Is God omniscient or limited? - Page 11

Faithfulservant · 02-07-2005, 05:12 AM

Hi Blue

What a strange argument to put forward in defence of a spiritual Faith.

-I didnt think it was strange at all. I was trying to put it into a context you could understand since many of your posts claim that you dont believe in faith.

I have been married for a very long time and have seven grandchildren.

-Congratulations.. thats quite and accomplishment in this day and age.

Believe it or not, it doesn't really bother me if my wife has been 'faithful' all her life.
We are still together and we appear to love each other. That is what matters. We have fun and laughter and delight in our children. If she has ever had a fling... so what! She knows I have!

-Now Im even more impressed! Most people wouldnt make it over that kind of betrayal. I bet she loves you very much to overlook something like that. You are blessed.

If she has had a fling or two, what does that mean? She appears to be generally happy and always has. Isn't it how SHE feels that matters?

-Well my understanding of true love is that what makes you happy would make her happy and likewise.. but I never would have though breaking marriage vows would have been part of it. LOL

It is the same with a religious faith.
It's how you feel which matters. The Faith itself could be any Faith, Shinto, Judaism, Islam, Christian, Pagan. If you wed yourself to it, that is something you personally and affectively validate. Your love is no less real because it is placed in an affective and spiritual context.

If I was a Christian say, and someone challenged my faith, I would laugh at their audacity. They can no more PROVE me wrong than I can PROVE they they are wrong if they happen to be a Pagan or an Ahteist. My faith, anyone's faith, is validated in the heart and soul(?). It cannot be 'hurt' or 'changed' by reason or rationality or even objective argumentation. It would only be possible to change that Faith if it was a personal affective decision by that individual from their own heart and soul(?).

ALL I would ask is for honesty, and request every believer of any Faith, to go on questioning their Faith to their dying day, for themselves.

-I now understand that you are in effect challenging peoples faith.. why? I dont know.. maybe because you dont have any and you secretly want it?

No... I would never doubt my wife whatever was said. I would have no reason to. If she wasn't faithful, I would expect her to tell me or not to tell me. I have never gone around with suspicion in my mind! That's called 'trust'. lol

-It seems to me that you might not know what the word trust or faith means let me show you..

Faith according to Websters
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust
- allegiance to duty or a person b (1) fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
- (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
-complete trust
-something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Trust according to Websters
Etymology: Middle English, probably of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse traust trust; akin to Old English trEowe faithful
- assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something one in which confidence is placed
-a charge or duty imposed in faith or confidence or as a condition of some relationship

How is it possible for you to use a concrete and material comparison for questions of faith? You just cannot compare a religious faith in an unproven 'God' entity with the beautiful reality of a woman!
Can you?

-Thats my whole point. I dont need to prove God in order to believe that he is there. Just as I wouldnt need to prove a spouses fidelity in order to believe that were faithful.

-The Christian church is biblically referred to as the Bride of Christ and Christ is the bridegroom because we remain faithful to him and he eternally remains faithful to us. We trust in him.

Faithful Servant

Blue · 02-07-2005, 12:25 PM

Thankyou for the comments, FaithfulServant, but I do think you make a fundamental error and base everything else around it.

You cannot have read my nearly 200 postings here very carefully.

FAITH is to be treasured for what it is, an affective response based in the affecftive nature and nurture of an individual.

FAITH concerns, as your definitions illustrate perfectly well, that we are dealing here with self-validated affective concepts that individuals affirm; or even proselytise.

If FAITH had proofs in the objective, material and cognitive domain beyond self, there in fact would be no necessity for the term FAITH, for it would be amenable to external verification/validation beyond yourself.

This means no one can disprove a personally validated FAITH.
If anyone attempts to do so, they are doomed to failure... there is no necessity for anyone to disprove a personally validated FAITH. Everyone in my opinion has a perfect right to believe whatever they believe.

I do NOT challenge people's FAITHS. - how could I, having such a FAITH myself!
All I ask is that they do not accept their own validations blindly and underdstand the personal affective nature of FAITH!

I challenge 'blind' FAITH that is proselytised as universal truth, and always will do so, just as Professor Flew has for a lifetime, especially with regard to organised 'Churches' and monotheistic religions that proselytise 'universal truth' concepts beyond self-affirmation.

I absolutely have no objection to someone believing their FAITH represents absolute truth. That is upto them.
All I ask is that THEY challenge their own personal validations, in reason.

You seem to suggest, in addition, that there is something strange or special about my wife and I.
The fact is that after many years I observe in my friends and colleagues exactly the same kind of behaviours.
Love and trust are pre-eminent in relationships and they are dependent themselves upon reason and honesty and should never be allowed to dominate affectively in the face of rationality and objectivity. We can indeed all feel jealous, and nothing is ever achieved by such an affective response given free reign. One needs to sit down and talk it all through... in reason... reasonably! lol

Anyone singularly unable, as demonstrated by behaviours, to distinguish between Love and Lust, is doomed to be jealous and less than humane towards their partners who deserve every respect for putting up with us, warts and all, and failings!
This all begins with honesty about oneself and having a sound(honest) self-image.
Those who expect perfection should certainly never get married.
True partnerships are not dependent upon vows or even legal marriage within any social or religious context, they are dependent upon understanding of the term 'partnership' of a deep and intimate longterm kind... friendship and love and all that truly means between one human being and another.

Faithfulservant · 02-07-2005, 10:00 PM

We are definitely going to have to agree to disagree on your idea of lust and love.. sure I believe that someone could be unfaithful and that deed could be forgiven.. but forgotten... probably never.. and the pain that the wronged spouse felt.. would that be worth the few minutes of gratification? I have probably grown up in more traditional environment so I cannot understand it but that doesnt mean that I dont realize that there are people out there that can live like that and its no big deal.

The issue of what you call blind faith is not something that we could ever relate with each other on. Its not blind.. and its not something one can explain to someone else who has never felt it. I attempted to give you a taste of it but it backfired because your relationship with your wife negates the comparison that I was using. lol
Oh well I tried though.

Blue · 02-15-2005, 01:27 PM

Its not blind.. and its not something one can explain to someone else who has never felt it
=====================
This is just special pleading, FaithfulServant, in all honesty, my friend.

It is the usual argument that circumvents the questioning and answering process and which endeavours to bring everything to a full stop.

YOU could explain it, if you questioned it.
I have a dear friend of many years, who is a Catholic Nun working with AIDS victims in Africa.
We have had long discussions concerning this very point. She questions her faith constantly, especially as a result of being in the setting she has worked for many years .... and she DOES have an explanation of her responses.
So could you.
The very fact that you use the 'get-out' of 'if only you could experience what I experience, you would understand' demonstrates to me the 'blind' nature of your faith.

You may wonder why I should be so interested in all this?

It is simply that I have an incurable curiousity about what makes human beings tick... that's all - and of course, you do not have to answer my queries.

khut · 02-21-2005, 05:02 PM

if god is everything, if god is me, you, the planet, the animals, space and time then god does see everything and hear everything.

if god is energy, and matter is energy and god is all then god is what we all come from and what we all return to. (energy is never created or lost).

then our soul is the energy in us that returns to god when we die.
so heaven and reincarnation are both true and jesus was the son of god, and so are you.

(help me ive turned into a hippie)

Quahom1 · 02-21-2005, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue

Its not blind.. and its not something one can explain to someone else who has never felt it
=====================
This is just special pleading, FaithfulServant, in all honesty, my friend.

It is the usual argument that circumvents the questioning and answering process and which endeavours to bring everything to a full stop.

YOU could explain it, if you questioned it.
I have a dear friend of many years, who is a Catholic Nun working with AIDS victims in Africa.
We have had long discussions concerning this very point. She questions her faith constantly, especially as a result of being in the setting she has worked for many years .... and she DOES have an explanation of her responses.
So could you.
The very fact that you use the 'get-out' of 'if only you could experience what I experience, you would understand' demonstrates to me the 'blind' nature of your faith.

You may wonder why I should be so interested in all this?

It is simply that I have an incurable curiousity about what makes human beings tick... that's all - and of course, you do not have to answer my queries.

Good Day Blue and FaithfulServant,

Perhaps the problem lock here is in the word Faith. To have Faith is one thing. To be Faithful is another. One is an expectation that certain conditions will be met, wherein the other is a commitment to carry out a certain set of conditions.

If the two were treated as separate entities, you two might could move Forward with this discussion.

v/r

Q

Faithfulservant · 02-21-2005, 07:13 PM

Thanks for the insight Q, my friend.

Quahom1 · 02-21-2005, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

Thanks for the insight Q, my friend.

He, he, he. Don't thank me there, Faithful...I got the idea from you.

...If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. -Galatians 5:22-25...
If we have faith Let us be faithful
If we have expectations Let us commit

v/r

Q

id-dun · 08-09-2005, 10:26 PM

There is a dilemma regarding the question "Is God omniscient or limited?" which is not clear. Once this is clarified maybe the answer to this question will be a bit easier to think about and perhaps answer.

In brief the dilemma is:
Different mystics removed spatially and in time from different religious and cultural backgrounds seem to talk about the same phenomena..St.John of the Cross, Lao tze,..........their writings seems to indicate a mental process going on where visions are seen..... The question i would like to ask is do you think that this phenomena is in their heads or brought about by some god/gods/God

lunamoth · 08-09-2005, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by id-dun

There is a dilemma regarding the question "Is God omniscient or limited?" which is not clear. Once this is clarified maybe the answer to this question will be a bit easier to think about and perhaps answer.

In brief the dilemma is:
Different mystics removed spatially and in time from different religious and cultural backgrounds seem to talk about the same phenomena..St.John of the Cross, Lao tze,..........their writings seems to indicate a mental process going on where visions are seen..... The question i would like to ask is do you think that this phenomena is in their heads or brought about by some god/gods/God

I'm not sure about Lao tze, but my understanding of St. John of the Cross is that visions during prayer/meditation, or at any time, for that matter, may or may not be from God and one needs to rely upon discernment and solid theology to tell the difference. And, his advice is that it's better to just ignore visions since it's so difficult to discern the source.

2c since I just happen to be reading about this at the time.

lunamoth

enton · 08-21-2005, 06:25 PM

The Bible says God is not omniscient, is not omnipotent, and is not omnipresent.

Quahom1 · 08-21-2005, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enton

The Bible says God is not omniscient, is not omnipotent, and is not omnipresent.

Really?

God as omnipresent
Psalm 139:8
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

Jeremiah 23:23,24
Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.

God as omipotent

"When Abram was ninety-nine years old, Yahueh appeared to Abram, and said to him, 'I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless.'" Gen. 17:1

"I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted." Job 42:2

"Ah Lord Yahueh! It is you who made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you." Jer. 32:17

"But Jesus looked at them and said, 'For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.'" Matt. 19:26

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, 'All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.'" Matt. 28:18

God as omniscient

"Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." Acts 15:18
"And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for Yahueh searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever." 1 Chr. 28:9

"For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things." I John 3:20

Seems pretty biblical to me...

v//r

Q

dharmaraj02 · 08-22-2005, 12:53 AM

First off, good argument Paul. I've always liked it, and you articulate it well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pswfps

If deity is outside of any temporal condition then deity must exist in a single unchanging state across all moments of time. Fine.

If deity created this universe of space/time/energy then deity must be present outside of the universe also. Fine.

If an omniscient deity created the universe then such deity must by definition have known in advance the outcome of such creation - all suffering and wrongdoing included. Ergo omniscient deity is responsible for everything which transpires therein - including all suffering and wrongdoing. Further, if deity is omnipotent then presumably deity could have done things differently? In any case, it seems pointless for omniscient deity to blame a creation for it's faults when that creation had no say in how it should be created.

This is too simplistic.

The concept of freedom is this: a free agent makes a 'free' choice if it is to some degree undetermined by a prior state, i.e. physically uncaused and unpredictable. If an omniscient diety creates, he immediately knows all events because he spans all events, not because he is the cause of all events. He is only the singular cause of events independent of free choices by free agents. The usual model of responsibility depends on undetermined choices.

If you consider what-ifs, things become complicated, maybe too complicated to have meaningful discussion. Does it make sense to ask 'Does God know creation before he creates?' Not obviously, since time is an element of creation. Even if He does, if creation is to any degree the consequence of free choices, the concept of responsibility remains intact.

The problem with freedom lies in the concept of freedom itself, not with omniscience. There is no model of freedom, as far as I know. One can imagine agents making freedom-less determined choices that succeed from previous mental and physical states, or one can imagine a random spiritual x-factor that moderates how agents choose. However, the latter concept does not accounts for responsibility, even if it satisfies the unpredictability requirement. This has always been a problem for me. Maybe, our concept of responsibility is totally off, and it does not depend on free choices. Maybe even if we're determine, doomed or blessed, we are culpable for our choices because we are spiritual beings with ownership of our choices.

Or, equally possible, maybe freedom is magic.

Quote:

It does not seem possible for an omniscient deity to create beings which have independant free will of their own. In the eyes of deity, they are effectively judged before they are even created.

Not obviously true. People may be judged outside time, or equivalently eternally throughout time, beCAUSE of their free choices. Omniscience is reconcilable with freedom at first glance. At least, the concepts are sufficiently complicated for plenty of doubt of their mutual exclusivity.

Kelcie · 08-22-2005, 02:56 AM

God is limited only when we come from a very limited understanding and view of him. However that does not mean he is limited! He is omniscient, some just dont see that yet.

Perhaps someone has already said this so I am inclined to agree if they have

Kelcie

jaxree · 08-22-2005, 05:36 AM

I have to admit I didn't read through all the responses to this issue, so if someone has already suggested this, feel free to skip this comment.

An assumption in this question is that God is a being — a supreme being yes, but nontheless a being. That basically means he's just like us, just more so.

The theologian Paul Tillich once suggested that God is not a being at all. but rather that God is the ground of all being. A being has characteristics. The ground of all being is beyond characteristics and makes the omni-omni question moot.

Of the responses I did read, I liked emong's the best. Does it really matter that much? How would the answer change you? In the end, Christian tradition holds that God transcends human understanding and reality. He is a mystery. Can you live with that? If not, read some Hume and Hobbes.