The act creation is logically impossible

[Bahman]

I wonder how many Bahmanites there are in the world? What it boils down to is that there is no God and the world simply is a " hard fact, " for which there is no explanation. And that is not reasonable, Indeed, in such a world, reason would be impossible, because in that world there would be no mind by which to reason.

Linus2nd

I am not that close mind. Lets see if I can provide a list of them for you:

1. I believe on mind at least I know that I cannot deny or prove it , I just experience things with it so here it is
2. free will is mysterious for me but I wish I could experience it through reflection since we turn to sole observer without that, but I know this experience is impossible
3. matter I don’t know what it is, there are theories about it but they have problems since ever and they will
4. death is so weird to me, it bother me a lot but I am not afraid of it, either there is another life after it or there is absolute peace
5. God, Ahan, that is a serious stuff, but I don’t think we could fully comprehended God with earthy words and logic, I do however like to fit God with what we know and believe

 

[Bahman]

I am not omniscient but I have got a modicum of understanding about human nature.
I am telling you that you will continue to utter this sort of nonsense, either on this forum or elsewhere. This will be the case until you undergo a conversion (have a realization, achieve enlightenment/transcendence, etc.)
You will carry on because you choose to remain as you are.
I am just some random idiot on the Internet, but perhaps God is speaking to you through me.

Thank you very much for your writing. I however did not realize that which part of my writing is nonsense. Do you like to discuss the part you mark with bold fonts?

 

[tonyrey]

Since it is logically impossible to have omniscience at the point of creation knowing that omniscience itself is subject of change once it is known by an agent with free will. In another world it is the problem of omniscience not omnipotence.

Only an omniscient person can fully understand omniscience.

 

[Bahman]

Only an omniscient person can fully understand omniscience.

This is escaping from the problem. Why bother to attribute omniscience to God if only God fully understand it? Simple, God is God, period.

 

[davidv]

This is escaping from the problem. Why bother to attribute omniscience to God if only God fully understand it? Simple, God is God, period.

Because “not fully understanding” is not the same as have no understanding at all.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I however did not realize that which part of my writing is nonsense. Do you like to discuss the part you mark with bold fonts?

“omniscience itself is subject of change once it is known by an agent with free will.”

Yes, this is nonsense.
There is no point to discuss this because it is self-evident that this is merely contorted thinking having nothing to do with reality.
There was a thread months ago that went on ad nauseum about this.

In general, when one meets something that is irrational, one must re-examine one’s understanding.
In this case it has to do with the facts that God is omniscient and we have free will.
If you think that there is a contradiction, there is a problem with what you consider as omniscience and/or free will.
There is in fact an understanding of Reality that encompasses both. What may appear as a paradox actually makes sense.

 

[Bahman]

Because “not fully understanding” is not the same as have no understanding at all.

Omniscience has either a definition or not. Here is an definition: “Omniscience is the capacity to know everything which is true.” There is nothing in this definition that we don’t fully understand. The trueness of omniscience is however conditioned to secrecy since otherwise it can be subject of change once it is known with an agent with free will. Hence, omniscience cannot be true since it is subject of change. Is there anything in this argument that we don’t fully understand?

 

[Bahman]

“omniscience itself is subject of change once it is known by an agent with free will.”

Yes, this is nonsense.
There is no point to discuss this because it is self-evident that this is merely contorted thinking having nothing to do with reality.

This is not a contorted thinking. It is indeed very straightforward. Simple question: Could we do something opposite to truth once the truth is revealed to us?

In general, when one meets something that is irrational, one must re-examine one’s understanding.

That I agree.

In this case it has to do with the facts that God is omniscient and we have free will.
If you think that there is a contradiction, there is a problem with what you consider as omniscience and/or free will.

There is no problem with that, lets define omniscience and free will

Omniscience: “Omniscience is the capacity to know everything which is true.”
Free will: “Free will is the ability to choose between at least two options.”

There is in fact an understanding of Reality that encompasses both.

Understanding of reality does not lead to both since otherwise we didn’t have people with such a diverse believes. Following the logic based on definitions however permit one.

 

[davidv]

Omniscience has either a definition or not. Here is an definition: “Omniscience is the capacity to know everything which is true.”

Why not include knowing what is false?

There is nothing in this definition that we don’t fully understand.

Quite the contrary, as it is quite clear you won’t accept the that the definition above can apply to the all knowing God. So, if we cannot agree on its meaning and its application we clearly do not fully understand it.

The trueness of omniscience is however conditioned to secrecy since otherwise it can be subject of change once it is known with an agent with free will.

This is clearly an assertion for which you provide little, if any, rational basis.

Hence, omniscience cannot be true since it is subject of change. Is there anything in this argument that we don’t fully understand?

This is a conclusion that is not based on demonstrated premises. It cannot be accepted as true.