Theology Club: How Omniscient is God?

[Bright Raven]

you're assuming that He made all of time within seven days?

It's a literal interpretation of what the bible says isn't it, Genesis 1-2:3?

 

[Lighthouse]

It's a literal interpretation of what the bible says isn't it, Genesis 1-2:3?

No. The literal interpretation of said passage is only that He created the Earth and the initial organisms that then reproduced to get us to where we are today. There is nothing about the creation of all existence throughout time in said passage.

Also, said passage states He created in six days. He rested on the seventh.

Your argument pretty much assumes He never stopped resting.

 

[Bright Raven]

No. The literal interpretation of said passage is only that He created the Earth and the initial organisms that then reproduced to get us to where we are today. There is nothing about the creation of all existence throughout time in said passage.

Also, said passage states He created in six days. He rested on the seventh.

Your argument pretty much assumes He never stopped resting.

And where did I say He didn't rest? If I did, my bad. He made it all in six. Genesis 2:2-3 specifically states that He rested after the creation.

 

[Lighthouse]

And where did I say He didn't rest? If I did, my bad. He made it all in six. Genesis 2:2-3 specifically states that He rested after the creation.

You didn't necessarily state it, but your post seemed to ignore it. That is all.

 

[Bright Raven]

Do you believe that God can make mistakes because He does not know the entirety of the future?

 

[Lighthouse]

Do you believe that God can make mistakes because He does not know the entirety of the future?

I believe God doesn't need to know the entirety of the future to avoid such things. He is sovereign and knows all He needs to know to perform His unbending will.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

Interesting thought.

When you say 'time is sequential' presumably you mean events happen sequentially.
And presumably you also mean that for God events don't happen sequentially, which would be the same as saying that events all happen at once, which would in turn be the same as saying that no events happen at all, which would be tantamount to saying nothing happens.

You've made an error in logic in your argument. That means you don't know what you're talking about. Try again. Presumption has no place in a logical argument.

 

[chairistotle]

You've made an error in logic in your argument. That means you don't know what you're talking about. Try again. Presumption has no place in a logical argument.

If events can happen "sequentially" and "not sequentially," and we assume the term "sequential" to be used in the same sense, there is a blatant contradiction present.

The presence of the word "presume" only indicates that there may be a misunderstanding of the prior argument. You jumping on that term and not the meat of the argument shows that you have no authority to declare what is or is not logical.

 

[Desert Reign]

You've made an error in logic in your argument. That means you don't know what you're talking about. Try again. Presumption has no place in a logical argument.

Chairistotle has answered exactly. 'Presumably' was an invitation for the original poster to confirm or deny. Why don't you have a go yourself? However, before you do, consider that the original poster actually agreed with me (if you read on), that the idea that God was not in time was problematical. And he didn't need to tell me that I didn't know what I was talking about either.

'Your faith has made you well.' - Jesus.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

If events can happen "sequentially" and "not sequentially," and we assume the term "sequential" to be used in the same sense, there is a blatant contradiction present.

The presence of the word "presume" only indicates that there may be a misunderstanding of the prior argument. You jumping on that term and not the meat of the argument shows that you have no authority to declare what is or is not logical.

The argument assumes God is bound by the dimension He created, viz. the 4th dimension. Since God is outside of time, the whole argument and yours crumbles into meaningless drivel.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

Chairistotle has answered exactly. 'Presumably' was an invitation for the original poster to confirm or deny. Why don't you have a go yourself? However, before you do, consider that the original poster actually agreed with me (if you read on), that the idea that God was not in time was problematical. And he didn't need to tell me that I didn't know what I was talking about either.

'Your faith has made you well.' - Jesus.

When the word presume was inserted in what could have been a logical argument, or at least it appeared so, the whole argument fell apart. God in or out of time is not problematical, which is another error in logic. Start with a statement of fact we can agree on. Start with every cause has an effect, or every effect has a cause. When you get down to the subatomic level, there are effects which appear random. But are they really? Isn't our intellect falling short and one day subatomic physics will find a cause for this effect? If we concentrate on causal relations we can see, working backwards, we see God as the prime mover. We see the beginning of the universe. God spoke and it was, the Big Bang.

 

[Bright Raven]

I believe God doesn't need to know the entirety of the future to avoid such things. He is sovereign and knows all He needs to know to perform His unbending will.

I don't believe that that answers the question. I think it can be answered with a plain yes or no.

 

[Desert Reign]

When the word presume was inserted in what could have been a logical argument, or at least it appeared so, the whole argument fell apart. God in or out of time is not problematical, which is another error in logic. Start with a statement of fact we can agree on. Start with every cause has an effect, or every effect has a cause. When you get down to the subatomic level, there are effects which appear random. But are they really? Isn't our intellect falling short and one day subatomic physics will find a cause for this effect? If we concentrate on causal relations we can see, working backwards, we see God as the prime mover. We see the beginning of the universe. God spoke and it was, the Big Bang.

Next time, try listening. I hope you find someone else to talk to.

 

[Lighthouse]

The argument assumes God is bound by the dimension He created, viz. the 4th dimension. Since God is outside of time, the whole argument and yours crumbles into meaningless drivel.

No, you are assuming time was created.

And you have no Scripture to back up the idea it was created, nor that God is outside of it.

Time is an attribute of existence, and since God exists time exists as a result.

I don't believe that that answers the question. I think it can be answered with a plain yes or no.

God makes it clear He does not know that which has not yet happened, outside of His definite plans.

 

[chairistotle]

The argument assumes God is bound by the dimension He created, viz. the 4th dimension. Since God is outside of time, the whole argument and yours crumbles into meaningless drivel.

1) It's not my argument. You are not reading very carefully.

2) Until one can define what it means to be "outside of time" then the proposition is meaningless. Good argumentation would show what it means for God to be "outside of time" and exactly how that relates to the earlier arguments.

3) Your use of the term "meaningless drivel" is designed to cause an emotional response. A good debater only uses sarcasm to highlight a portion of an argument that clearly ought to resound with its target. Your use of it here leaves me scratching my head mostly because of point 1. Does being obnoxious make you feel better or some such?

 

[chairistotle]

When the word presume was inserted in what could have been a logical argument, or at least it appeared so, the whole argument fell apart.

No. It Didn't. I was able, quite apart from the word "presume" to see clearly what the meat of the argument was.

God in or out of time is not problematical, which is another error in logic.

Both propositions are meaningless until defined.

Start with a statement of fact we can agree on. Start with every cause has an effect, or every effect has a cause. When you get down to the subatomic level, there are effects which appear random. But are they really? Isn't our intellect falling short and one day subatomic physics will find a cause for this effect? If we concentrate on causal relations we can see, working backwards, we see God as the prime mover. We see the beginning of the universe. God spoke and it was, the Big Bang.

If God is the Prime Mover, as Aquinas building off Aristotle argued, then he is not the God of the Bible. They are, by definition, not the same entity. But this is entirely outside the scope of the argument and nowhere near the question being asked and answered. There is a thread already devoted to the Cosmological argument, the Kalam version of it anyway.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

Genesis 1:1, in the beginning, indicates that there was a beginning, and that God already existed. You can also look at God's name, I am, which leads you to the same conclusion.

Posted from the TOL App!

 

[Lighthouse]

Genesis 1:1, in the beginning, indicates that there was a beginning, and that God already existed. You can also look at God's name, I am, which leads you to the same conclusion.

No one is arguing that there was not a beginning. The issue here is whether or not time was an attribute of God's existence before the beginning of creation.

"Before time" is an oxymoron.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

No one is arguing that there was not a beginning. The issue here is whether or not time was an attribute of God's existence before the beginning of creation.

Time is a created dimension so it would be impossible for God to create something that would limit His ability. The premise that time is an attribute of God is nonsense.

"Before time" is an oxymoron.

Only someone with a limited understanding Big Bang physics and the unfolding of the eleven dimensions would think of "before time" as an oxymoron. That doesn't mean that someone is incapable of a deeper understanding, but maybe they just haven't tried or found the necessary resources.

 

[fivesense]

The argument assumes God is bound by the dimension He created, viz. the 4th dimension. Since God is outside of time, the whole argument and yours crumbles into meaningless drivel.

God is not outside of time. Such a notion should be put to rest if believing what He said mattered.

Lk 20:38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

He dwells in the present, not the past, not the future. He is ever-present here and now. He remembers things, a situation that requires realtime existence. It is a preposterous idea that God does not exist in time, when He is continually here, moment to moment.

It is insanity to believe He exists "somewhere" other than here and now.