By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Why do some believe these characteristics of a Creator?

happydolphin on 29 January 2013
Jay520 said:

Activating knowledge =/= having knowledge. Just because you don't think of something you know, that doesn't mean you don't know it anymore.

Just because you stop thinking of your friend cheating doesn't mean you'll forget it. The knowledge will be there for the near future and you can not instantly rid yourself of the knowledge.

I can continue to choose not to think of what I know, simply because I chose to think of better things. We agree, if you look closely.



Around the Network
Jay520 on 29 January 2013
happydolphin said:
Jay520 said:
happydolphin said:
Jay520 said:

This goes against the common notion that the Creator is timeless and unchanged. God today is the same is He was 10 million years ago, etc. 

His divine nature doesn't change, simply his abilities are limited for a time/reason.

An example from Christianity is Christ, when he took the form of a man, he was able to suffer pain, which is not something Holy God is normally understood to do. But he limited his divinity for a moment. It doesn't change the fact that he could've broken free from that form at any moment, but he chose not to do so, because he had salvation in mind. (Philippians 2:1-11 as an example of this)

The key word here is chose.


Omniscience is a part of God's divine nature.

And I'm saying that putting his thoughts to rest, for a moment, does not change that. He knows all things, but he doesn't consider idea A or B when making a specific decision if his will is not to think about it.

I edited my post, the example I gave should help.

You can give me easy replies, but they will never answer your questions....



We're not talking about him resting thoughts. We're talking about him resting knowledge. Omniscience is a part of his divine nature. Omniscience is the knowledge of everything. If he rids himself of some knowledge, he loses omniscience, which alters his divine nature, which is impossible.

Chrizum on 29 January 2013
happydolphin said:
Jay520 said:

Activating knowledge =/= having knowledge. Just because you don't think of something you know, that doesn't mean you don't know it anymore.

Just because you stop thinking of your friend cheating doesn't mean you'll forget it. The knowledge will be there for the near future and you can not instantly rid yourself of the knowledge.

I can continue to choose not to think of what I know, simply because I chose to think of better things. We agree, if you look closely.

Can you choose not to think about a pink elephant right now?



Jay520 on 29 January 2013
happydolphin said:
Jay520 said:

Activating knowledge =/= having knowledge. Just because you don't think of something you know, that doesn't mean you don't know it anymore.

Just because you stop thinking of your friend cheating doesn't mean you'll forget it. The knowledge will be there for the near future and you can not instantly rid yourself of the knowledge.

I can continue to choose not to think of what I know, simply because I chose to think of better things. We agree, if you look closely.



We're not talking about thinking. We're talking abot knowledge. Do you agree that you cannot willingly expel your knowledge?

happydolphin on 29 January 2013
Jay520 said:

We're not talking about him resting thoughts. We're talking about him resting knowledge. Omniscience is a part of his divine nature. Omniscience is the knowledge of everything. If he rids himself of some knowledge, he loses omniscience, which alters his divine nature, which is impossible.

You are not talking about him resting thoughts. I am... and have been for many posts. I am not talking about him resting knowledge, never have been.

(I agree with the post I quoted)



Around the Network
timmah on 29 January 2013
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:

There you go again with (not so) veiled attacks on my intellect, you keep it classy. By the way, your 'up' is actually 'down' to people in China :P.

It's frustrating when you keep returning to time doesn't apply, then when I say time isn't relevant you say logic doesn't apply. Logic applies to anything and everything. It's two concepts that are contradictory to each other. Those being omniscience and free will.

Free will implies choice and nondeterminism. This isn't debatable. This is by definition.

Omniscience implies determinism (since nothing is unknown).

Nondeterminism != determinism

Simple, no other aspects need be considered at all. Time, Space, God, Human, does not matter. It is simply logic based purely on definition.

I'll try this one more time. Determinism comes from the word determine, which suggests that God would have actively laid out paths for each individual person. I'm saying he does not do this. That requires an active role of almost 'pulling the strings' on a bunch of puppets, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm theorizing that, if we were to say God knows the end from the beginning, yet free will exists, this would, by definition, imply a different definition and observation of time from what we know (as knowing future events as we define them without planning them would logically require a non-fixed perspective of time), that's why I used the time traveler analogy and the frozen river analogy. It's simply a way to attempt to understand and theorize a perspective outside our understanding and perspective of time. The idea of time is everything in discussing predetermination vs. pre-knowledge. You keep saying they're the same, I'm saying they're different as one is active, one is passive observation. The discussion of what this theorized passive observation could be, how it could take place, and what its impications would be is what I'm addressing. You might agree with me that in the time traveler analogy I gave, that would not have eliminated free will or choice, and I'm saying that's how a God outside of time could theoretically see things, thereby seeming to have knowledge of things that have not yet happened from our perspective, though from his perspective, we actively made that choice in our future, a future which he could theoretically view at any time for the sake of this discussion. One could also theorize that God could possibly use this theorized knowledge of the future to influence our present, thereby changing our future. One could then argue that if he did this, it would eliminate free will, therefore God would not directly interfere.

Keep in mind, I'm not a firm believer in the statements above, nor is it a core part of my faith, I'm merely posing them as an interesting discussion. I don't claim to know everything about God.



Chrizum on 29 January 2013
happydolphin said:
Jay520 said:

We're not talking about him resting thoughts. We're talking about him resting knowledge. Omniscience is a part of his divine nature. Omniscience is the knowledge of everything. If he rids himself of some knowledge, he loses omniscience, which alters his divine nature, which is impossible.

You are not talking about him resting thoughts. I am... and have been for many posts. I am not talking about him resting knowledge, never have been.

(I agree with the post I quoted)

So let's say in a certain point in time, there are two choices for me to make: A or B. God has forever known which choice I am going to make, right? Because he is all-knowing. He knows I'm going to choose B. He is able to not think about this for a moment, but he still knows it. My choice is still predetermined even if God chooses to ignore that thought for that moment. Do you agree? Or is it still possible for me to choose A even though God has forever known I'd choose B?



Jay520 on 29 January 2013
happydolphin said:
Jay520 said:

We're not talking about him resting thoughts. We're talking about him resting knowledge. Omniscience is a part of his divine nature. Omniscience is the knowledge of everything. If he rids himself of some knowledge, he loses omniscience, which alters his divine nature, which is impossible.

You are not talking about him resting thoughts. I am... and have been for many posts. I am not talking about him resting knowledge, never have been.

(I agree with the post I quoted)



Earlier you were. Here is one of your earlier posts:

"The fact that it's already determined doesn't change the fact that it's a choice.

Steps 0) God turns off omniscience.

1) God makes me.

2) God turns on omniscience.

Me can chooose, God can know. Problem solved. "

Omniscience deals with knowledge.

happydolphin on 29 January 2013
Chrizum said:

So let's say in a certain point in time, there are two choices for me to make: A or B. God has forever known which choice I am going to make, right? Because he is all-knowing. He knows I'm going to choose B. He is able to not think about this for a moment, but he still knows it. My choice is still predetermined even if God chooses to ignore that thought for that moment. Do you agree? Or is it still possible for me to choose A even though God has forever known I'd choose B?

He knows all. However, upon C, when he created you, he did not concern himself with your choice. He made you as he willed regardless of what choices you would or would not make, simply because it pleased him to make a being with the will to choose.

Whether he knew, ultimately, which choice you would one day make because of his transcendance of time and ability to know all, the moment he made you, he did not concern himself with that. He simply made you a person with the constant ability to choose, irrespective of his omniscience.

A pessimistic philosopher spent his days understanding the world around him, writing about it. Odd thing is he always had a fascination for art. It was his passtime. Every now and then, taking a moment away from his vocation, he would sit in front of a canvas to enter a world of imagination. Laying his pessimism aside for a moment, he made works based on his dreams, dreams of beauty.

I have no idea how the almighty omniscient creator made us with a choice, but if choice is a reality, I believe he more than anyone could pull it off.



dsgrue3 on 29 January 2013
timmah said:

I'll try this one more time. Determinism comes from the word determine, which suggests that God would have actively laid out paths for each individual person. I'm saying he does not do this. That requires an active role of almost 'pulling the strings' on a bunch of puppets, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm theorizing that, if we were to say God knows the end from the beginning, yet free will exists, this would, by definition, imply a different definition and observation of time from what we know (as knowing future events as we define them without planning them would logically require a non-fixed perspective of time), that's why I used the time traveler analogy and the frozen river analogy. It's simply a way to attempt to understand and theorize a perspective outside our understanding and perspective of time. The idea of time is everything in discussing predetermination vs. pre-knowledge. You keep saying they're the same, I'm saying they're different as one is active, one is passive observation. The discussion of what this theorized passive observation could be, how it could take place, and what its impications would be is what I'm addressing. You might agree with me that in the time traveler analogy I gave, that would not have eliminated free will or choice, and I'm saying that's how a God outside of time could theoretically see things, thereby seeming to have knowledge of things that have not yet happened from our perspective, though from his perspective, we actively made that choice in our future, a future which he could theoretically view at any time for the sake of this discussion. One could also theorize that God could possibly use this theorized knowledge of the future to influence our present, thereby changing our future. One could then argue that if he did this, it would eliminate free will, therefore God would not directly interfere.

Keep in mind, I'm not a firm believer in the statements above, nor is it a core part of my faith, I'm merely posing them as an interesting discussion. I don't claim to know everything about God.

Yes, God has determined the paths of individuals if he is omniscient so it is indeed deterministic. To suggest he hasn't is to suggest he is not omniscient.