Is God omniscient or limited? - Page 7

Quahom1 · 12-14-2004, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue

Is God omniscient or limited?

Yes - if you have within your personal faith such a concept as an entity that is all-powerful

Limited? - Yes, if that is part of your perosnal 'God' concept.

The point I am making?
Simply, that God can be whatever you want your concept of 'God' to be.

The fact is surely that there is no evidence for a God beyond your personal Faith.
If there is evidence beyond your personal affirmation, where is it? What form does it take? It cannot be words written by human beings in sacred texts... because in the final analysis, they are just words.

Surely 'God' only exists in the heart (and soul?) of a believer. That requires no proof, nor necessitates proof, or evidence, beyond the personal feelings and affirmations of the believer. If this was not so, there would be no necessity for the word 'Faith', we would have material and concrete evidence beyond self.Is God omniscient or limited? God IS all-knowing, if you conceive of it so. God is limited, if you conceive it so. YOU are the validator. There are no validations beyond yourself and your feelings.
Is that not the case?

Good Evening Blue,

God is what one conceives of, is that what you mean? If so, then that could mean that we are God, and our concept of God is a matter of convenience.

I'm not smart enough to be God, and I'm not about to assume that awesome responsibility. However, I am smart enough to know not to let another Human Being play God over me. So the logic you present seems lacking.

My imagination is expanding, not all encompassing. I have a mind of great capacity, however it is finite, due to the fact that it has a beginning. Though God may have "known me before I was stitched together in the womb", there was a time when I did not exist, until God thought of me.

I can not be so arrogant as to think that I have conceived of the Almighty. If you think so, then you are braver than me.

v/r

Q

mirrorinthefog · 12-14-2004, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manesdracon

First there was God... Now then, what is that God? And if we would be able to capture such an undefinable, almighty 'thing', then would it not essentially be a false definition, in the form of being incomplete since it is on itself limited to our limited language and limited perception of 'that which is' (which we can't even quite proof to our individual being on itself)?

Alright... So let's take it for granted that existence actually exists, and therefore take God for granted as 'creator' (whatever that may mean).
Let's just in other words say, existence is 1 (it is 'TRUE', it 'is') and nothingness is 0 (it is 'FALSE', it 'is' not). Considdering I just spoke of 'nothingness' I suppose I have already proven it's relativity as 'non-existing', after all, did I not speak of it, and therefore made it 'be'?
Paradox is what is implicated here by these two factors of 'false' and 'true', or rather I would say, by the 1, by the one that is ('true'). Existence implcates the existence of nothingness when one looks at it as absolute (beyond its movement in forms; or states); as time passes things come to be and things come to 'be-not', they end, but if one looks at this 'movement' as a whole being, capturing both that which is and which is not, one comes to see that existence is constantly implicating itself (being and not-being = being and not-being, etc).
What it comes down to is that God is the 'cause'... God is the almighty implicator that set off 'existence'... Since everything we speak of exists to a certain level (else we would not speak of it), it is an 'attribute' of God; a logical consequence of the beginning.

So yes... I think everything is limited to the limitationless nature of God, in other words there is free will and 'divine will' at the same time (whatever it may be). Is the door to your house not a part of your house, even if it cannot cover it's full definition? Yes, God is both limited and omniscient, just as well as He is both good and evil. To define as omniscient is a relative form of limititation on itself and another argument for the existence of all(!) things, to a certain level.

Greetings!
/Jeroen

I agree. God can be limited and limitless, existant and non-existant all at the same time, depending on how we look at it.

Quahom1 · 12-14-2004, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Good Evening Blue,

God is what one conceives of, is that what you mean? If so, then that could mean that we are God, and our concept of God is a matter of convenience.

I'm not smart enough to be God, and I'm not about to assume that awesome responsibility. However, I am smart enough to know not to let another Human Being play God over me. So the logic you present seems lacking.

My imagination is expanding, not all encompassing. I have a mind of great capacity, however it is finite, due to the fact that it has a beginning. Though God may have "known me before I was stitched together in the womb", there was a time when I did not exist, until God thought of me.

I can not be so arrogant as to think that I have conceived of the Almighty. If you think so, then you are braver than me.

v/r

Q

Blue, that was rude of me. I have no right to imply arrogance of anyone, except me. And at times I have plenty.

v/r

Q

Blue · 12-14-2004, 06:05 PM

Blue, that was rude of me. I have no right to imply arrogance of anyone, except me. And at times I have plenty.
==========
Not at all, Quahom1.
I don't think and didn't think you were being arrogant ot accusing me of arrogance, or any combination.

I think you misread though.

I answered the posted points.
If God is all-powerfrul YOU have to conceive of a God first, and then believe it is all-powerful.
Same if you believe in a God and conceive of it as limited.

You fall down by positing a 'God' beyond yourself.
That is rather foolish and irrational. I too conceive of a 'God', but I know I am being affective and irrational. It just happens to be my personal belief. I ahve absolutely no material evidence. No one else does either, even someone like Professor Flew, who at 81, now says he believes in an 'Intelligence'behind all things. Even he says he can only demonstrate this to his OWN satisfaction.

Any God beyond a personal affirmation has to exist beyond yourself in the objective and material domain. The fact is there is no evidence.
If you say there is, please post that evidence. I think I will be able to show you that you are only affirming your own affective beliefs.

That's all I was saying.

Quahom1 · 12-14-2004, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue

I think you misread though.

I answered the posted points.
If God is all-powerfrul YOU have to conceive of a God first, and then believe it is all-powerful.
Same if you believe in a God and conceive of it as limited.

You fall down by positing a 'God' beyond yourself.
That is rather foolish and irrational. I too conceive of a 'God', but I know I am being affective and irrational. It just happens to be my personal belief. I ahve absolutely no material evidence. No one else does either, even someone like Professor Flew, who at 81, now says he believes in an 'Intelligence'behind all things. Even he says he can only demonstrate this to his OWN satisfaction.

Any God beyond a personal affirmation has to exist beyond yourself in the objective and material domain. The fact is there is no evidence.
If you say there is, please post that evidence. I think I will be able to show you that you are only affirming your own affective beliefs.

That's all I was saying.

Thank you for taking no offense. Yes, After 50 years of espousing Aethiesm, the good professor has now admitted to becoming agnostic.

I think that God is like our parents. Though we did not conceive of them, they were already there, before us. It is we who had to develop an understanding of who and what they were to us, even though they already existed.

One of the hints of the signature of God, I believe can be seen in the helix of a DNA string of a fruit fly (among other things). If one were to read the entire string at a page a second, it would take two years to complete. If one compared it to the DNA of another fruit fly, they would be nearly identical (one fly could be white with red eyes an the other green with blue eyes).

You mentioned musical spheres (celestial language), awhile back (at least I think it was you). It should be simple to decipher. Music is math, and math is the universal language. A sequence of units arranged to form an out come, or a solution (such as the helix of a DNA strand). The units can't be random, else there would be no two of anything, ever. And since the units are never random, then they must be guided by something...

The "proof" here could be the opposite of order. The entropy effect in the universe. Without constant guidance, all would break down to its simplest form. We see clues here on earth every day. Just look at a broken down jalopy of a car, and watch as the years whittle away at the paint, metal, rubber and such.

Perhaps the greatest hint of the hand of God is in the simple fact that we, can not create life from non life. We can mix all the right ingredients, we can apply the proper amount of electricity, we can place the "primordial soup" in a perfect environment, and...nothing happens.

Oh, perhaps one day we will be able to create something that mimics life, or perhaps we already have, but we don't have the "breath" of life to put into an inanimate object, and make it live. Some one else does.

And frankly, I don't think we want that knowledge as humans.

You did challenge me to prove God exists, and I can't, to your satisfaction. An equally difficult task would be for you to prove to me that He does not Exist.

For everytime I see a circle, or a sphere, I see the signature of God...no beginning and no end. No points of weakness. No chink in the armor.

v/r

Q

lunamoth · 12-14-2004, 08:28 PM

Perhaps I've misunderstood, but I think Blue has said that he(?) does 'believe' but he goes on to say that he did not arrive at belief through objective reasoning. And he suggests that no one else can get there through objective means either. If I'm understanding, he is saying that no one can have objective knowledge of God; it will always be a personal knowledge and limited by our own conceptions. But I don't think he is saying that this is wrong or a reason to not believe in, or know, God.

I agree wiht you Q, God is evident to me in everything I see. And the more I learn about the facts of biology and the theories of physics, the more I see God. But this is not the same as rational proof. I agree with Blue on this. Even if I have a very real personal revelation or experience a miracle first hand, this will not be evidence for God to anyone other than myself.

Now, I do believe in a God beyond myself. But I also realize that at the deepest level this is a choice, based upon things that are very real to me, but a choice nonetheless. Even if I see the handwork of God in DNA, which I do, this is not objective. It is faith. Blue calls it foolish and irrational. I agree with the irrational part, but not with the foolishness. But then, I've also heard the saying "a fool for Christ," so maybe even the foolish part applies.

respectfully,

Quahom1 · 12-15-2004, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Perhaps I've misunderstood, but I think Blue has said that he(?) does 'believe' but he goes on to say that he did not arrive at belief through objective reasoning. And he suggests that no one else can get there through objective means either. If I'm understanding, he is saying that no one can have objective knowledge of God; it will always be a personal knowledge and limited by our own conceptions. But I don't think he is saying that this is wrong or a reason to not believe in, or know, God.

I agree wiht you Q, God is evident to me in everything I see. And the more I learn about the facts of biology and the theories of physics, the more I see God. But this is not the same as rational proof. I agree with Blue on this. Even if I have a very real personal revelation or experience a miracle first hand, this will not be evidence for God to anyone other than myself.

Now, I do believe in a God beyond myself. But I also realize that at the deepest level this is a choice, based upon things that are very real to me, but a choice nonetheless. Even if I see the handwork of God in DNA, which I do, this is not objective. It is faith. Blue calls it foolish and irrational. I agree with the irrational part, but not with the foolishness. But then, I've also heard the saying "a fool for Christ," so maybe even the foolish part applies.

respectfully,

Good Evening Lunamoth, and Blue.

Interesting points you have both made. I believe you are both focussing on the concept of "intution", or the knowledge of something with no abservable steps that logically lead one to the knowledge, combined with abstract thought (again, another variant of intuition). Your thoughts lead me to consider this question: Is man sentient? If so, can it be proven beyond reasonable doubt? If so, how? If the same rules we apply to proving the existence of God were to be applied to the existence of Man, then the conclusion that we are sentient beings is a subjective, rather than an objective one.

Things that make one go "Hmmm"

v/r

Q

If life is but a dream...then who is the Dreamer?

Blue · 12-16-2004, 02:19 PM

Thankyou for a sensitive understanding of my points, Lunamoth:
Perhaps I've misunderstood, but I think Blue has said that he(?) does 'believe' but he goes on to say that he did not arrive at belief through objective reasoning. And he suggests that no one else can get there through objective means either. If I'm understanding, he is saying that no one can have objective knowledge of God; it will always be a personal knowledge and limited by our own conceptions. But I don't think he is saying that this is wrong or a reason to not believe in, or know, God.
You are quite right. My theistic notions are of my personal affective nature and nurture; and that is all I can say. As such they run counter to my profession, my objective and scientific understandings, reason and rationality.

Even Professor Flew who has criticised in its broadest sense ''religion" and spiritual concerns all his life, now says he is personally convinced of an 'intelligent' entity behind the universe... after 81 years of life devoted to objective concerns. He doesn't claim rationality for these beliefs (do look him up via Google or whatever)... it his 'feeling' about the matter, and he still maintains his life long criticisms of all organised religions and faiths.

In fact this is indeed, Lunamoth, all that anyone can claim, because the seat of faith lies in the heart, the affective nature and nurture of the individual. How they personally validate those responses is also entirely their personal matter. How could one criticise, insult, deride such sincerely held spiritual beliefs?

What is not justifiable is to proselytise or project these personal responses as some kind of ultimate truth beyond the ego/self... in terms of 'spirit' in general or any particular 'God'.

I have never said that a Professor Flew - or anyone else, does not have a right to their personal faith. Remember, if their faith had objective evidence testable and verifiable by others logically, empirically and repeatedly, there just would be no necessity for the term 'faith'. Faith is concerned with that which is believed... That bears no necessity of proof beyond self validation. It is validated in the heart of the believer... whatever the belief.

You come to a God or Gods through the heart and feelings, not through cognition, because that entails objective proofs beyond yourself, beyond your heart.

Thanks for your interpretation of my views and the warmth of your responses.

Sacredstar · 12-16-2004, 02:43 PM

"You come to a God or Gods through the heart and feelings, not through cognition, because that entails objective proofs beyond yourself, beyond your heart." posted by blue

But some people gained their faith through the proof/evidence of their experience but I also agree with the statement above, it is different for every unique person.

Love beyond measure

Kim xx

Blue · 12-16-2004, 02:49 PM

Is man sentient? If so, can it be proven beyond reasonable doubt? If so, how? If the same rules we apply to proving the existence of God were to be applied to the existence of Man, then the conclusion that we are sentient beings is a subjective, rather than an objective one.

Thanks for the comments, Quahom 1.

Let's examine what is says.
Is human kind sentient? I thought this word meant something like " capable of perception and feeling"? Does this not apply to creatures as well as ourselves?
Does not an amoeba display 'sentience' when it avoids an electrical charge on a slide and instead prefers to move towards a food source?
This is a complicated concept, agreed.
I think 'sentience' was intended to suggest that human kind has a refined sense of 'self-regard'. This is undoubtedly true. Humanity's sense of self-regard and contemplation of its 'condition' does seem to have been a genetic preference/development, not shared perhaps by an amoeba, or even an ant or whatever. We may hypothesise that other creatures, like dolphins, gorillas, chimpanzees, some birds, etc., display some evidence of this, but none so far as 'developed' as in human potential and achievement.
Proof and evidence of this I leave you to judge, but it seems to me to be patently obvious in all psychological, biological, and scientific investigations in general, unless you can show and evidence differently. Chimpanzees do not produce philosophical treatises concerning their condition, even though they do elementary planning ahead and contemplative perception of a number of things, evidenced through observational perceptions and investigations of our own and an almost perfect genetic match sharing over 97% of our DNA...
===
Secondly... why should any hypothesised God concept be subject to any personification... with relation to the self-regarding nature or anything else? How can we apply similar measures as we use about Humanity to a God? Are Gods not above all that in most perceptions and definitions of various Gods?

You mention 'intuition'?
Intuition bears no necessity of truth in itself beyond oneself. Intuition is in fact most unreliable in any application to the world or domain beyond self.
It may be a police investigator's intuition that tells him, or her, the dirty individual with blood down his clothes committed the crime... but thank goodness we have recourse to reason and objective investigation which might show that the delightfully mannered little old lady, who wasn't even around at the time of the initial investigation, was the guilty party.

Sometimes we have to resort to intuition, but we have to always be aware of its limitations... I hope!

Blue · 12-16-2004, 02:56 PM

it is different for every unique person.

I agree, Kim.

Victor · 12-16-2004, 04:01 PM

I have been listening in and I note that many here want to give God, or their concept of God, all power and super intelligence. But what if God is NOT intelligent at all and is acting out of instinct? Yes, instinct, as in nature and the natural order of things? Animals act out of instinct, and to a degree, we act out of instinct, so why not God? Why does God have to be so different? True we are speaking of an ethereal being (spiritual or metaphysical, whatever you wish) but it is an existing, living entity. If it has order and logic, if it creates (created) the 'laws of nature', would it not have to exist within those boundaries?

Shall we be simplistic? If a bird lays an egg out of natural instinct, why couldn't the Entity we call God, lay a universe? No, no, same difference. The egg is logical, in order in all its parts as well as being subject to that which surrounds it...outside influence (the natural world), circumstance, evolution, etc; why not the same with the universe? It is logical, in order in all its parts, as well as being subject to that which, in this case, is all of its parts interacting to create circumstance, environment... and evolution...

Just something to nibble on!
Victor

Blue · 12-16-2004, 04:13 PM

As always, Victor, you go the heart of the matter. Well said. There is abolutely no reason at all why God should be omnipotent or super intelligent.

It is more likely, as you say, to more often than not act from an affective base, and why should this not be true of a God?

Always my main point, exactly, in fact, in these discussions.

Only when we strive for the Affective domain and the Cognitive, objective and material domain to be in balance, do we find some enlightenment perhaps.

(Your erstwhile acquaintance, 'Soph')

Sacredstar · 12-16-2004, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue

[b]

You mention 'intuition'?
Intuition bears no necessity of truth in itself beyond oneself. Intuition is in fact most unreliable in any application to the world or domain beyond self.

Intuition from the soul is spot on accurate when human perception does not get in the way!

Beyond the self probably needs more context?

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

Blue · 12-16-2004, 07:13 PM

Thankyou for the response, SacredStar.

Beyond the self probably needs more context?

There is no other context than the domain beyond your physical self, your heart and mind... the material and objective domain. The clear demarcation is testable. You have your inner 'realities' and there are the external realities. Your body and its senses link you to the objective domain via you perceptions of the phenomena you observe with your senses.

You can respond to that material domain with your affective nature and nurture, your feelings and beliefs, with or without cognition... knowing materially what IS and IS NOT. The latter is always verifiable or not outside yourself.
Your inner world is dependent only upon whatever validations you happen to have when it comes to subjects like consideration of the 'soul' itself, spiritual and religious responses... Your heatfelt intuitions, your instincts are peculiarly your own and no one else's.

When we might argue that Intuitions have value, we generally mean 'successful' ones, in terms of what exists beyond yourself in the material world. Trouble is... they could just as easily be dangerous or completely misplaced/wrong, as 'right'.

Within oneself, we are free to intuit as much as we like and draw personal conclusions that we test and validate within our affective selves; sometimes, too often in my estimation, without recourse to rational and reasoned examination... cognitively.

We are so often, as Victor describes below, 'instinctive' in our actions and behaviours, reacting externally to our personal intuitions about matters. The thing is, the rational and reasoned, objective approach is far more reliable in all our daily lives.

How often have you felt something was right... and it turned out completely differently?

How often have you measured, reflected, cogitated and reasoned through a concern and made the best perhaps of a bad job with a degree of success?

On the whole, the latter produces the most efficacious of results.

Of course, a master at anything, say 'Snooker', will often play a quick shot intuitively (instinctively?), successful or not, but how often does the successful player measure and mentally compute the angles a little more slowly with a high degree of cognitve reflection? The latter is usually the most consistent winner.

Intuitive feelings concerning spirit and God concepts have no foundation other than the affective self either. They can claim relationships with observed phenomena which exists outside one's body and mind... like the very Universe itself, but that is not an objective claim. It is not dependent upon the nature of the Universe in any sense, other than one's feelings about it and its relevance to you as an individual.

(An after thought... those who claim there is no world beyond their affective perceptions and the external is dependent for its existence upon their perceptions of it, are, if I may say so talking nonsense.

The Eiffel Tower will, without some explainable calamity, be there tomorrow as it is today.)