The whole paradox with God and the Soham girls is exactly the same issue mentioned in all the paradoxes and is fundamentally broken the second you consider Buddhas's point.
So, look at the simple paradox of me going back in time and killing my Grandad. We instantly cause the issue we are looking at with God and Omnipotence but within a framed reference that we (The human race) can understand. As Robbo pointed out (ditto Buddha) Omnipotence is our interpretation for a power without limit. Well, we can have no real conception of that.
First off, when you talk of 'frames of reference', we have to be clear what it is each person is saying: it is self-evident, I cannot suggest anything outside of my time-line or human frame of reference, it is ludicrous to assume I, or anybody can.
Omnipotence, in my frame of reference means god is all powerful and as such can do everything I could ever possibly imagine..and then some.
So far so good !!
...but, you seem to suggest my paradox is somehow undermined because I cannot possibly have any real conception outside of my frame of reference, this is just not true because all paradoxes occur within my frames of reference, that's a gimme.
Ok, so quick thought experiment. God created the universe. He was there on day one and God is there at the end. So for God, time has already occured (and don't forget, time is a human concept, rooted firmly in concepts that we understand). There is no past, present or future. Time has completely existed and his omnipotence means that there is no assumption.....ever. So, if this is the case, does God exist within time or without? If he exists within time, then he is constrained by his own paradox (He created time/the universe etc but is part of that very fabric, so how could he create?) If he is without time, then the paradox does not exist because all points within time have will already occured (I think thats a new tense "past,present, future participle"). So, he is omnipotent as all events are within his domain to do with as he see fits......no time framing reference required.
First off, god is completely independent of any time-line, it is only we who are subordinate to time-lines, and even then, we can only ever be conscious of a single time-line even tho we may experience an infinity of them.
When you suggest, there is no past, present or future, you are correct...for god ..but not for us.
For you to then suggest,
'then the paradox does not exist because all points within time have will already occured' is a bit of an oxymoron because you are using time itself to frame the statement.
I had better clarify this because I don't want you misunderstanding what I just said here. In suggesting there are no serial time-lines and then using the words,
'have will already occured' can't be stated in that form.
So, we view the events in our past, in our timeline. That means for us, there is a paradox, we remember those events, so if we change them, then we fall into the paradox. But God can't, because, if he is truly omnipotent and therefore existing outside of time itself, he created time. We just cannot think "outside the box" enough to envisage that in terms we can understand.
Aha, now here we come to it, this last paragraph is what it's all about and so I better pick my words carefully and be as unambiguous as I can.
The paradox of which we speak is resident and a property of our time-line and subject to it .....of course it is.
The fact you introduce the notion of God being independent of time-lines, which of course he is, and use this independence as pivotal to stating
'there is no paradox' is not a conclusion you can make here, leastwise not in my head.
And the reason is this, the paradox isn't answered by realising God created time. Our time-line is merely the stage this event was played out on and so in this context; what's important here is the event itself and God's seeming inability to completey eradicate it... now the reason I know I am right here has nothing to do with me being more learned or anything as flattering as that, it has however everything to do with, I am not suggesting there is a solution here ....but you guys are.... I was just playing devil's advocate and doing the relatively easy job of debunking proposed solutions.
The solution to all these type paradoxes is well beyond our scope and probably more within the domain of him upstairs.
It seems a cheap way to slam dunk but I'm afraid it's got to the point where it had to be played that way, I'll apologise for reducing this thread to that but it was one helluva discussion .........but I could be wrong.......
