Is God omniscient or limited? - Page 10

Blue · 01-31-2005, 04:49 PM

Indeed, but the same can be applied to other non-quantitative concepts. For example, we cannot say that there is such thing as "love" - just a bunch of people who can only affirm what they personally validate.
====
You are absolutely right, Brian.
=====
Quahom:
I must deny the tenor of this:
"He has faith that he can get a rise out of the likes of us. "

All I ask is that reason and rationality play a part in what people assert is so of the material, or quantitative, as Brian says above, domain.

I have absolutely no intention of belittling peoples' personally affirmed spiritual faiths. If you have read what I have written, so often it seems, a person has every right to state their particular affective and personal concepts. What they do NOT have a right to, in my opinion, is declare them true in any universal, dogmatic sense of the quantitative, obejctive and material domain.
Further thay have no right to insist, or imply, that I, or anyone, believe something just because they assert it and SAY it is so, on no external and objective evidence. That is proselytising a faith and declaring it 'true' of all people in all places, at all times. They can do this... and do ... and it has in the past always resulted in religious disagreements, wars and human misery, historically.

Faith does not work like that. Some people just think it should, on a personal basis.

You see, there is nothing wrong with Basstian in the last post asserting that God is Omniscient. If Basstian wishes to affirm this and validate it for him/herself, that is fine. There is nothing wrong there, in my understanding of such assertions. As he says, it makes things clearer to him/her.

The only reason I would take issue with this, in such circumstances, is if Basstian had written that this actually was objectively true of the world and all its people, when in fact there is no evidence that his omniscient God is any different essentially from a Pagan conception of a God or Goddess that might be thought of as omniscient, or a God conceived by Hindus, or anyone else.

In fact, to declare such a belief as a true fact in the material domain, would be to insult Pagans, Hindus, and any other set of religious Deities/conceptions of an omniscient God. You would be simply declaring your 'God' IS superior.

My attitude is that ALL God-concepts should be respected for what they are: expressions of personal, affective 'beliefs' sincerely held and affirmed.

Finally, yet another misunderstanding by FaithfulServant:
"It baffles me that someone doesn't have faith in anything."

Don't be baffled, just because I do not go around asserting my personal Faith. Certainly don't assume I am 'faithless' in any particular areas of affective response.

I have great faith in people, my family, my children, my friends, colleagues and those who would call me 'enemy'. I have faith in my God.
I just do not believe in asserting my personal faith as if it is anything other than a personal aspect of my spirituality.

I do hope you understand this point, FaithfulServant? I am true to all that I write and explain... patently and clearly and honestly. If was an atheist, I would declare it.

All I ask of anyone is not to confuse personal affective responses as concepts of truth beyond themselves, recognising their assertions for what they are - personal, and have a due regard for the balance and integrity of most human beings who ultilise reason and logic in their thinking and do NOT see human beings as incapable of exercising both the affective responses and the cognitive in the materially logical and objective domain.

We should always try to keep a balance of heart and mind. Allowing either one to dominate is fatal.

People find their own pathway to any particular God, if that is what they wish to do.

Victor · 01-31-2005, 06:24 PM

If God exists, or if god does not exist; if God is omniscient or if god is limited; only God knows. We do not and we will not, have this knowledge until we pass from this material existence. In the traverse from this material world to the next, whether it be a spiritual experience or absolute nothingness, an answer will be forthcoming! If we pass out of existence into oblivion, it really won't matter.

My personal belief, as Blue has so well stated, is personal and self-contained. I am well aware of Blue's spiritual base and I find it as acceptible as my own. In fact, it may allow him a broader perspective to work from since my relationship with the God of my knowledge is restriced. why? Because it is so extremely intimate. My God is a living entity.The Deity is accepted by myself, a living-soul; spiritually, religiously, intellectually, and scientifically. I have no problem with The Creator on any of these levels.

And sometimes I actually consider that God (if you wish to consider that God does exist) may embrace the agnostic and the antheist simply becuse they are not tampering with some far out human concept of The Deity's nature! What a relief for God!

In the end, believer or not, I think that we are all in for a very big surprise!
I am, as always, your servant in the Living Christ;
Victor

Blue · 02-02-2005, 06:01 PM

I like the tiger, Victor!

Thanks for such a clear analysis, and the reference to my own views.

You are quite right, but miss one point you might have forseen... In fact, there is a litle jealousy within me that says to believe as you do, must be rather wonderful.

I can rationalise that envy I recognise in myself, of your personal understandings, but then I read how, delightfully, you still leave the matter open by suggesting we may all be in for a big surprise - or not!

All I can really respond with is admiration for your wisdom, Victor, for so it appears to me.

Quahom1 · 02-03-2005, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue

Quahom:
I must deny the tenor of this:
"He has faith that he can get a rise out of the likes of us. "

All I ask is that reason and rationality play a part in what people assert is so of the material, or quantitative, as Brian says above, domain...

Dear Blue,

Have you not gotten us to think, ask questions, step off our "comfortable" center of balance, and ponder the what might be, and what if? Were you not confident that your arguments were logical and persuasive? Yes.

I stand by my statement. And the tenor is amused reflection (plus a little head shaking)

v/r

Q

Blue · 02-03-2005, 05:24 PM

"I stand by my statement. And the tenor is amused reflection (plus a little head shaking) "
====================================

I think I objected there to the term 'rise', and still do.
I have no such intention at all.

If I get people to think, I have done a good job in my own eyes.

There is too much blind acceptance of the supernatural and insistence that metaphysical concepts are in fact some kind of physicality to be examined in the material domain.
When people see that proselytising in any way shape or form is wrong, my task will be complete. Reason will have triumphed.

When there is no longer a need to object to proselytising, because there are no longer any 'Gods' to proselytise for, and when cruelties are no longer visited upon the unbelievers anywhere in the world, my 'mission' will be complete.... lol

As a specie, we are far too proud, too confused by different metaphysical conceptions of deities, and we need humility to see that we are of little consequence in the scheme of things such as it may be perceived as a 'scheme'.

We are just rather laughable as a specie that has scarcely existed in geological and astronomical time frames. We are proud enough to conceive that we are important. We have not existed for more than a minute in the total lifetime of this planet, a thirdrate speck in a minor galaxy, yet we dare to say we can speak for a 'God' or 'Gods' or that we KNOW what a 'God' thinks or desires! If that is not overweaning pride, I don't what is!

If there is a 'God' I would guess, He, She or It is laughing.
If there is a 'God', why on earth would he, she or it be interested in an upstart specie like ourselves. I guess again, that He, She or It doesn't really care at all, comforting as the idea of a 'caring God' might be to us.

My irrationality is actually to be a theist and have a kind of 'God' concept, as you can see.
Like Professor Flew I 'see' it in the micro and macro aspects of the perceived complexity of the universe, in which the more we know the more we realise what we do not know! What an exciting journey that is!

As Professor Flew has recently said, he has not been converted to a belief in 'A' God ... he simply sees the infinite complexity as evidence perhaps of some form of intelligence, or over-riding principle, a long way from our puny understanding.

Basstian · 02-04-2005, 04:17 AM

OK Inivitation if Your God doesnt Know all Cant Do all or is Not in control of all
Let me introduce you to mine because HE DOES

Jesus is the way the truth and the light

The alpha and the Omega the beginning and the end

Blue · 02-04-2005, 06:26 PM

"Let me introduce you to mine because HE DOES

Jesus is the way the truth and the light

The alpha and the Omega the beginning and the end"

=========

Nothing wrong with that, Basstian, that I can see.

You make an assertion, which I presume you have validated to your personal satisfaction. That is what you believe. Fine.

No one can argue against that. I certainly wouldn't.

I can only ask out of interest how you personally validate the statements? I would be interested in that. What measures and evidence do you, have you, referred to?

You see there are a lot of people who, with equal personal validity, assert that their Prophet or God is someone/something/some entity, which is different. They may be an Hindu, or a Jain, or a Pagan, or Islamic.
I hope you do not think your assertions are worth more than theirs? The fact is they will have the same basis for their validity.
No single 'God' can be claimed as superior to another can it, in all honesty and reason? I do not think so, anyway.

They all deserve respect as possible spiritual pathways to 'God', and as personal expressions of Faith.

Faithfulservant · 02-04-2005, 07:00 PM

Blue

I asked you on another post somewhere whether you were married.. because I wanted to give you an example so Im going to go ahead and post this under the assumption that you are married and a male.

You're married and have been for years do you not have faith that your wife is completely monogomous?

What if someone told you that they do not believe that your wife was faithful to you?

Do you begin to doubt your wife because someone told you their belief?

Or do you continue to trust in your wife because of your faith in her fidelity?

Now to put it in religious context..

You're a Christian and have been for years and you believe that Christ is the author of your salvation.

Someone tells you that your very belief system is wrong.

Do you allow your faith to be shaken... that maybe you are wrong?

Or do you continue to trust in God?

That is faith.

DrewJMore · 02-04-2005, 10:54 PM

*edgy sarcasm*

If you are informed that your wife has been unfaithful, since this possibility has never occurred to you, it would clearly be best to ignore the information and go on about your life as if nothing had changed.

*end edgy sarcasm*

Faith without doubt is delusion. You must acknowledge your doubts, or your faith is meaningless. If you are without doubt, why would you need faith? To put a finer point on it: faith implies doubt, either of which you are free to repress at your peril.

"Trust in Allah,
but tie your camel tightly,"
the saying goes.

Quahom1 · 02-04-2005, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrewJMore

Faith without doubt is delusion. You must acknowledge your doubts, or your faith is meaningless. If you are without doubt, why would you need faith? To put a finer point on it: faith implies doubt, either of which you are free to repress at your peril.

"Trust in Allah,
but tie your camel tightly,"
the saying goes.

Yes! On that we both agree completely! One must have doubt, in order for faith to be affective. That is the ultimate equation for Faith. Having doubt, but stepping foreward anyway in the hope of what is to be (or not), and the belief in what is not seen (or may not exist). Sailors call it a "pipe dream" sometimes.

eh, hi...I'm a sailor

v/r

Q

Faithfulservant · 02-05-2005, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrewJMore

Faith without doubt is delusion. You must acknowledge your doubts, or your faith is meaningless. If you are without doubt, why would you need faith? To put a finer point on it: faith implies doubt, either of which you are free to repress at your peril.

Says who? I was brought up believing that God wanted me to have faith despite the doubts. When I have a doubt I pray about it and my doubt leaves. Just like if you have doubts about your wifes infidelity you might ask her and if she tells you no that she hasnt been unfaithful you believe her or you dont. You let that seed of corrupt thought build up and it can effectively wreck a marriage or you believe your wife and grow from it. I have never understood cynical people because Im not a cynical person.. Its a waste of time for me to always look at people expecting the worst from them. I would rather look at a person without judgement and accept them for who they are and hope they do the same to me because Im not perfect either. I also dont think anyone can define what anothers faith means to them because you are expecting that person to be just like you with your same thoughts feelings and experiences. We are all individuals and should be respected as such.

chary · 02-05-2005, 06:27 PM

If God is capable of doing something something it doesn't mean that He should do it. Nor he is obligated to prevent anything. Human responsibility and free will also part of the issue. God is not only love but also just which means a Rewarder, Who rewards everyone according to theier faith and actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackHeart

And you think a deity would have to be "infinite" to know the answers to these things? Not just "vast beyond the imagination of man?" Or is that close enough to infinite that you consider them the same thing?

I don't think a deity would have to know *everything* to understand the nature of man & the universe. Or that a deity would have to be all-powerful, to be able to help those he likes and punish those he dislikes. "Ability to throw planets around like ping-pong balls & spark atoms into life" is plenty powerful enough to do that... that still doesn't assume infinite power. "Knows the true meaning of the human condition" doesn't, to me, imply "knows absolutely everything there has ever been or could be to know."

B'sides, those who talk about the "limited" nature of the Greek, Roman & Hindu Gods have generally never met them. They're not infinite (except for Brahma, but that's a whole 'nuther ball o' wax)... but that doesn't mean cultivating a relationship with them is useless, any more than you would avoid ties to your city council because they're not the President.

Visitor · 02-06-2005, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackHeart

Says who? Why would a "creator of everything" (which I'm assuming is what you mean by "God") have to be loving at all? Why would he have to be *all*-powerful, and not just powerful enough to create a universe? What would make him all-knowing?

More importantly--why do people assume these are traits of their God? I often wonder where the "all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving" concept came from. (Some folks add "all-present, or swap one of the other two for it.) If God was "all-knowing," then the rules set in the Garden of Eden are nothing more than a cruel joke played on mankind. If he's "all-powerful," then the deaths of infants from dysentary are just more cruelty. If he's "all-loving," then the stories of Hell indicate some serious schizoprenia.

However, if he's *none* of these things--if he's got tremendous power, but not enough to do everything he wants; if he's very wise & knowledgeable, but doesn't know what people will chose in a given situation; if he loves his chosen people, but despises those who are evil--then the stories, and the reality we live in, make sense.

If we accept for a minute the idea that God is loving then couldn't it also follow that He (sorry bout' the gender specific language) is limited to an extent in what He can do? What I mean is if God is pure love then feasibly it wouldn't be possible for God to do anything that isn't loving.
Just a thought on the idea of God's attributes before we even begin discussing why we witness and experience so much suffering.

Blue · 02-06-2005, 06:40 PM

Hi Faithful Servant,

What a strange argument to put forward in defence of a spiritual Faith.

I have been married for a very long time and have seven grandchildren.

Believe it or not, it doesn't really bother me if my wife has been 'faithful' all her life.
We are still together and we appear to love each other. That is what matters. We have fun and laughter and delight in our children. If she has ever had a fling... so what! She knows I have!

If she has had a fling or two, what does that mean? She appears to be generally happy and always has. Isn't it how SHE feels that matters?

It is the same with a religious faith.

It's how you feel which matters. The Faith itself could be any Faith, Shinto, Judaism, Islam, Christian, Pagan. If you wed yourself to it, that is something you personally and affectively validate. Your love is no less real because it is placed in an affective and spiritual context.

If I was a Christian say, and someone challenged my faith, I would laugh at their audacity. They can no more PROVE me wrong than I can PROVE they they are wrong if they happen to be a Pagan or an Ahteist. My faith, anyone's faith, is validated in the heart and soul(?). It cannot be 'hurt' or 'changed' by reason or rationality or even objective argumentation. It would only be possible to change that Faith if it was a personal affective decision by that individual from their own heart and soul(?).

ALL I would ask is for honesty, and request every believer of any Faith, to go on questioning their Faith to their dying day, for themselves.

No... I would never doubt my wife whatever was said. I would have no reason to. If she wasn't faithful, I would expect her to tell me or not to tell me. I have never gone around with suspicion in my mind! That's called 'trust'. lol

How is it possible for you to use a concrete and material comparison for questions of faith? You just cannot compare a religious faith in an unproven 'God' entity with the beautiful reality of a woman!
Can you?

Blue · 02-06-2005, 06:42 PM

Hi Faithful Servant,

What a strange argument to put forward in defence of a spiritual Faith.

I have been married for a very long time and have seven grandchildren.

Believe it or not, it doesn't really bother me if my wife has been 'faithful' all her life.
We are still together and we appear to love each other. That is what matters. We have fun and laughter and delight in our children. If she has ever had a fling... so what! She knows I have!

If she has had a fling or two, what does that mean? She appears to be generally happy and always has. Isn't it how SHE feels that matters?

It is the same with a religious faith.

It's how you feel which matters. The Faith itself could be any Faith, Shinto, Judaism, Islam, Christian, Pagan. If you wed yourself to it, that is something you personally and affectively validate. Your love is no less real because it is placed in an affective and spiritual context.

If I was a Christian say, and someone challenged my faith, I would laugh at their audacity. They can no more PROVE me wrong than I can PROVE they they are wrong if they happen to be a Pagan or an Ahteist. My faith, anyone's faith, is validated in the heart and soul(?). It cannot be 'hurt' or 'changed' by reason or rationality or even objective argumentation. It would only be possible to change that Faith if it was a personal affective decision by that individual from their own heart and soul(?).

ALL I would ask is for honesty, and request every believer of any Faith, to go on questioning their Faith to their dying day, for themselves.

No... I would never doubt my wife whatever was said. I would have no reason to. If she wasn't faithful, I would expect her to tell me or not to tell me. I have never gone around with suspicion in my mind! That's called 'trust'. lol

How is it possible for you to use a concrete and material comparison for questions of faith? You just cannot compare a religious faith in an unproven 'God' entity with the beautiful reality of a woman!
Can you?