Welcome to Gaia! ::

Well, I'll just get to the point.

There are two arguments I use frequently, both of which are very effective at stumping theists. However, I begin to suspect that the arguments may be flawed, but that the people I debate are not to bright. If anyone can find flaws in the following two arguments, please tell me, and specify which argument you are talking about. Dont be shy by the way, I can always find bigger, better ones.

1) A being could not be all-seeing and all powerful at the same time.
The reasoning being that if a being were all knowing, would he be able to do something without seeing it? If so, than he is not all seeing. If he is all seeing and has no way to do anything without seeing it happen, that he is not all powerful, because he cannot escape his own vision.

2) Why the mood swing?
This argument is actually more or less a retaliation to when theists say that all the stuff in the Old Testament was repealed by Jesus. That usually comes up when I mention the fact that if they were good Christians, they would not suffer me to live, I've violated the Sabath (is that one or two B's, by the way) day. So far, noone has had the nerve to shoot me.
But about the argument. If a being were perfect, he would not need to change his actions or methods, for they would be perfect. Further more, if those actions are perfect, than his new methods would be imperfect, because something cannot be perfect in two ways. If there is a perfect way to say, peel potatos, there is not another perfect way.

That's wasn't the question; the being's ability to not see was.

Opinions are subjective, whereas actual perfection isn't, so this is an invalid analogy.
=====================================================
Firstly, it's a lot easier to analyse arguments when they're arranged formally.

1)Omniscience implies lack of ability (to not know).
2)Omnipotence implies no lack of ability.
-------------
3)Lack of ability implies no omnipotence. (2, modus tollens)
4)Omniscience implies no omnipotence. (1, 3, hypothetical syllogism)

Premise 1 looks false:
I think that using the ability to not know implies non-omniscience, not just having the ability.
A being that is omnipotent can "turn off" their omniscience, but until they do, they can have have both.

1)Assuming perfection, [Cause change implies cause imperfection].
2)A perfect being does not cause imperfection.
-------------
3)Assuming perfection, [Not cause imperfection implies not cause change]. (1, modus tollens)
4)Assuming perfection, [A perfect being does not cause change]. (3, 2, modus ponens)

Both premises are questionable.
-Perfection is characterized by a lack of imperfection & there being no better way. I don't see a reason why there couldn't theoretically be 2 perfect potato peeling methods.
-God could've made the world imperfect by changing it, on purpose.

That was an interesting excercise though. The second one seemed strange to write because I've never heard rules about using just predicates when writing logical arguments.
Anyway, if you find any more arguments, I'd like you to post them as well.