General Discussion

Apologetics and Theology

Read 12814 times

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
Is God Omniscient ?
« Reply #90 on: January 16, 2011, 07:12:07 pm »
Where Free Will is involved, 100% predictability is IMPOSSIBLE!

So prophecy about any human is impossible !  Great, that means that all the prophecy's in the bible that involve people are impossible!  When Jesus said that Peter would deny him three times, it was just a guess, because its impossible to predict human behavior ?

1

Randy Everist

  • ***
  • 1737 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Possible Worlds
Is God Omniscient ?
« Reply #91 on: January 16, 2011, 07:41:55 pm »

I will add this bit of helpful information: God's knowledge is a single, undivided intuition. It is conceptual, not perceptual, in nature. Once we realize that, any problems about future contingents and the knowledge of such goes away. As to the immortal thing, we've got to ask ourselves, in what way is X immortal? Physically, or logically? If X is immortal logically, then that is no different than saying that X's nonexistence is impossible, which is to say that X is a necessary being; a positive property to be sure! If physical, what does that even mean? It surely cannot simply be the lack of a property that we do have (which is essentially what being immortal means; we lack those properties which render us mortal). Here's a good way to think of it: a negative property is to lack it; which is to say when that property is categorized in such a being, we find "nothing." It is fallacious to reify nothingness. Therefore, it is fallacious to infer a property which is itself "nothing." If we argue this, we must argue that such a property is really something rather than nothing, so that this something is really the property of which we speak. OK I'm pretty much done; I hope that helps.

"Every great man was thought to be insane before he changed the world. Some never changed the world. They were just insane."

Check out my blog, "Possible Worlds," at http://www.randyeverist.com

2

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
Is God Omniscient ?
« Reply #92 on: January 16, 2011, 08:13:16 pm »
Yes, I understand what you are saying, but I think it sounds like a symantic game.

Immortal = positive property
Not immortal = negative property
Mortal = positive property

Not immortal = mortal.

This is why I say that it is semantics, because you can re-write, most if not all negative properties as positive properties.  So while I lack the property of being immortal, I posses the property of being mortal.

Its all in the wording.  I am not deifying nothingness by saying that I am not immortal, I am simply stating that I am mortal, I posses the qualities that make something mortal, and God posses the qualities that make something immortal.

If you want to go about the route that you are attempting to take here, there are many other things you must discard.  Impossible for one, would need to be given up, as it simply means "is not possible".  In this case, you are saying that it lacks the properties that make it possible, which, by your definition is reifying nothingness.

So on that note, a divine nature posses the property of knowing all things.  A human nature posses the property of knowing only some things.  Since you cannot know only some things, and all things at the same time, then the 2 are mutually exclusive. (you either know it all, or you don't know it all (you know some)  .

3

Randy Everist

  • ***
  • 1737 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Possible Worlds
Is God Omniscient ?
« Reply #93 on: January 16, 2011, 10:43:40 pm »
jbiemans wrote: Yes, I understand what you are saying, but I think it sounds like a symantic game.

Immortal = positive property
Not immortal = negative property
Mortal = positive property

Not immortal = mortal.

This is why I say that it is semantics, because you can re-write, most if not all negative properties as positive properties.  So while I lack the property of being immortal, I posses the property of being mortal.
Right, but you certainly don't possess the property of lacking the property of being immortal.

Its all in the wording.  I am not deifying nothingness by saying that I am not immortal, I am simply stating that I am mortal, I posses the qualities that make something mortal, and God posses the qualities that make something immortal.
In that case then, if you're describing something, by definition you are not describing a negative property. As you say, all negative properties have in actuality a positive property as their referent. Since you don't reify nothingness, then analytically you agree with me. Which I, for obvious reasons, find unobjectionable.

If you want to go about the route that you are attempting to take here, there are many other things you must discard.  Impossible for one, would need to be given up, as it simply means "is not possible".  In this case, you are saying that it lacks the properties that make it possible, which, by your definition is reifying nothingness.
Not at all! That is, I wouldn't say something that is impossible possesses any properties. Ex hypothesi, being impossible isn't a property, since a property is only something that a concept holds. But things that are impossible are not actual concepts, but mere imagination.

So on that note, a divine nature posses the property of knowing all things.  A human nature posses the property of knowing only some things.  Since you cannot know only some things, and all things at the same time, then the 2 are mutually exclusive. (you either know it all, or you don't know it all (you know some)  .

What do you mean by "you"? As far as I can tell, "you" only can mean "the person which is identified," "the human nature so identified," or "the divine nature so identified." Now if you'll re-read, you'll find we're simply rehashing. I'll leave it to you to reply and let me know which of these definitions you apply in your above sentences, and whether or not they hold consistent throughout the argument, and then what the necessary implications are (if any).

"Every great man was thought to be insane before he changed the world. Some never changed the world. They were just insane."

Check out my blog, "Possible Worlds," at http://www.randyeverist.com

4

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
Is God Omniscient ?
« Reply #94 on: January 17, 2011, 05:46:43 am »
Wow, I forgot how carefully I must choose my words sometimes:

"There is no person, that possesses any natures, that can both know only some things, and know all things at the same time".

That is the statement that I am making.

Imagine if I told you I only ate one piece of the cake and I ate the whole cake.  That statement is logically impossible.  If I only ate one piece, and I ate the whole cake, then the cake only consisted of one piece, therefore the first part of the sentence is redundant, or misleading, and it can be removed.  I can simply say that I ate the whole cake.

Or it is also like saying, I know everything about you, but I did not know that.  If that is the case, then I clearly did not know everything.

5

Cletus Nze

  • **
  • 490 Posts
    • View Profile
Is God Omniscient ?
« Reply #95 on: January 17, 2011, 07:02:45 am »
jbiemans wrote:
Where Free Will is involved, 100% predictability is IMPOSSIBLE!

So prophecy about any human is impossible !  Great, that means that all the prophecy's in the bible that involve people are impossible!  When Jesus said that Peter would deny him three times, it was just a guess, because its impossible to predict human behavior ?

When that human is COMMITTED to a particular direction of development, then prophecies CAN be made about him on that basis. The logic is no different from what obtains ordinarily. There is NO MAGIC in the way the Laws of God - the Laws of the Cosmos - work!

In the specific of Peter, and Judas earlier on, Jesus could CLEARLY see their inner attitudes and intentions which they wouldn't admit even to themselves - at least for a while. There was no magic involved. It wasn't even a miracle. What Jesus did there can be achieved by ANY good psychologist - or just carefully observant person. His greatness is NOT enhanced by spinning fanciful stories around His actions that are not in accord with the Divine (i.e. Natural) Laws. On the contrary!
Pursue Truth - with rigour and vigour!

6

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
Is God Omniscient ?
« Reply #96 on: January 17, 2011, 10:03:38 am »
There is NO MAGIC in the way the Laws of God - the Laws of the Cosmos - work!

So you reject all miracles, as they are violations of the laws of the cosmos ?

7

Randy Everist

  • ***
  • 1737 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Possible Worlds
Is God Omniscient ?
« Reply #97 on: January 17, 2011, 04:12:03 pm »
jbiemans wrote: Wow, I forgot how carefully I must choose my words sometimes:

"There is no person, that possesses any natures, that can both know only some things, and know all things at the same time".

That is the statement that I am making.
Ah I see. Well in that case, I have no reason to believe that statement unless I already believe Jesus cannot possess two separate natures. I see no reason why different properties cannot attend different natures, and thus we're back where we started.
"Every great man was thought to be insane before he changed the world. Some never changed the world. They were just insane."

Check out my blog, "Possible Worlds," at http://www.randyeverist.com

8

Dan Stewart

  • ***
  • 2068 Posts
    • View Profile
Is God Omniscient ?
« Reply #98 on: January 17, 2011, 05:15:35 pm »
jbiemans wrote:
Quote from: _CTD_
Does mankind know how to launch a satellite into outer  space? Yes. Does this mandate that every human being continually be  performing calculations on the thrusts and trajectories involved? No.

Some absurdities just aren't as funny as they should be.

Yes but "Mankind" is a collective.  Together we know much more then we know individually.  I do not see why your statement is absurd ?

Also is "mankind" was said to be omniscient, then it is impossible that there is not at least one member of mankind that did not know the information.  But you cannot say with any certainty that any member of "mankind", is omniscient even if the collective is.

It doesn't matter that mankind is "a collective". A man's body is "a collective" of cells.

The knowledge is either there or it isn't - that's what matters. According to the scoffer definition of 'know', knowledge is not possessed unless one is actively contemplating it 100% of the time. By that definition nobody knows anything.

So it is not God who is absurd after all. Big surprise!

Or is it simply a surprise that anyone can figure out the oh-so-clever riddle? Puh-leeze! Can you show me anyone who ever tried and failed? Even one case?
"P.S. Oct 22d. Hen. has taken your M.S. to London, & will write.— I have lately read Morley's Life of Voltaire & he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force & vigour of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow f

9

Dan Stewart

  • ***
  • 2068 Posts
    • View Profile
Is God Omniscient ?
« Reply #99 on: January 17, 2011, 05:33:00 pm »
Omniscience arguments are out of line.

There can only be two cases:
1. God is real
2. God is made up

If God is real, the misdefinition of terms is inappropriate; the proper terms & proper meanings should be employed to accurately describe God, to the best of our ability. Fail Satan.

If God is made up, it is the right of the individual inventing the make-believe thing to define it - not the right of another. Scoffers have no right to dictate what others are making up. The author gets to define the terms - not the scoffer.

So what we have is bogus in either case. The scoffer version of "omniscience" is self-contradictory. So what? WHAT in Scofferland isn't?

"P.S. Oct 22d. Hen. has taken your M.S. to London, & will write.— I have lately read Morley's Life of Voltaire & he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force & vigour of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow f

10

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
Is God Omniscient ?
« Reply #100 on: January 18, 2011, 05:23:42 am »
I thought of a good analogy for this concept this morning:

Imagine if I told you that my mini-van has 2 natures;

1) The nature of being a ford windstar
2) The nature of being a porche boxter.

Since both natures are in the body of the ford windstar, only the properties of the windstar nature can manifest, therefore things that are essential to the boxter nature are unable to manifest (speed, aerodynamics, fuel economy, convertable, etc.).  However once my windstar goes to the scrap yard, I can construct a new boxter body and place the boxter nature in that body allowing it to finally express its nature.

If that sounds silly, then maybe you can understand my problem with using that argument for Jesus.

11

Dan Stewart

  • ***
  • 2068 Posts
    • View Profile
Is God Omniscient ?
« Reply #101 on: January 18, 2011, 06:30:02 am »
jbiemans wrote: I thought of a good analogy for this concept this morning:

Imagine if I told you that my mini-van has 2 natures;

1) The nature of being a ford windstar
2) The nature of being a porche boxter.

Since both natures are in the body of the ford windstar, only the properties of the windstar nature can manifest, therefore things that are essential to the boxter nature are unable to manifest (speed, aerodynamics, fuel economy, convertable, etc.).  However once my windstar goes to the scrap yard, I can construct a new boxter body and place the boxter nature in that body allowing it to finally express its nature.

If that sounds silly, then maybe you can understand my problem with using that argument for Jesus.

And if it was maintained that God couldn't become a man, you'd argue that He wasn't omnipotent. If one said He didn't know how, you'd argue that He wasn't omniscient. I don't see your game as terribly clever.
"P.S. Oct 22d. Hen. has taken your M.S. to London, & will write.— I have lately read Morley's Life of Voltaire & he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force & vigour of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow f

12

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
Is God Omniscient ?
« Reply #102 on: January 18, 2011, 06:56:15 am »
And if it was maintained that God couldn't become a man, you'd argue that He wasn't omnipotent. If one said He didn't know how, you'd argue that He wasn't omniscient. I don't see your game as terribly clever.

Actually if you define omnipotent as having the potential to do anything logically possible, and God becoming man is logically impossible, then I see no contradiction with God being omnipotent and not becoming man.

13

Cletus Nze

  • **
  • 490 Posts
    • View Profile
Is God Omniscient ?
« Reply #103 on: January 18, 2011, 07:17:29 am »
jbiemans wrote: I thought of a good analogy for this concept this morning:

Imagine if I told you that my mini-van has 2 natures;

1) The nature of being a ford windstar
2) The nature of being a porche boxter.

Since both natures are in the body of the ford windstar, only the properties of the windstar nature can manifest, therefore things that are essential to the boxter nature are unable to manifest (speed, aerodynamics, fuel economy, convertable, etc.).  However once my windstar goes to the scrap yard, I can construct a new boxter body and place the boxter nature in that body allowing it to finally express its nature.

If that sounds silly, then maybe you can understand my problem with using that argument for Jesus.


No! It's more like Jesus had ONLY a Divine Nature but required a human TOOL to be able to work amongst human beings. Just as you are a human being but require an internet persona to be able to work on the internet. If this internet persona which identifies you on the internet becomes invalid for some reason - say it is de-activated - you will no longer be able to be active on the internet with it. That is all. Also, you can only be active with it to the extent that it has been granted access to resources at various locations on the internet. Naturally, you can try and hack your way in - but unless you actually disable or bypass the access control systems, thereby exposing them to other dangers and triggering alarms, you will not be able to access anything with that particular identity.

Of-course you can still access the internet using other personas.
Pursue Truth - with rigour and vigour!

14

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12686 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
Is God Omniscient ?
« Reply #104 on: January 18, 2011, 08:35:23 am »
Your looking at it backwards.  My internet persona has the same knowledge as I have.  It is impossible for me to know something and for my internet persona to not know the same thing.

What you are saying is like saying that my windstar really has a Porsche nature but it cannot express it because it is limited by being in the body of a windstar.  Rather then facing the simple truth, that it actually is a windstar.