An Omniscient God

[Age]

But in my opinion the question should be: gift given to whom?

And the answer can only be to himself.

God loves himself.

WHY do you denote God as male gendered?

Only out of habit.

Do you usually use 'habit' as your EXCUSE for saying or doing what is Wrong?

One genre is as good as another.

WHY ANY gender?

After all you are talking about God, Itself?

Sounds like you are just 'trying to' anthropomorphize what OBVIOUSLY could NOT be.

It's wrong?

YES

I have a hard time understanding how to be politically correct ...

NOTHING here has absolutely ANY thing to do with 'politics', nor with being 'politically correct' or not.

If something IS Wrong, False, and Incorrect, then 'it' is just False, Wrong, and Incorrect.

[bobmax]

If there is nothing to lose, then there is nothing to gain.

The problem is all in that "there is".

Which implies the existence of something to cling to. That it can make sense of our existence.

This something just can't be there!

Because there is only you, only begotten son.
You were thrown into the world.

And if you are looking for the Truth, it is easy to fall into existential despair.

But only because you stop the search. Convinced that the world is the ultimate truth.

Face Nihilism!
It is only the necessary challenge for the only-begotten son.

There is only you and ... the Father.

But it's only up to you who God is.

God needs you.

[bobmax]

Age,

I have the impression that your criticisms are specious.

Do you criticize the finger by disdaining the Moon?

Certainly words have limits, but we must still use them to communicate.

Do you prefer to use "itself"?
All right.

But please, let's also try to look at the moon ...

[Age]

Age,

I have the impression that your criticisms are specious.

Is it possible that 'your impression' could be wrong?

Do you criticize the finger by disdaining the Moon?

No.

Did you ASSUME I did OR would?

Certainly words have limits, but we must still use them to communicate.

AND there are right AND wrong words, which can be used

Do you prefer to use "itself"?
All right.

WHY did you ask me a question, but then INSTANTLY ASSUME, and CONCLUDE, what MY answer would be?

But please, let's also try to look at the moon ...

The ONLY way to SEE and UNDERSTAND 'the moon' (or ANY thing ELSE), FULLY and Correctly is to LOOK AT 'them' properly AND correctly.

LOOKING AT God as some male or human 'thing' is OBVIOUSLY NOT LOOKING AT 'It' properly AND Correctly.

SO, IF you REALLY do WANT to '"look at the moon", as you call 'it', then please let us proceed.

But let us first NOTICE and RECOGNIZE just how QUICK and EASY words can be used that are NOT LOOKING AT what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which is WANTED TO BE LOOKED AT and DISCUSSED.

Do you WANT to LOOK AT and DISCUSS God, some moon, or some thing else here?

[bobmax]

Age,

Screaming no longer makes us right.

English is not my native language, I'm not used to using neutral.

And anyway I repeat, masculine, feminine, neutral are equivalent.
It is about the Absolute!

However, if you insist on details, it means that there is no effective dialogue.

[Age]

Age,

Screaming no longer makes us right.

WHO, EXACTLY, is supposedly, 'screaming' here?

AND, WHEN did screaming, supposedly, make ANY one 'right'?

English is not my native language, I'm not used to using neutral.

Neither are most of the english speaking people I have observed in the days when this is being written.

But so what?

If one does NOT express the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth, especially on a philosophy forum, am I NOT allowed to, or NOT expected to, POINT OUT and SHOW the INCONSISTENCY or FLAW?

And anyway I repeat, masculine, feminine, neutral are equivalent.
It is about the Absolute!

Which, to you, the 'Absolute' is a 'he', or male gendered 'thing', correct?

If no, then WHY call His some 'thing', which 'it' is NOT?

Oh, and by the way, WHEN was the FIRST TIME you, supposedly and allegedly, informed us here that "masculine, feminine, AND neutral are equivalent"?

However, if you insist on details, it means that there is no effective dialogue.

WHY?

Are you NOT CAPABLE of just PROVIDING the ACTUAL 'details', which are needed to SHOW that you actually CAN back up and support your CLAIMS here?

Remember this IS a 'philosophy forum', and WHY should you NOT have to PROVIDE 'the details', which back up and support YOUR CLAIMS here?

EVERY one else HAS TO, and 'should', correct?

Also, I suggest if you can NOT provide supporting PROOF for your CLAIMS here, when you ARE CHALLENGED, then best you refrain from expressing those CLAIMS here, or just expressing them somewhere.

ONCE AGAIN, I will suggest that BEFORE ANY one makes a CLAIM here, that they have the IRREFUTABLE Facts READY FIRST.

[bobmax]

Age,
you keep screaming.

But shouting cannot hide the fact that one cannot prove what is the foundation of any possible demonstration.

Kant should have shown this sufficiently...

In a comparison, behavior comes before any logic.
It does not seem to me that the conditions are in place to continue.

[Age]

Age,
you keep screaming.

I have NEVER screamed ONCE.

WHY are you ASSUMING such an ABSURD and RIDICULOUS thing?

But shouting cannot hide the fact that one cannot prove what is the foundation of any possible demonstration.

So OFF TOPIC, and maybe so False and Wrong ALSO, that it is NOT even worth responding to in any other way.

But anyway,

Kant should have shown this sufficiently...

In a comparison, behavior comes before any logic.
It does not seem to me that the conditions are in place to continue.

This is because you do NOT have the 'details' NOR 'conditions' or whatever else you WANT to CHANGE 'that' to, to 'continue'.

You do NOT want to 'continue' because you just can NOT.

[Dontaskme]

If there is nothing to lose, then there is nothing to gain.

The problem is all in that "there is".

Which implies the existence of something to cling to. That it can make sense of our existence.

This something just can't be there!

Because there is only you, only begotten son.
You were thrown into the world.

And if you are looking for the Truth, it is easy to fall into existential despair.

But only because you stop the search. Convinced that the world is the ultimate truth.

Face Nihilism!
It is only the necessary challenge for the only-begotten son.

There is only you and ... the Father.

But it's only up to you who God is.

God needs you.

Thank you




" Therefore God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world,
predestinating us to the adoption of children, not because we were going to
be of ourselves holy and immaculate, but He chose and predestinated us that
we might be so. Moreover, He did this according to the good pleasure of His
will, so that nobody might glory concerning his own will, but about God's will
towards Himself.'' St. Augustine

[iambiguous]

Arguing with Christian religious fundamentalists is like talking to a bag of rocks.

Omniscience has no argument.

With some here, that seems clearly to be the case.

But it is often fascinating to note just how far they will go -- must go -- in order to avoid the arguments many raise in regard omniscience and free will. Also, in regard to theodicy. God knows all, is omnipotent, but then, after creating a planet bursting at the seams with all manner of horrific "natural disasters", and all manner of ghastly health afflictions built right into human biology itself, He does absolutely nothing to intervene. Well, aside from the occasional alleged "miracle".

They must rationalize all of that away because God and religion are the very source of their comfort and consolation given the world as it is.

Me, I'd love to believe that all of this unspeakable human pain and suffering is finally explained in Paradise by God Himself: "Ah, Lord, now I understand why those natural disasters, health afflictions, miscarriages, viral pandemics, plagues and extinction events were necessary. I just never thought of that before."

And there are those here like IC who claim not merely to have faith in the Christian God's existence but insist that they know for a fact that He does reside in Heaven. That they have "proof" to confirm it.

In other words, if you are foolish enough to actually ask them to provide it.

And, admittedly, I was foolish enough to ask IC.

I hear you loud and clear.

And is why I personally had to become a recluse and live apart, far away from the human mind. To me, I've always known the human mind was a mental institution full of BS stories. I prefer to be like my cat, just living without a story.

Paradoxically, I'm here on this forum expressing my own story about why I believe very strongly that the human mind is a mental institution and that life for humanity on earth is a prison.

In other words, the only story I have now is the story that all human stories are mental baggage, totally unnecessary and mind numbingly draining. And that's the only story that makes sense to me. The fact that all human mental baggage is the bane of my life. That is the only story worth telling, in my opinion.

Think about it, my cat lives without ever uttering a word, she speaks volumes to me about the true nature of reality. That's all I need to know about reality. I understand more about my life and being by just observing my cat. It is as and through her being that tells me everything I need to know about myself.

The true nature of reality embedded in/at the core of the "human condition" itself would seem to revolve around subsistence. There are basic needs that must be sustained in any given community if it is going to survive. Food and water must be attained. Shelter must be provided. An environment conducive to reproduction must be achieved. The community must be able to defend itself from enemies inside and out. The stuff those like Karl Marx and Adam Smith wrote of.

Then for each of us one by one the choice of how much we will be a part of that community. Our actual options. Things either within or beyond our control. Especially once the reality of children come into play for those who choose to have them.

All the other stuff -- like philosophy -- will, by and large, in my view, be predicated on and derived from how I construe human identity in these threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Which is basically why I am here: to explore how and why others either think or don't think about these things as I do.

And, in threads like this, the role God and religion play in our lives.

[Dontaskme]

Which is basically why I am here: to explore how and why others either think or don't think about these things as I do.

And, in threads like this, the role God and religion play in our lives.

All known concepts (ideas) are concieved by I

I have an idea?

What is an idea I ask myself? I have no idea.

That is all I can know about I

The rest is a story, comparable to a dream. Nature never repeats exactly. Everything is changing, Nothing changes.

Free will is an idea, meaning there is nothing choosing or doing anything since nothing is all there is, that's the true meaning of the word FREE.

This nothingness appears as if it has an identity that can say I choose, but that's just the nature of knowledge within this inconceivable conception.

[iambiguous]

Which is basically why I am here: to explore how and why others either think or don't think about these things as I do.

And, in threads like this, the role God and religion play in our lives.

All known concepts (ideas) are concieved by I

I have an idea?

What is an idea I ask myself? I have no idea.

That is all I can know about I

The rest is a story, comparable to a dream. Nature never repeats exactly. Everything is changing, Nothing changes.

Free will is an idea, meaning there is nothing choosing or doing anything since nothing is all there is, that's the true meaning of the word FREE.

This nothingness appears as if it has an identity that can say I choose, but that's just the nature of knowledge within this inconceivable conception.

Again, from my own frame of mind, this is what I call a "general description intellectual contraption".

Who is I here and what is his or her idea? On this thread, pertaining to what particular context pertaining to what particular omniscient God? What if there are conflicting assessments of that idea? And, in the absence of an omniscient God, how are mere mortals to decide which idea is the optimal idea? Or, in fact, for some, the only rational idea there can be?

Their own? If so, what do they believe is true "in their head" and what can they demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe is true in turn?

Then [for me] back to the points "I" raise in the threads above. And of how your own sense of self given that particular set of circumstances overlaps or conflicts with mine.

But, again, that's just me. My own interest in discussing God [omniscient or otherwise] in a world teeming with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change. My own interest in exploring the tools of philosophy...when connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then.

Not yours? Then we move on to others.

[Dontaskme]

Which is basically why I am here: to explore how and why others either think or don't think about these things as I do.

And, in threads like this, the role God and religion play in our lives.

All known concepts (ideas) are concieved by I

I have an idea?

What is an idea I ask myself? I have no idea.

That is all I can know about I

The rest is a story, comparable to a dream. Nature never repeats exactly. Everything is changing, Nothing changes.

Free will is an idea, meaning there is nothing choosing or doing anything since nothing is all there is, that's the true meaning of the word FREE.

This nothingness appears as if it has an identity that can say I choose, but that's just the nature of knowledge within this inconceivable conception.

Again, from my own frame of mind, this is what I call a "general description intellectual contraption".

Who is I here and what is his or her idea? On this thread, pertaining to what particular context pertaining to what particular omniscient God? What if there are conflicting assessments of that idea? And, in the absence of an omniscient God, how are mere mortals to decide which idea is the optimal idea? Or, in fact, for some, the only rational idea there can be?

Their own? If so, what do they believe is true "in their head" and what can they demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe is true in turn?

Then [for me] back to the points "I" raise in the threads above. And of how your own sense of self given that particular set of circumstances overlaps or conflicts with mine.

But, again, that's just me. My own interest in discussing God [omniscient or otherwise] in a world teeming with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change. My own interest in exploring the tools of philosophy...when connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then.

Not yours? Then we move on to others.

The idea that humans were given ''free will'' by God is incompatible with the idea of an Omniscient God.

Therefore, the only reason for human strife and trouble is a consequence of that simple division, albeit illusory.

[Belinda]

If there is nothing to lose, then there is nothing to gain.

The problem is all in that "there is".

Which implies the existence of something to cling to. That it can make sense of our existence.

This something just can't be there!

Because there is only you, only begotten son.
You were thrown into the world.

And if you are looking for the Truth, it is easy to fall into existential despair.

But only because you stop the search. Convinced that the world is the ultimate truth.

Face Nihilism!
It is only the necessary challenge for the only-begotten son.

There is only you and ... the Father.

But it's only up to you who God is.

God needs you.

Thank you




" Therefore God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world,
predestinating us to the adoption of children, not because we were going to
be of ourselves holy and immaculate, but He chose and predestinated us that
we might be so. Moreover, He did this according to the good pleasure of His
will, so that nobody might glory concerning his own will, but about God's will
towards Himself.'' St. Augustine

Augustine's idea of God is deterministic as in 'God is all-powerful', and also optimistic as in 'God is all-good'.

DAM 's stance seems to be deterministic ("The Father"). However DAM is saying that the details of this ultimate reality , "the Father" , are for us to decide on. Therefore the quote from Augustine is not appropriate.

Both Augustine and DAM fail to account for natural evils such as pestilence, ignorance, and huge volcano eruption. Augustine is especially disappointing in his apparent ignorance of the Book of Job. In this Biblical story, the hero, Job, submits to natural evils that befall him ; however for mysterious reasons Job remains a believer.

DAM, as always, believes there is nothing but thinking makes it so, including selves. I agree with DAM insofar as, in a relative world, this is all we can know. However if we were omniscient we would know what selves are and what everything else is including values of good and evil. This is why omniscience is a key attribute of God.

[attofishpi]

DAM, as always, believes there is nothing but thinking makes it so, including selves. I agree with DAM insofar as, in a relative world, this is all we can know. However if we were omniscient we would know what selves are and what everything else is including values of good and evil. This is why omniscience is a key attribute of God.

I disagree Belinda. God is not omniscient (of the ENTIRE future).