God and Omniscience

Re: God and Omniscience

inner-peace wrote:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Omniscience.htm

This makes a lot of sense.....

The article wrote:

For an omniscient being, knowledge cannot be said to be a product of reason, as in the case of man. Reason, which is man's only means of knowledge, presupposes non-omniscience. The very task of reason is to proceed from previously validated knowledge to evaluate new knowledge claims according to its congruity with that previously validated knowledge, with the intention of validating new knowledge as a result. A being said to be omniscient by nature does not have to go through this drawn-out process as there would never be any new knowledge for it to acquire or validate; it simply knows because it already knows. No means or method of knowledge is at all applicable in the case of an omniscient being.

God is obviously an alien. Not only that but it's the most "alien" entity ever invented by science fiction or human thought. It's thought are not only beyond our abilities, but they are outside the boundaries of reason itself.

0 Replies

Let me run a quick thought past you. Let's imagine that God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevelent and omnipotent.

To assume that God is omnibenevelent is to assume that there is a universal scale of morality from which God can not deviate. What's more it seems logical that in any given situation one action would be the absolute most moral which an omniscient being would be capable of recognising. If two were tied, then presumably one would lead to future choices in which one would eventually be the most moral. Thus he would act according to a strict set of rules that he can not violate.

To assume that he is omnipresent supposes that he acts in that way across the universe everywhere at once without the actual person of god being visible anywhere.

To assume that he is omnipotent assumes that his actions are always successful and cannot in any way be prevented.

To assume that he is omniscient suggests that he is aware of the position and nature of every particle in the universe, across all time.

What did I just describe? THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

Think about it. The laws of physics seem to exist across the universe, they always act the same way, they are always capable of enforcing themselves and nothing can prevent it, they seemingly "know" every particle.

Christians don't ever pause to consider what their beliefs as to the nature of God would actually mean. But in essence they believe in something much akin to the laws of physics.

0 Replies

The biggest single problem most people have with religion is normally called the problem of evil, which to me is a piece of a bigger problem, i.e. what exactly do you mean by omnipotence? My basic answer to that is that the spirit world and ours are "orthoganal" to one another and, in our age of the world, are severely divided, so that even communication is generally impossible. And that while God might well be omnipotent within the realm he inhabits, his powers within our own physical world are severely limited if he has any powers here at all. The good news seems to be that we spend 60 - 90 years here on average and then the rest of time there; having it the other way around would be bad.

0 Replies

theantibuddha wrote:

Christians don't ever pause to consider what their beliefs as to the nature of God would actually mean. But in essence they believe in something much akin to the laws of physics.

Nice

As noted in the article above, the very concepts of omniscience and omnipotence break down when trying to fit them into the type of Universe we perceive.

It amazes me that anyone tries to give a personal pronoun, like "he", to any being with such boundless definition.

0 Replies

Quote:

Christians don't ever pause to consider what their beliefs as to the nature of God would actually mean. But in essence they believe in something much akin to the laws of physics.

Except the laws of physics require a universe to exist in. And the universe had a beginning, so the laws of physics had a beginning. And since it is illogical to assume that something can cause itself (it would already have to exist to make itself exist), then the laws of physics cannot have created the universe.

This leaves only one viable alternative-- an all-knowing Creator God which created the universe. Because He also created time, and is outside of time, he needs no beginning...unlike the laws of physics.

Quote:

It amazes me that anyone tries to give a personal pronoun, like "he", to any being with such boundless definition.

It amazes me that anyone tries to disprove the boundless being that created them and gave them the thought processes with which they use to create alternatives to said being's existence.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

It amazes me that anyone tries to give a personal pronoun, like "he", to any being with such boundless definition.

I usually use the word he if I'm discussing beings such as Jehovah, Loki etc. Which are mythological characters who are male. I capitalise the G in God when it is used as a name (and thus a proper noun) but not when it is used as a general descriptor. E.G. The christian god, named God is a god. I don't capitalise the H in he as some christians do, since that's not a standard grammatical convention.

As an interesting note I once heard that certain languages have a specific pronoun that is used for a god, which is neither male, female nor inanimate. Swahili has 5 "genders" in their language, none of which are male or female.

Sometimes I say she, just because I know it fucks with traditional christians :wink: (always amusing).

If there were a divine thingo I guess I'd call it how it looked. For example it is polite to call drag queens 'she' while dressed as their female persona. So if God manifested as a male entity I would call it he. If it were some kind of cosmic energy field I'd probably avoid gender pronouns completely.

(Wow I just compared God with a drag queen in context).

0 Replies

Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:

Except the laws of physics require a universe to exist in. And the universe had a beginning, so the laws of physics had a beginning. And since it is illogical to assume that something can cause itself (it would already have to exist to make itself exist), then the laws of physics cannot have created the universe.

Rex love... leave that conversation in the thread where it belongs. Right now I'm debating the curious link between the concepts of omnipotence/omniscience/omnibenevolence and the laws of physics. If you wish to chip into that discussion then you are of course welcome to.

What I'm not doing is continuing our debate over whether the laws of physics are the primary cause of the universe. If you wish to continue that discussion you can either continue it in the thread in which it started (http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=44472) or you can start it as a new thread.

Your statement was clearly part of the latter and not the former topic. Our previous discussion is not relevant to the topic of this thread however and should not be continued here.

While the two topics appear on the surface familiar they are not in fact the same, despite the fact that they both feature God and the laws of physics. My intention here is not in any way to imply that the laws of phyics created the universe, but rather drawing an interesting parrallel.

Allowing this discussion to span the length and width of the A2K forums would become confusing to anyone attempting to follow the discussion and annoying to those people attempting to have conversations on unrelated threads into which this discussion is brought.

I respectfully suggest that we contain this discussion to the original thread or if need be, it's own.

Edited to fix a stupid spelling mistake

0 Replies

I was just replying to the fact that you said Christians believe in something "akin to the laws of physics," when actually we believe in the God that created the universe and those laws of physics. The laws of physics only apply to the universe-- God is outside of the universe He created, and is much more complex than the laws of physics are.

But I believe you've already admitted that we can't hope to understand that far into things, so I'll leave it at that.

0 Replies

Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:

But I believe you've already admitted that we can't hope to understand that far into things

Well, we can hope to understand that far... :wink:

Quote:

so I'll leave it at that.

Agreed.

0 Replies

Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:

God is outside of the universe He created, and is much more complex than the laws of physics are.

*IF* it even exists. And we don't know that.

0 Replies

I think it's incorrect to say God is more complex than the laws of physics. I would say that God is infinitely simpler, so simple in fact that it is hard to grasp Him intelectually.

In order for something to be complex, it must have a number of inner workings. wait. I'm thinking like a Jew again. Sorry. As I see God as Oneness with no division, there is no room for the complex. Complexities arise within systems with multiple parts.

But i'd be very curious if someone can think of something that is entirely indivisible with no separate parts within, nothing but the thing itself, that is in fact complex.

Dauer

0 Replies

dauer wrote:

I think it's incorrect to say God is more complex than the laws of physics. I would say that God is infinitely simpler, so simple in fact that it is hard to grasp Him intelectually.

While I am not convinced of the existence of said deity that too is how I imagine its most likely form.

0 Replies

Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:

Quote:
Christians don't ever pause to consider what their beliefs as to the nature of God would actually mean. But in essence they believe in something much akin to the laws of physics.

Except the laws of physics require a universe to exist in. And the universe had a beginning, so the laws of physics had a beginning. And since it is illogical to assume that something can cause itself (it would already have to exist to make itself exist), then the laws of physics cannot have created the universe.

This leaves only one viable alternative-- an all-knowing Creator God which created the universe. Because He also created time, and is outside of time, he needs no beginning...unlike the laws of physics.

Quote:
It amazes me that anyone tries to give a personal pronoun, like "he", to any being with such boundless definition.

It amazes me that anyone tries to disprove the boundless being that created them and gave them the thought processes with which they use to create alternatives to said being's existence.

You make me laugh a little ... And since it is illogical to assume that something can cause itself .... why are you trying to use logic to explain god? Its about faith.... And also along with that who created god? It is illogical to think that god just was always around

0 Replies

Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:

I was just replying to the fact that you said Christians believe in something "akin to the laws of physics," when actually we believe in the God that created the universe and those laws of physics. The laws of physics only apply to the universe-- God is outside of the universe He created, and is much more complex than the laws of physics are.

But I believe you've already admitted that we can't hope to understand that far into things, so I'll leave it at that.

If he is outside our universe he must be gone?

0 Replies

Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:

Quote:
Christians don't ever pause to consider what their beliefs as to the nature of God would actually mean. But in essence they believe in something much akin to the laws of physics.

Except the laws of physics require a universe to exist in. And the universe had a beginning, so the laws of physics had a beginning. And since it is illogical to assume that something can cause itself (it would already have to exist to make itself exist), then the laws of physics cannot have created the universe.

This leaves only one viable alternative-- an all-knowing Creator God which created the universe. Because He also created time, and is outside of time, he needs no beginning...unlike the laws of physics.

Quote:
It amazes me that anyone tries to give a personal pronoun, like "he", to any being with such boundless definition.

It amazes me that anyone tries to disprove the boundless being that created them and gave them the thought processes with which they use to create alternatives to said being's existence.

You are amazingly brainwashed .... GOD OBVIOUSLY MADE US CAPABLE OF QUESTIONING HIM SO IF HE DIDN'T WANT TO BE QUESTIONED, HE WOULDN'T HAVE MADE US THE WAY WE ARE !!!!

0 Replies

inner-peace wrote:

You are amazingly brainwashed .... GOD OBVIOUSLY MADE US CAPABLE OF QUESTIONING HIM SO IF HE DIDN'T WANT TO BE QUESTIONED, HE WOULDN'T HAVE MADE US THE WAY WE ARE !!!!

Well, He gave us free will for a reason. He didn't want a bunch of mindless drones to worship him: he wanted us to ponder, question, and ultimately decide on our own. This is why we have free will in the first place.

0 Replies

I don't know who said the thing about personal pronouns but I saw it in a quote of a quote so I'm responding to it. I use personal pronouns in an attempt to form relationship with. For instance, in Hebrew YHWH, a name related to the verb "to be", possibly conveying Is-Was-Will Be and consisting of breath-like letters (The word itself cannot be pinned down or limited) is replaced in speech with Adonai, My Lord.

My Lord is easier to relate to. It's also very personal. Some names create a more intimate relationship like saying Beloved, and some help expand beyond the limits of such a relationship, like The Place or No End. But that's really what they're there for, conveying relationship.

This of course also all will be reflected differently depending on someone's understanding of the nature of God.

Dauer

0 Replies

Quote:

why are you trying to use logic to explain god? Its about faith

Because if I didn't use logic to explain God, then I would have little to no basis to ground my faith in... Wink

Quote:

And also along with that who created god? It is illogical to think that god just was always around

No, it's not illogical to think that God "just was always around." Science has already proven that the universe had to have a beginning, so obviously it wasn't "just always around". And everything that has a beginning has a cause. So God created time when He created the universe-- and it's illogical to assume that He's bound by the restrictions of that time...including the need to have a beginning.

Quote:

If he is outside our universe he must be gone?

Not hardly. He existed outside the universe before the universe was created because He created it, and He wasn't gone then.

Besides, you took my quote out of context-- I said God was outside of the universe in comparison to the laws of physics, which exist only in the universe. I never said that God existed only outside of the universe-- quite the contrary, since He's omnipresent.

Quote:

GOD OBVIOUSLY MADE US CAPABLE OF QUESTIONING HIM SO IF HE DIDN'T WANT TO BE QUESTIONED, HE WOULDN'T HAVE MADE US THE WAY WE ARE !!!!

Of course he did. He gave us freedom. I never said anything even remotely against that fact.

In fact, I was saying exactly what you did-- that he gave us the thought processes we use to question Him. What I said-- and again, you took it out of context-- was that it amazes me that anyone actually attempts to disprove the existence of the being that gave them their ability to think.

Questioning is not the same as disproving-- questioning implies that you don't know all the facts yourself, and are looking for answers. Disproving implies that you have the facts and know the answers aren't what you're disproving.

Quote:

I would say that God is infinitely simpler, so simple in fact that it is hard to grasp Him intelectually.

Well by "more complex than the laws of physics" I basically meant that the laws of physics are able to be comprehended, whereas the fullness of God cannot be. "Complex" for us to completely understand Him. I actually agree with you on what you went on to say.

Quote:

I use personal pronouns in an attempt to form relationship with.

Exactly. When I talk of God and use "He", I conveying the fact that this is the being that loves me and I love back. Not some distant hovering mist to be referred to as an object "it".

0 Replies

Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:

When I talk of God and use "He", I conveying the fact that this is the being that loves me and I love back. Not some distant hovering mist to be referred to as an object "it".

Fair enough.

So then you wouldn't mind saying "she" instead of "he", because the reference is just to something that loves, and is loved, not gender specific, right?

0 Replies

God and Omniscience

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know