Omniscience means fatalism.

[blackbirdking]

Perhaps it goes that way. I'm not sure we can say so definitively. My example was/is an Almanac. If I get one from the future, the only thing that 'fates' your choices is your choices. The Almanac knowing them ahead of time? We cannot be 'fated' to a publication because of what is printed atf. Would you, for instance, feel locked in at that point? I wouldn't and don't with God, but what's my limited perception worth? Yours?

Let me entertain it as a given for a moment: That I'm automatically fated. I'd suggest the illusion or perception isn't really the important point. However God made me is fine with me. If I'm an automaton, I'm His automaton. If with a 'free' will, I still desire to be His free will, etc.

If the Almanac created the storm and the recipients of the storm, then predicted what would happen, everyone, including you, would hold the Almanac responsible.
However, you are right; if God created me to be damned, I'm fine with that. On the other hand, if God calls that good, can you tell me what bad is?

 

[Lon]

If the Almanac created the storm and the recipients of the storm, then predicted what would happen, everyone, including you, would hold the Almanac responsible.

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.

However, you are right; if God created me to be damned, I'm fine with that.

It'd be what we want too, I agree.

On the other hand, if God calls that good, can you tell me what bad is?

Yes. If I create cars, and some of them kill people, you wouldn't suggest I created them 'to' kill people would you? I'm the last person that wants to be God's judge. He has told me already ("because I told you so!") He is righteous. It doesn't matter what something 'looks like' to me. I'm no judge and moreover, have no desire. He will judge me and no matter what it 'looks' like, it'll be good because He is good. Job himself, very righteous, proved unfit for the task, and I'd argue he had a much better grasp, perhaps more than you and I. Job 13:15 I'm probably off on a tangent, but it seemed important. I just don't think we always know what 'good' and 'righteous' look like because I KNOW it is only what God has transformed in me to His image, that would be able to get that right, and I'm still being conformed. -Lon

 

[genuineoriginal]

And a thousand years is like a day.

To a child, a year is like a lifetime.
To an old man, a year passes in a flash.
To an immortal God, a thousand years is like a day is to a man: a short period of time.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The gospel of grace is shown in Paul's conversion.
A terrorist on his way to round up and kill Christians is made alive in Christ by no effort of his own on the road to Damascus.
God giving to Paul what he did not deserve.
It's amazing grace that saves a wretch like me.

What kind of grace was given to Judas: the son of perdition?

 

[Arthur Brain]

To a child, a year is like a lifetime.
To an old man, a year passes in a flash.
To an immortal God, a thousand years is like a day is to a man: a short period of time.

You really don't get to determine the latter.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Did Paul have to do that before God saved him on the road to Damascus? If so, then Paul was saved by his own works.

Paul fit under these criteria:

Malachi 3:16-18 16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name. 17 And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. 18 Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.​

If Paul did not fit under those criteria, God would not have stopped him on the road to Damascus.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You really don't get to determine the latter.

It depends on which definition of "determine" you are relying on.

___________
determine

1. cause (something) to occur in a particular way; be the decisive factor in.
2. ascertain or establish exactly, typically as a result of research or calculation.

___________​

I can't cause an immortal God to see the passing of a thousand years as a small amount of time.
I can ascertain that an immortal God would necessarily see the passing of a thousand years as a small amount of time.

 

[genuineoriginal]

From another thread, Derf confirms that Omniscience means fatalism.

If God can see into a future He can alter, then He's not looking at a settled future. If the future He sees is settled, He's a slave to it, and the only way it works out right is if God planned everything from the beginning (Calvinism). But then you have God planning people's sin for them.

 

[Arthur Brain]

If the Almanac created the storm and the recipients of the storm, then predicted what would happen, everyone, including you, would hold the Almanac responsible.
However, you are right; if God created me to be damned, I'm fine with that. On the other hand, if God calls that good, can you tell me what bad is?

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.

 

[Derf]

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

That entity must precede every physical thing.

Why?

The entity must be the source of everything.

Why?

The entity cannot have arrived at omniscience.

Why? If Omniscience is "knowing everything", then why can't God make someone who "knows everything"?

The entity had no option but to create exactly as it knew would happen.

This statement, I think, defines your use of "omniscience" and answers the "why" questions. "omniscient" is defined fairly simply--"knowing everything". "Everything" is defined as "all things". "Thing" is defined as:
1 : an object or entity not precisely designated or capable of being designated use this thing
2 a : an inanimate object distinguished from a living being
b : a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity
c : the concrete entity as distinguished from its appearances
d : a spatial entity
3 : individual not a living thing in sight
4 a : a matter of concern : affair many things to do
b things plural : state of affairs in general or within a specified or implied sphere things are improving
c : a particular state of affairs : situation look at this thing another way
d : event, circumstance Meeting her was a wonderful thing.
5 a things plural : possessions, effects pack your things
b : whatever may be possessed or owned or be the object of a right
c : an article of clothing not a thing to wear
d things plural : equipment or utensils especially for a particular purpose bring the tea things
6 a : deed, act, accomplishment do great things
b : a product of work or activity likes to build things
c : the aim of effort or activity the thing is to get well
7 a : something (such as an activity) that makes a strong appeal to the individual : forte, specialty
letting students do their own thing —Newsweek
I think travelling is very much a novelist's thing —Philip Larkin
b : a mild obsession or phobia
has a thing about driving; also : the object of such an obsession or phobia
8 a : detail, point checks every little thing
b : a material or substance of a specified kind avoid fatty things
9 a : idea, notion says the first thing he thinks of
b : a piece of news or information couldn't get a thing out of him
c : a spoken or written observation or point
10 : the proper or fashionable way of behaving, talking, or dressing —used with the

I don't see a lot of those that deal with unrealized future events. That doesn't mean they can't be included, but we don't use it that way, normally.

I propose that you are using "omniscience" to mean "settled future", and in that case, there's no contest--omniscience seems to mean fatalism. But I think the terms are differently defined.

An man living in this universe would be fated at every moment of his life.

I think so, based on your definitions. But so is his understanding of the universe, meaning he is fated to think he's not fated, or he's fated to think he's fated.

 

[Town Heretic]

Omniscience (theological fatalism) means that God has no free will.

It's worse than that (if that bothers you). God being perfectly good completely robs Him of the ability to do that which isn't good.

Or, truly free will, in terms of moral choice and outside of the question of omniscience, is really only a character flaw.

Within the consideration of omniscience, it means no one does, that free will is an illusion created by men who fail to understand God's nature and their own.

Or, truly free will, within the context of omniscience, is really only a reflection of flawed reason.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It's worse than that (if that bothers you). God being perfectly good completely robs Him of the ability to do that which isn't good.

Or, truly free will, in terms of moral choice and outside of the question of omniscience, is really only a character flaw.

God has always had the ability to do evil.

Jeremiah 18:7-10 7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; 8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. 9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; 10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.​

Within the consideration of omniscience, it means no one does, that free will is an illusion created by men who fail to understand God's nature and their own.

Or, truly free will, within the context of omniscience, is really only a reflection of flawed reason.

I consider the idea of future omniscience to be a reflection of flawed reason, as well as the thoughts that free-will is an illusion.

Isaiah 46:8-11 8 Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors. 9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: 11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.​

The two passages I have provided in this post from Jeremiah and from Isaiah show that God has both the free will to change what He has planned and the power to do He has planned to do.
Neither of these passages make any sense if God had exhaustive knowledge of everything that would happen in the future.

 

[Town Heretic]

God has always had the ability to do evil.

I think you're misunderstanding the usage. A house divided against itself cannot stand and all.

I consider the idea of future omniscience to be a reflection of flawed reason, as well as the thoughts that free-will is an illusion.

Okay. Are you going to set out the why of that? I did in mine, but if you don't want to it's fine as a declaration of your belief on the point.

The two passages I have provided in this post from Jeremiah and from Isaiah show that God has both the free will to change what He has planned and the power to do He has planned to do.

Or it's a lot like His saying he'd spare S and G if...while knowing full well that there wouldn't be an exception to spare it.

Neither of these passages make any sense if God had exhaustive knowledge of everything that would happen in the future.

I don't agree, though I can see how the impression could be made, especially in isolation.

 

[Stripe]

Why?

If an entity is omniscient, it must precede every physical thing. If it didn't, it couldn't know about the things that happened before it.

Why?

The entity must be the source of everything, because it would be the only thing in existence. If it wasn't the only thing in existence, it would still know exactly what whatever else was out there was going to do, so it's kinda moot to assert multiple entities.

Why? If Omniscience is "knowing everything", then why can't [the entity] make someone who "knows everything"?

I guess it could. However, that would not change the nature of the original entity.

I propose that you are using "omniscience" to mean "settled future", and in that case, there's no contest--omniscience seems to mean fatalism. But I think the terms are differently defined.

I would word it slightly differently: Omniscience necessitates a settled future.

He is fated to think he's not fated, or he's fated to think he's fated.

That whole "thinking" part of his existence would be something of a misnomer.

 

[Derf]

If an entity is omniscient, it must precede every physical thing. If it didn't, it couldn't know about the things that happened before it.

I know about things that happened before I came into existence.

The entity must be the source of everything, because it would be the only thing in existence. If it wasn't the only thing in existence, it would still know exactly what whatever else was out there was going to do, so it's kinda moot to assert multiple entities.

I think this needs the additional quality of "eternal". In other words, "omniscience" doesn't require it be the source, as you acknowledged, as long as it knows what the source, or sources, is/are going to do, according to your usage. The point in asserting multiple entities drives you to acknowledge that "omniscience", by itself, is inadequate to effect anything based on that omniscience. God's omniscience of His own future actions is well within the realm of God's characteristics, but that requires to ask the question whether God always knew everything He planned to do. Or did He actually plan something. Even the source knowing what the source is going to do falls apart if He can never have a new plan. This is where [MENTION=4345]genuineoriginal[/MENTION]'s gets his statement of "omniscience" being the thing that is more powerful than God. It actually drives one to the Greek version of deity where they (the gods) are subject to the fates, despite the fact/myth that the fates actually were born of Zeus.

I'm not so willing to let go of "omniscience" of God just yet. That's why I appreciate the attempt of some to understand what the "science" is in "omniscience".

I would word it slightly differently: Omniscience necessitates a settled future.

If all future things (if there is such a concept as a future thing that is more than a concept), are included in the omniscience.

That whole "thinking" part of his existence would be something of a misnomer.

Perhaps so.

 

[Stripe]

I know about things that happened before I came into existence.

Because someone told you.

For something to inform the entity, it itself would have to have omniscience, at least of those events that preceded it.

I'm not so willing to let go of "omniscience" of God just yet. That's why I appreciate the attempt of some to understand what the "science" is in "omniscience".

I'd be happy to use the term, if it was carefully defined and generally accepted.

Something like: Knows everything that can be known.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

If all future things (if there is such a concept as a future thing that is more than a concept), are included in the omniscience.

Oh. I see what I missed.

OP should have specified that this is the absolute form of omniscience, that all things future are known exhaustively. I said "throughout history" as if that included future.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Derf]

Because someone told you.

For something to inform the entity, it itself would have to have omniscience, at least of those events that preceded it.

I'd be happy to use the term, if it was carefully defined and generally accepted.

Something like: Knows everything that can be known.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

In my opinion, this is the problem with a lot of in-house debates--the terms are not used in the same way.

 

[Stripe]

In my opinion, this is the problem with a lot of in-house debates--the terms are not used in the same way.

Yeah.

However, it's worthwhile trying to figure those things out when both sides are willing to engage sensibly. :up:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Ktoyou]

Or omniscience is total bunk.

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'