Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
False. If something is undetectable to me, does it make it greater than me? No. So just because God may not be aware of some thing, does not mean that it is greater than Him. All of your other questions chain from this one, so they are they still relevant if this is false?Q1) If this premise can be attributed to God, then the "unknown factor" must be greater than God. t/f?
Meh. I've already agreed that the how of becoming aware of something is different from humans and that's all the second part of the definition talks about. Knowledge is still just the facts. Omniscience means God has all of them. We have less of them, and we acquire them in different ways. The definition doesn't say that knowledge is experiencing things, as you've been arguing.This does not help things. Dictionaries map common usage, which is not about God. As already noted, we cannot just apply common definitions to God. Proof of this is the fact that God does not acquire knowledge through experience or education, therefore according to the dictionary definition God does not have knowledge at all. You've proved my point.
I guess a being's ability to be aware of all spaces and to exist at all times isn't enough to know all that needs to be known, then? Oh deary me!
Let's suppose that our scientists have uncovered all the secrets of this space-time continuum. It certainly isn't unimaginable. So we would know everything there is to know about the universe. And still, we would by physically limited to go "beyond" it. We exist within this realm and it is the only realm that we can be aware of.Somehow, I'm under the impression that the biblical notion of God's nature is such that if there is something God doesn't know, it is because He has chosen to forgo knowing it for His own purposes and goals.
But, who knows if I'm right or not. Do you?
And how would you know that the same principles apply? I don't think that is the case, and I don't think you're thinking hard enough about the absurdity by which you posit these questions.Presumably, this god doesn't reside within this space-time continuum, yes?
That's kind of a logical conclusion, if we accept the premise that this god created said continuum.
So, wherever this god "exists", has to be on some plain of existance "outside" of this continuum, yes?
I'ld submit that as it pertains to this god and that plain of existance, the same principles would apply as any entity that resides in this plain of existance (= the space-time continuum).
...oh, here we go into the recursive loop of asking each other the questions which are impossible to answer. You might be mistaking me for a Christian who thinks that 'omni-attributes' are specifically meaningful. As I'm sure NV could tell you.....I'm a contrarian (as he puts it), so my thinking on these things isn't going to get bogged down with these vicious circles of questions.Who's to say that there isn't another realm "beyond" the one where this god resides?
How would this god know? It could be just as inaccessible to him as his realm of existence is to us.
I see a lot of 'could' in your hypothetical scenarios...which is what makes them hypothetical after all.He could be just as unaware of it like we are of his realm.
lol! Why would I suppose that. No, let's actually take that consideration up..........when it actually happens. (Good luck, Astro-physicists...!)Let's suppose that our scientists have uncovered all the secrets of this space-time continuum.
Since when does being imaginable make it possible or even probable?It certainly isn't unimaginable.
You've been watching to many of those youtube anti-god cartoons again. I too have seen that cartoon, and it is bunk.So we would know everything there is to know about the universe.
Let me know when we wake up so we can resume a real conversation..........And still, we would by physically limited to go "beyond" it.
Now you're saying something that makes sense.We exist within this realm and it is the only realm that we can be aware of.
The problem as I see it is that you can posit something on very flimsy hypothetical grounds, which is supposedly analogous to what 'us Christians' do (tuh, huh, tuh, huh...!)I don't see why God couldn't have that same problem, with respect to his realm of existance.
Yes, YOUR point exactly.Yes, the point exactly.
And how would you know that the same principles apply?
I don't think that is the case
, and I don't think you're thinking hard enough about the absurdity by which you posit these questions.
...oh, here we go into the recursive loop of asking each other the questions which are impossible to answer
I see a lot of 'could' in your hypothetical scenarios...which is what makes them hypothetical after all.
lol! Why would I suppose that
No, let's actually take that consideration up..........when it actually happens. (Good luck, Astro-physicists...!)
You've been watching to many of those youtube anti-god cartoons again. I too have seen that cartoon, and it is bunk.
The problem as I see it is that you can posit something on very flimsy hypothetical grounds,
Yes, YOUR point exactly.
Meh. I've already agreed that the how of becoming aware of something is different from humans and that's all the second part of the definition talks about. Knowledge is still just the facts. Omniscience means God has all of them. We have less of them, and we acquire them in different ways. The definition doesn't say that knowledge is experiencing things, as you've been arguing.
But aside from that it is arguable whether God gains knowledge through experience or not. Is this a fair statement to make?
God knows that I exist because He experiences my existence.
If not, how does He know that He knows I continue to exist? In other words, how does He confirm His own knowledge?
I don't have time for the whole thing at the moment, maybe later tonight, but just this part where I was explaining that we can discuss things in the abstract:
Then produce the argument you wanted, don't just tell me I've misrepresented you. The fact that you are incapable of producing the argument says a lot. Quotations marks demarcate the paraphrase, and are perfectly legitimate.
As before, I don't see any reason to believe that your claim of misrepresentation is even accurate:
Original Quote: "If we can imagine ways to possess awareness of something even if we cannot actually conceptualize those ways, then there is no reason to think that our discussion is limited by human understanding."
Paraphrase: "If we can imagine kinds of awareness we do not possess, then our understanding of awareness is not bound to a human context."
How exactly do you think that is a misrepresentation?
I'm bolding the pertinent parts. The limits of our discussion are not bound by our understanding of something in a human context. That says nothing about how we understand awareness.
Sure, "If X is a thing that God doesn't know exists, God can't say, 'I don't know that X exists'." That's true.
I was speaking theologically, not in the mode of 'quantum-mechanics.' The point I'm making is that we are UNCERTAIN as to what God 'IS'. We've tried to capture Him and quantify Him by conceptual means, usually through the use of 'omni-attribute' language. And I think that is a mistake. I don't play that language game.That's the entire point of the OP.
Why not?
What goes on "beyond" our space-time continuum, is bound to sound absurd to us.
Many things inside our space-time continuum are even absurd to us, simply because they exist beyond our day-to-day experience of reality.
Not in this context, it's not.Yes, the point of the OP.
Yes.... if there would be certainty instead, the OP would have no point.
Ironically, that is the point of uncertainty
exactly.For the sake of argument, obviously.
Just like I am, for the sake of argument, assuming that this god exists.
And now we know what games you're willing to play, don't we? Or....do we. I'm kind of uncertain at this point.Okay. Then let's be consistant and only take your god up for consideration when he can actually be shown to exist.
Thanks for playing.
That's ok. I'm not going to link it in.No idea what you are talking about.
Again, you're mistaking me for someone who thinks faith is something that can be specifically quantified and verified. Moreover, in my estimation, Christian Apologetics isn't so much for the purpose of 'convincing' others about any logic attributable to believing in Jesus, and my view on religious epistemology as it contextualize the human response of faith to God doesn't allow or afford us that superb luxury. (Notice: I don't say that 'faith' itself IS an epistemology--because it ain't!).........says the theist.
I'm not hiding any fact about the hypothetical nature of my own position; again, your mistaking me for someone that thinks faith should be completely quantifiable from the standpoint of logic and/or science. It's not. And I don't hide the fact that this is the case.At least, I'm not trying to hide the fact that I'm talking about hypotheticals.
NO, not really, the OP misses some nuances.Not "my" point. The point of the thread. And a good point, at that.
Real quick, to this. I don't think the first part is right. If God is outside of time, or timeless in some way, then the past tense isn't applicable. He doesn't remember creating me because it wasn't in the past for Him because "the past" is meaningless for Him. To the second part though too, is God incapable of creating a thing and then not personally maintaining it? It would seem that He can know a thing exists that He created without having to reference the fact that He is continuing to allow it to exist. Secondly, this answer seems to make His knowledge of my existence contingent on Him creating me, but that can't be it right? How does God know that God exists then?God knows that you exist because he created you. God knows that you continue to exist because he constantly creates you, or "conserves" you in existence.
How does God know that God exists then?
Real quick, to this. I don't think the first part is right. If God is outside of time, or timeless in some way, then the past tense isn't applicable. He doesn't remember creating me because it wasn't in the past for Him because "the past" is meaningless for Him.
To the second part though too, is God incapable of creating a thing and then not personally maintaining it?
It would seem that He can know a thing exists that He created without having to reference the fact that He is continuing to allow it to exist.
Secondly, this answer seems to make His knowledge of my existence contingent on Him creating me, but that can't be it right?
How does God know that God exists then?
All of your other questions chain from this one, so they are they still relevant if this is false?
That is a valid answer to my poorly phrased question, but what I was getting at was: can God create something that is self-reliant for it's own existence?God can create a thing and then allow it to cease to exist.
Because if it is contingent on Him continuing to keep me existing, then He is incapable of something, namely, that He is incapable of creating something that does not rely on Him to exist. Which would make Him less than omnipotent, which isn't really the problem posed in this thread, but interesting nonetheless.Why not?
Doesn't follow. If I was color blind, I couldn't see the color green. I wouldn't know "green" exists. It doesn't make green greater than me, and green certainly doesn't need to be sentient.Actually, if this Unknown Factor is not "greater" than God, much less does not possess sentience, than it cannot be "hidden" from God's knowledge because God is all creation.
God can't know if there is something that He is unaware of. Therefore, God cannot be omniscient, and no one can.
The question is, "how does God know that everything that exists is what He created?". The answer can't be as simple as, "because God created everything". That's just circular reasoning.
that He is incapable of creating something that does not rely on Him to exist.
If God is anything less than omniscient, does that not pose a pretty serious problem for the belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God to the extent that God told people exactly what to write?
If you were color blind, and no one ever told you there was anything other than shades of grey, and you had no way to conceptualize other colors, would you be correct to say, "color does not exist"? Of course not.
If so, we should be able to find something written in the Bible which is not right.
Have you ever found descriptions like that in the Bible? I tried for many years. So far, I failed completely.
In this example, the answer is: God is not color blind.
In fact, you can not see x-ray. God can.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?