Interesting Seminar Tomorrow In Claremont Ca

[mfbukowski]

I used to wonder if he gained more knowledge by having more children and getting to know each one, since children have their own personalities and some could maybe be entirely different than the personalities of his other children, but later I realized that idea was flawed. After billions and billions of children he's already seen it all.

Well I would also disagree with McConkie but on semantic grounds- the idea of being "omniscient" implies a definition of knowledge which doesn't work.  What it implies is that there is a finite amount of knowledge, that once you have all of it, there is no more to learn.

 

But in my opinion that is not the case, because to me knowledge is relational.  The consciousness and understanding of each individual on earth adds to the consciousness- the "pool of knowledge" of mankind, so for each new person in a sense there is a whole new pool of knowledge.

 

You know things I will never ever know about, and we all create new ways of seeing things just be being different individuals with different genes combinations and different experiences.  Even identical twins can have totally different experiences- switched at birth, etc, which makes them totally unique.

 

So there are always new ways of seeing the world, and new ways of "knowing" someone or something.  But God knows the future- so he already "knows" all that right, so he is still "omniscient"?

 

To me that is just a question-begging (circular) argument.  God knows everything because he knows everything.  You postulate that and then you get that conclusion- surprise surprise.  Then the denial is that "God does not know everything"- so now you are a heretic who doesn't believe that God is omniscient. So unless you assume from the beginning God's omniscience, you are a heretical bum.

 

It's all really just a semantic game and a circular argument

 

So that is the way I would disagree with the McConkies of the world.  One can go round and round on these definitional topics arguing about words, or one can get on with life and talk about practical problems.  I prefer the latter.

[mfbukowski]

So did you watch the video?

Yep. 

 

Frankly it was tough to get through because of the Indian accent, and the underlying Catholic metaphysics with which I disagree.  But there were a lot of good thoughts there as well which I will get into if someone is actually interested in discussing them.  I like process philosophy but a lot of it is very metaphysical because Whitehead was primarily a metaphysician and that way of thinking is pretty incompatible with analytical philosophy, imo.

 

The audience questions raised a lot of the historicity concerns we see here all the time, and frankly I thought the questions did not show much understanding of the lecture.  But it was very instructive because that was what we see here all the time- the identical lack of comprehension that historicity has nothing to do with these issues

 

To me that issue is so simple, people totally miss it, Catholics especially.

 

Ask any Christian if they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus of Nazareth, IF he existed, was the savior of the world, and they will tell you that that must be accepted on faith.

 

Ask them if their belief in Christ has changed their lives.  Any Christian will tell you that it has.

 

That alone proves that it is the BELIEF that Jesus is the savior that changes their lives, not the historical proof or lack thereof that he existed, because the history cannot be proven, yet their lives have been changed objectively.  They are not the "same people" they were before- they are "born again" BECAUSE of the BELIEF.

 

"Amazing grace... that saved a wretch like me.  I once was lost but now I'm found...."

 

It is the belief in the grace that makes one "found"- NOT a historical fact which cannot be proven.

[Ahab]

Well I would also disagree with McConkie but on semantic grounds- the idea of being "omniscient" implies a definition of knowledge which doesn't work. What it implies is that there is a finite amount of knowledge, that once you have all of it, there is no more to learn.

But in my opinion that is not the case, because to me knowledge is relational. The consciousness and understanding of each individual on earth adds to the consciousness- the "pool of knowledge" of mankind, so for each new person in a sense there is a whole new pool of knowledge.

You know things I will never ever know about, and we all create new ways of seeing things just be being different individuals with different genes combinations and different experiences. Even identical twins can have totally different experiences- switched at birth, etc, which makes them totally unique.

So there are always new ways of seeing the world, and new ways of "knowing" someone or something. But God knows the future- so he already "knows" all that right, so he is still "omniscient"?

To know everything we don't need to know the future, as long as there isn't anything new in the future that we don't already know. As I was saying, I once thought that maybe our Father learned more by having and getting to know more of his children, since each would have their own personality and maybe some of them would be so different than any he had known before, but after billions and billions there is nothing new that he hasn't already seen before. There are and will continue to just be more of the same as some others, with some good and some other ones evil. Some more like you and some more like me, each with the same experiences, although at different times and in different places and with different names. And while you may think there are no other like you or me, that would just be wrong.

To me that is just a question-begging (circular) argument. God knows everything because he knows everything. You postulate that and then you get that conclusion- surprise surprise. Then the denial is that "God does not know everything"- so now you are a heretic who doesn't believe that God is omniscient. So unless you assume from the beginning God's omniscience, you are a heretical bum.

It's all really just a semantic game and a circular argument

So that is the way I would disagree with the McConkies of the world. One can go round and round on these definitional topics arguing about words, or one can get on with life and talk about practical problems. I prefer the latter.

Sounds like you're putting yourself in a box with no desire to get out of it. There are other thoughts you could consider.

[Robert F. Smith]

..........................................................................................

............................................................After billions and billions of children he's already seen it all.

Metaphorically at least.

[mfbukowski]

Sounds like you're putting yourself in a box with no desire to get out of it. There are other thoughts you could consider.

None that seem rational to me, however.

[mfbukowski]

"God knows everything but he doesn't know the future"

"Because God knows the future we cannot have freedom"

"The Trinity is made of three persons who are one in Being"

 

Somehow those quotes, this thread, and some others remind me of a little kid's joke I remember which is totally relevant to theological discourse.

This is the joke:
 

You are in a room with no windows, no doors, and all there is with you is a table, and a mirror.

 

How do you get out of the room?

 

You look in the mirror and see what you saw.

You take the saw and cut the table in half

Two halves make a whole

Then you just crawl out of the hole.

 

That is a perfect example of my view of metaphysics and most theological solutions.  That is exactly how they sound to me.

[Robert F. Smith]

You are in a room with no windows, no doors, and all there is with you is a table, and a mirror.

 

How do you get out of the room?

 

You look in the mirror and see what you saw.

You take the saw and cut the table in half

Two halves make a whole

Then you just crawl out of the hole.

Is that also how a raven is like a writing desk?

Aldous Huxely replied:

"Because there is a 'b' in 'both,' and an 'n' in 'neither'."

 

Or is Alice's response to the Mad Hatter more apropos:

"I think you might do something better with the time than wasting it in asking riddles that have no answers."

 

Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson) himself said later:

"Because it can produce a few notes, tho they are very flat; and it is never put with the wrong end in front!"