On the omniscience of God

[Arthur Brain]

I don't understand why this is so difficult to get across...

You are making a claim here. It isn't an argument, it's simply a claim. What I've presented isn't just a claim but an actual argument, and a quite formal one at that, which has very clearly stated premises and each step of which, including the conclusion, follows from the those that precede.
The way reason works and the way rational debate is supposed to work, is that if you want to reject the conclusion of an argument, you need to either refute the validity of a premise to demonstrate how the argument doesn't logically follow. The key words there being REFUTE and DEMONSTRATE. Simply showing up and making claims doesn't get the job done!

So, which premise is false, AB? Where's is the flaw in the argument?

If you can't answer then all you're really doing is trying to say that logic doesn't work but that your proclamations somehow convey truth anyway.

Clete

Clete,

I've seen this sort of subject unfold plenty of times through the years and my intent was not to get involved in a drawn out convo with you on the matter. I've seen it argued from several opposing viewpoints that invariably get mired in pseudo-intellectual posturing and philosophical meandering whereby no position can actually be proven or disproven one way or the other, no matter who claims they have the stronger and even unassailable ground. It's an interesting subject and not one where I'm trying to 'win' or even convince anyone but simply giving my own take, irrational though you may well feel it happens to be.

 

[annabenedetti]

And you know better?

I don't know better than God.

Wrong. I, a rational human, am telling you, an irrational human, what God can rationally do, and what He rationally cannot do.

You're telling me what God can and cannot do. Alrighty then.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion

Why, thank you kindly!

 

[Right Divider]

You're telling me what God can and cannot do. Alrighty then.

Can God lie?

 

[JudgeRightly]

You're conflating foreknowledge with a lack of free will.

Saying it doesn't make it so, and it certainly does nothing to refute the argument that both I and Clete have presented that establishes logically that infallible foreknowledge necessitates no free will.

I've already acknowledged that if God has foreknowledge that you are going to choose something or decide an action then 'T' is what you are going to do.

Above, "T" is defined as "You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 A.M."

Or did you not bother reading that bit?

What I'm arguing against is the notion that foreknowledge precludes it.

You haven't argued anything yet, you simply made claims.

Where is the flaw in our reasoning, Arty? Go back to the post where the formal argument was made by us, and pick it apart, if you can. Show us why we're wrong.

Any given day you will make any number of choices or actions regardless of whether anyone knows in advance or not.

The problem is that if someone infallibly knows that we will make those exact choices, they aren't "choices" at all to begin with, as the above argument states.

So, if God knows that one day you will answer the phone then how, at that given point, has your free will or choice in the issue been impacted?

See the argument laid out previously. It logically necessitates it.

You haven't been destined or programmed to answer it, you simply choose to answer it and God knows this.

Supra.

Not sure how having a contrary position on the subject is 'whining and complaining'

It's because you haven't presented a single argument that does anything to refute the argument presented by both Clete and I. Not once have you actually quoted the argument and tried to refute it.

exactly, especially considering you're the one who seems to be het up and feels the need to "shout" in this post.

It's because I'm frustrated that you're so dumb, Arthur. You are certainly living up to your username.

But even so, there's hope for you. It's why I haven't put you on ignore all these years.

Again, I'm not arguing for a 'settled future',

I never said you were.

Your argument posits that foreknowledge neutralises free will because if God knows something that you're going to do then you can't deviate from it.

Yes. And we presented a logical argument where each point logically proceeds from the points before it.

You have yet to show an error in that formal argument.

My counter is as above.

Counter-claim, maybe, but nothing that tries to refute the argument presented.

God isn't bound by time,

Saying it doesn't make it so, and you've been shown why it is NOT so previously.

the same way we are. We have a very narrow and limited perception where we're effectively constantly living in the present

So is God, Arty.

Here are the categories of verses to prove it, and that the future is open, and by extension, that God doesn't have infallible foreknowledge of everything (classical omniscience)

Open Theism Bible Verses in 33 Categories | Open Theism

opentheism.org

and limiting God's ability where it comes to the issue once again, doesn't strike me as particularly rational.

In what way are we limiting God's ability?

God is bigger than our understanding or any particular belief.

So what? That doesn't mean he's capable of the irrational.

With regards to the passage then again, a verse can do one or more things and the use of the word "as" only underscores the point yet further that time in relation to God is not as we can experience.

Repeating yourself won't make your claim come true.

I'm not claiming that "God is outside of time" anyway

Liar. Your very words:

God isn't bound by time,

but it's pretty clear that we have a very narrow understanding and experience of it in relation.

Only if you limit your own understanding by covering your eyes.

Appealing to the irrational is itself irrational, Arty.

So, back to my original point being that there are no other notes than A-G that we can experience or hear but who's to say that God couldn't create more.

God cannot do the irrational. That's why God cannot "create more."

Neither infrared or ultraviolet are 'new colours' simply because we can't see them.

Not my argument.

I'm not claiming that God can know or do the impossible,

You've been doing it the entire time you've been posting in this thread, Arty.

rather that what might seem irrational or impossible to mere human beings doesn't apply to an all powerful God.

SO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THEN! Present what you think is "seemingly irrational/impossible" and then show it to be rational/possible. Give us even a CONCEPTUAL IDEA of how it might be!

I guarantee that you cannot, because such is, by definition, irrational.

For example: Try to explain how God might count the hairs on the boogeyman's head, given the fact that the boogeyman does not exist.

 

[annabenedetti]

Clete,

I've seen this sort of subject unfold plenty of times through the years and my intent was not to get involved in a drawn out convo with you on the matter. I've seen it argued from several opposing viewpoints that invariably get mired in pseudo-intellectual posturing and philosophical meandering whereby no position can actually be proven or disproven one way or the other, no matter who claims they have the stronger and even unassailable ground. It's an interesting subject and not one where I'm trying to 'win' or even convince anyone but simply giving my own take, irrational though you may well feel it happens to be.

Interesting how they want 'dialogue' and yet when they get someone like you trying to have a dialogue, to express your viewpoint because you're also interested in the subject, they turn into hammers looking for nails and that's all they care about. Nails to pound.

 

[ok doser]

Interesting how they want 'dialogue' and yet when they get someone like you trying to have a dialogue, to express your viewpoint because you're also interested in the subject, they turn into hammers looking for nails and that's all they care about. Nails to pound.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don't know better than God.

Then why are you trying to say that God can do more than He says He can through His word?

You're telling me what God can and cannot do...

. . . based on what the Bible says.

 

[Tambora]

Can God lie?

An argument can be made that God could and did.
If you consider a "regency" (one sent on your behalf) to be a representative of the one who sent him, then the answer is yes.

1 Kings 22 KJV​

(22) And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.​

(23) Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.​

​

​

2 Chronicles 18 KJV​

(21) And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so.​

(22) Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.​

I don't have a problem with God having the capability to lie when necessary.
After all, Rahab told a necessary lie to protect the spies and she was blessed for it.
Depending on the situation lies can be necessary.
I offer Ecc 3:1-8 as support of that.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Saying it doesn't make it so, and it certainly does nothing to refute the argument that both I and Clete have presented that establishes logically that infallible foreknowledge necessitates no free will.



Above, "T" is defined as "You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 A.M."

Or did you not bother reading that bit?



You haven't argued anything yet, you simply made claims.

Where is the flaw in our reasoning, Arty? Go back to the post where the formal argument was made by us, and pick it apart, if you can. Show us why we're wrong.



The problem is that if someone infallibly knows that we will make those exact choices, they aren't "choices" at all to begin with, as the above argument states.



See the argument laid out previously. It logically necessitates it.



Supra.



It's because you haven't presented a single argument that does anything to refute the argument presented by both Clete and I. Not once have you actually quoted the argument and tried to refute it.



It's because I'm frustrated that you're so dumb, Arthur. You are certainly living up to your username.

But even so, there's hope for you. It's why I haven't put you on ignore all these years.



I never said you were.



Yes. And we presented a logical argument where each point logically proceeds from the points before it.

You have yet to show an error in that formal argument.



Counter-claim, maybe, but nothing that tries to refute the argument presented.



Saying it doesn't make it so, and you've been shown why it is NOT so previously.



So is God, Arty.

Here are the categories of verses to prove it, and that the future is open, and by extension, that God doesn't have infallible foreknowledge of everything (classical omniscience)

Open Theism Bible Verses in 33 Categories | Open Theism

opentheism.org

In what way are we limiting God's ability?



So what? That doesn't mean he's capable of the irrational.



Repeating yourself won't make your claim come true.



Liar. Your very words:





Only if you limit your own understanding by covering your eyes.

Appealing to the irrational is itself irrational, Arty.



God cannot do the irrational. That's why God cannot "create more."



Not my argument.



You've been doing it the entire time you've been posting in this thread, Arty.



SO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THEN! Present what you think is "seemingly irrational/impossible" and then show it to be rational/possible. Give us even a CONCEPTUAL IDEA of how it might be!

I guarantee that you cannot, because such is, by definition, irrational.

For example: Try to explain how God might count the hairs on the boogeyman's head, given the fact that the boogeyman does not exist.

Okay, I don't really have the time to go into complete depth point by point on this as being the holiday season an' all I've other things to do at present and besides which, it's getting parsed to bits. The core of the argument on your side appears to be this: Free will is neutralised if God has foreknowledge of events including choices people make. Well, given that you acknowledge that my position includes there being no tampering with personal autonomy in any decision making process or influence or anything akin then your position solely seems to be that free will is affected simply by God knowing what decision/choice you made/going to make because it can't be deviated from.

Well, no. It may not seem rational or logical to you that there isn't a dichotomy but it's pretty clear to several others that there isn't and for fairly obvious reasons. You'll have made several decisions today that you'll have made whether anyone knew them in advance or not. As stated several times previously, from our limited frame of linear reference we're constantly living in the present where once somethings done it's done. None of us have the luxury of a rewind button in life and whatever choice we make we make at that present moment in time. If God knows what each of us is going to choose while affording us personal autonomy then there's no disconnect and if that's frustrating enough for you to call me 'dumb' then get on with it. Your opinion is hardly one I treasure JR and put me on ignore if you like. Didn't think mods could do that but hey ho. You also call me a liar without any merit to it. If I state my belief that God isn't bound by time (as we are) then that isn't a lie by any stretch JR. You may disagree but you don't get to call my honesty into question.

Again, you can't prove your position and I can't prove mine, it's speculation but to claim that foreknowledge negates free will is just a soundbite.

Oh, and who are you to say that God can't create more musical notes?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then why are you trying to say that God can do more than He says He can through His word?



. . . based on what the Bible says.

The Bible seems to indicate that God knows plenty about what's going to happen in the future.

 

[Right Divider]

An argument can be made that God could and did.
If you consider a "regency" (one sent on your behalf) to be a representative of the one who sent him, then the answer is yes.

1 Kings 22 KJV​

(22) And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.​

(23) Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.​

​

​

2 Chronicles 18 KJV​

(21) And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so.​

(22) Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.​

I don't have a problem with God having the capability to lie when necessary.
After all, Rahab told a necessary lie to protect the spies and she was blessed for it.
Depending on the situation lies can be necessary.
I offer Ecc 3:1-8 as support of that.

Titus 1:2 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:2) In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

I go with this scripture that says that God... that cannot lie....

 

[Arthur Brain]

And you know better?



Wrong. I, a rational human, am telling you, an irrational human, what God can rationally do, and what He rationally cannot do.



So what? That does not mean He can therefore do the irrational.



You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but the fact that Clete and I have presented a formal argument, and so far, both you and Arthur have failed to even TRY to demonstrate that that argument is invalid in some way, we can safely say that you're the irrational ones, and not us.

Oh, well, a self declared 'rational human' declaring another human in disagreement an 'irrational one' is just so...

Not impressive at all really. Who are you to call any other person 'irrational' with any sort of merit or credentials outside of inflated ego?

 

[Tambora]

I go with this scripture that says that God... that cannot lie....

I go by all scripture.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Can God lie?

An argument can be made that God could and did.
If you consider a "regency" (one sent on your behalf) to be a representative of the one who sent him, then the answer is yes.

1 Kings 22 KJV​

(22) And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.​

(23) Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.​

​

​

2 Chronicles 18 KJV​

(21) And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so.​

(22) Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.​

I don't have a problem with God having the capability to lie when necessary.
After all, Rahab told a necessary lie to protect the spies and she was blessed for it.
Depending on the situation lies can be necessary.
I offer Ecc 3:1-8 as support of that.

I go with this scripture that says that God... that cannot lie....

I go by all scripture.

I'm of the belief that it's not a matter of capability, but rather of willingness. It's not that He is incapable of lying, it's that He has no reason to, and so therefore He cannot lie in that sense.

But I'm happy to be shown to be wrong, of course.

 

[Tambora]

I'm of the belief that it's not a matter of capability, but rather of willingness.

Thanks my brother, and I agree.
But the "willingness" will depend on the situation at hand.
I'm sure we both trust that God has the wisdom to know when it would be necessary and when it would not.
God did send a lying spirit to cause the prophets of Ahab to lie to him, so apparently God thought lying to Ahab was the right thing to do for that situation.

 

[glorydaz]

God can do whatever He wants. Cloaked in Grace, no doubt.

All things work together for good can cover a lot of ground in the Hands of our Mighty God.

 

[Clete]

There's a difference between saying "God can do something we cannot" and "because God can do something we cannot, therefore He must be capable of doing irrational things." The former is rational. The latter is, by definition, irrational.

I just wanted to highlight those two sentences because it was just so well said.

It's as if Arthur and others like him don't understand what logic is or what it means to be rational. Very frustrating!

All we are really saying is that God is real and that He is, therefore, incapable of doing irrational things. He cannot be in a place that does not exist. He cannot create a sphere with flat sides and sharp corners. Saying such things is not limiting God to anything but reality itself. It isn't that God cannot do these things because of some weakness or flaw but because to do them would be to not do them.

Logic and reason are just descriptions of reality and how reality works. To believe the irrational to be possible is to tacitly endorse the belief in ANYTHING AT ALL!

Clete

 

[Clete]

Interesting how they want 'dialogue' and yet when they get someone like you trying to have a dialogue, to express your viewpoint because you're also interested in the subject, they turn into hammers looking for nails and that's all they care about. Nails to pound.

Liar.

 

[Clete]

Oh, well, a self declared 'rational human' declaring another human in disagreement an 'irrational one' is just so...

Not impressive at all really. Who are you to call any other person 'irrational' with any sort of merit or credentials outside of inflated ego?

The problem for you is not only that this entire thread is still right here for the whole world to read but that we are the one's who have provided an actual argument which you, and those who seem to agree with your position, have REFUSED to offer a single solitary syllable in refutation of.

Instead, you want to insist that God isn't limited to logic and then in the next breath insist that you aren't defending a position that isn't openly irrational!

You simply don't get to have it both ways. If God is rational then He cannot do the logically absurd and, conversely, if God is "beyond logic" then He isn't rational.

The choice comes down to whether God is real or imaginary. An ability to perform the irrational is reserved for fairy tails and comic books.

Clete

 

[Clete]

God can do whatever He wants. Cloaked in Grace, no doubt.

All things work together for good can cover a lot of ground in the Hands of our Mighty God.

Would you agree that God cannot change the past?

Clete