On the omniscience of God

[CCoburn]

Are you a Christian? (Real question.)

If so, then I recommend that you start to think biblically rather than materialistically. Sure, there is plenty about God that we can learn from observing His creation but not nearly what is available to us through the Bible, which, if you're a Christian, you understand to be God's book.

Take the issue of omniscience, for example. The bible does not teach that God is omniscient. Aristotle taught that God is omniscient and Augustine imported the idea into Christian doctrine from the Classics but it isn't what God teaches us about Himself in His book. The bible teaches us that God knows what He wants to know of that information that is knowable. Of course, it doesn't teach that explicitly, so don't ask me for chapter and verse because there isn't one but it is clear from several passages that the word "omniscient" in the Classical sense, does not apply to the God of scripture.

Also, the concept of 'knowledge' is not an anthropomorphism. Virtually everything alive that isn't some sort of microbe has some form of knowledge. Even pure instinct is a form of knowledge. Not only that, but God could not have created the universe if He didn't have real actual knowledge, not only of what He wanted to create but of how to create it. All purposeful action is preceded by meaningful thought.

No, I'm not much into labels really, theist appears misunderstood, so I call myself a deist (like Einstein) and I don't agree with applying gender to a primordial god as you have, and the point I was making with anthropomorphisms is that it is relative to human consciousness whereas God would be considered more of an absolute with appropriate attributions thereof.

 

[Clete]

No, I'm not much into labels really,

I haven't read a single syllable past that comma (you'll just have to take my word for it) but I'd bet my last dime that you won't finish this sentence without assigning a label to yourself.

theist appears misunderstood, so I call myself a deist (like Einstein)

HA!! I promise! I really hadn't read past the comma!

Why do people so habitually contradict themselves in this way? Are they really so dumb that they don't see it?

And what's the matter with labels anyway? They're just one of the most useful tools of language that exists and its not as if there isn't a label that fits you, so why be afraid of using it? It's also not as if anyone is going to be surprised if there's some aspect of your beliefs that fall outside any particular label. There's probably 10,000 flavors of Christianity but the label of "Christian" still has very significant meaning that applies to most anyone who finds themselves adhering to any one of those 10,000 varieties.

How about the label "human"? Do you like that label?

How many different labels can we think of that you wouldn't dream of objecting too...

CCoburn is...

• Living
• Intelligent
• Mortal
• English speaking
• American (this is an educated guess...plug in whatever nationality works)
• Biological
• Male (or female)
• Earthling
• Primate
• Warm blooded
• etc.

You can't avoid labels is the point here. If you actively try to avoid them there's another label that fits...

• Stupid

and I don't agree with applying gender to a primordial god as you have,

I don't care what you agree with. Your opinion means absolutely nothing to me whatsoever and has no bearing at all on what is and isn't true.
What I'm interested in is what you can make an argument for, which I'd wager is little or nothing at all when it comes to God. You seem to simply believe whatever you want to believe.

and the point I was making with anthropomorphisms is that it is relative to human consciousness

You couldn't explain to me what "relative to human consciousness" means if your life depended on it.

As for calling "God has knowledge" an anthropomorphism, it just isn't a correct use of the term! Do you think its an anthropomorphism to say that your dog knows how to fetch or that a chimpanzee knows that a fig is good to eat? No! God either has knowlege or he doesn't. It has nothing to do with knowledge being a trait of human beings.

God either exists or He does not. He either created the universe or He did not.
If He did not created the universe then nothing about the universe would tell us anything about god whatsoever and there'd be no reason to believe He exists at all.
If He did create the universe then He exists AND is not only intelligent but wise!
The idea of a god without knowledge is therefore a contradiction.
Therefore God has knowledge because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.
QED

And that's to say nothing of the fact that, if God didn't have knowledge, you wouldn't either. The very fact that you're reading this sentence is tacit proof not only that God exists but that He is intelligent.

whereas God would be considered more of an absolute with appropriate attributions thereof.

In other words, you want to strip any word of any rational meaning before using it to describe your god.

No so? Then prove me wrong.

Give me an example of one of your god's attributes and tell me what it means.

Clete

 

[CCoburn]

Give me an example of one of your god's attributes and tell me what it means.

Self-begotten

God is not eternally existing, but rather, eternally recurring. It ceases and begets its own existence. In my understanding this accomplishes a couple of things that might otherwise be a problem. The universe (time and space) is reset to an initial zero-point parameter which resolves the problem of infinite regression, temporally, and one no longer need try and wrap their head around an infinite spatial medium.

 

[Clete]

Self-begotten

God is not eternally existing, but rather, eternally recurring. It ceases and begets its own existence. In my understanding this accomplishes a couple of things that might otherwise be a problem. The universe (time and space) is reset to an initial zero-point parameter which resolves the problem of infinite regression, temporally, and one no longer need try and wrap their head around an infinite spatial medium.

Well, I have to admit that this is better than I expected. You're far ahead of most who show up here saying the sorts of things you've been saying. The vast majority never bother to acknowledge that the question was ever asked, much less actually offer an answer.

This, however, does not solve the problems you seem to think it does. I'm not even sure how it is possible for anyone to think it would solve them. On the contrary, it creates way more problems and doesn't solve any! Think it through...

Lets say god (small g since we're talking about a god you've just made up out of whole clothe) begat himself and them, some eons later, this suicidal god decided it was time to "cease his own existence". Okay, so now this god does not exist to be able to beget himself again. Seems like a problem.

You might say that he begets himself the 2nd time the same way he did the first, to which I would say that not only do you have the problem of a non-existent thing doing something but you've just reintroduced the infinite regression problem that this silly idea was supposed to have fixed for you in the first place.

It gets even worse when you throw in resetting space and time to "an initial zero-point parameter". If this god wipes out time when he wipes out himself then when does he re-beget himself? See the problem?
You cannot reset time and space to a zero parameter. The whole idea makes no sense because time and space do not exist except as ideas. Time is not a thing, it is a concept, it is a convention of language that we use to convey information about the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. Likewise, space is also simply a concept that is used to convey information about the location and motion of objects relative to other objects. Neither space nor time has any ontological existence and so cannot be "reset". All one has to do to prove this is to ask the question, "Where is he who reset space and time and when did he do it?"

So, I'm going to give you the clue that you've missed. If you follow this single truth and allow it to rule your mind with an iron fist, you will eventually (probably sooner rather than later) become a Christian. The extent to which you don't become a Christian is the extent to which you failed to adhere to it. No, I'm not kidding.

Ready?

That which is irrational is false.

That's it! That's the whole secret. If you simply reject, as false, any truth claim which is irrational, you'll save yourself from buying into nonsense like "a non-existent god begat himself" and you'll begin to live in the real world that was created by a real God.

 

[CCoburn]

This, however, does not solve the problems you seem to think it does. I'm not even sure how it is possible for anyone to think it would solve them. On the contrary, it creates way more problems and doesn't solve any! Think it through...

I disagree with the notion that "that which is irrational is false". Reason, as well as space and time, were created, or emerged, from 'nothing', which means that all of those can be regressed to a beginning, but not a first beginning; an infinite chain of beginnings backwards and forwards. That which is without beginning or end - the definition of eternity.

Let me counter your aforementioned quote with one of my own for now, and I will get back to more of this later :

(The ultimate) Truth transcends reason.

 

[Right Divider]

I disagree with the notion that "that which is irrational is false".

I disagree with you.

Reason, as well as space and time, were created, or emerged, from 'nothing', which means that all of those can be regressed to a beginning, but not a first beginning; an infinite chain of beginnings backwards and forwards. That which is without beginning or end - the definition of eternity.

That is extremely silly.

Let me counter your aforementioned quote with one of my own for now, and I will get back to more of this later :

(The ultimate) Truth transcends reason.

The ultimate Truth is God.

 

[Clete]

I disagree with the notion that "that which is irrational is false".

Then you're an idiot. You might have stated with equal validity that, "I can not utter a word in English."

No truth claim can be falsified in any way other than sound reason - period.

If sound reason doesn't work, no knowledge is possible.

Reason, as well as space and time, were created, or emerged, from 'nothing',

This is not only false its stupidity. And I mean, by definition, stupidity!

First of all, God (i.e. the real one) is Reason! (John 1:1) and, space and time are not created things, they are ideas. They DO NOT exists outside a thinking (i.e. a rational) mind!

which means that all of those can be regressed to a beginning, but not a first beginning; an infinite chain of beginnings backwards and forwards. That which is without beginning or end - the definition of eternity.

As I said, your silly ideas that are supposed to somehow solve the so called infinite regress problem only achieve the goal of reasserting that exact problem.

The bottom line is simply that anything that has a beginning has a cause. That much you seem to have correct. Why anyone would think multiple beginnings would solve your problem is anyone's guess. But then, if you don't have to be rational, you don't need to make sense!

Let me counter your aforementioned quote with one of my own for now, and I will get back to more of this later :

(The ultimate) Truth transcends reason.

It wasn't a quote and your offering is stupidity. Literal stupidity.

Have you ever heard of a stolen concept fallacy? You should look it up because anything that remotely resembles "Truth transcends reason." is the biggest mouthful of stupidity that anyone older than 6 can possibly utter in the English language!

There isn't any such thing as truth apart from reason! There isn't any way to determine whether something is true or not without using reason to do it.

The word "truth" simply means "consistent". Consistent with what? you might ask. Well, it depends on the context. If you've laid tile in your bathroom and the tiles are laid "true" then that means that you've laid them in such a way that they are consistent with each other and usually also with something else, like a wall or the edge of the bath tub. If you're using the term in a metaphysical sense then what you saying is that a particular claim is consistent with reality.
What does it mean then to be consistent with reality?
Reality is what it is. This is the law of identity and is the bedrock bottom foundational truth of all knowledge. The law of identity has two corollaries that form the laws of reason. They are as follows...

Law of identity: What is, is. A is A.
Law of Excluded Middle: A truth claim is either true or it is false. (given a particular context)
Law of Contradiction: Any two truth claims that contradict each other cannot both be true. (given a particular context)

There can be no such thing as a truth that "transcends" these precepts because the very claim that it transcends it is itself a truth claim that is either true or it is false, thus no matter how you try, these precepts emerge. They are quite inescapable and totally irrefragable. The harder you try, the more stupid you become because any claim that begins to assert that logic and reason do not apply, must use logic and reason to make the assertion and the claim is thus self-defeating and therefore false.

 

[CCoburn]

If sound reason doesn't work, no knowledge is possible.

Very good, which is exactly why a certain butterfly has remained so elusive, for so long, although, with a bit of sustained perseverance among other things which may or may not be needed (but at least helpful) one may see it through to the end and complete the model. Reason is never abandoned, only augmented as part of a superset that I have come to refer as transcendental reasoning.

First of all, God (i.e. the real one) is Reason! (John 1:1) and, space and time are not created things, they are ideas. They DO NOT exists outside a thinking (i.e. a rational) mind!

I suppose I can agree with that, and maybe take it a step further. The emergence of God IS the emergence of "reason" and everything else; before that it was chaos. The actuality of reality and the way it is perceived aren't exactly the same thing. I am inclined to say that all is mind; that all is a mental menagerie created within the mind of the primordial. I don't believe it took fourteen billion years just to manifest a star system that includes Earth, but apparently the universe has at least been evolving and manifesting other things for that long approximately nine billion years prior to Earth.

As I said, your silly ideas that are supposed to somehow solve the so called infinite regress problem only achieve the goal of reasserting that exact problem.

Infinite regression still remains a thing but of a different manner, and there really is no way around that if you believe in eternity. In lieu of infinite regression as it pertains to a temporal/spatial medium, the problem of infinite regression has now been transferred to an acausal continuum where it is impossible to traverse physically from one acausal manifestation to the one before due to infinitesimally brief (non-time) periods of non-existence, it is true however, that there was something before this, and something before that, ad infintum.

Infinite regression as it relates to an unbroken spacetime continuum versus an acausal continuum where there exists nothing between each of an infinite array of manifestations, or, universes.

These replies do seem to be deviating from the initial topic; I don't have problem with it, but if it continues I suppose some could be relocated or whatever, or not - certain inquiries are causing deviations in which a wider scope would be more appropriate.

 

[Clete]

Very good, which is exactly why a certain butterfly has remained so elusive, for so long, although, with a bit of sustained perseverance among other things which may or may not be needed (but at least helpful) one may see it through to the end and complete the model. Reason is never abandoned, only augmented as part of a superset that I have come to refer as transcendental reasoning.

Meaningless, self-contradictory gibberish.

By what means is reason "augmented"?

I suppose I can agree with that, and maybe take it a step further. The emergence of God IS the emergence of "reason" and everything else; before that it was chaos.

There was no before God! Are you incapable of saying even one sentence that doesn't contradict your own stated beliefs?!

The actuality of reality and the way it is perceived aren't exactly the same thing. I am inclined to say that all is mind; that all is a mental menagerie created within the mind of the primordial.

Mindless stupidity.

I don't believe it took fourteen billion years just to manifest a star system that includes Earth, but apparently the universe has at least been evolving and manifesting other things for that long approximately nine billion years prior to Earth.

Nonsense.

Infinite regression still remains a thing but of a different manner, and there really is no way around that if you believe in eternity.

Then why accept this nonsense about your made up god destroying and then recreating himself?

In lieu of infinite regression as it pertains to a temporal/spatial medium, the problem of infinite regression has now been transferred to an acausal continuum where it is impossible to traverse physically from one acausal manifestation to the one before due to infinitesimally brief (non-time) periods of non-existence, it is true however, that there was something before this, and something before that, ad infintum.

How can anyone believe such idiotic nonsense? I mean, seriously! You can't even state it without openly contradicting yourself so blatantly that you see it yourself and thus feel the need to add the parenthetical "(non-time)" smack in the middle of it!
Time is NOT A THING!!!! It is a concept! If something happens either before, during or after something else then that's time! That's all time is! If you discuss some event relative to some other event then you've employed the concept of time and if you do so while trying to discuss "non-time" then you're contradicting yourself. If you think that such contradiction doesn't prove your statements false then that means you're stupid. You might as well just forget trying to figure anything out and simply believe whatever willy-nilly thing you want to believe, which, of course, is what you're doing.

Infinite regression as it relates to an unbroken spacetime continuum versus an acausal continuum where there exists nothing between each of an infinite array of manifestations, or, universes.

That was not a sentence and that word "between" is a time and space word!

I'm not kidding. You are fully

These replies do seem to be deviating from the initial topic; I don't have problem with it, but if it continues I suppose some could be relocated or whatever, or not - certain inquiries are causing deviations in which a wider scope would be more appropriate.

I am responding directly and specifically to you. No one else need read my posts. If you'd prefer, start a separate thread but so long as its just you and I then it still seems to me to be just a rabbit trail and the disruption to this thread is minimal.

Clete

 

[7djengo7]

No, I'm not much into labels really, theist appears misunderstood, so I call myself a deist (like Einstein) and I don't agree with applying gender to a primordial god as you have, and the point I was making with anthropomorphisms is that it is relative to human consciousness whereas God would be considered more of an absolute with appropriate attributions thereof.

Hey Einstein, what's your avatar? Is that a character from Despicable Me?

 

[7djengo7]

Infinite regression as it relates to an unbroken spacetime continuum versus an acausal continuum where there exists nothing between each of an infinite array of manifestations, or, universes.

With all due respect, I think what you're missing is that, in order for an acausal continuum to first need to relate to an infinite array of manifestations, we would have to have a regession where there resists (not exists, as you so eruditely yet mistakenly suppose) nothing between continuum and regression. Otherwise you will never even begin to solve the quantification gap inconsistencies which would inevitably arise due to the coalescence of a myriad of intrinsic/extrinsic factors of ubiquitous desalination error quotients.

Trust me. Or, if you don't want to just take my word for it, feel free to peruse a transcript of the math I used to reach this conclusion:

 

[JudgeRightly]

With all due respect, I think what you're missing is that, in order for an acausal continuum to first need to relate to an infinite array of manifestations, we would have to have a regession where there resists (not exists, as you so eruditely yet mistakenly suppose) nothing between continuum and regression. Otherwise you will never even begin to solve the quantification gap inconsistencies which would inevitably arise due to the coalescence of a myriad of intrinsic/extrinsic factors of ubiquitous desalination error quotients.

Trust me. Or, if you don't want to just take my word for it, feel free to peruse a transcript of the math I used to reach this conclusion:

 

[7djengo7]

I am inclined to say that all is mind

At approximately what angle?

 

[7djengo7]

That is gold!

 

[CCoburn]

With all due respect, I think what you're missing is that, in order for an acausal continuum to first need to relate to an infinite array of manifestations, we would have to have a regression where there resists (not exists, as you so eruditely yet mistakenly suppose) nothing between continuum and regression. Otherwise you will never even begin to solve the quantification gap inconsistencies which would inevitably arise due to the coalescence of a myriad of intrinsic/extrinsic factors of ubiquitous desalination error quotients.

I call it "nothing", and I can only speculate as to what it is. It's maybe like Yin and Yang at a most fundamental level : something and nothing; positive existence and negative existence; an ungoverned existential parameter that operates as a function of the acausal and is the cause for everything.

It's pretty much a fork in the road that resolves to a logical tautology : either there is a thing that is eternal, or there is not a thing that is eternal, but either way, something is happening so I conclude it's always been happening. Didn't God say "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end." I'm not really much into bible study, but if the shoe fits.

When it comes to certain things, reason just puts you in circles or leads you to a wall, so there must be some truth that outlines a process of the ineffable that goes beyond reason, so, let the name calling resume. I've been doing the forum thing for a while now; not much bothers me anymore. I'm just a scribe who's compelled to write stuff.

Edit : oh wait, never mind, that was the other guy

 

[Clete]

I call it "nothing", and I can only speculate as to what it is. It's maybe like Yin and Yang at a most fundamental level : something and nothing; positive existence and negative existence; an ungoverned existential parameter that operates as a function of the acausal and is the cause for everything.

It's pretty much a fork in the road that resolves to a logical tautology : either there is a thing that is eternal, or there is not a thing that is eternal, but either way, something is happening so I conclude it's always been happening. Didn't God say "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end." I'm not really much into bible study, but if the shoe fits.

When it comes to certain things, reason just puts you in circles or leads you to a wall, so there must be some truth that outlines a process of the ineffable that goes beyond reason, so, let the name calling resume. I've been doing the forum thing for a while now; not much bothers me anymore. I'm just a scribe who's compelled to write stuff.

Edit : oh wait, never mind, that was the other guy

Can you not see that whatever led to the conclusion, "there must be some truth that outlines a process of the ineffable that goes beyond reason" was itself an attempt as using the very thing you just stated "leads you into a wall"? The conclusion, "there must be some truth that outlines a process of the ineffable that goes beyond reason" IS the wall you just led yourself into! Only it wasn't logic that did that, it was your false premises and poor use of logic!

Without reason there can be no truth. Without the law of contradiction there is no line between "true" and "false". It is reason itself that gives the term "truth" its meaning. I wasn't kidding before about your need to look up what a stolen concept fallacy is. Since you almost certainly won't do it on your own, I'll just tell you what it is. A stolen concept fallacy happens when you deny the validity of one concept while using another concept that is based on the concept you've tried to invalidate. "All private property is theft." is a great example. The concept of theft is predicated upon the concept of private property and so trying to undermine the idea of private property by calling it theft, is to "steel" the concept of theft.
Likewise, the statement "there must be some truth that goes beyond reason" steels the concept of "truth" because it uses that concept but denies the parent concept of "reason".

Lastly, take a look for second at your first sentence....

"I call it "nothing", and I can only speculate as to what it is."

How is it even partially possible that anyone can utter such an openly contradictory statement and not immediately stop themselves, realizing that they've made a mistake? "Nothing" and "what it is" cannot co-exist, CCoburn! The question, "What is nothing?" answers itself! The moment you begin talking about "nothing" as though it was something you can know you're no longer talking about anything real. It isn't a fork in the road it's the rabbit hole that you go down to meet the Mad Hatter!

Please, please stop and just think! You are attempting to undermine the only thing that allows you to think in the first place! You're trying to use your mind to disarm yourself of the only tool that your mind can use! You are trying to tear apart your own ability to know anything and you've convinced yourself its wisdom!

Wake up! All that is contradictory is false! All that is irrational is fantasy! Take the red pill, not the blue one!

 

[Right Divider]

steel -> steal

 

[JudgeRightly]

I would like to point out irrational numbers (numbers that are not real)...

For example, √-1 = (1, -1). The square root of a negative number (mathematical symbol 'i') is irrational, not real, but very important in the world of electronics engineering (where the symbol is 'j', since 'i' is used for current).

 

[Derf]

I would like to point out irrational numbers (numbers that are not real)...

For example, √-1 = (1, -1). The square root of a negative number (mathematical symbol 'i') is irrational, not real, but very important in the world of electronics engineering (where the symbol is 'j', since 'i' is used for current).

That's a different meaning for "rational".

 

[Clete]

steel -> steal

Argh! I make that error all the time!