On the omniscience of God

[JudgeRightly]

My two cents: I am in the uncomfortable position of saying that annabenedetti's posts here make the most sense of them all. Especially this:

Then you need to get your head checked.

We cannot fully explain God's omniscience using human language

We're not trying to.

What we're trying to do is understand what we CAN understand.

because we are just incapable of fathoming the enormity of it.

So what?

Much like the Trinity, we cannot fully understand His nature, so too with His Knowledge, we cannot fully understand that either.

Therefore we can't even have a discussion to find out what we CAN understand? Because that sounds like you're trying to hide something that would easily be discovered if we were simply consider the idea.

All we can do is offer up a number of analogies and adjectives that attempt to reach such heights that are beyond out ability to see.

So what?

God IS outside of time.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

He is in the eternal "present", no future, no past.

Since time is a measurement of change, there can be no time for God because there is no change in God. The slightest bit of change would introduce an imperfection.

We see leaves turn color and seasons change and we know that time goes by. If God was something a minute ago that he is not now, then God would be missing something now that he had a minute ago, and that is not possible for the perfect simple Being.

There are multiple threads on this topic. But again, saying it doesn't make it so.

From the Burning Bush God says, "I AM".

God is. That's it. He IS.

Nope.

The Bible says God:

is - and was - and is to come - whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting - before all things - forever and ever - the Ancient of Days - from before the ages of the ages - from ancient times - the everlasting God - He continues forever - from of old - remains forever - eternal - immortal - the Lord shall endure forever - Who lives forever - yesterday, today, and forever - God's years are without number - rock of ages/everlasting strength - manifest in His own time - waiting until - everlasting Father - alive forevermore - always lives - forever - continually - the eternal God - God’s years never end - from everlasting to everlasting - from that time forward, even forever - and of His kingdom there will be no end.

Seriously, you need to stop denying the Bible.

He is pure being, pure existence.

Meaningless nonsense.

He knows all at once,

Nope.

God does not know what it's like to sin, because He has never sinned. Therefore He cannot "know all," let alone "at once."

which explains why he can know the free will choice that man makes within man's timeline.

Post #264

Who is like unto thee, O LORD
from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God

Which is not "God is. That's it. He IS."... as you put it...

 

[Clete]

We cannot fully explain God's omniscience using human language because we are just incapable of fathoming the enormity of it.

Ever thought that the reason you can't use human language to explain it is because it makes no sense? It is truly impossible to fathom the self-contradictory.

If it is so ineffable then why do you believe it?

That's a real question, RWR. Why do you believe it?

Much like the Trinity, we cannot fully understand His nature, so too with His Knowledge, we cannot fully understand that either.

It just bugs the crap out of me that people always want to run to the Trinity doctrine when they want to basically blow off the responsibility of having a rational theology. There is NOTHING contradictory or otherwise irrational about the BIBLICAL teachings in regards to the triune nature of God! Nothing! The very same bible that teaches us that God has a triune nature also teaches things that contradict the Greek omni-doctrines all over the place. In fact, if not for Augustine who openly admits in his writings that he imported these ideas into Christianity from the Classics, you wouldn't believe any of it!

All we can do is offer up a number of analogies and adjectives that attempt to reach such heights that are beyond out ability to see.

All you're doing here is attempting to lower the bar. You're attempting to say that it's okay for your doctrine to not make sense.

God IS outside of time. He is in the eternal "present", no future, no past.

Saying it doesn't make it so. The bible certainly doesn't teach this and it's a good thing that it doesn't too because if it did, it would falsify the entire faith. Existence outside of time is an oxymoron. It is, in fact, an excellent example of a stolen concept fallacy. Time is not a thing, it is an idea. Time is a convention of language that is used to convey information about the duration of events relative to other events - and that's all it is. Thus, the concept of existence presupposes duration. Duration is what time is. Therefore, to deny time while using the concept of existence "steals" the concept of existence because it denies the concept of duration upon which the concept of existence is rationally based. Existence outside of time is, therefore, a self-contradictory (i.e. self-defeating) concept and is therefore false.

That's one of several rational arguments. Here's a definitive biblical one...

Proof From the Bible That God Is In Time

Since time is a measurement of change, there can be no time for God because there is no change in God. The slightest bit of change would introduce an imperfection.

This logic is not only flawed but its straight out of the mouth of Plato!

Slightest bit of change, you say?

Do you believe that God became a man?

We see leaves turn color and seasons change and we know that time goes by. If God was something a minute ago that he is not now, then God would be missing something now that he had a minute ago, and that is not possible for the perfect simple Being.

99.44% pure Aristotelian philosophical nonsense!

God is not an inanimate object! He is a living being with a personality and He has relationships with other people who have their own personalities. If He was anything like what these pagan Greek philosophers taught then He would be anything but a perfect person with a perfect personality. He'd be a literal sociopath! He'd be utterly incapable of love or any other sort of emotion.

Which, incidentally, is precisely what this same theological system teaches! The same "logic" that leads to the omniscience you describe has the same effect when applied to God's state of mind or any other aspect of God you want to name. In fact, the "perfect simplicity" you refer to explicitly denies that God has any such "aspects". That's what is meant by "simple". This is why I have repeatedly claimed, and rightly so, that the whole of Calvinism, (or any form of Augustinianism) is all based upon the sole doctrine of immutability. If God can change IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER then the entire construct collapses.

I ask you again....

Do you believe that God became a man?

From the Burning Bush God says, "I AM".

God is. That's it. He IS.

He is pure being, pure existence. He knows all at once, which explains why he can know the free will choice that man makes within man's timeline.

Who is like unto thee, O LORD
from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God

These passages say nothing at all about God being immutable. This is just you "proof texting", where you read your doctrine into the text.

How, by the way, does "every lasting to ever lasting" say anything about existence outside of time? That seems to convey the idea of an unending duration of time, does it not?

Further, God cannot know (in the sense you mean it) the free will choices that men make. If He knows, they aren't free.

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am​

​

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Source​

Notice that the argument does not depend upon the mechanism of knowledge. In other words, it doesn't make any different HOW God knows but only WHETHER God knows.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

Ever thought that the reason you can't use human language to explain it is because it makes no sense? It is truly impossible to fathom the self-contradictory.

If it is so ineffable then why do you believe it?

That's a real question, RWR. Why do you believe it?


It just bugs the crap out of me that people always want to run to the Trinity doctrine when they want to basically blow off the responsibility of having a rational theology. There is NOTHING contradictory or otherwise irrational about the BIBLICAL teachings in regards to the triune nature of God! Nothing! The very same bible that teaches us that God has a triune nature also teaches things that contradict the Greek omni-doctrines all over the place. In fact, if not for Augustine who openly admits in his writings that he imported these ideas into Christianity from the Classics, you wouldn't believe any of it!


All you're doing here is attempting to lower the bar. You're attempting to say that it's okay for your doctrine to not make sense.


Saying it doesn't make it so. The bible certainly doesn't teach this and it's a good thing that it doesn't too because if it did, it would falsify the entire faith. Existence outside of time is an oxymoron. It is, in fact, an excellent example of a stolen concept fallacy. Time is not a thing, it is an idea. Time is a convention of language that is used to convey information about the duration of events relative to other events - and that's all it is. Thus, the concept of existence presupposes duration. Duration is what time is. Therefore, to deny time while using the concept of existence "steals" the concept of existence because it denies the concept of duration upon which the concept of existence is rationally based. Existence outside of time is, therefore, a self-contradictory (i.e. self-defeating) concept and is therefore false.

That's one of several rational arguments. Here's a definitive biblical one...

Proof From the Bible That God Is In Time


This logic is not only flawed but its straight out of the mouth of Plato!

Slightest bit of change, you say?

Do you believe that God became a man?

99.44% pure Aristotelian philosophical nonsense!

God is not an inanimate object! He is a living being with a personality and He has relationships with other people who have their own personalities. If He was anything like what these pagan Greek philosophers taught then He would be anything but a perfect person with a perfect personality. He'd be a literal sociopath! He'd be utterly incapable of love or any other sort of emotion.

Which, incidentally, is precisely what this same theological system teaches! The same "logic" that leads to the omniscience you describe has the same effect when applied to God's state of mind or any other aspect of God you want to name. In fact, the "perfect simplicity" you refer to explicitly denies that God has any such "aspects". That's what is meant by "simple". This is why I have repeatedly claimed, and rightly so, that the whole of Calvinism, (or any form of Augustinianism) is all based upon the sole doctrine of immutability. If God can change IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER then the entire construct collapses.

I ask you again....

Do you believe that God became a man?


These passage say nothing at all about God being immutable. This is just you "proof texting", where you read your doctrine into the text.

How, by the way, does "every lasting to ever lasting" say anything about existence outside of time? That seems to convey the idea of an unending duration of time, does it not?

Further, God cannot know (in the sense you mean it) the free will choices that men make. If He knows, they aren't free.

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am​

​

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Source​

Notice that the argument does not depend upon the mechanism of knowledge. In other words, it doesn't make any different HOW God knows but only WHETHER God knows.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Just fyi, Red has been perma-banned, so you won't, unfortunately, be getting a response from him.

 

[ok doser]

... Red has been perma-banned ...

Awww

marke too?

 

[Clete]

Just fyi, Red has been perma-banned, so you won't, unfortunately, be getting a response from him.

Until that post I responded too, all I ever saw him post was political stuff. What in the world would have gotten him perma-banned?

(You don't have to answer that!)

 

[DLH]

God has the power, skill, intelligence and wisdom to do anything doable that He desires to do. He cannot do the rationally absurd.

With the addendum that rational absurdity is a subjective term. To some the very concept of God is rationally absurd and with others the rationally absurd is wrongly attributed to God.

 

[DLH]

We cannot fully explain God's omniscience using human language because we are just incapable of fathoming the enormity of it. Much like the Trinity, we cannot fully understand His nature, so too with His Knowledge, we cannot fully understand that either.

I completely disagree. We (humans) made both those things up. To say we cannot fully understand them, to me, just means that they are nonsensical. We can fully understand, intellectually, God's knowledge. In fact he means for us to and wouldn't withhold it.

All we can do is offer up a number of analogies and adjectives that attempt to reach such heights that are beyond out ability to see.

God IS outside of time. He is in the eternal "present", no future, no past.

The future and the past do not exist. Time is a measurement. Eternal present is an oxymoron.

Since time is a measurement of change, there can be no time for God because there is no change in God. The slightest bit of change would introduce an imperfection.

We see leaves turn color and seasons change and we know that time goes by. If God was something a minute ago that he is not now, then God would be missing something now that he had a minute ago, and that is not possible for the perfect simple Being.

From the Burning Bush God says, "I AM".

God is. That's it. He IS.

He is pure being, pure existence. He knows all at once, which explains why he can know the free will choice that man makes within man's timeline.

Who is like unto thee, O LORD
from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God

[Sigh] Who else said I am?

 

[Right Divider]

Just fyi, Red has been perma-banned, so you won't, unfortunately, be getting a response from him.

Why was he perma-banned?

 

[JudgeRightly]

With the addendum that rational absurdity is a subjective term.

And what is the standard you base that "addendum" on?

To some the very concept of God is rationally absurd and with others the rationally absurd is wrongly attributed to God.

Which is just examples of subjective points of view.

What Clete said was an objective statement of reality.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I completely disagree.

That's nice.

[Sigh] Who else said I am?

Irrelevant.

Jesus was making a claim that He was God. No other creature can make that claim and remain righteous.

 

[Clete]

With the addendum that rational absurdity is a subjective term.

That's stupidity!

By what rational process would you come to the conclusion that rational absurdity as a concept is subjective?

That question answers itself. Do you understand the point?

To some the very concept of God is rationally absurd and with others the rationally absurd is wrongly attributed to God.

This is idiotic, drooling mouthed stupidity! Not even worth responding to directly.

Trying reading a book. Maybe you'll take a step or two toward learning how to think. I'm not kidding. ANY book! It's Christmas! Go read something by Theodor Geisel. You'll have to read it slow, but you'll get it eventually.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then you should be able to sum it up in your own words. I'm listening.



I'll rephrase the question, in the hope that you'll have an answer:

Which specific part of my post did you reply to with this interminably dense link?

1. God is outside of time
2. He's omniscient
3. He knows what choices you will make, and how He will work in your life according to those choices.
4. It may seem like He changed His mind in answer to your prayers, but it's more that He knew you would ask A or B or C - or choose A or B or C - and He knew outside of time how He would respond to your free will choice.

5. I grapple with the idea of how much our free will is constrained by determinism (not in a Calvinist sense though, in a biological/environmental sense)
6. if God is all powerful, that He cannot be limited by His own power
7. if God decides to change His mind, He'll change His mind.

I'm in agreement with you on this as we've discussed elsewhere.

This notion that foreknowledge negates free will (with you also on the limited free will aspect) is a non starter. It can also be quite easily dismissed. Say for the sake of argument I know that you're going to receive a phone call at 9:17 tomorrow morning and that you're going to answer it. Knowing that the event is going to occur is not negating your choice in the matter. From our linear perspective we're all effectively living in the absolute present, a nanosecond from past or future but that's our frame of limited frame of reference and how we perceive time. In seconds, minutes, days, years etc. Now, you receive that phone call and you answer it. How has your freedom been affected at that precise juncture in time? The simple answer is, it hasn't. Say I know what my neighbour is going to cook for supper in exactly 47 minutes & 11 seconds and the same applies. The only argument that could carry any weight is if I were somehow able to influence either your or my neighbours decisions before they happened which is a separate issue altogether.

It does bemuse me when people try to limit God on these things.

 

[JudgeRightly]

This notion that foreknowledge negates free will (with you also on the limited free will aspect) is a non starter. It can also be quite easily dismissed. Say for the sake of argument I know that you're going to receive a phone call at 9:17 tomorrow morning and that you're going to answer it. Knowing that the event is going to occur is not negating your choice in the matter.

You're forgetting the "infallibly knowing" part.

"Infallible" (in this context) means "incabable of being wrong." Thus, by you "infallibly knowing" that someone will answer the phone, they will, without fail (because if they don't, it would make your knowledge wrong, and thus, fallible) answer the phone. And as such, such knowledge does, in fact, "negate one's choice in the matter," because doing otherwise is not possible, there's no choice to be had. Such a "choice" would only be imaginary, and not real, likewise with the appearance of choice.

This is all explained in @Clete's post.

Further, God cannot know (in the sense you mean it) the free will choices that men make. If He knows, they aren't free.

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Source

If the person DOES do otherwise, then you didn't really "know" that they would answer the phone to begin with.

It does bemuse me when people try to limit God on these things.

What's interesting is that people like you don't realize that your position is the one that limits God, because God Himself cannot do otherwise.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You're forgetting the "infallibly knowing" part.

"Infallible" (in this context) means "incabable of being wrong." Thus, by you "infallibly knowing" that someone will answer the phone, they will, without fail (because if they don't, it would make your knowledge wrong, and thus, fallible) answer the phone. And as such, such knowledge does, in fact, "negate one's choice in the matter," because doing otherwise is not possible, there's no choice to be had. Such a "choice" would only be imaginary, and not real, likewise with the appearance of choice.

This is all explained in @Clete's post.



If the person DOES do otherwise, then you didn't really "know" that they would answer the phone to begin with.



What's interesting is that people like you don't realize that your position is the one that limits God, because God Himself cannot do otherwise.

Well, of course it would have to be infallible foreknowledge otherwise it might as well just be a strong hunch. In no way has that coerced, influenced or altered anything in itself. Your argument may as well be akin to someone being programmed to do something at a certain point in time that coincides with my foreknowledge of them doing it. It doesn't. If God knows things in advance and what paths people are going to take is it really much of an argument to claim that you had no choice in what you were doing (good or bad for equality)?

With your latter, hardly. With our limited frame of reference and perspective it's a bizarre thing to me to say what God cannot do, especially in matters relating to time. For us, a day is pretty much always as a day give or take. It certainly isn't as 10,000 years or the reverse. In this dimension we experience time as we reference it by. That doesn't apply to God. Another example: The whole tone scale. There's semitones, quartertones, microtones all the way from 'C' to the next and so on but once an ascending 'C' scale has hit all the microtones between it and B flat then it's back to 'C' in a higher register. There's no other note we can imagine or perceive. The same with colour. Is it impossible for there to be others in a dimension outside of this one or impossible for God to create them simply because our minds can't fathom it?

 

[annabenedetti]

With our limited frame of reference and perspective it's a bizarre thing to me to say what God cannot do, especially in matters relating to time. For us, a day is pretty much always as a day give or take. It certainly isn't as 10,000 years or the reverse. In this dimension we experience time as we reference it by. That doesn't apply to God. Another example: The whole tone scale. There's semitones, quartertones, microtones all the way from 'C' to the next and so on but once an ascending 'C' scale has hit all the microtones between it and B flat then it's back to 'C' in a higher register. There's no other note we can imagine or perceive. The same with colour. Is it impossible for there to be others in a dimension outside of this one or impossible for God to create them simply because our minds can't fathom it?

Yes. We have no way of knowing what other dimensions of time and space are possible, we're limited to what we can know and experience in this life only.

 

[Clete]

Well, of course it would have to be infallible foreknowledge otherwise it might as well just be a strong hunch. In no way has that coerced, influenced or altered anything in itself. Your argument may as well be akin to someone being programmed to do something at a certain point in time that coincides with my foreknowledge of them doing it. It doesn't. If God knows things in advance and what paths people are going to take is it really much of an argument to claim that you had no choice in what you were doing (good or bad for equality)?

With your latter, hardly. With our limited frame of reference and perspective it's a bizarre thing to me to say what God cannot do, especially in matters relating to time. For us, a day is pretty much always as a day give or take. It certainly isn't as 10,000 years or the reverse. In this dimension we experience time as we reference it by. That doesn't apply to God. Another example: The whole tone scale. There's semitones, quartertones, microtones all the way from 'C' to the next and so on but once an ascending 'C' scale has hit all the microtones between it and B flat then it's back to 'C' in a higher register. There's no other note we can imagine or perceive. The same with colour. Is it impossible for there to be others in a dimension outside of this one or impossible for God to create them simply because our minds can't fathom it?

A lot of "blah blah blah" and exactly nothing that refutes on single syllable of the actual argument.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well, of course it would have to be infallible foreknowledge otherwise it might as well just be a strong hunch.

Is God infallible? Does that infallibility apply to His attributes?

If so, then, by the laws of logic, there is no choice BUT to answer the phone at that exact time.

In no way has that coerced, influenced or altered anything in itself.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Arty.

Your argument may as well be akin to someone being programmed to do something at a certain point in time that coincides with my foreknowledge of them doing it.

That's exactly the point, Arty.

God infallibly knows something will happen, therefore it will happen exactly the way he knows it will happen.

It doesn't. If God knows things in advance and what paths people are going to take is it really much of an argument to claim that you had no choice in what you were doing (good or bad for equality)?

Yes, because of logic.

Reminder:

Premises: Supposition of infallible foreknowledge, Definition of “infallibility,” Definition of “necessary,"

Logical Principles: Principle of the Necessity of the Past, Transfer of Necessity Principle, Principle of Alternate Possibilities

Further, God cannot know (in the sense you mean it) the free will choices that men make. If He knows, they aren't free.

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Source

With your latter, hardly. With our limited frame of reference and perspective it's a bizarre thing to me to say what God cannot do,

God is not irrational, despite your claims to the contrary. That includes what He can or cannot do.

especially in matters relating to time. For us, a day is pretty much always as a day give or take. It certainly isn't as 10,000 years or the reverse. In this dimension we experience time as we reference it by. That doesn't apply to God.

Saying it doesn't make it so, and the Bible says that God is in time. https://kgov.com/time, but that's a (related) topic for another discussion.

Another example: The whole tone scale. There's semitones, quartertones, microtones all the way from 'C' to the next and so on but once an ascending 'C' scale has hit all the microtones between it and B flat then it's back to 'C' in a higher register. There's no other note we can imagine or perceive.

No, the "other note" is an octave lower or higher than the one you started with. You're trying to make what is a spiral staircase into a straight line segment then declaring that we can't imagine beyond the two ends of that segment, when in reality, it's a continuous spiral staircase of sound frequencies. We use "A-G, back to A, etc."

I used to play the violin (still have it too), so I'll use it as an example.

The lowest note I can play on it (when it's tuned properly) is G₃, at 196 Hz. That doesn't mean that it can't play lower notes, but doing so requires "detuning," loosening, the string. The Highest note it can play is A, at 3520 Hz, four octaves higher than the note just above the first A on the G string, which is played by placing one's first finger on the G string on the neck of the violin just opposite the peg box from the nut.

Thus, one can play from 196 Hz (G) all the way up to 3520 Hz (A), continuously! You can even do it glissando!

All that to say that A, B, C, etc, to G, are just names we've given to certain frequencies in octaves. There's nothing about a particular frequency (pardon the pun) that says it must be a "B-flat" other than the naming scheme that was arbitrarily assigned to it.

The scale of sound (which is ultimately what we're talking about) is, for all intents and purposes, infinite, despite humans only being able to hear from about 20 Hz to 20 kHz.

The same with colour. Is it impossible for there to be others in a dimension outside of this one or impossible for God to create them simply because our minds can't fathom it?

The physical universe allows for colors. (Which are also described by the frequencies of waves of light, btw).

Other dimensions don't exist. Sure, we can try to imagine what such dimensions might look like, but they are, by definition, imaginary. Thus the argument is moot.

All that to say, you're trying to argue against logic, Arty. It's not going to end well for you.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes. We have no way of knowing what other dimensions of time and space are possible, we're limited to what we can know and experience in this life only.

Why assume such irrational things exist?

God is described in the Bible as Reason/Logic itself...

Something that is not possible if God is irrational!

 

[annabenedetti]

Why assume such irrational things exist?

Why assume that dimensions beyond the human are irrational?

God is described in the Bible as Reason/Logic itself...

Something that is not possible if God is irrational!

Who said God is irrational? Not me.

Is heaven in another dimension? When God sent angels from heaven, where did they come from?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Why assume that dimensions beyond the human are irrational?

Because they don't follow the laws of logic. Thus, by definition, they are irrational.

Who said God is irrational? Not me.

Indirectly, Arthur did. And you agreed with him.

Is heaven in another dimension?

Dimension? Not sure. It is definitely "above" our plane of existence, however.

When God sent angels from heaven, where did they come from?

Your question answers itself.