Omniscience means fatalism.

[quip]

It is no more than a word to convey a meaning. The word itself is prominent, but the meaning can and does change with language and custom. The meaning of this word has remained close to its sound and shape. Compare that to words like 'trip' , 'heavy', 'gay' , 'freak'

We may only grapple with this unfathomable concept by way of its (comprehensible) antithesis. We understand and fear our fragile, exisistential limitations thus we seek and find solace within its opposing apotheosis; one specifically projected as perfect, eternal and boundless. A concept replete with all the understanding and attributes we conspicuously fall well short of and can never fully comprehend.

 

[George Affleck]

If an entity is omniscient, that means it knows everything — down to the movement of every subatomic particle throughout all history.

This is not omniscience. You are inferring predetermination must attend omniscience as it's logical outcome. But you are doing this from a non-omniscient viewpoint.

Fatalism necessarily involves passage of time; event following linear event in predetermined fashion.
Omniscience does not speak to the subject of time at all. It only speaks about unlimited knowledge.
Time or knowledge restrictions play no part in anything to do with God, unless He chooses to accommodate Himself to His creatures.

 

[blackbirdking]

No you wouldn't. How could you blame a page of ink??? Even if it were the person who wrote it, did he/she have ANYTHING to do with it? More, what if it was a result of global warming 'we' caused? I appreciate you walking through this, the entertainment of ideas, and more, the way the scriptures portray these matters is meaningful to me, and I pray for you as well.

If the Almanac created the storm and the recipients of the storm, then predicted accurately what would happen, the almanac would be more than "a page of ink".
Do you really believe that if an almanac could create a storm and then predict what that storm would do, that the almanac would in no way be responsible for the outcome?

It's about knowledge (omniscience).

What does the following statement mean?
"If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death".

If the Creator of man knew the future of man (that which didn't exist except in the 'mind of the Creator'), then wrote the above law explaining how man is to love man, then holds the killed man responsible for his own death, and calls it "very good" (agreeable with His own character), we can know something about His character; that He doesn't love man the way He tells man to love man.

It looks like you believe that the One who wrote Exodus 21:29, actually punishes the man who was gored to death.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

We may only grapple with this unfathomable concept by way of its (comprehensible) antithesis. We understand and fear our fragile, exisistential limitations thus we seek and find solace within its opposing apotheosis; one specifically projected as perfect, eternal and boundless. A concept replete with all the understanding and attributes we conspicuously fall well short of and can never fully comprehend.

Where did you pick up this 'verbose fortune cookie' with such a 'hodge-podge' of words?

 

[quip]

Where did you pick up this 'verbose fortune cookie' with such a 'hodge-podge' of words?

Ok. For you GM, I'll dumb it down:
You seek perfection because, at the very least GM, you see yourself as weak, limited (sinful) and isolated in a universe you cannot understand, control nor fully grasp. Thus, you project and transform these insecurities into and onto "omniscience"....a comfortabe proxy for your state of uncomfortable ignorance.

 

[George Affleck]

To an immortal God, a thousand years is like a day is to a man: a short period of time.

This comment is not meant to be confrontational.

If we leave out one side of this verse, we end up with an unbalanced understanding of God/time.
2Pe 3:8KJV

The purpose of this verse is not a formula or to explain how God deals with time, but rather that God is not affected by time. It is a construct for our benefit within our limitations.

 

[MennoSota]

If the Almanac created the storm and the recipients of the storm, then predicted accurately what would happen, the almanac would be more than "a page of ink".
Do you really believe that if an almanac could create a storm and then predict what that storm would do, that the almanac would in no way be responsible for the outcome?

It's about knowledge (omniscience).

What does the following statement mean?
"If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death".

If the Creator of man knew the future of man (that which didn't exist except in the 'mind of the Creator'), then wrote the above law explaining how man is to love man, then holds the killed man responsible for his own death, and calls it "very good" (agreeable with His own character), we can know something about His character; that He doesn't love man the way He tells man to love man.

It looks like you believe that the One who wrote Exodus 21:29, actually punishes the man who was gored to death.

That's a really poor analogy.
God created perfectly. God knew that man would choose to sin and thereby introduce corruption to humanity and the entire universe. God, in His omniscience also knew that this corruption would be the means by which He expressed grace, a part of His character that was not revealed in creation. Grace is something the angels struggle to understand. They are not offered grace.
God never reveals to humans the reasons why He ordained that corruption would enter into His creation. He is not obligated to reveal this.
We are left with two options as exhibited by Job and his wife. (See Job 2) We can:
1) Curse God and die.
2) Give thanks to God when he brings the good and the bad upon our lives.
For me, I thank God for His ordained storms as well as His ordained sunshine.

 

[blackbirdking]

That's a new one. You'd be fine with being created to be damned? I sense you're making a point but you might want to expand on it a bit.

If...; you left that out.

Ha Ha, it'd be like me saying to my wife before she was my wife, "I'd go to hell for you if you will marry me!".

I was simply amplifying my display of confidence in what God does/is because of @Lon; he feels the same way.

It might be different if I thought God really did that; however, I don't believe He created anyone knowing that the individual was damned.

 

[Lon]

If the Almanac created the storm and the recipients of the storm, then predicted accurately what would happen, the almanac would be more than "a page of ink".
Do you really believe that if an almanac could create a storm and then predict what that storm would do, that the almanac would in no way be responsible for the outcome?

"Could" verses 'did' are two different concepts, though. I have a gun and 'could' have used one poorly, but that doesn't mean if someone is dead by my gun, that I'm the culprit. I'm not sure if this answers you sufficiently, because I'm not altogether catching what your are saying about culpability. Maybe you mean that God is responsible, unlike an Almanac? I'm not quite catching what you mean.

It's about knowledge (omniscience).

What does the following statement mean?
"If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death".

Was God negligent when the Serpent entered the Garden? :think:
I'd think the only way an owner of a bull could have actually had prior knowledge, is if the bull had gored and/or killed before. Killing the bull would likely always be the rule in Israel. How could they ever get to level 2 of having to stone the owner? The bull would already be dead, right?

IIf the Creator of man knew the future of man (that which didn't exist except in the 'mind of the Creator'), then wrote the above law explaining how man is to love man, then holds the killed man responsible for his own death, and calls it "very good" (agreeable with His own character), we can know something about His character; that He doesn't love man the way He tells man to love man.

There are a number of ifs that don't and didn't happen in the real world. One of those is 'very good' unless I'm missing something (if you could please elaborate, thanks).

IIt looks like you believe that the One who wrote Exodus 21:29, actually punishes the man who was gored to death.

You mean because He knew the man would be gored? First, as I said, the first rule takes care of the second. The man would have to have stopped the killing of the bull, so he'd already be on thin ice, so to speak. If the scriptures were followed, A takes care of B from ever happening, if you follow. Next, God gave the remedy, so regardless of knowledge, it is man's duty to follow instructions at that point.

I know somehow this leads to definite foreknowledge being problematic, but I'm not quite grasping the point. Appreciate your input. -Lon

 

[Lon]

That's a new one. You'd be fine with being created to be damned? I sense you're making a point but you might want to expand on it a bit.

I think it is a 'confidence' statement at that point, not in appearances, but in the trustworthiness, character, and flawlessness of God ("even if He slay me, yet I will trust in Him").

 

[Rosenritter]

By His grace.
With no effort from myself, God reached down and made me alive in Christ.
My life verse: Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

So with no effort, you willed to pick up your cross and follow Jesus?

Matthew 16:24 KJV(24) Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

As Jesus describes this it seems that there is a bit of effort involved.

 

[MennoSota]

So with no effort, you willed to pick up your cross and follow Jesus?

Matthew 16:24 KJV(24) Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

As Jesus describes this it seems that there is a bit of effort involved.

What did I say? Have you no comprehension at all?

With no effort from myself, God reached down and made me alive in Christ.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Ok. For you GM, I'll dumb it down:
You seek perfection because, at the very least GM, you see yourself as weak, limited (sinful) and isolated in a universe you cannot understand, control nor fully grasp. Thus, you project and transform these insecurities into and onto "omniscience"....a comfortabe proxy for your state of uncomfortable ignorance.

I knew you were a Buddhist, however, I never realized you could peer into the minds of your fellow posters. When did you receive this superhuman ability? And, did it come by normal means or something beyond space and time?

 

[quip]

I knew you were a Buddhist, however, I never realized you could peer into the minds of your fellow posters. When did you receive this superhuman ability? And, did it come by normal means or something beyond space and time?

Superhuman huh? Quite the revealing tell... :think:
Though certainly not necessary!

I could dumb it down more for you...but I've a "superhuman" :chuckle: feeling it would still be a wasted effort.

 

[Hawkins]

Omniscience only means God knows whatever His will wants to know. It is subject to His omnipotence to ignore whatever His will doesn't want to know.

Moreover time axis itself is a human concept. There is not necessarily time from God's perspective. Past, now and future as a concept is only applicable to humans. God can jump in at any point of time to know the status.

His freewill can choose to live by our time reference. I believe that He spent a lot of "time" with us by living by our time reference in order to stay with us.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

No. If you were correct, you could boast about how YOUR faith caused God to be gracious because YOUR faith was so great.
Grace would not be grave if you accessed it by your own works. Thus you don't preach salvation by grace. Instead you preach salvation by the works of YOUR faith, apart from God's grace.
Romans 10 tells the elect to go and preach. Tell the good news so that those whom God has chosen to make alive will hear the good news and believe.
Dead men cannot believe.

Your ignorance is quite astounding. How do you do it?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Superhuman huh? Quite the revealing tell... :think:
Though certainly not necessary!

I could dumb it down more for you...but I've a "superhuman" :chuckle: feeling it would still be a wasted effort.

Well, then don't bother. :chuckle:

 

[genuineoriginal]

This comment is not meant to be confrontational.

If we leave out one side of this verse, we end up with an unbalanced understanding of God/time.
2Pe 3:8KJV

The purpose of this verse is not a formula or to explain how God deals with time, but rather that God is not affected by time. It is a construct for our benefit within our limitations.

2 Peter 3:8 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.​

One day is with the Lord as a thousand years: This is about God's ability.
God can do more in a day than mankind can do in a thousand years.
This is the meaning shown in the verse about what God will do at the end of the age.

2 Peter 3:10 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.​

and a thousand years as one day: This is about how God perceives the passing of time.
God is patient because to an eternal being a thousand years is a fleeting small amount of time.
This is the meaning shown in the verse about God's waiting.

2 Peter 3:9 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Omniscience only means God knows whatever His will wants to know. It is subject to His omnipotence to ignore whatever His will doesn't want to know.

Moreover time axis itself is a human concept. There is not necessarily time from God's perspective. Past, now and future as a concept is only applicable to humans. God can jump in at any point of time to know the status.

His freewill can choose to live by our time reference. I believe that He spent a lot of "time" with us by living by our time reference in order to stay with us.

These verses are problematic in every attempt to explain the omniscience of God.

Genesis 18:20-21 20 And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.​

 

[ok doser]

Superhuman huh? Quite the revealing tell... :think:
Though certainly not necessary!

I could dumb it down more for you...but I've a "superhuman" :chuckle: feeling it would still be a wasted effort.

maybe another bowl of Wheaties™ and you'll feel up to it