User Tag List

Page 7 of 41 FirstFirst ... 4567891017 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 610

Thread: Omniscience means fatalism.

  1. #91
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,257
    Thanks
    3,596
    Thanked 7,780 Times in 4,504 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147823
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Omniscience (theological fatalism) means that God has no free will.
    It's worse than that (if that bothers you). God being perfectly good completely robs Him of the ability to do that which isn't good.

    Or, truly free will, in terms of moral choice and outside of the question of omniscience, is really only a character flaw.

    Within the consideration of omniscience, it means no one does, that free will is an illusion created by men who fail to understand God's nature and their own.

    Or, truly free will, within the context of omniscience, is really only a reflection of flawed reason.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  2. #92
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    9,247
    Thanks
    1,333
    Thanked 1,519 Times in 1,101 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501711
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    It's worse than that (if that bothers you). God being perfectly good completely robs Him of the ability to do that which isn't good.

    Or, truly free will, in terms of moral choice and outside of the question of omniscience, is really only a character flaw.
    God has always had the ability to do evil.

    Jeremiah 18:7-10
    7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
    8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
    9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
    10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.



    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Within the consideration of omniscience, it means no one does, that free will is an illusion created by men who fail to understand God's nature and their own.

    Or, truly free will, within the context of omniscience, is really only a reflection of flawed reason.
    I consider the idea of future omniscience to be a reflection of flawed reason, as well as the thoughts that free-will is an illusion.


    Isaiah 46:8-11
    8 Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors.
    9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
    10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
    11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.



    The two passages I have provided in this post from Jeremiah and from Isaiah show that God has both the free will to change what He has planned and the power to do He has planned to do.
    Neither of these passages make any sense if God had exhaustive knowledge of everything that would happen in the future.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to genuineoriginal For Your Post:

    Derf (August 26th, 2018)

  4. #93
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,257
    Thanks
    3,596
    Thanked 7,780 Times in 4,504 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147823
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    God has always had the ability to do evil.
    I think you're misunderstanding the usage. A house divided against itself cannot stand and all.

    I consider the idea of future omniscience to be a reflection of flawed reason, as well as the thoughts that free-will is an illusion.
    Okay. Are you going to set out the why of that? I did in mine, but if you don't want to it's fine as a declaration of your belief on the point.

    The two passages I have provided in this post from Jeremiah and from Isaiah show that God has both the free will to change what He has planned and the power to do He has planned to do.
    Or it's a lot like His saying he'd spare S and G if...while knowing full well that there wouldn't be an exception to spare it.

    Neither of these passages make any sense if God had exhaustive knowledge of everything that would happen in the future.
    I don't agree, though I can see how the impression could be made, especially in isolation.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Ask Mr. Religion (August 22nd, 2018)

  6. #94
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,389
    Thanks
    324
    Thanked 10,657 Times in 7,765 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147826
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Why?
    If an entity is omniscient, it must precede every physical thing. If it didn't, it couldn't know about the things that happened before it.

    Why?
    The entity must be the source of everything, because it would be the only thing in existence. If it wasn't the only thing in existence, it would still know exactly what whatever else was out there was going to do, so it's kinda moot to assert multiple entities.

    Why? If Omniscience is "knowing everything", then why can't [the entity] make someone who "knows everything"?
    I guess it could. However, that would not change the nature of the original entity.

    I propose that you are using "omniscience" to mean "settled future", and in that case, there's no contest--omniscience seems to mean fatalism. But I think the terms are differently defined.
    I would word it slightly differently: Omniscience necessitates a settled future.

    He is fated to think he's not fated, or he's fated to think he's fated.
    That whole "thinking" part of his existence would be something of a misnomer.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 23rd, 2018)

  8. #95
    Over 1500 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,881
    Thanks
    457
    Thanked 844 Times in 584 Posts

    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    233328
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    If an entity is omniscient, it must precede every physical thing. If it didn't, it couldn't know about the things that happened before it.
    I know about things that happened before I came into existence.



    The entity must be the source of everything, because it would be the only thing in existence. If it wasn't the only thing in existence, it would still know exactly what whatever else was out there was going to do, so it's kinda moot to assert multiple entities.
    I think this needs the additional quality of "eternal". In other words, "omniscience" doesn't require it be the source, as you acknowledged, as long as it knows what the source, or sources, is/are going to do, according to your usage. The point in asserting multiple entities drives you to acknowledge that "omniscience", by itself, is inadequate to effect anything based on that omniscience. God's omniscience of His own future actions is well within the realm of God's characteristics, but that requires to ask the question whether God always knew everything He planned to do. Or did He actually plan something. Even the source knowing what the source is going to do falls apart if He can never have a new plan. This is where @genuineoriginal's gets his statement of "omniscience" being the thing that is more powerful than God. It actually drives one to the Greek version of deity where they (the gods) are subject to the fates, despite the fact/myth that the fates actually were born of Zeus.

    I'm not so willing to let go of "omniscience" of God just yet. That's why I appreciate the attempt of some to understand what the "science" is in "omniscience".

    I would word it slightly differently: Omniscience necessitates a settled future.
    If all future things (if there is such a concept as a future thing that is more than a concept), are included in the omniscience.

    That whole "thinking" part of his existence would be something of a misnomer.
    Perhaps so.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Derf For Your Post:

    genuineoriginal (August 24th, 2018)

  10. #96
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,389
    Thanks
    324
    Thanked 10,657 Times in 7,765 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147826
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I know about things that happened before I came into existence.
    Because someone told you.

    For something to inform the entity, it itself would have to have omniscience, at least of those events that preceded it.

    I'm not so willing to let go of "omniscience" of God just yet. That's why I appreciate the attempt of some to understand what the "science" is in "omniscience".
    I'd be happy to use the term, if it was carefully defined and generally accepted.

    Something like: Knows everything that can be known.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  11. #97
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,389
    Thanks
    324
    Thanked 10,657 Times in 7,765 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147826
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    If all future things (if there is such a concept as a future thing that is more than a concept), are included in the omniscience.
    Oh. I see what I missed.

    OP should have specified that this is the absolute form of omniscience, that all things future are known exhaustively. I said "throughout history" as if that included future.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Derf (August 23rd, 2018)

  13. #98
    Over 1500 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,881
    Thanks
    457
    Thanked 844 Times in 584 Posts

    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    233328
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Because someone told you.

    For something to inform the entity, it itself would have to have omniscience, at least of those events that preceded it.

    I'd be happy to use the term, if it was carefully defined and generally accepted.

    Something like: Knows everything that can be known.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    In my opinion, this is the problem with a lot of in-house debates--the terms are not used in the same way.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Derf For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 23rd, 2018)

  15. #99
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,389
    Thanks
    324
    Thanked 10,657 Times in 7,765 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147826
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    In my opinion, this is the problem with a lot of in-house debates--the terms are not used in the same way.
    Yeah.

    However, it's worthwhile trying to figure those things out when both sides are willing to engage sensibly.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 23rd, 2018),way 2 go (August 24th, 2018)

  17. #100
    TOL Legend Ktoyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Alabama and Florida
    Posts
    9,827
    Thanks
    2,411
    Thanked 7,015 Times in 4,852 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147722
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    Or omniscience is total bunk.
    It is no more than a word to convey a meaning. The word itself is prominent, but the meaning can and does change with language and custom. The meaning of this word has remained close to its sound and shape. Compare that to words like 'trip' , 'heavy', 'gay' , 'freak'
    So, what?

    believe it!

  18. #101
    Over 5000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    5,530
    Thanks
    605
    Thanked 1,021 Times in 782 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    714988
    Quote Originally Posted by Ktoyou View Post
    It is no more than a word to convey a meaning. The word itself is prominent, but the meaning can and does change with language and custom. The meaning of this word has remained close to its sound and shape. Compare that to words like 'trip' , 'heavy', 'gay' , 'freak'
    We may only grapple with this unfathomable concept by way of its (comprehensible) antithesis. We understand and fear our fragile, exisistential limitations thus we seek and find solace within its opposing apotheosis; one specifically projected as perfect, eternal and boundless. A concept replete with all the understanding and attributes we conspicuously fall well short of and can never fully comprehend.
    Last edited by quip; August 25th, 2018 at 04:28 PM.
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

  19. #102
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    Thanks
    994
    Thanked 994 Times in 585 Posts

    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    529343
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    If an entity is omniscient, that means it knows everything down to the movement of every subatomic particle throughout all history.
    This is not omniscience. You are inferring predetermination must attend omniscience as it's logical outcome. But you are doing this from a non-omniscient viewpoint.

    Fatalism necessarily involves passage of time; event following linear event in predetermined fashion.
    Omniscience does not speak to the subject of time at all. It only speaks about unlimited knowledge.
    Time or knowledge restrictions play no part in anything to do with God, unless He chooses to accommodate Himself to His creatures.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to George Affleck For Your Post:

    Stripe (August 26th, 2018)

  21. #103
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    286
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 34 Times in 33 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    3389
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    No you wouldn't. How could you blame a page of ink??? Even if it were the person who wrote it, did he/she have ANYTHING to do with it? More, what if it was a result of global warming 'we' caused? I appreciate you walking through this, the entertainment of ideas, and more, the way the scriptures portray these matters is meaningful to me, and I pray for you as well.
    If the Almanac created the storm and the recipients of the storm, then predicted accurately what would happen, the almanac would be more than "a page of ink".
    Do you really believe that if an almanac could create a storm and then predict what that storm would do, that the almanac would in no way be responsible for the outcome?

    It's about knowledge (omniscience).

    What does the following statement mean?
    "If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death".

    If the Creator of man knew the future of man (that which didn't exist except in the 'mind of the Creator'), then wrote the above law explaining how man is to love man, then holds the killed man responsible for his own death, and calls it "very good" (agreeable with His own character), we can know something about His character; that He doesn't love man the way He tells man to love man.

    It looks like you believe that the One who wrote Exodus 21:29, actually punishes the man who was gored to death.

  22. #104
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,379
    Thanks
    17,734
    Thanked 33,577 Times in 22,522 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147911
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    We may only grapple with this unfathomable concept by way of its (comprehensible) antithesis. We understand and fear our fragile, exisistential limitations thus we seek and find solace within its opposing apotheosis; one specifically projected as perfect, eternal and boundless. A concept replete with all the understanding and attributes we conspicuously fall well short of and can never fully comprehend.
    Where did you pick up this 'verbose fortune cookie' with such a 'hodge-podge' of words?

  23. #105
    Over 5000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    5,530
    Thanks
    605
    Thanked 1,021 Times in 782 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    714988
    Quote Originally Posted by Grosnick Marowbe View Post
    Where did you pick up this 'verbose fortune cookie' with such a 'hodge-podge' of words?
    Ok. For you GM, I'll dumb it down:
    You seek perfection because, at the very least GM, you see yourself as weak, limited (sinful) and isolated in a universe you cannot understand, control nor fully grasp. Thus, you project and transform these insecurities into and onto "omniscience"....a comfortabe proxy for your state of uncomfortable ignorance.
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us