Does God FORGET???

[writer]

Paid-for sin doesn't deserve to be either known, or remembered doesn't change Gods unchangeable nature of Omnsicience.
It changes from your definition of "God's unchangeable nature of Omniscience." In other words: God's, His book's, definition's different than yours. God duzn't not know sin. He purposely erases sin confessed to Him thru forgiveness (1 Jn 1:9; Jer 31)

Name once that the bible was changed? Okay, how about my favorite. The name Lucifer appears once in the bible in the book of Isaiah which was written in Hebrew. But Lucifer is a latin word. The original text reads "How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning".
wuz this poster serious? Translation a 'change' of the Bible only cuz it's translation!
Is not, nor should be, any other change

Jesus was not God.
To the contrary: God is Jesus, who is God

The Son does not make this claim.
The Son makes this claim (Jn 8:58; 10:30-38; 20:28-29; etc)

He preached about His Father.
Including that He lived in His Father and His Father lived in Him. That They're 2 in 1

Why do you believe He lied?
I believe u, sir, do, in this instance

There is only one God.
Who became man. Hence: God-Man

Jesus stopped the woman from being stoned to death and preached forgiveness, not because there was a bold shift in attitude and thinking from God or His Son but because forgiveness is the truth and always has been.
God's always been. But God's not always been man. One day He became one. Who preached forgiveness, accomplished redemption, and boldly so because He was incarnate

God never punished anyone,
To the contrary: what child of His is without discipline? Heb 12

He did not create the devil,
He created the Day-star, Lucifer (Ezek 28; Isa 14). Altho very correct that Lucifer's sin's his own

regardless of what the bible, the pope, or any church preaches, God does not kill.
Regardless o' whut u, the pope, or any church preaches: God so loved u that He gave His only begotten Son, even unto death, and that the death of a cross, that u can believe into Him, and have Him, as eternal life

 

[Fluffy]

In other words, as soon as we say that God is omnipotent (or all-powerful), the pointless question arises, "Can God create a stone that is too big for Him to lift?" Regardless of whether you answer with a "yes" or a "no," God's supposed "omnipotence" is proven false.

Actually, I believe there is a third possibility. The argument that you have referenced is usually put forward as a question but that is very poor form. The argument looks like this:

1. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything.
2. Therefore God can create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift
3. By definition, this stone cannot be lifted by God and therefore this is something that God cannot do.
4. Therefore God cannot be omnipotent.

To which I put forward the fairly simple counter argument:
1. "the ability to do anything" means that nothing can limit God including logic
2. The above argument attempts to limit God via logic
3. This invalidates its own premise since it must redefine omnipotence into something that it is not, namely that omnipotence can be limited by logic whilst simultaneously utilising the converse definition and so the conclusion cannot follow.

When we say that God is "omnipresent," we are faced with having to explain how an omnipresent being can move, since movement can occur only when there are boundaries against which said movement can be measured. When we say He is omniscient, the question of free-will versus determinism immediately comes up.

If we accept that God is omnipotent and that omnipotent means the ability to do anything including that which is logically impossible then any argument that attempts to limit God, including these two, are moot. Of course we do run into more difficulty if we reject God's omnipotence.

Thus, from my point of view, we ought to stick to what the scriptures themselves say about God's attributes and not try to find one-word catch-all labels that will inevitably fall short of describing Him.

Whilst I appreciate that it is easier for the theist to avoid these problem terms, the above arguments can easily be applied to other adjectives such as "all knowing" and "almighty" and when these arguments were first suggested, these were the words used not omniscient or omnipotent. Then of course it comes down to a matter of translation. For example, according to www.biblegateway.com there are 48 references to God with the adjective "almighty" in the OT and 9 in the NT. It also uses the adjective omnipotent once:

And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

I didn't know that's how we were defining it. That's part of the problem. When someone uses a word like "omniscient" when what they actually mean to say is "having inifinite understanding" and then goes on to quote a verse that describes God simply as "infinite," how is anyone but the poster to know what he was thinking?

Actually the verse in question, Psalm 147:5, states "Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite." according to the KJV. The adjective "infinite" is designated to "his understanding" not to "our Lord" and therefore describe's God's understanding as infinite not God as infinite.

Now the argument might go as follows:
1. In order to understand something, knowledge is required
2. Therefore in order to have an infinite understanding, a being must have infinite knowledge
3. The definition of omniscience is possessing infinite knowledge
4. Therefore, in order for a being to have an infinite understanding, he must also be omniscient (read have infinite knowledge)

 

[Genna]

That is an excellent post Fluffy!!!

 

[Katzpur]

That is an excellent post Fluffy!!!

It sure is. See, Genna, we found something to agree on.

 

[may]

I don't want some to feel as if I am attacking Christianity, I am here to learn religion. According to the immutable nature of God, He is OMNISCIENT and thus knows all things, this is a nature of God which cannot be altered in any way according to many Christians. For example "all things are possible with God," however God's immutable nature says that He CANNOT LIE, therefore lying is IMPOSSIBLE for God because of His immutable nature. Since Omniscience is one of Gods immutable attiributes, can someone please explain how the God of Christianity FORGETS?

Hebrews 8:12 - For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Hebrews 10:17 - And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

Jeremiah 31:34 - And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Psalms 103:12 - As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

Micah 7:19: “He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.”

hmmm...

he forgets because he chooses to forget.

 

[writer]

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything.
"Omnipotence" is a person, the Almighty. Omnipotence isn't the ability to violate Himself

Therefore God can create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift
Therefore God cannot create a stone that's too heavy for Him to lift. Since God's neither a liar nor can He violate Himself

By definition, this stone cannot be lifted by God and therefore this is something that God cannot do.
By definition: thas false argument

Therefore God cannot be omnipotent.
And we can see who stands up: either God or the argument against Him

"the ability to do anything" means that nothing can limit God including logic
God limits God. He can't deny Himself (2 Tim 2:13; 1 Tim 3:15-16)

The above argument attempts to limit God via logic
Which's both fruitless 'n silly. As much as suggestin God's subject to sin or knowledge of sin

This invalidates its own premise since it must redefine omnipotence into something that it is not, namely that omnipotence can be limited by logic whilst simultaneously utilising the converse definition and so the conclusion cannot follow.
God both was, is, and will, follow (Ex 3:14-15; Gen 2:4; Jn 8:24, 28, 58; 18:6; Rv 1:4-8; 22:12-13, 20-21)

 

[Fluffy]

Thanks very much to Genna and Kathryn, I appreciate it .

Heya writer,

1. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything.
"Omnipotence" is a person, the Almighty. Omnipotence isn't the ability to violate Himself

It is true that the word "omnipotence" can be used to mean various things. However, the argument I gave above was with reference to a hypothetical demiurge as opposed to the Christian god. It is an argument that could be applied to the Christian god if the definitions used in it were accepted it. Now that opens up a whole other barrel of trouble because then you can no longer simply say "lets analyse the internal consistency of the following attributes" since you are forced into saying "lets find out what scripture says about God, agree on an interpretation and only then analyse the internal consistence of those attributes". I was by no means trying to imply that the argument I gave was or wasn't supported by scripture although I will say it is supported by some interpretations.

Having said that, the point you raise here is a completely semantic issue. It does not really matter how anybody else uses the term "omnipotent", just as long as they understand that in that argument, I am defining "omnipotent" to mean a certain thing. If you like I can simply replace "omnipotence" with "the ability to do anything including that which is logically impossible" and then any arguments about the word chosen are immediatly avoided.

2. Therefore God can create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift
Therefore God cannot create a stone that's too heavy for Him to lift. Since God's neither a liar nor can He violate Himself

If you wish to come to that conclusion then you must accept that God is not able to do the logically impossible. If you look at some of my other posts on this thread, I have been very clear that this is not only a possibility but the majority position on the issue.

3. By definition, this stone cannot be lifted by God and therefore this is something that God cannot do.
By definition: that argument's false

However, what you have not done is show that the argument is false. What you have show is that if we also assume that the demiurge cannot contradict logic then he cannot contradict logic but that is no great feat of reason.

4. Therefore God cannot be omnipotent.
And we can see who stands up: either God or the argument against Him

Firstly, this isn't an argument against God. Secondly, I put that argument up so that I could demonstrate why it is logically false. You have only shown it to be false as long as we accept an extra unsupported premise. If we reject that premise, the argument stands.

1. "the ability to do anything" means that nothing can limit God including logic
God limits God. He can't deny Himself (2 Tim 2:13; 1 Tim 3:15-16)

Fair enough. I am not trying to say that the Christian god is omnipotent. I am saying that the ability to do the logically impossible can be shown to be internally consistent.

2. The above argument attempts to limit God via logic
Which's both fruitless, self-deceived, arrogant, and laffable. As much as suggestin God's subject to sin or the knowledge of sin

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

3. This invalidates its own premise since it must redefine omnipotence into something that it is not, namely that omnipotence can be limited by logic whilst simultaneously utilising the converse definition and so the conclusion cannot follow.
God both was, is, and will follow (Ex 3:14-15; Gen 2:4; Jn 8:24, 28, 58; 18:6; Rv 1:4-8; 22:12-13, 20-21)

Follow what exactly?

 

[ProfLogic]

Sure it forgets, it even forgot that it created te earth billions of years ago....

By the way it can not fortell the future either....

 

[may]

Sure it forgets, it even forgot that it created te earth billions of years ago....

By the way it can not fortell the future either....

"I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images.​

"The first things—here they have come, but new things I am telling out. Before they begin to spring up, I cause YOU people to hear [them]."Isaiah 42;8-9
the One telling from the beginning the finale, and from long ago the things that have not been done; the One saying, ‘My own counsel will stand, and everything that is my delight I shall do’; Isaiah 46;10
(Isaiah 55:11) so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it.
But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 timothy 3;1 what ever God says will happen ,will come to be .
"In the last days there will come ridiculers."—2 PETER 3:3

 

[writer]

87 ...a hypothetical demiurge...
What's a hypothetical demiurge?

It is an argument that could be applied to the Christian god
Christians define God as their God, and there bein only One

you can no longer simply say "lets analyse the internal consistency of the following attributes"...
i dis'gree, cuz i thought you Were talkin about God, and i applied your logic or argument-example Without makin it depend on Scripture. I only quoted the Scripture i quoted in the last part as an illustration of what i was saying. Not as the basis i applied your example

since you are forced into saying "lets find out what scripture says about God, agree on an interpretation...
Like i say: i wasn't tryin to force that. I was just illustratin what u and i said by what words Paul (etc) also happened to say

If you like I can simply replace "omnipotence" with "the ability to do anything including that which is logically impossible" and then any arguments about the word chosen are immediatly avoided.
The reason i disagree with that's cuz i was definin omnipotence by He who has it. Not by somethin separate from Himself. Since, even if we think we can conceptualize it, in reality it duzn't exist apart from the One who has/is all-powerful. Capice? In other words: while our words might not be real. God is

If you wish to come to that conclusion then you must accept that God is not able to do the logically impossible. If you look at some of my other posts on this thread, I have been very clear that this is not only a possibility but the majority position on the issue.
Then we 'gree: God cant violate, logically or otherwise, God

I put that argument up so that I could demonstrate why it is logically false. You have only shown it to be false as long as we accept an extra unsupported premise. If we reject that premise, the argument stands
To the contrary: i agreed w/ u; and also showed that no argument's the equal of God. Which isn't a premise, nor unsupported. But rather's a conclusion. Thanks

I am saying that the ability to do the logically impossible can be shown to be internally consistent.
guess we're back to disagreein

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
No pologies necessary. I was pointin out that the highest and ultimate Logic is God Himself

Follow what exactly?
Himself. As u mention: 'Jehovah, He is'
Thanks