Omniscience

neologist wrote:

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.

You asked for the individual's perspective in your opening gambit. You did not ask for the individual's opinion of your opinion that the preponderance of people's opinion of the definition of omniscience must infer need.

So when I composed my first post, I searched out a handy-dandy dictionary or two. On that basis I re-confirm the definition I provided of omniscience: having total knowledge; knowing everything.

I'm sorry (but as other have also said) the inference of "necessary" is not inherent to the definition of omniscience. As discussed omniscience is only the idealization of total knowledge, without plausibility unless or until it can be demonstrable beyond reasonable doubt.

Further as discussed, if omniscience a.k.a. total knowledge was be proven beyond reasonable doubt to man, this does mean in and of itself that omniscience exists in any absolute sense. It only means its been demonstrated to man beyond his reasonable doubt. Thus the perception of omniscience in this case would be within the limited scope of man's perceptions.

In fact the only way one could judge absolute omniscience would be to have total knowledge oneself (hence one of the reasons I refer to the hubris of many religionists).

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?

real life wrote:

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. . .

You should read the passage more carefully. The world (as it presently is) was not founded until after the Edenic rebellion.

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?

It would be D.

Just as I am not responsible for your actions and you are not responsible for mine, so God is not to be held responsible for the actions of another.

You want to imply that if God knows you will do evil that He is responsible for the evil you do.

He is not. You are responsible for your actions.

real life wrote:

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?

It would be D.

Just as I am not responsible for your actions and you are not responsible for mine, so God is not to be held responsible for the actions of another.

You want to imply that if God knows you will do evil that He is responsible for the evil you do.

He is not. You are responsible for your actions.

......You still fail to address the issue of intent. If evil and suffering were known to your creator prior to creating, and along with that knowledge was the ability to change it, how can it be interpreted that such was not intended?

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

I wasn't saying you were wrong.

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

Was evil intended by god to be a part of creation?.

The fact the God knew what man would do played no part in man's decision to do evil.

Quote:

The fact the God knew what man would do played no part in man's decision to do evil.

SO in creating a creature capable and prone to 'evil', with complete foreknowledge of this 'flaw', your deity is somehow absolved of all responsibility for this flaw? How exactly?

That's like creating a bomb and blaming it for exploding.

BTW you accusing me of illogic was intentional satire, right?

You'll never meet a more logical mofo than myself, of that I can assure you

neologist wrote:

You should read the passage more carefully. The world (as it presently is) was not founded until after the Edenic rebellion.

And the passage says that Christ was foreordained before, not after as you had argued. Your argument was that Christ was not foreordained until after Eden. The passage contradicts your statement completely.

Man was not 'prone to evil'.

Man chose evil. It's called free will.

neologist wrote:

I wasn't saying you were wrong.

But you not saying I'm right, and you know how sensitive I am about these things........

neologist wrote:

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

Given that this precept of yours would be pivotal to your understanding god's word, I must assume "scriptural evidence" of this would be clear, definitive and in abundance. Show me.

real life wrote:

neologist wrote:

You should read the passage more carefully. The world (as it presently is) was not founded until after the Edenic rebellion.

And the passage says that Christ was foreordained before, not after as you had argued. Your argument was that Christ was not foreordained until after Eden. The passage contradicts your statement completely.

Time line:

Creation complete; 6th day over; God declares it 'good'
Next
Adam and Eve rebel.
Next
Jesus foreordained
Next
Founding of the world

Scriptures cited upon request, but I believe you know them.

real life wrote:

Man was not 'prone to evil'.

Man chose evil. It's called free will.

Dok is doing such a fine job here. I think I'll let him continue.

What event are you defining as the 'foundation of the world' as described in scripture?

Also God describes his purpose in Christ as His 'eternal purpose' . This would seem to indicate His knowledge of Christ's mission on earth before Eden, not as a reactive measure afterward.

neologist wrote:

real life wrote:

Man was not 'prone to evil'.

Man chose evil. It's called free will.

Dok is doing such a fine job here. I think I'll let him continue.

Yeah his argument is DOA.

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

The fact the God knew what man would do played no part in man's decision to do evil.

SO in creating a creature capable and prone to 'evil', with complete foreknowledge of this 'flaw', your deity is somehow absolved of all responsibility for this flaw? How exactly?

That's like creating a bomb and blaming it for exploding.

BTW you accusing me of illogic was intentional satire, right?

You'll never meet a more logical mofo than myself, of that I can assure you

Man was not 'prone to evil'.

Man chose evil. It's called free will.

real life wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

The fact the God knew what man would do played no part in man's decision to do evil.

SO in creating a creature capable and prone to 'evil', with complete foreknowledge of this 'flaw', your deity is somehow absolved of all responsibility for this flaw? How exactly?

That's like creating a bomb and blaming it for exploding.

BTW you accusing me of illogic was intentional satire, right?

You'll never meet a more logical mofo than myself, of that I can assure you

Man was not 'prone to evil'.

Man chose evil. It's called free will.

So are you saying all men are evil?