Is God Completely Omniscient?

  • Thread starter Thread starter spockrates
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
spockrates said:
Yes. I think you also answered the next question affirmatively, but please let me be sure. Do you also think the analogy of the game children play–though far too simplistic–has some truth to it? As paper covers rock, so does love cover power? That is, what God will do is filtered by what his love allows?
Click to expand...
Spockrates:

I don’t think there’s any doubt (at least among knowledgeable believers). God’s Omnipotence extends also to making Him capable of proportioning those three attributes with precision. Unfortunately, humans too often project points of view gained by looking through pinholes, which tends to cause the perception of things that shatter their exquisitely sublime daily lives. This results in the pseudo-problem of evil.

Now, that might upset some people, but some people need to quit attributing the notion of ‘evil’ to almost everything!

God bless,
jd
 
spockrates said:
http://rookery.s3.amazonaws.com/946000/946013_d86e_625x1000.jpg

Yes. I think you also answered the next question affirmatively, but please let me be sure. Do you also think the analogy of the game children play–though far too simplistic–has some truth to it? As paper covers rock, so does love cover power? That is, what God will do is filtered by what his love allows?
Click to expand...
Your analogy is too unlike God’s attributes as be useless. God’s attributes are not separate like the rock, paper and sissor are. Love never ends but is does not cover power. Each attributed is expressed with the others indivisibly.
 
davidv said:
Your analogy is too unlike God’s attributes as be useless. God’s attributes are not separate like the rock, paper and sissor are. Love never ends but is does not cover power. Each attributed is expressed with the others indivisibly.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the help, David. When you say God’s attributes are inseperable, do you mean love is power and knowledge? Or do you mean the attributes of God are distinct, but there is no act of God that is not loving, powerful and wise all at the same time?
 
JDaniel said:
Spockrates:

I don’t think there’s any doubt (at least among knowledgeable believers). God’s Omnipotence extends also to making Him capable of proportioning those three attributes with precision. Unfortunately, humans too often project points of view gained by looking through pinholes, which tends to cause the perception of things that shatter their exquisitely sublime daily lives. This results in the pseudo-problem of evil.

Now, that might upset some people, but some people need to quit attributing the notion of ‘evil’ to almost everything!

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
Yes, but let us see why David seems to disagree.

🙂
 
spockrates said:
Thanks for the help, David. When you say God’s attributes are inseperable, do you mean love is power and knowledge? Or do you mean the attributes of God are distinct, but there is no act of God that is not loving, powerful and wise all at the same time?
Click to expand...
Sort of the the latter.
What we see as individual acts of God (because we are in time) do not seem to display all of God’s attributes at their greatest state. However His greatest is always available to God. What is displayed, in no way, diminishes His capacity.
 
davidv said:
Sort of the the latter.
What we see as individual acts of God (because we are in time) do not seem to display all of God’s attributes at their greatest state. However His greatest is always available to God. What is displayed, in no way, diminishes His capacity.
Click to expand...
http://www.impactlab.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/CarrierPigeon-764.jpg

Yes, it makes sense to me. For I see that omnipotence and omnibenevolence are indeed capacities that God possesses but does not always have! Do you get my meaning and see how one does not always have what he possesses?

An imperfect analogy might be an owner of carrier pigeons. One would see he posses dozens of carrier pigeons, but only has one in his hands at a time. He would only use one of the pigeons he possesses when the need arises. When he wants to communicate with someone at location (A), he writes a message down on paper, and folds up the message to a size that will fit around a pigeon’s leg. He then reaches into his pigeon cage and grabs hold of the one pigeon–let us call her pigeon (a)–whom he knows will fly to only that location. He then ties the message to pigeon (a) and sends her flying on her way to location (A). If he wanted to send a message to location (B), he would take hold of pigeon (b). To send a message to destination (C), he would send pigeon (c), and so on.

One would say he possesses the capacity to send a message to every place to which his birds can fly, but he does not use the full extent of this power every day, because he does not need to do so every day. We might reasonably say the same of God. He possesses the capacity to do everything that is in his power and character to do, but he does not use the full extent of this power at every moment, because there is no need for him to do so.

It’s an inadequate analogy, I know, but does it sound logical to you?
 
spockrates said:
http://www.impactlab.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/CarrierPigeon-764.jpg

Yes, it makes sense to me. For I see that omnipotence and omnibenevolence are indeed capacities that God possesses but does not always have! Do you get my meaning and see how one does not always have what he possesses?
Click to expand...
No, I do not get your meaning. What you wrote sounds like a contradiction to me. For me “possess” and “have” are synonyms. It is a logical contradiction to have and not have at the same time.
An imperfect analogy might be an owner of carrier pigeons. One would see he posses dozens of carrier pigeons, but only has one in his hands at a time. He would only use one of the pigeons he possesses when the need arises. When he wants to communicate with someone at location (A), he writes a message down on paper, and folds up the message to a size that will fit around a pigeon’s leg. He then reaches into his pigeon cage and grabs hold of the one pigeon–let us call her pigeon (a)–whom he knows will fly to only that location. He then ties the message to pigeon (a) and sends her flying on her way to location (A). If he wanted to send a message to location (B), he would take hold of pigeon (b). To send a message to destination (C), he would send pigeon (c), and so on.

One would say he possesses the capacity to send a message to every place to which his birds can fly, but he does not use the full extent of this power every day, because he does not need to do so every day. We might reasonably say the same of God. He possesses the capacity to do everything that is in his power and character to do, but he does not use the full extent of this power at every moment, because there is no need for him to do so.

It’s an inadequate analogy, I know, but does it sound logical to you?
Click to expand...
Certainly. However none of this supports the conclusion, as I read it, presented in the OP.
 
spockrates said:
http://www.impactlab.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/CarrierPigeon-764.jpg

Yes, it makes sense to me. For I see that omnipotence and omnibenevolence are indeed capacities that God possesses but does not always have! Do you get my meaning and see how one does not always have what he possesses?

An imperfect analogy might be an owner of carrier pigeons. One would see he posses dozens of carrier pigeons, but only has one in his hands at a time. He would only use one of the pigeons he possesses when the need arises. When he wants to communicate with someone at location (A), he writes a message down on paper, and folds up the message to a size that will fit around a pigeon’s leg. He then reaches into his pigeon cage and grabs hold of the one pigeon–let us call her pigeon (a)–whom he knows will fly to only that location. He then ties the message to pigeon (a) and sends her flying on her way to location (A). If he wanted to send a message to location (B), he would take hold of pigeon (b). To send a message to destination (C), he would send pigeon (c), and so on.

One would say he possesses the capacity to send a message to every place to which his birds can fly, but he does not use the full extent of this power every day, because he does not need to do so every day. We might reasonably say the same of God. He possesses the capacity to do everything that is in his power and character to do, but he does not use the full extent of this power at every moment, because there is no need for him to do so.

It’s an inadequate analogy, I know, but does it sound logical to you?
Click to expand...
Spockrates:

I have to agree with David. It is always extraordinarily difficult to think about God separated from time. We exist through time in a Now that is not part of time. We recall past Nows, and look forward to future Nows. However, our Now is so fleeting as to be, for all intents and purposes, a mental fiction. But, we believe it’s not.

But God does not separate His Thoughts and Willings by time. As impossible as it is to comprehend, we must not confuse our expressions and withholdings, which all occur in Time, with God’s seeming expressions and withholdings. which are not Time-dependent. What God does - in the widest sense of that word - is simultaneous. That we see it as Time-dependent is due to our physicality and finitude. For God, there is no withholding and procession, as these imply “before and after.”

As for the pigeons, God does not, in my opinion, send out one pigeon and hold back all the rest. Again, that would imply immersion in Time. Think: God is making everything in the universe happen without pause or further thought requirement, with a simultaneity that is so profound that we can do no more than marvel at our inept notion of it.

God bless,
jd
 
davidv said:
No, I do not get your meaning. What you wrote sounds like a contradiction to me. For me “possess” and “have” are synonyms. It is a logical contradiction to have and not have at the same time.

Certainly. However none of this supports the conclusion, as I read it, presented in the OP.
Click to expand...
Yes, it might have been clearer if I had suggested that there is a difference between possessing and using. Another example: One might possess a million dollars but never spend a dime of it and so, never use it. There are some things God possesses the power to do, yet never does. We’ve looked at several examples of this.

We’ve also looked at some examples of how there are some ways God might love some, but he chooses to withhold these acts of love. Those damned, for example, do not experience the fuller extent of God’s love, which those saints now in heaven do. I believe you agreed with this, too.

So how does this relate to the opening post? It relates in this: If omnipotence is a capacity that God does not use to its fullest extent, and if omnibenevolence is a capacity that God does not use to its fullest extent, then is it possible omniscience is also a capacity that God does not use to its fullest extent? If not, then why is this divine attribute unlike the other two?
 
JDaniel said:
Spockrates:

I have to agree with David. It is always extraordinarily difficult to think about God separated from time. We exist through time in a Now that is not part of time. We recall past Nows, and look forward to future Nows. However, our Now is so fleeting as to be, for all intents and purposes, a mental fiction. But, we believe it’s not.

But God does not separate His Thoughts and Willings by time. As impossible as it is to comprehend, we must not confuse our expressions and withholdings, which all occur in Time, with God’s seeming expressions and withholdings. which are not Time-dependent. What God does - in the widest sense of that word - is simultaneous. That we see it as Time-dependent is due to our physicality and finitude. For God, there is no withholding and procession, as these imply “before and after.”

As for the pigeons, God does not, in my opinion, send out one pigeon and hold back all the rest. Again, that would imply immersion in Time. Think: God is making everything in the universe happen without pause or further thought requirement, with a simultaneity that is so profound that we can do no more than marvel at our inept notion of it.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
Yes, as I said, the analogy is far from an adequate comparison to the power of God. But by saying you agree with David, are you saying you concur that omnipotence and omnibenevolence are merely capacities God possesses, but which he never uses to their fullest extent? That is, do you agree there are some things God can do, which he does not, and there are some ways God might love, but he does not love some in those ways?

Also, I’m curious how God’s existing in eternity should change my understanding of what omnipotence is. Will you please explain?
 
+JMJ+
spockrates said:
Also, I’m curious how God’s existing in eternity should change my understanding of what omnipotence is. Will you please explain?
Click to expand...
What is the scientific definition of power? It is the rate at which work is performed or energy is converted.



If God is outside of time and lives in the Eternal Now, then everything He does never takes time, i.e.

Δt = 0

Therefore

PGod = ΔW/Δt = ΔW/0 = ∞
 
spockrates said:
Yes, as I said, the analogy is far from an adequate comparison to the power of God. But by saying you agree with David, are you saying you concur that omnipotence and omnibenevolence are merely capacities God possesses, but which he never uses to their fullest extent? That is, do you agree there are some things God can do, which he does not, and there are some ways God might love, but he does not love some in those ways?

Also, I’m curious how God’s existing in eternity should change my understanding of what omnipotence is. Will you please explain?
Click to expand...
Sounds to me you read into my responses things I didn’t write nor mean. Your examples are evidence of less than full extent use of God’s capacities. However, neither of us have enough knowledge to claim God never uses His capacities to their fullest extent. I don’t agree with limits you seem to impose on God.
 
davidv said:
Sounds to me you read into my responses things I didn’t write nor mean. Your examples are evidence of less than full extent use of God’s capacities. However, neither of us have enough knowledge to claim God never uses His capacities to their fullest extent. I don’t agree with limits you seem to impose on God.
Click to expand...
Well, a car that has a gas tank filled with an infinite amount of gasoline could not possibly use all of its fuel. So how could a God with an infinite amount of power posibly use all of it? Look at Nun’s post and do the math, David. Since God is not limited even by time, then how could he possibly use up an limitless amount of power, love, or knowledge?

🙂
 
spockrates said:
Well, a car that has a gas tank filled with an infinite amount of gasoline could not possibly use all of its fuel. So how could a God with an infinite amount of power posibly use all of it? Look at Nun’s post and do the math, David. Since God is not limited even by time, then how could he possibly use up an limitless amount of power, love, or knowledge?

🙂
Click to expand...
 
spockrates said:
Yes, as I said, the analogy is far from an adequate comparison to the power of God. But by saying you agree with David, are you saying you concur that omnipotence and omnibenevolence are merely capacities God possesses, but which he never uses to their fullest extent? That is, do you agree there are some things God can do, which he does not, and there are some ways God might love, but he does not love some in those ways?
Click to expand...
Spocrates:

No. God does not own capacities. As I said, God is not a being. We tend to call Him a “being,” because we lack a better word. Only a “being” can own properties or capacities. God is the originative locus of all capacities and properties. We show this by capitalizing the first letter of the word, “Being,” when we use it, as we do with other His determinants.
Also, I’m curious how God’s existing in eternity should change my understanding of what omnipotence is. Will you please explain?
Click to expand...
The Church says that God exists in an Eternal Now. We exist in a temporal roll-out. In God’s Eternal Now, everything He does occurs simultaneously. Everything we do transpires across time. How can we comprehend the manner in which God exists? I don’t know if we can. But, as for us, it is imperative, I think, that our existences be subject to a “roll-out.” Otherwise, we’d be frightened to death immediately!

God bless,
jd
 
JDaniel said:
Spocrates:

No. God does not own capacities. As I said, God is not a being. We tend to call Him a “being,” because we lack a better word. Only a “being” can own properties or capacities. God is the originative locus of all capacities and properties. We show this by capitalizing the first letter of the word, “Being,” when we use it, as we do with other His determinants.

The Church says that God exists in an Eternal Now. We exist in a temporal roll-out. In God’s Eternal Now, everything He does occurs simultaneously. Everything we do transpires across time. How can we comprehend the manner in which God exists? I don’t know if we can. But, as for us, it is imperative, I think, that our existences be subject to a “roll-out.” Otherwise, we’d be frightened to death immediately!

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
http://it-lex.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/thumbs_up.jpg

I think I understand. Beings have capacity to do things, because some things they want to do, they never end up doing. God, however does not have the capacity to do, because everything God wants to do God actually does do. True?
 
spockrates said:
I think I understand. Beings have capacity to do things, because some things they want to do, they never end up doing. God, however does not have the capacity to do, because everything God wants to do God actually does do. True?
Click to expand...
Spocrates:

That’s pretty close. I wouldn’t say He doesn’t have the capacity for something, just that ours is a product of our (trapped in time) weakness, which He doesn’t have. 🙂

God bless,jd
 
JDaniel said:
Spocrates:

That’s pretty close. I wouldn’t say He doesn’t have the capacity for something, just that ours is a product of our (trapped in time) weakness, which He doesn’t have. 🙂

God bless,jd
Click to expand...
http://www.icis.com/blogs/asian-chemical-connections/man-scratching-his-head.jpg

Now I’m confused! You first said, “God does not own capacities,” but now you are saying, “I wouldn’t say He doesn’t have the capacity for something.” Do you mean God does not own the capacities God has?

🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top