Define God

steve

What if 'omniscent' in this context doesn't mean 'in command of all knowledge", but that God is the only thing in which knowledge can exist.

Omnipotent- not a 'capable of everything', but more as meaning 'God precedes action, all action'.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

steve

What if 'omniscent' in this context doesn't mean 'in command of all knowledge", but that God is the only thing in which knowledge can exist.

Omnipotent- not a 'capable of everything', but more as meaning 'God precedes action, all action'.

well then you are playing semantics

0 Replies

It's a game we sometimes need to play.

If we want to misunderstand the concept of God, or if we want to define it as something impossible, then it will be very easy. I don't want that. I want to see if it can be logically sound to say that god is omniscent.

To know this I must clearly define God, which I have tried to do for myself. Then I must look for a valid interpretations of these statements that does not disagree with the logical definition of god. It's a tautology at best, but what if that is all God ever was meant to be.

0 Replies

he might be omniscient but cant be omnipotent at the same time

by my logic anyway Smile

0 Replies

I do not see why not. It's the same argument in both cases.

According to the Oxford advanced learner's dictionairy, "omni" means "of all things; in all ways or places". I believe 'all' is the key concept.

So 'omnipotent' does not mean that God can do the impossible. It simply means that it is impossible that anything can happen outside God. Since God is defined as the ultimate everything, it does not make sense to think of something outside God, and so god is omnipotent.

It's the same argument with all knowing, and I cannot see that they are in conflict.

0 Replies

We've been over the omniscient/omnipotent conundrum before.

Essentially, it boils down to a definition of omniscient as knowing all things by necessity. If that were true than God would no longer have the power of choice/free will. Or it could be said that all the human misery precipitated by his creation of humanity must have at one time existed only within God's mind and that he deliberately unleashed it upon his creation in some sort of sadistic maelstrom of malevolence.

However, if we allow that God's omnipotence allows him to apply his power of foreknowledge selectively, then the concept of a loving God will apply.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

However, if we allow that God's omnipotence allows him to apply his power of foreknowledge selectively, then the concept of a loving God will apply.

SMASH that square peg until it fits into the round hole.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

I do not see why not. It's the same argument in both cases.

According to the Oxford advanced learner's dictionairy, "omni" means "of all things; in all ways or places". I believe 'all' is the key concept.

So 'omnipotent' does not mean that God can do the impossible. It simply means that it is impossible that anything can happen outside God. Since God is defined as the ultimate everything, it does not make sense to think of something outside God, and so god is omnipotent.

It's the same argument with all knowing, and I cannot see that they are in conflict.

From Dawkins book The God Delusion

Quote:

It has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he cant change his mind about his intervention which means he is not omnipotent.

Karen Owens neatly sums it up

Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change his future mind?

Laughing

0 Replies

Dawkins is right only if 'omniscient' implies a singular consciousness able to access all knowledge. Same thing with 'omnipotent'. Thing is, I am not sure that is implied in the words.

The title of Dawkins' book implies that he has defined God as something impossible, which is harldy sound logic proceedure.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
However, if we allow that God's omnipotence allows him to apply his power of foreknowledge selectively, then the concept of a loving God will apply.

SMASH that square peg until it fits into the round hole.

explain

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
However, if we allow that God's omnipotence allows him to apply his power of foreknowledge selectively, then the concept of a loving God will apply.

SMASH that square peg until it fits into the round hole.

0 Replies

You folks are fine pieces of work.

Explain, if you will, why the concept of an all powerful God must exclude the ability to apply his power selectively.

0 Replies

if God is all-powerful then to use that power to help a certain individual would be immoral and to suggest that God is immoral would be denying that he is all-loving. so the only thing God could do to maintain his status as omni-everything is to maintain the world as it is.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

You folks are fine pieces of work.

Explain, if you will, why the concept of an all powerful God must exclude the ability to apply his power selectively.

read the quote and the short verse again. its not that difficult.

If God is omniscient he knows everything past and future. Thus he is not free to change his mind and therefore cannot be omnipotent. Dawkins only uses this this as a side illustration, he doesnt make a big thing of it and he does not use it to support his conclusion (as per the title of the book).

0 Replies

Dawkins' quote merely points out the incompatibility between omniscience and omnipotence. But they are not mutually exclusive.

God cannot be omnipotent if he must be omniscient.

When I was first asked on this forum if I believed God to be omniscient, I failed to realize the extent of the confusion caused by the indiscriminate use of the word. There is a galactic difference between the qualities of foreknowledge, which may be used selectively, and omniscience, which is limited by necessity.

I aver that God is omnipotent and used his quality of foreknowledge as he sees fit. He is not omniscient, nor could there exist any being who is omniscient.

0 Replies

God knows the past, God knows the present, and God knows the nature of everything. How could God, therefore, not know the future?

Did the Creator not know what he was creating?

0 Replies

Where did you get the idea that he could not use his foreknowledge selectively? Not from me, I hope.

0 Replies

His ability to use foreknowledge selectively, BTW, and his power to overcome any challenge to his sovereignty is the key to our possession of free will.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

God ..... is not omniscient, nor could there exist any being who is omniscient.

Interesting neo.

You illustrate very well the tangles people get into when they try to ascribe particular characteristics to the word or name God.

IF i accept the concept of God, and I must admit to finding it increasingly difficult, then I cant go any further than that word even to myself, let alone explain it to others.

That's the problem, people wont just leave it at God. They have to go on to say what she does/likes /dislikes /gets mad about/ will do favors for/ etc etc etc. Some people even think God is male.

So God is omnipotent but not omniscient. I thought the third omni that went with those two was omnipresent. Is God omnipresent, or does she go on holiday like everyone else occasionally?

0 Replies

hey, neo-

I am trying to understand what you mean. If God can have limited knowledge of the future, then he can also have limited knowledge of the past. If he had complete knowledge of the past, then he would have complete knowledge of the future, as well. What am I missing?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know