Questions for God

[siti]

You answered for God? That’s some ego you have there

Are you responding on his behalf?

 

[dybmh]

How do you know ─ and how does God know ─ that your statement is correct?

I can only report to you what the bible has written about it, and refer you to my first reply.

If you are asking about the God of the bible, as you stated, then, the answers to your questions are in the bible.

Your reply is merely a re-assertion of God's omniscience.

It is what is written in the bible. The bible asserts that God is omniscient, and, there is no paradox. God wouuld know if there was anything beyond its purview.

I'd say your first statement covers the other two.

Are all three correct? The goal should be to present a question which is clear. I think that the 2nd question brought is the most clear. "How does God know that there is not a corner of reality which is beyond its purview?"

Are all three of the questions equal? Do they all express the question you are asking? Which one most clearly describes your question. They way you phrased it, I suspect, was intentionally confusing.

"How does God know that there is not anything which it does not know?"

AND/OR

"How does God know that there is not a corner of reality which is beyond its purview?"

AND/OR

"How does God know that God, itself, is omniscient?"

Logic doesn't come into it?

That depends on the logical fault.

They don't suffice to explain what I'm asking. They merely assert.

Like I said in my second reply:

The questions are answered in scripture, but, it requires a human to articulate the explanation.

There are 2 steps in answering your questions:

1) Show the verses which assert the scope of God's knowledge
2) Explain what those verses mean, and why there is absolutley nothing which can be lacking from the scope of God's knowledge based on those verses.

Step 1 is required, and it is required to be first. You seem to be rejecting the bible as the authority on the God of the bible. You also seem to be assuming you know everything that is in the bible already, so you're not open to reading the verses I've brought. These are two insurrountable obstacles. At a certain point, you will need to temporarily set aside your skepticism in order to listen to the answer.

Then you will know the reasons for the claims of omniscience. After you have listened, and you understand them, then it makes sense to ignore them if they do not seem credible, or are not logical, or is not plausible. Or. After you have listened and understood, then it makes sense to attack the specific reasons for the claims.

But if you have not listened to the answer and you do not understand it, then, all you're doing is asking a provocative answer and assuming that it cannot possibly be answered without just cause.

 

[dybmh]

Here is a link to a recent post where the verses were brought which describe God as absolutley literally infinite and eternal. - LINK

@blü 2 , it looks like this link is broken. Here is a better one. I apologize.

God Being

can god be something more than itself?

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Because God is omniscient and knows everything.

He never really acts like He does.

 

[Bear Wild]

If the claim is that Odin (&c) is omniscient, then Odin needs to answer that question ─ as do any others for whom omniscience is claimed.

Good point. Odin is definitely not omniscient and never claimed omniscience at all.

 

[The Hammer]

Zzzzzzzzz....... God made chickens didn't he/she.

Therefore God knows everything there is to know. Chickens are the pinnacle of creation.

I agree.

All hail the mighty chicken.

 

[Bear Wild]

I agree.

All hail the mighty chicken.
View attachment 85529

It is the rooster that calls out for the sun to rise. That seems very god like.

 

[The Hammer]

It is the rooster that calls out for the sun to rise. That seems very god like.

 

[siti]

To assume the other beings, gods or otherwise, "know" things in the same way humans do when they are very much not human? Seems a bit silly to me.

Well, silly or not, how do you know that they don't know in the same way that we know?

Tree knowing isn't the same as Cat knowing which isn't the same as Ocean knowing which isn't the same as Storm knowing which isn't the same as Time knowing or Evolution knowing or Winter knowing.

Again, how do you know that? How do you know that "cat knowing" is fundamentally other than "human knowing"? How do you know it is not just a matter of 'scale' or 'complexity'.

Moreover, if "God" is "over all and through all and in all" (Ephesians 4:6) or includes all - as in pantheism or panentheism - wouldn't that suggest that "God" must "know" in exactly the same way as humans "know"...not that "God" is limited to that, but "his" "omniscience" must at least include a knowledge of what it is really like to be a human, to "know" exactly like a human...otherwise, as I am contending, omniscience is self-contradictory, because there is something "God" does not know.

 

[Quintessence]

Well, silly or not, how do you know that they don't know in the same way that we know?

It's not difficult to infer. When even humans don't know and understand things in the same way as each other, adding additional differences in nature or qualities magnifies those differences. Take Sun, for example. Sun is not even a biological organism and therefore lacks any sort of biological senses or biological nervous system associated with how humans process information. Therefore, the way Sun "knows" things - if it can be said to know things - will not be like it is for a biological organism, human or otherwise.

Again, how do you know that? How do you know that "cat knowing" is fundamentally other than "human knowing"? How do you know it is not just a matter of 'scale' or 'complexity'.

"Scale" and "complexity" is a pretty fundamental difference in manner of knowing. Surely you don't mean to suggest that an entity whose awareness, say, spans tens of thousands of years or the entire globe is somehow comparable to that of a single housecat?

Moreover, if "God" is "over all and through all and in all" (Ephesians 4:6) or includes all - as in pantheism or panentheism - wouldn't that suggest that "God" must "know" in exactly the same way as humans "know"...not that "God" is limited to that, but "his" "omniscience" must at least include a knowledge of what it is really like to be a human, to "know" exactly like a human...otherwise, as I am contending, omniscience is self-contradictory, because there is something "God" does not know.

If omnimax god knowings is not limited to the same way humans know, that's still fundamentally different than human knowings. Or did you mean to suggest that humans can actually understand reality on par with a hypothetical omnimax being in spite of themselves being incapable of omnimax knowledge given their limitations as biological organisms?

 

[dybmh]

If omnimax god knowings is not limited to the same way humans know, that's still fundamentally different than human knowings.

It possesses any and all "human knowings", but is not limited to only "human knowings".

It possesses any and all "Sun knowings", "Cat knowings", "Tree knowings".

It even possesses "Rock knowings" and "deceased knowings" aka "the knowings of a corpse". These are "empty knowings", but, it possesses the "vacuity of knowing" as well.

This is because it is creating all of those "knowings". It is even creating the "vacuity of knowing".

It does not lack anything; it does not lack "nothing" either.

 

[Quintessence]

It possesses any and all "human knowings", but is not limited to only "human knowings".

It possesses any and all "Sun knowings", "Cat knowings", "Tree knowings".

It even possesses "Rock knowings" and "deceased knowings" aka "the knowings of a corpse". These are "empty knowings", but, it possesses the "vacuity of knowing" as well.

This is because it is creating all of those "knowings". It is even creating the "vacuity of knowing".

It does not lack anything; it does not lack "nothing" either.

Not saying I believe your theology, but this is all more indication that an omnimax god knowing is extremely (and fundamentally) different than human knowings. Which is why I stand by my original point that attempting to comprehend omnimax god-concept in particular is a fool's errand.

 

[siti]

it possesses the "vacuity of knowing" as well.

Should fit in well around here then!

 

[siti]

It's not difficult to infer.

Indeed not. But to infer coherently is another matter.

"Scale" and "complexity" is a pretty fundamental difference in manner of knowing. Surely you don't mean to suggest that an entity whose awareness, say, spans tens of thousands of years or the entire globe is somehow comparable to that of a single housecat?

Scale and complexity are not fundamental differences, its the same thing only bigger, or the same thing only more complex. In the same way that "life" (whatever it is) is possessed by living organisms whether its a blue whale or an amoeba...fundamentally both have life, but they differ enormously in scale and complexity. So why can't it be the same with "knowing"?

And yes, I am suggesting that perhaps the "awareness" of the "pantheos" (if such an entity exists) would be (ought to be in principle - see next paragraph) comparable (at a fundamental level) to that of a single housecat...perhaps it would even be comparable (at a fundamental level) to that of a single electron. That is really the idea of "panpsychism" (or better IMO "panexperientialism")...

In defense of panexperientialism, I am suggesting that I only know for sure that I am experiencing the world (the FACT - not the content - of my experience)...it really doesn't matter for this argument whether I am actually experiencing the world or whether it is an illusion - I am still experiencing it. The fact that experience is happening I call "experientiality"...and it can only have happened in one of two ways...either it was there from the get go (moment of creation, beginning of the universe...whatever) and is an absolutely fundamental feature of our reality that has grown more and more complex with the evolution of the cosmos...or it somehow miraculously emerged at some level of complex reality. I am disinclined to believe in miracles so my guess is that it is an intrinsic aspect of reality...particles relate to one another and to their environment in a coherent manner and "behave" accordingly. A ball "knows" it is only allowed to actually "touch" a flat surface at one point at a time. As you scale up and get more and more complex relationships embedded in an organism, the kind of "knowing" that comes from being a housecat or a human emerges naturally, not miraculously, from that fundamental "knowing"...and the whole naturally, not miraculously, becomes more than the simple sum of its parts...

...and perhaps we (human organisms, human "collectives", human cultures) ARE the "global awareness" of a bigger entity - we are, as it were, the universe (or at least part of the universe) contemplating itself over tens of thousands of years (and counting).

 

[InChrist]

Where does the Tanakh say that this is a fallen world?

Certainly not in the Genesis Garden story, where there's absolutely zero mention of sin or fall (which is appropriate since Adam and Eve had been denied knowledge of good and evil hence were incapable of forming an intention to do wrong hence were incapable of sin.)

Yes I know Paul mentions it once, and that around 400 CE Augustine of Hippo made it popular, but it's not from the bible but from one particular midrash version in Alexandria late in the 2nd century BCE. Ezekiel 18 makes it emphatically clear that sin can't be inherited. And Jesus says nothing of the kind in any of the four gospels.)

Yes, Paul elaborates on the impact of sin in Romans. But the account in Genesis reveals that Adam and Eve lived in a beautiful garden environment; a paradise, even where animals lived without fear of each other or humans. They also enjoyed complete communion and fellowship with each other and their Creator God every day. Sin broke that relationship, they became aware of their sin, they were ashamed before God, and hid from Him (Gen. 3). As well, sin brought other negative consequences; pain, struggle to survive and eat, then jealousy, hate, and murder (Genesis 4).

 

[InChrist]

He never really acts like He does.

How would you know? if human knowledge is finite, but God’s knowledge is infinite, then His actions are in accordance with complete knowledge. It would be finite human knowledge that simply lacks full understanding.

 

[InChrist]

Right. So the perfect god made an error in his design.

Perhaps you could provide verse numbers for this revelation

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
Romans 5:12

 

[Trailblazer]

He doesn't know what it's like not to know something.

He doesn't know that through experience but he knows what it would be like [for humans] not to know everything.
God is All-knowing, so that means there is nothing that he doesn't know.

God knows all our thoughts and feelings, and he is closer to us than we are to our own selves.

 

[dybmh]

Not saying I believe your theology, but this is all more indication that an omnimax god knowing is extremely (and fundamentally) different than human knowings. Which is why I stand by my original point that attempting to comprehend omnimax god-concept in particular is a fool's errand.

I don't see why there is a problem with comprehending certain aspects of it as long as it is known that what is said is always incomplete. Why ignore the parts that can be known and and understood?

 

[F1fan]

Yes, Paul elaborates on the impact of sin in Romans.

Just as God designed.

But the account in Genesis reveals that Adam and Eve lived in a beautiful garden environment; a paradise, even where animals lived without fear of each other or humans. They also enjoyed complete communion and fellowship with each other and their Creator God every day.

Sounds great. Too bad God created it all with a major flaw.

Sin broke that relationship, they became aware of their sin, they were ashamed before God, and hid from Him (Gen. 3). As well, sin brought other negative consequences; pain, struggle to survive and eat, then jealousy, hate, and murder (Genesis 4).

Makes you wonder why God created Eden with sin being a consequence. Certainly God didn't have to, but did.