Omniscience

real life wrote:

You cannot find any support in scripture for the idea that God cannot know the moral future of an individual without violating the individual's free will.

You may not understand how this can be so, but God is also not limited by our understanding of His ability.

I would find it cruel for an all powerful being to offer me choice while knowing all the time that I would fail. Why not just zap me and get it over with?

Dok has once again revealed the real flaw in the concept of necessary omniscience. If God knew/knows everything in advance then he knew the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin. All the evil and misery and human suffering that we have seen in the world would have at one time existed only in the mind of God. What an unspeakable cruelty to unleash this all on much weaker sentient creatures.

I would have no problem with declaring God to be omniscient if I could say that he applies this power selectively. The definition of the word does not seem to allow that.

18Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

19But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

What are you telling me?

neologist wrote:

What are you telling me?

I didn't write those verses.

What do you think those who wrote them meant?

real life wrote:

neologist wrote:

What are you telling me?

I didn't write those verses.

What do you think those who wrote them meant?

OK, let's first clear up what is meant by the 'founding of the world':

Clearly, this does not refer to a time before the creation of mankind, but a time after the Edenic rebellion and before the birth of Abel. Eve having been the last of his works, we read in Hebrews 4:4: ". . . although his works were finished from the founding of the world."

So, Jesus foreordination would not have become manifest until after his future sacrifice had become necessary. What sort of conversation may have taken place between Jesus and his father after Adam ate the fruit is left to speculation.

Now you tell me what is meant by the citation from Revelation.

Ahhhh...Arminian.

No wonder you are so stubborn, the greatest punishment for you (the loss of grace and salvation) is reserved for those who lose faith.

How many Arminians ever escape such a watertight trap? Must take a lot of mental courage.

Doktor S wrote:

You have just invalidated gods omniscience.

You apparently don't understand the term.

Does the concept of omniscience necessarily apply to your definition of a supreme being?

....If this omniscience preceded creation, it must be assumed that the knowledge that evil would be brought about through the act of creation also preceded creation....

....Knowing isn't doing. Omniscience does not imply a necessity to do.....

neologist wrote:

real life wrote:

neologist wrote:

What are you telling me?

I didn't write those verses.

What do you think those who wrote them meant?

OK, let's first clear up what is meant by the 'founding of the world':

Clearly, this does not refer to a time before the creation of mankind, but a time after the Edenic rebellion and before the birth of Abel. Eve having been the last of his works, we read in Hebrews 4:4: ". . . although his works were finished from the founding of the world."

So, Jesus foreordination would not have become manifest until after his future sacrifice had become necessary. What sort of conversation may have taken place between Jesus and his father after Adam ate the fruit is left to speculation.

Now you tell me what is meant by the citation from Revelation.

The passage in I Peter says that Christ was foreordained before[/u] the foundation of the world, not after the Garden of Eden. . .

neologist wrote:

Does the concept of omniscience necessarily apply to your definition of a supreme being?

If we assume such an idealization has any plausibility at all, my concept of omniscience could not apply to a supreme being unless or until such a being was demonstrable beyond reasonable doubt.

My concept of omniscience could however apply to the highly advanced future progeny of man be they biological or mechanical or otherwise, and/or to a highly advanced extra solar race.

Understand however that these beings need not actually have "total knowledge" in order for man to define them as having omniscience. All these advanced beings need do is demonstrate to man beyond reasonable doubt they have total knowledge. That is not omniscience but we would not know it wasn't.

Omniscience: having total knowledge; knowing everything.

Doktor S wrote:

....If this omniscience preceded creation, it must be assumed that the knowledge that evil would be brought about through the act of creation also preceded creation....

This is where your error shows up.


Earlier, you were on track when you stated:

Doktor S wrote:

....Knowing isn't doing. Omniscience does not imply a necessity to do.....

But now you do not seem to realize that you are contradicting your earlier statement.

To avoid your usual slippery avoidance of the issue, let's get into specifics.

For you to disagree with my previous post, you would have to believe either
A: your diety did not have knowledge of evil prior to creation. This would imply a god that is not omniscient.
B: Your deity did have knowledge of evil prior to creation, but was powerless to do anything about it. This would imply a god that is not omnipotent.

Or
C: your deity had knowledge of evil prior to creation, and had full power to do something about it. This would imply a god that is sadistic, evil, and cruel.

Which is it RL?

Doktor S wrote:

To avoid your usual slippery avoidance of the issue, let's get into specifics.

For you to disagree with my previous post, you would have to believe either
A: your diety did not have knowledge of evil prior to creation. This would imply a god that is not omniscient.
B: Your deity did have knowledge of evil prior to creation, but was powerless to do anything about it. This would imply a god that is not omnipotent.

Or
C: your deity had knowledge of evil prior to creation, and had full power to do something about it. This would imply a god that is sadistic, evil, and cruel.

Which is it RL?

A: Works pretty good, real. It allows for God to have the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively.

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:

Does the concept of omniscience necessarily apply to your definition of a supreme being?

If we assume such an idealization has any plausibility at all, my concept of omniscience could not apply to a supreme being unless or until such a being was demonstrable beyond reasonable doubt.

My concept of omniscience could however apply to the highly advanced future progeny of man be they biological or mechanical or otherwise, and/or to a highly advanced extra solar race.

Understand however that these beings need not actually have "total knowledge" in order for man to define them as having omniscience. All these advanced beings need do is demonstrate to man beyond reasonable doubt they have total knowledge. That is not omniscience but we would not know it wasn't.

Omniscience: having total knowledge; knowing everything.

That's an interesting slant. But the fact remains that the preponderance of people understand the word 'omniscience' to mean the necessary knowledge of all things, including the future.