A Slant on Divine Omniscience

[mia1994]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[netslave]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mia1994]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[stabone]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[netslave]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mia1994]

And I meant there are huge numbers of people who leave this earth without salvation despite never having had the capacity to choose it (death of a child, secluded tribes, etc).

 

[mia1994]

Rereading over all of this, I feel like we have gone afield from the original topic. In an attempt to lead us back, I will say this.

I think the reality is we either possess free-will or a perception of reality which is a near enough approximation that it is not functionally relevant to offer otherwise. Personally, I don't believe in strict determinism by any cause (divine or otherwise) and by extension I don't believe in an omnipotent creator.

I have a personal agenda on the subject of the rationality of faith, which I probably am a little too quick to champion. I believe that there is a real push in recent times to discuss matters of faith in the terms of logic and vice versa. I think the very notion is detrimental to both the fields of Science and Religion, and I reject in principal the supposition that the discussion of one is a rejection of the other. This is an argument which both champions of religion and science (and of course, me as well) fall in to and it is irreconcilable, not to mention nonsensical.

In that regard, I feel like the omnipotence/free-will discussion a return to the old argument of can God create a stone he himself can not lift.

 

[Statalyzer]

That question also asks the same thing I've been asking: "Can God change the laws of logic?" If he can make a rock too big for him to lift, he can also make a 2-dimensional figure that is both a circle and a triangle at the same time.

Omnipotence clearly implies that The Omnipotent Being can do a miracle. But does it also imply that The Omnipotent Being can do a miracle without doing a miracle?

In general terms, it looks like this:

1. If A is ever true, then B inherently must always be false.
2. If B is ever true, then A inherently must always be false.
3. Does omnipotence include the power to make A and B simultaneously true?

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mia1994]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

Good discussion. I am amused. Thank you.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[netslave]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mia1994]

Netslave, I like your last sentence and agree with it whole heartedly... or I would if you would substitute the word "omniscience" to "motives". Why must God be constrained to elegance, when we certainly aren't?

As to the science religion thing, my irk is that people act like these things are interchangeable... you can believe in science OR religion. In my mind that is like forcing me to take sides between geometry and history (in fairness, I would choose geometry). You can't teach religion in science class because it isn't science. You can't use reason to "disprove" God, because faith isn't reasonable. These subjects are about as similar as two completely dissimilar things in a pod.... so to speak.

 

[Statalyzer]

netslave, just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that I knew the answer to "Can The Omnicient Being make A and B simultaneously true?", but I was suggesting that we must either assume the answer is no, or else render all conversation about any Omniscient Being moot before it beings. I'm open to this suggestion being wrong, but I'd need to hear some reasons for it.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mia1994]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[netslave]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Statalyzer]

But often it is reasonable to be certain of what we do not see. We all do it - although we don't all do it for the same things. Not all faith is reasonable, but that's why we have the term "blind faith", which is not the same as faith. Of course, the dividing line between blind faith and reasonable faith is not cut-and-dry.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mia1994]

Thanks, GT WT, for bringing on the science. The point is a fetus requires intervention to be male, the default status is female.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[BattleshipTexas]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

Battleship, I think you have the best point yet. I would like to think that God would create a Texas sunset just for the sheer beauty. That's a god I can relate to. Of course, why that same god would create a Texas mosquitoe......

I also agree with you that the term 'omniscient' is not very useful. The reason I keep bringing it up is that I think an omniscient god is bad theology (whatever 'bad theology' is). I want to believe I have free will (at least within the constraints of the continguincies of physics) and an omniscient god is, despite Ntescape's arguments, incompatible with free will.