1. I didn't say you did. I was just answering your question. But my 2 is a better answer than my 1 imho.

2. I wasn't saying you were saying that. Again, I was answering your question. I was explaining that if a being could outgrow its creator, something in the universe allowed him that, and as such that law of the universe needed to be guided by a source. Therefore, there must have been a greater creator. Meaning that an almighty creator is required for the origins to work.

That's what I mean by it all makes sense. I mean it all holds together like a building.

My def of all-powerful is, among other things, that there is nothing more powerful than he, because if so, he would not be all powerful.

1. That doesn't do a good job of proving that something all-powerful, all-knowing, or infinite can exist. Infinity is a concept which doesn't describe any actual entities. So no, we have no valid reason to believe infinity exists in the "real" world (unless you can give some examples). So if anything, I think your infinity analogy decreases the likelihood of a Creator, or at least proves He's just a concept.

2. This leads to a few questions.

How would you explain natural, unnecessary “evil” especially when it harms newborns who can't even comprehend love or hate? It’s not like nature itself is exercising free will; the Creator himself is the one causing this pain and suffering. The situation is even worse when you consider the fact that these natural disasters are completely unnecessary; like you said, humans already exercise their free will to put evil into the world. If evil will exist regardless, then what is the point of the Creator causing this suffering?

Also, I don’t think hatred is necessary for love. When it comes to love & hate, there is a huge neutral position where neither hate nor love exists. Certain things just don’t give off a degree of love/hate. I think even without hate, love would be appreciated. The neutral situations would be unfulfilling enough that love would still be highly valuable. This is different from something like hot and cold. When it comes to temperature, there is no neutral zone; everything has a certain degree of hotness and coldness.

But let’s assume that hatred is necessary for love. A hate-free civilization wouldn’t work because love is only valued as it contrasts with hate. Also, a free-will & hate-free civilization is also impossible (otherwise, the Creator would have created such a civilization). If this is true, then that means the Creator planned for there to be hate.  But this contradicts the popular notion that the Creator planned for humanity to live completely in harmony and love. So which is it? Did the creator plan for a hatred-free civilization or a hatred-filled civilization?

This goes against the common notion that the Creator is timeless and unchanged. God today is the same is He was 10 million years ago, etc. 

thoughts =/= knowledge. You may be able to stop thinking about something (but even that's a stretch), but it is not possible to consciously erase pieces of  your knowledge.

Interesting thread. Tagging for later.

It's frustrating when you keep returning to time doesn't apply, then when I say time isn't relevant you say logic doesn't apply. Logic applies to anything and everything. It's two concepts that are contradictory to each other. Those being omniscience and free will.

Free will implies choice and nondeterminism. This isn't debatable. This is by definition.

Omniscience implies determinism (since nothing is unknown).

Nondeterminism != determinism

Simple, no other aspects need be considered at all. Time, Space, God, Human, does not matter. It is simply logic based purely on definition.

His divine nature doesn't change, simply his abilities are limited for a time/reason.

An example from Christianity is Christ, when he took the form of a man, he was able to suffer pain, which is not something Holy God is normally understood to do. But he limited his divinity for a moment. It doesn't change the fact that he could've broken free from that form at any moment, but he chose not to do so, because he had salvation in mind. (Philippians 2:1-11 as an example of this)

The key word here is chose. He's God after all. If we can limit our abilities for a moment, for a reason (sometimes love), then with even greater reason so could he.

My thoughts activate my knowledge. Though I may know something, I can control my thoughts so as to remove that concern for another thought, at a specific moment.

I may know that my best friend cheated on me, but I can put the thought that reminds me of that aside so I can move on and continue to love them.

And I'm saying that putting his thoughts to rest, for a moment, does not change that. He knows all things, but he doesn't consider idea A or B when making a specific decision if his will is not to think about it.

I edited my post, the example I gave should help.

You can give me easy replies, but they will never answer your questions....