox and is irrational. What is at principle here is that truth has to be reasonable and non-contradictory. Obviously we can all generate contradictory queries: Can God make a round square? Can God do what is undoable? If God is all-powerful, can he make 2 be 5? These don't prove that an omniscient or omnipotent God "cannot exist". By omniscience we mean that God knows himself and all other things, whether they are past, present, or future, and he knows them exhaustively and to both extents of eternity. Such knowledge cannot come about through reasoning, process, empiricism, induction or deduction, and it certainly doesn't embrace the absurd, the impossible, or the self-contradictory. If you ask, "What would happen if a non-stoppable object came into contact with an immoveable wall?" There is no answer to such absurdities, and such things don't prove that an omniscient God cannot exist.

You have proven nothing, your challenges are absurd logic, not simple logic, and you have yet to substantiate your position.

Can an omniscient being know what it feels to be ignorant about something?

Simple logic.

Sure. The plan of God is to save the world through the seed of the woman (Gn. 3.15), to bless the world through the descendants of Abraham (Gn. 12.2-3; 28.14), to create a people for himself (Ex. 6.7). These themes carry through the whole Bible.

As far as omniscience and free will, free will is inherent in and fundamental to the Bible's account of creation. The mandate to rule in Gn. 1.26, on the basis of the image (also in 26) implies the same exercise of free will that God exercised throughout the chapter. So also the blessings of "be fruitful and multiply" (1.28), the mandate to fill up and subdue the earth (1.28). It implies a legitimate degree of sovereignty, control, and direction. That humanity is to work and care for the garden (priestly terms, Gn. 2.15) are also indicators of free will. The decision presented in 2.16 with regard to the tree are, as you can see, further down the line and not the only way humanity is expected to apply his and her free will.

Free will is implicit in the definition of love. The Bible is quite firm about God being a God of love (Ex. 15.13; 20.6; Jn. 3.16, and hundreds of others) and that we are to love him in return (Dt. 6.5; 1 Cor. 2.9; Rom. 13.10 and hundreds of others). We understand by definition that love and free will can only coexist as long as there is no violation. If I constrain you, I am not acting out of love, but out of force. If I say you have free will, but then add, "But you can only choose the good," then you don't have free will, by definition. The only way both love and free will can be present is if there is true freedom.

The teaching of the Bible is that God, being non-determined, created man as a non-determined person. We are not programmed, or slaves to our desires, but have the ability to choose and an option of self-determination and self-control. If I am a slave to my desires, I am reduced to machine programming; it is to conclude that humanity is an illusion. The Bible teaches the very opposite.

Logically speaking, if free will doesn't exist, we couldn't know it. In fact, we couldn't know anything. Knowledge is justified true belief. We decide if a belief is true by comparing it to the reality to which it refers, and compare it with competing ideas, and choose which idea best fits reality. This requires some level of free will.

Now it's your turn: You have given absolutely no substantiation to your position that "the concept of omniscience is logically impossible." Let's see your reasoning, if it's simple logic.

How do you know all this? The bible? I need reference. You talk as if god's your roommate.

Here's simple logic: The concept of omniscience is logically impossible.

It's only simple logic if you cater to misunderstandings and misdefinitions. God has a divine plan for salvation, but not for every detail of our lives. His divine plan pertains only to his plan to redeem the world. The Bible gives no indication that God has any kind of a divine plan that results in determinism on earth. Therefore there is free will, and there's no mutual exclusion between God's plan and human free will, or between God's omniscience and free will. Again, as I said before, omniscience neither implies nor necessitates causality. And if you think so, you need to substantiate your position with simple logic—that everything I know is a causal mechanism for something else, and every effect on earth was caused by someone or something's knowledge. If knowledge necessitates causality, you must prove that position. If God's divine plan (which you first must define and substantiate) negates free will, you must prove that position. If omniscience (which you must define) annuls free will, you must prove that position. Is God's omniscience best defined by rationalism, empiricism, logical positivism, or perception? Is God's omniscience propositional or non-propositional? Can God have beliefs (since beliefs can be true, and beliefs are different than knowledge)? Are God's beliefs occurrent or dispositional?

I think you have too easily settled for shallow answers (simple logic) without thinking all the way to the edges. What is the nature of God's knowledge, and how do you know that it negates free will? How far does God's plan reach into human history, and in what categories? If you want to discuss the deeper matters, we can't settle for shallow analyses. God can't legitimately be so easily disdained.

Does god have a divine plan? If yes, there's no free will. They're mutually exclusive. So are omniscience and free will.

Simple logic.

It sounds like you are misthinking free will, God's intervention, and morality. Without free will we would not be human. There would be no such thing as love, kindness, forgiveness, mercy or grace, because all our actions would be determined, and the attributes would have to be defined differently. They would all only be robotic constraint, and we would cease to be human.

The ability to choose and decide is very different from protection. A necessary part of love, kindness and care is protection. Any loving parent will protect their child, but no matter how much you love your children you can't force them to love you back. That must be chosen and exercised by their will.

When God gave humanity their right and ability to choose, he didn't withdraw his protection. In Genesis we find that he put the man and woman in a protective environment and provided for their every need. The world was functioning optimally, and God was in relationship with them and watching over them. But he couldn't force them to love him. He warned them about the fatal fruit, and he was clear about the consequences. He desire for them was life, and his motive was both protection and nurture, but they had to choose. If he deprived them of the ability to choose they would cease to be human. That would have been immoral.

In addition, to address your second slam, God intervenes a lot to reduce suffering and to redeem it after it happens. We are not in a position to judge what has [i]not[/i] happened because God prevented it, or from what disasters and grief we have been saved by God obstructing it. There are some prophecies in the Bible (some in Isaiah) where God's punishment on the people is to merely withhold his hand of protection, and the prophet tells of the horrors that will now happen because God's stops protecting. It's enough to let us know that God very probably protects us in many ways that we don't even dream of, and in our ignorance we think our lives are just "the way they are." God's protection of us is, again, very moral of him, since it seems he even protects many people who scorn him and who are opposed to him.

What you [b]can't[/b] do, as a parent, is prevent your child from every self-imposed danger and injury. If your kid is an adolescent, you'll learn very quickly that they use their free will, at times, to your heartbreak, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. They choose their path and its consequences. It doesn't make you immoral, because I know many parents in that kind of situation who do everything in their power to stop their kids. But their kids have to CHOOSE it. You falsely accuse God of immorality without thinking all the way to the edges with what you are saying.

> God can have all knowledge without necessarily interfering with free will.

That's immoral. If I love my children and I see one of them is about to have a lamp fall on his head, I try to keep him from getting hurt. I don't care if it's his fault. I have to help him. I can and do interfere with free will if it keeps others from suffering. I have morals.

You should be aware that there are great efforts to understand the teaching of the Bible about eternal punishment. There are certainly verses that talk about eternal punishment, but they don't necessarily include all of those who are separated from God. There are verses that talk about God reconciling all things to himself (Rom. 11.15; 2 Cor. 5.19; Col. 1.20), and so some theologians think that God will continue his work of reconciliation even into "eternity", such that those who "serve their time" will at a later date be reconciled with God. There is another position called "semi-restorationism" where, after appropriate punishment, those who desire a relationship with God will be partially restored, and those who do not, even after punishment, will opt to remain separated. The point is that, consistent with everything else the Bible teaches, a person's relegation to hell will be something the person will choose ("I don't WANT to be with God!") rather than a destination forced upon one against their will. While the Bible speaks about eternity, possibly only those who stay eternally defiant will be eternally punished.

> Omniscience and free will

Time and knowledge are odd realities. Once Einstein determined and proved that time was not a constant, and since the nature of knowledge (epistemology) is still not totally understood (ultimately we really don't know, at essence, how we know that we know anything), condemning the juxtaposition of omniscience and free will is a shaky proposition at best. If you've seen the recent movie "Interstellar" (Matthew McConaughey, 2014), at the end of the movie they portray some very interesting (though still sci-fi) possibilities about time, presence, knowledge and actions. Without giving a spoiler if you haven't seen it, McConaughy's character, Cooper, is able to breeze freely in the background without the limitations or constraints of time. He can know without interfering with decisions or events, because he can see it all—past, present, and future—at the same time. Granted, it's fanciful Hollywood sci-fi, but at the same time it's reasonable physics. Think about it. Knowledge doesn't imply causality. God can have all knowledge without necessarily interfering with free will.

Where does "eternal punishment" fit within love?

About free will, how can god be omniscient when we have free will? How?

Does god know everything or not? If he does, there's no free will. Think about it.