User Tag List

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 107

Thread: What determines the Omniscience of God

  1. #91
    Silver Member Ktoyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Alabama and Florida
    Posts
    7,102
    Thanks
    1,026
    Thanked 2,782 Times in 2,164 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147669
    Quote Originally Posted by Untellectual View Post
    I believe that would be omniscience, which is perhaps different from the idea and concept of foreknowledge.
    Not so different.

    Now suppose I see an ant, and seeing it, I know that ant is going for a hole in an ant hill. Now does my knowing it, cause the ant to go into the hole? Might it be possible the ant does not know I am observing it? If a person can know what an ant will do, surly God knows it too, and much more. How can you disagree so far?
    So, what?

    believe it!

  2. #92
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    10084
    Quote Originally Posted by Ktoyou View Post
    Not so different.

    Now suppose I see an ant, and seeing it, I know that ant is going for a hole in an ant hill. Now does my knowing it, cause the ant to go into the hole? Might it be possible the ant does not know I am observing it? If a person can know what an ant will do, surly God knows it too, and much more. How can you disagree so far?
    This analogy works for past and present knowledge, but the future is fundamentally different. The observer of the ant does not see what it will do 5 days from now, but what it is actually doing right now.

    If one tries to see the not yet future, they see nothing. To not know a nothing is not a lack of omniscience.
    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

  3. #93
    Welcome to the Underneath Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    19,795
    Thanks
    217
    Thanked 10,720 Times in 8,611 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    587863
    Quote Originally Posted by lucaspa View Post
    Which goes back to the point I made: God chooses not to know some things. He set up the universe so that He would not be able to know some things. One of those things seems to be the exact future. The future is open.


    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    LH would say that God can choose to not know knowable things. This is a denial of omniscience.

    Recognizing that the future is partially open is not a limitation on omniscience because God still knows all that is knowable. By creating a non-deterministic creation, there is a voluntary self-limitation on the ability to have exhaustive definite foreknowledge
    (just as not being able to create square circles is not a limitation for an omnipotent God, so not being able to have EDF of future free will contingencies is not a limitation on omniscience...both would be logical absurdities).
    Translation:


  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Lighthouse For Your Post:

    LoneStar (April 23rd, 2016)

  5. #94
    Over 500 post club Shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    715
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    66220
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    Sorry, which book of the Bible was that from?

    Jesus I know and Paul I know but who are you?
    The Church Fathers knew the Paul, Peter and the Apostles and were taught their interpretations of scripture not those of modern theologians teaching novel interpretations of the Bible. Who has more credibility - Boyd? You? or Pinnock who did not even believe in the inerracy of scripture. I am not saying what they wrote was canon but it certainly was indicative of what was taught and believed then and from all evidence it is not what you teach.

  6. #95
    Over 3000 post club oatmeal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,338
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    29854
    Quote Originally Posted by Bright Raven View Post
    Is God totally omniscient or are there some things for which He does not have foreknowledge. If so, what?
    Totally man! Totally!
    "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers." Acts 2:42

    "Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind" Philippians 2:2

    Pro scripture = Protestant

  7. #96
    Over 3000 post club oatmeal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,338
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    29854
    Quote Originally Posted by oatmeal View Post
    Totally man! Totally!
    Isaiah 57:15

    God inhabits eternity.

    He inhabits all time, backward and forward and beyond time.

    The past and present and future are all the same to God.

    He occupies eternity

    " For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones."

    o'meal
    "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers." Acts 2:42

    "Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind" Philippians 2:2

    Pro scripture = Protestant

  8. #97
    Over 500 post club Shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    715
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    66220
    Quote Originally Posted by surrender View Post
    We’re not talking about only one right answer on a quiz—God is not taking a quiz. No parallel here.

    God is just as prepared for my choices as if they were the only choices I could ever make. For you, possibilities are not the same thing as “knowing” because you’re finite, but for God, who is infinitely wise and omnipresent (knowing all things at once), possibilities are “knowing” as if the possibilities are certain.
    Interesting. Elaborate on this, if you will,

  9. #98
    Over 500 post club Shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    715
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    66220
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    Sorry, which book of the Bible was that from?

    Jesus I know and Paul I know but who are you?
    Is your denial of their teaching an admission that your doctrine is not historical?

  10. #99
    Leviticus 19:18 love your neighbor as yourself Jacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    The United States of America
    Posts
    5,903
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 249 Times in 238 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    46369
    Quote Originally Posted by Ktoyou View Post
    Not so different.

    Now suppose I see an ant, and seeing it, I know that ant is going for a hole in an ant hill. Now does my knowing it, cause the ant to go into the hole? Might it be possible the ant does not know I am observing it? If a person can know what an ant will do, surly God knows it too, and much more. How can you disagree so far?
    You see me to disagree with something or want me to affirm what you are saying in agreement. I don't know for sure what you mean. I do believe we are small compared to God, like ants compared with us. But knowing what an ant will do, as predictable as a particular action might be, does not chart its course. I guess now I am asking about foreknowledge, when the question of omniscience deals with God knowing everything. To set something in motion, which God may do, is different from predicting based upon observed behavior.
    John 1:40-41 NASB, John 1:49 NASB - 40 One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. 41 He found first his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which translated means Christ). 49 - Nathanael answered Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel."

    Colossians 1:13 NASB - For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,

    Romans 5:10 NASB - For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

    2 Corinthians 5:15 NASB - and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.

  11. #100
    Over 500 post club Shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    715
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    66220
    Sorry. I will try and organize my thoughts better


    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    Shasta,
    You seem to have placed everything in quotes, which makes it quite difficult to reformat.

    I'll try to make do but perhaps later you could edit accordingly.

    You said

    OK, so let's see where this leads.

    "If God existed in this current moment in universal time, God only exists in this current moment of universal time."

    Is that what you are trying to say? I still fail to see how this places any kind of limitation on God, let alone "limitations on His omnipresence as well". By the time you have finished pronouncing your sentence, we are already at another "current moment of universal time" and I still haven't made any sense of what you are saying.

    So if in another 75 moments of 'universal time' later (whatever moments of 'universal' time might mean... do you know?) you look and lo and behold there is an amazing coincidence: God is there as as well, completely unexpected! And of course no one in their right mind would possibly draw the inference that God was actually a living being...

    I'm not sure what being a pantheist has to do with this but I assure you that I believe that Jesus Christ is the perfect representation of God himself and I don't see how anyone who claims the Bible to be inspired by God can believe otherwise. Can I ask you if you believe the same and if so, how can you also suggest that God is not part of the 'physical system'? If your concern is his omnipresence then how can you deny that he is everywhere in the physical system, even he, Jesus, who upholds the universe by the word of his power?

    However, the universe is more than physical things. Surely you accept this, otherwise you would probably be an atheist?

    As to a definition of time - time is a construct, it is a convenient term for use in human affairs but it has no actual direct physical referent. In other words, it can't be measured because it isn't something that exists physically to be measured. You can't catch it and analyse it, you can't put a sample of it in a bottle or watch it passing by or travel along it in a time machine. And anyone who thinks that Einstein showed that it was a physical property of the universe has completely misunderstood him.

    I really don't understand your point. It again makes no sense at all. I firstly said
    The universe is everything that is real. God is real. Therefore God is a part of the real universe. This is undeniable, what is so difficult about it?

    Look, is love real? Do I hear a 'yes'? So where is this love situated then? I think you are hung up on this physical vs spiritual issue. The universe is much more than the physical.
    Also you display a basic misunderstanding of the so called expansion of the universe, which isn't expanding at all. Because the universe is ALL (got it?) that exists. It can never be more than that and never be less than that. This is basic logic. You possibly imagine the big bang as a pea that suddenly turns into a football. I assure you that it is not like that at all. There isn't a vast infinite array of empty space into which the ever expanding football expands. The universe has no borders and cannot be measured. A rhetorical question for you: what do you measure EVERYTHING with?

    No, it is very relevant. If you think that there is a boundary to the universe within which you think God (according to your view of open theism) is limited, then it is very relevant. Because you have completely misunderstood the concept of isomorphic expansion. Please cite me a reputable physicist who can confirm that the universe can be measured. I am confident that when you go and look carefully at your sources you will find you have misunderstood them.

  12. #101
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    10084
    Quote Originally Posted by oatmeal View Post
    Isaiah 57:15

    God inhabits eternity.

    He inhabits all time, backward and forward and beyond time.

    The past and present and future are all the same to God.

    He occupies eternity

    " For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones."

    o'meal
    This is not a proof text for timelessness/eternal now. The past, present, future is distinct to God, not all one divine simultaneity (which would leave Jesus on the cross and creation co-eternal with God).
    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

  13. #102
    Over 500 post club Shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    715
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    66220
    Quote Originally Posted by Desert Reign View Post
    .

    No. I meant what I said.

    I invented openness theology myself so I don't see how you can assert that my view is incompatible with what I myself have invented. Of course, I wasn't the first to invent it but what I have invented, was invented entirely independently of others. And of course by invented I mean expressed/discovered/promoted, etc.
    1. I suppose being the "discoverer and inventor" of Open Theism you think you have the final authority to say what it is all about. All I can say if you wanted to be the expert you should have published a book and gotten it copyrighted.Why is it so important for you to lay claim to Open Theism anyway? No truth is anybody’s personal property.
    2. Isn't it rather late in history to “invent” or even “discover” a brand new doctrine? Paul found several great mysteries hidden in scriptures but I think he had more credibility than you.
    3. Just think how differently things would have turned out if the, first century teachers had known it? They were under the mistaken impression that transcendent foreknowledge was perfectly compatible with human free will. God must have given their teachers the Apostles black marks on their report cards for leaving Open Theism out of their curriculum

    Openness theology is relational. As I said previously, absolute statements are not part of the ethos of openness because absolute statements, by definition, close all loops.
    This is an absolute statement.

    Are you trying to tell me this? You speak as if knowledge were some absolute thing. (But of course most people misunderstand this anyway, please don't take it personally). Knowledge is what we do to evaluate what we perceive. I know this is a tulip. To some other person it might be a bright spring morning, to another person it might be a Single Late or a Darwin Hybrid (he's not sure...) All of us have different ways of looking at things but there is no absolute right way.
    1. Because a single truth can have many aspects does not mean the truth is not absolute. If is only by looking at the separate puzzle pieces of: a trunk, 4 legs and 2 tusks in the right way that we will come up with the whole elephant.
    2. Individuals with Schizophrenia have perceptions that the rest of us less open-minded people call “hallucinations” The delusional system he invents to organize and interpret his perceptions I suppose would be classified as “knowledge.” His, system, however is not valid because there IS an absolute right way of looking at things. My belief that he is the Mad Hatter is much closer to the truth than his view that he is the king of England.

    Most of the above things are actually compatible with each other. So they are all true but at the same time different. Knowledge is just how we apply shared language to shared experiences. It's not like a bank account where when the numbers go down, I have nothing left. It's not something that I can get more of and trade with others like a commodity. It's relational.
    The Bible many times says to “get knowledge” Proverbs 18:15. This is verified throughout the whole of scripture. You can learn more and more. In fact, there is no end of what can be known. I would also say that knowledge can be shared and exchanged as we share the word with each other. If this were not possible why bother going to school? Why bother listening to people teaching Open Theism?

    Nope. The reason why some things are unknowable to God is that they are logically unknowable because the shared language we use (as I explained above knowledge is an expression of shared language) prohibits statements of certain kinds.
    So when your claims seem to be "logically unknowable" it is not due to any error on your part but to the inadequacy of the language. This just tells me that the common words of the Bible do not communicate what you want them to. Is this an attempt to covertly create another lexicon? Well I prefer the original one.


    For example the statement 'I always lie'. Is logically invalid. Shared language does not permit this statement. You can say the words but there is no communicable meaning behind them. In the same way, the absolute statement 'God is omnipotent' is logically meaningless. (I take that in the sense 'There is nothing that God cannot do'.)
    It is only by using “omnipotence” in a way thinking people have never accepted that you have arrived at your conclusion that it is "logically invalid." You cannot misrepresent a term and they build a case on it. C.S.Lewis said something to the effect that nonsense is impossible even if we tack "God can" on the end. .This sleight-of-hand may work on a lot of people but not on those who are better informed.

    The same thing is true of both omniscience and omnipresence. These absolute statements were invented to express the majesty of God, which I suppose was a good purpose but they are unreliable, they don't have a practical meaning that any of us can share or that can be mediated to us. It would be more practical to say something like 'What God knows is of more worth than what human beings know.'

    1. Where have you found etymological, historical, and philosophical basis to conclude that those words were intended to express the majesty of God rather than what they have have always been understood to mean? Do you know more about their intentions than they did? History has already spoken as to what the Early church believed.
    2. The ancients were not so stupid that they could not have come up with words that expressed highly abstract ideas congruent to yours if that was what they intended to convey. If they were having difficulties they could have consulted the writings of Heraclitus.
    3. It is presumptuous of you after privately studying at your desk to one day declare that these terms having now served their purpose and can henceforth be considered as "unreliable" Have the teachings of Boyd brought you to the same denial of Biblical Inerrancy in favor of some "relational" view of truth 3.
    4. We don’t determine whether or not something is true by whether it is practical or usable to us. Pragmatism should not shape theology. Aside from that I think God’s omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience does have a great deal of personal fulfillment and usefulness.

    And there is of course the Biblical witness which clearly states that there are some things that God cannot do. But I guess that is another argument.

  14. #103
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    4,920
    Thanks
    1,250
    Thanked 1,428 Times in 928 Posts

    Blog Entries
    116
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    1678530
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    If you really think that God's will on earth is for babies to be raped and murdered on film, then you are sick and your idea of God is little different than Satan.
    Keep taking your cues from Olson and one day you (and he) will have to answer for your sins against God. Just sayin'.

    AMR
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the 20+ links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.


    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  15. #104
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    4,920
    Thanks
    1,250
    Thanked 1,428 Times in 928 Posts

    Blog Entries
    116
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    1678530
    Shasta,

    You really need to master the quote function. Impossible to read your posts as they are currently being posted...as in the post above.

    AMR
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the 20+ links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.


    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  16. #105
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    10084
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Keep taking your cues from Olson and one day you (and he) will have to answer for your sins against God. Just sayin'.

    AMR
    Take it up with Nang and beloved57 who seem to think these things would logically be the will of God (omnicausal).
    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 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