Is God omniscient or limited?

A Happy New Year to you, too.

Good points, Aladdin, though you do seem to be ignoring the general thrust of Einstein..., who I have often quoted myself.

You quote:
"How do we know we are not brains in a vat being stimulated by electrical impulses?"
The answer is that we don't.
(Unless you are a fan of the MATRIX films! lol )

As a logical premiss it is not linked to anything. It has no empirical evidence to back it up. It has not indicated any lines of pragmatic research to confirm or deny it.
It is a subjective supposition... possibly a joke?
If we state such a premiss, we are honour bound to suggest lines of research to confirm or deny it.
So far as I know none have been suggested by anyone.
 
Soph; et al:
Has a point been made? I believe once again, that we have been answered just as we were almost three years ago on Theism Debate. I wish, sometimes, that my association with God (Entity) were not so intimate. Did I not post the following a month ago in the midst of this debate?

"God does not just care about US! We are insignificant in the total view. Example; History has recorded that during the Second World War, 50 million souls were lost due to a single individual. That number is an abomination to the intelligent mind. But when a Super Nova takes place in the distant Universe and for all we know, with a dozen or so planetary systems wiped out, 500 billion souls are destroyed! That is uncomprehensible! I can tell you now that you can no more doubt the 500 billion than you can the 50 million!"

I ask you now, what with the earthquake and tsunamis, can you no more doubt the 500 billion than you can the almost 200 thousand? It seems that we have appealed to a higher authority without our being aware of it and we have been given a direct, irrefutable answer! In all the sorrow that I feel, I can say without fear that God exists... but DO WE?
Victor
 
And by-the-way, as a postscript:
I said to my wife, Elaine, tonight, Is it possible that God is not the God of the masses but of the individual?
Victor
 

Is God omniscient or limited?

As the land and the sea have limits.
The Creator drew a circle on the face of the deep. See the C in the word Creator.P means peace in the word deep. A circle is a vision to not get lost in the differentials of peace.The alphabet is built on this, the cicle is the Ark, and where the alphbet extends is the Ark realm. See my first post to understand this language system.

Referance chapter 8 Proverbs of Solomon.
Request, write in color instead of black or gray writing methods, to advance from a dark method of writting words. Writting in black ink or fonts is a form of darkness as night is.
B=basis
 
I have not read anything prior to this post. What I would like to say is that first and foremost, if there were such a thing as God, then this supposed God is limited to great lengths. For one, God must not have a sense of humor. If it does, then it must not be very funny. For what God finds funny, we find cruel, unusual and down right ignorant.

Another thing:
If God, knows all and is all powerful, then what is the point of our own exsistence? It obviously knows what the end result of our lives will be, so why the creation? This simple question of exsistence leads me to believe that God not only does not exsist, but if in fact it did, it is a cruel God that does not love and has no appearant feeling whatsoever. It is not the God you think created you, but a completely random machine that controls you and everything that you are. It may have created something that you evolved from, thereby creating you, but it did not have you in mind when it created, or when it was created. God is dead and died long ago. Human is the new God, we are Gods.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
God is what God is: don't you people read?

This is one of those questions that should not be asked.
It is, at best, foolish to presume to have a proper answer.

If you say God is omnicient then you limit God to an omnicient role.
If you say that God is limited then you reduce the definition, and the topic becomes (small 'g') "god."

It is true that man created "god," but "God" is a concept beyond understanding and therefore purely a matter of faith. :cool:
 
some people just have a problem with bowing to or respecting any authority. well that is life and everyone has to bow to something.

People who think/feel they are god (s) can talk a lot, but I see no answers on how they plan on resurecting themselves and how they made themsleves into this human person they are, and how is it they have no answers any farther than what we already know.
It is nothing new. Rome convinced people that Caesars were gods. Until it took a big belly flop and people wised up.
we are sure very limited god(s) if that is the case. we cant even stop the cold virus.

If we cant physically prove God or no God, then how does one turn around prove they are god?
I realize to a degree we are god(s) because we have a spirit but it is not the same as the God who made the spirit.

Cor6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
in other words, belongs to God possessive plural, that does not mean glorify ourselves.

To each there own, but I will stay with the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob whom I know, the one who made me in His image and likeness. What I lack, His grace is sufficient.
 
DrewJMore said:
God is what God is: don't you people read?

This is one of those questions that should not be asked.
It is, at best, foolish to presume to have a proper answer.

If you say God is omnicient then you limit God to an omnicient role.
If you say that God is limited then you reduce the definition, and the topic becomes (small 'g') "god."

It is true that man created "god," but "God" is a concept beyond understanding and therefore purely a matter of faith. :cool:
Click to expand...
However, the Bible says to "seek and you shall find, ask and you shall be answered, knock and the door shall be opened to you". It also say that we now know in part, but will then know in whole, we now see through a dark lens but will then see clearly.

Nope, near as I can figure it the only foolish question, is the one not asked. And here at the forum, ask whole lot of questions...:D

v/r

Q
 
DrewJMore said:
It is true that man created "god," but "God" is a concept beyond understanding and therefore purely a matter of faith.
===========
Any 'God' concept is a matter of personal faith, and cannot be demonstrated to be otherwise.
It arises, in my opinion, from the affective nature and nurture of the individual.
Believers in a God can only affirm what they personally validate.
That does not mean their claims are true or false. It only means that they affirm them.
Just because someone asserts there are Gods, or a monotheistic God, does not make it so of the universe as a demonstrable fact. It only means they affirm it is so, as a matter of faith.
Many religious people think that because they affirm their faith, it can be automatically shown to be 'true' and 'right' for others. That's why they often insist upon proselytising 'a' Faith.
History demonstrates that this Faith has never been true as a fact. That would be a contradiction of terms.

There is no demonstrable evidence that an Islamic, or Christian, or Jewish, or any other major religion's God is THE 'true' God.
Religious faith can only ever be a personally validated and affective concept... as I think Jesus of Nazareth pointed out in his own purported words. The seat of Faith is the heart (and 'soul'?) of the individual. There is no evidence beyond self, certainly not in the religious 'books'/texts so often cited as 'evidence'.
 
Indeed, but the same can be applied to other non-quantitative concepts. For example, we cannot say that there is such thing as "love" - just a bunch of people who can only affirm what they personally validate. :)
 
Or justice or hate or fear or anything.. Blue I was hoping you would come up with a different argument while you were away. :) It baffles me that someone doesnt have faith in anything.
 
Faithfulservant said:
Or justice or hate or fear or anything.. Blue I was hoping you would come up with a different argument while you were away. :) It baffles me that someone doesnt have faith in anything.
Click to expand...
Oh, Faithful...lol, he does have faith. He has faith that he can get a rise out of the likes of us. And you gotta admit, we're pretty faithful on that issue.

v/r

Q
 
simple yes Go is omniscient.
and to prove so he used that trait to give you a free choice
Quite a feat if you ask me Create a world that you are in complete control of
and then through your power introduce A plan giving us free choice that works
Boggles are mimd yet when his omniscients is axcepted it becomes alot clearer


Peace
 
Indeed, but the same can be applied to other non-quantitative concepts. For example, we cannot say that there is such thing as "love" - just a bunch of people who can only affirm what they personally validate.
====
You are absolutely right, Brian.
=====
Quahom:
I must deny the tenor of this:
"He has faith that he can get a rise out of the likes of us. "

All I ask is that reason and rationality play a part in what people assert is so of the material, or quantitative, as Brian says above, domain.

I have absolutely no intention of belittling peoples' personally affirmed spiritual faiths. If you have read what I have written, so often it seems, a person has every right to state their particular affective and personal concepts. What they do NOT have a right to, in my opinion, is declare them true in any universal, dogmatic sense of the quantitative, obejctive and material domain.
Further thay have no right to insist, or imply, that I, or anyone, believe something just because they assert it and SAY it is so, on no external and objective evidence. That is proselytising a faith and declaring it 'true' of all people in all places, at all times. They can do this... and do ... and it has in the past always resulted in religious disagreements, wars and human misery, historically.

Faith does not work like that. Some people just think it should, on a personal basis.

You see, there is nothing wrong with Basstian in the last post asserting that God is Omniscient. If Basstian wishes to affirm this and validate it for him/herself, that is fine. There is nothing wrong there, in my understanding of such assertions. As he says, it makes things clearer to him/her.

The only reason I would take issue with this, in such circumstances, is if Basstian had written that this actually was objectively true of the world and all its people, when in fact there is no evidence that his omniscient God is any different essentially from a Pagan conception of a God or Goddess that might be thought of as omniscient, or a God conceived by Hindus, or anyone else.

In fact, to declare such a belief as a true fact in the material domain, would be to insult Pagans, Hindus, and any other set of religious Deities/conceptions of an omniscient God. You would be simply declaring your 'God' IS superior.

My attitude is that ALL God-concepts should be respected for what they are: expressions of personal, affective 'beliefs' sincerely held and affirmed.

Finally, yet another misunderstanding by FaithfulServant:
"It baffles me that someone doesn't have faith in anything."

Don't be baffled, just because I do not go around asserting my personal Faith. Certainly don't assume I am 'faithless' in any particular areas of affective response.

I have great faith in people, my family, my children, my friends, colleagues and those who would call me 'enemy'. I have faith in my God.
I just do not believe in asserting my personal faith as if it is anything other than a personal aspect of my spirituality.

I do hope you understand this point, FaithfulServant? I am true to all that I write and explain... patently and clearly and honestly. If was an atheist, I would declare it.

All I ask of anyone is not to confuse personal affective responses as concepts of truth beyond themselves, recognising their assertions for what they are - personal, and have a due regard for the balance and integrity of most human beings who ultilise reason and logic in their thinking and do NOT see human beings as incapable of exercising both the affective responses and the cognitive in the materially logical and objective domain.

We should always try to keep a balance of heart and mind. Allowing either one to dominate is fatal.

People find their own pathway to any particular God, if that is what they wish to do.

:)
 
If God exists, or if god does not exist; if God is omniscient or if god is limited; only God knows. We do not and we will not, have this knowledge until we pass from this material existence. In the traverse from this material world to the next, whether it be a spiritual experience or absolute nothingness, an answer will be forthcoming! If we pass out of existence into oblivion, it really won't matter.

My personal belief, as Blue has so well stated, is personal and self-contained. I am well aware of Blue's spiritual base and I find it as acceptible as my own. In fact, it may allow him a broader perspective to work from since my relationship with the God of my knowledge is restriced. why? Because it is so extremely intimate. My God is a living entity.The Deity is accepted by myself, a living-soul; spiritually, religiously, intellectually, and scientifically. I have no problem with The Creator on any of these levels.

And sometimes I actually consider that God (if you wish to consider that God does exist) may embrace the agnostic and the antheist simply becuse they are not tampering with some far out human concept of The Deity's nature! What a relief for God!

In the end, believer or not, I think that we are all in for a very big surprise!
I am, as always, your servant in the Living Christ;
Victor
 
I like the tiger, Victor!

Thanks for such a clear analysis, and the reference to my own views.

You are quite right, but miss one point you might have forseen... In fact, there is a litle jealousy within me that says to believe as you do, must be rather wonderful.

I can rationalise that envy I recognise in myself, of your personal understandings, but then I read how, delightfully, you still leave the matter open by suggesting we may all be in for a big surprise - or not!

All I can really respond with is admiration for your wisdom, Victor, for so it appears to me.

:)
 
Blue said:
Quahom:
I must deny the tenor of this:
"He has faith that he can get a rise out of the likes of us. "

All I ask is that reason and rationality play a part in what people assert is so of the material, or quantitative, as Brian says above, domain...
Click to expand...
Dear Blue,

Have you not gotten us to think, ask questions, step off our "comfortable" center of balance, and ponder the what might be, and what if? Were you not confident that your arguments were logical and persuasive? Yes.

I stand by my statement. And the tenor is amused reflection (plus a little head shaking) :D

v/r

Q
 
"I stand by my statement. And the tenor is amused reflection (plus a little head shaking) "
====================================

I think I objected there to the term 'rise', and still do.
I have no such intention at all. :)

If I get people to think, I have done a good job in my own eyes.

There is too much blind acceptance of the supernatural and insistence that metaphysical concepts are in fact some kind of physicality to be examined in the material domain.
When people see that proselytising in any way shape or form is wrong, my task will be complete. Reason will have triumphed.

When there is no longer a need to object to proselytising, because there are no longer any 'Gods' to proselytise for, and when cruelties are no longer visited upon the unbelievers anywhere in the world, my 'mission' will be complete.... lol

As a specie, we are far too proud, too confused by different metaphysical conceptions of deities, and we need humility to see that we are of little consequence in the scheme of things such as it may be perceived as a 'scheme'.

We are just rather laughable as a specie that has scarcely existed in geological and astronomical time frames. We are proud enough to conceive that we are important. We have not existed for more than a minute in the total lifetime of this planet, a thirdrate speck in a minor galaxy, yet we dare to say we can speak for a 'God' or 'Gods' or that we KNOW what a 'God' thinks or desires! If that is not overweaning pride, I don't what is!

If there is a 'God' I would guess, He, She or It is laughing.
If there is a 'God', why on earth would he, she or it be interested in an upstart specie like ourselves. I guess again, that He, She or It doesn't really care at all, comforting as the idea of a 'caring God' might be to us.

My irrationality is actually to be a theist and have a kind of 'God' concept, as you can see.
Like Professor Flew I 'see' it in the micro and macro aspects of the perceived complexity of the universe, in which the more we know the more we realise what we do not know! What an exciting journey that is!

As Professor Flew has recently said, he has not been converted to a belief in 'A' God ... he simply sees the infinite complexity as evidence perhaps of some form of intelligence, or over-riding principle, a long way from our puny understanding. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top