Is God omniscient? Start Over.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

a confusing point in any case. It is said in the scriptures that once you repent God doesn't remember your sins any longer, but I'm pretty certain He does remember them, just as you do. It's one of those symbolic or illustrative things that is meant to show God's mercy, in that your sins don't "count" any longer, as if they had never been committed.

Or in the end if we repent we exist as if we had never sinned and all the impact of our sin is removed, perhaps even rippling back through time changing our past as well as changing our future. 

And neither God nor we remember them because those sins never happened in the time that now exists for us.

Perhaps time is fluid like that. 
 

And that is why God allows suffering in the now because in the end it won’t have happened after all. 

Edited August 20, 2022 by Calm

[Stargazer]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

What difference does this make to whether or not our behaviour is determined? If there can be no difference in what we chose in the past ten years in 2032 and what we choose in the future ten years in 2022, is not our behaviour determined?  If not, explain why not. 

Determinism is the antithesis of agency. As is predestination. We are not predestined, nor is our behavior determined. We have full moral agency.

All I have been saying is that God knows what you will choose, because He has already seen it. From His standpoint there is no mystery. But regardless of whether He knows it, you must still go through it all, because until you do, it hasn't happened. 

At this time, neither you nor I live outside of Time; we live inside it, and for us there is a pointer of time's progression which moves steadily onward inexorably towards some end, and we are constrained to see things only moment to moment. We make our choices moment to moment and frequently we don't know what new challenge is coming up, nor exactly how we will meet it. We are perfectly free to make our choices. God is not so constrained. He sees it all because He is outside Time, but He doesn't determine which choices we make or made, even if He knows what they are already.

Using Blue Dreams' image of a maze with multiple exits, you as the maze runner see only the immediate place where you happen to be located. But if you were the maze creator, you would see the entire maze and all its pathways and destinations. The analogy breaks down if you're still in Time, of course, because you're still perplexed wondering why the maze runner chose that particular path instead of another one. 

I am sure I am making a hash of this. 

And maybe I'm completely wrong about it all.

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or in the end if we repent we exist as if we had never sinned and all the impact of our sin is removed, perhaps even rippling back through time changing our past as well as changing our future. 

And neither God nor we remember them because those sins never happened in the time that now exists for us.

Perhaps time is fluid like that. 
 

And that is why God allows suffering in the now because in the end it won’t have happened after all. 

Good and interesting points.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I used “self determined” because some appeared to be confused by my use of determinism, thinking it meant it was God making us do stuff, causing/determining who we are while actually I mean if God can foresee our behaviour based on our characters, this must mean our characters determine our behaviour, which is only a problem if you want one of your characteristics to be being unpredictable.

Determism doesn’t imply to me what is doing the determining, just that we are determined by something besides our own will.  I supposed my determinism might not actually be determinism depending on how I define “Will”.  Haven’t really done that yet.  Probably should.  I am just not sure how that works with “eternal intelligence”.  Is intelligence more like programming than agency?  If God gave us agency, could we be said to have “will” before then?

Well I think the whole concern TENDS (not necessarily for any particular Individual including someone as knowledgeable as you) to want to be a desire to mix science with spirituality.  Many look at scientific data in a clockware universe and the wonders of contemporary psychology and cannot help themselves from looking for mechanism instead of how we experience the world directly.  I mean we HAVE to be determined after all we "know" about the brain and psychology, right?

Wrong.   From a first person persective- about how we ARE in the world- and how we are with God- we must let go and be totally subjective.   It should be, imo, pure experience between we as individuals and with God.  Can you imagine Joseph in the middle of his theophany suddenly thinking- "Hey wait a minute!  Is this a hallucination?  Was it those mushrooms from dinner last night....."?

 

 

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I think the whole concern TENDS (not necessarily for any particular Individual including someone as knowledgeable as you) to want to be a desire to mix science with spirituality.  Many look at scientific data in a clockware universe and the wonders of contemporary psychology and cannot help themselves from looking for mechanism instead of how we experience the world directly.  I mean we HAVE to be determined after all we "know" about the brain and psychology, right?

Wrong.   From a first person persective- about how we ARE in the world- and how we are with God- we must let go and be totally subjective.   It should be, imo, pure experience between we as individuals and with God.  Can you imagine Joseph in the middle of his theophany suddenly thinking- "Hey wait a minute!  Is this a hallucination?  Was it those mushrooms from dinner last night....."?

 

 

I don’t personally think “determined” or “not determined” applies to eternity. Just because I take a concept box out of the grab bag to dissect it doesn’t  mean it’s mine.    I don’t know what does apply.  I think it is more along the lines of if mortal humans can conceive of something, that isn’t it.  I believe our brains are too limited to hold enough information to synthesize anything close to God’s reality, which is the reality of the universe (universes perhaps) as well.  I am just addressing the logic of various speculations when I come across them.  Foreknowledge of God has some problems with it, imo, that I haven’t seen anyone deal with completely if God is granted complete Foreknowledge as opposed to knowing all that is possible to be known, which implies the future might not be able to be known completely, though given the butterfly effect, would a small unknown eventually lead to the existence of a massive one?  I can see God actively self correcting to prevent little unknowns from having too much effect might take care of that, but it still would be a pretty general picture it seems… unless God had scheduled reboots…hmmm….
 

I have yet to come across a paradigm that works for me.  Fluid time is the closest, also celestial harmonies and neither are anything like determinism, lol.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

What difference does this make to whether or not our behaviour is determined? If there can be no difference in what we chose in the past ten years in 2032 and what we choose in the future ten years in 2022, is not our behaviour determined?  If not, explain why not. 

It is irrelevant IF our lives are determined.  We will still decide to get that quart of milk we forgot to buy tonight or tomorrow morning.   It is a silly thing to worry about.  Take the plane and risk covid, or burn more gas and spend more time to see your grandkids.

It doesn't matter if we are "determined", we still have to decide.  Pragmatically there is no difference whatsoever

[Calm]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

It is irrelevant IF our lives are determined.  We will still decide to get that quart of milk we forgot to buy tonight or tomorrow morning.   It is a silly thing to worry about.  Take the plane and risk covid, or burn more gas and spend more time to see your grandkids.

It doesn't matter if we are "determined", we still have to decide.  Pragmatically there is no difference whatsoever

Don’t disagree, but as long as we are playing with the omni-labels, I like to take a dip in the sea of irrelevancy.

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t personally think “determined” or “not determined” applies to eternity. Just because I take a concept box out of the grab bag to dissect it doesn’t  mean it’s mine.    I don’t know what does apply.  I think it is more along the lines of if mortal humans can conceive of something, that isn’t it.  I believe our brains are too limited to hold enough information to synthesize anything close to God’s reality, which is the reality of the universe (universes perhaps) as well.  I am just addressing the logic of various speculations when I come across them.  Foreknowledge of God has some problems with it, imo, that I haven’t seen anyone deal with completely if God is granted complete Foreknowledge as opposed to knowing all that is possible to be known, which implies the future might not be able to be known completely, though given the butterfly effect, would a small unknown eventually lead to the existence of a massive one?  I can see God actively self correcting to prevent little unknowns from having too much effect might take care of that, but it still would be a pretty general picture it seems… unless God had scheduled reboots…hmmm….
 

I have yet to come across a paradigm that works for me.  Fluid time is the closest…and that isn’t anything like determinism, lol.

Wittgenstein is spinning.

"What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent. "

 

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Don’t disagree, but as long as we are playing with the omni-labels, I like to take a dip in the sea of irrelevancy.

I prefer strawberry.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I prefer strawberry.

Dang, me too, but these days it makes me break out in a rash.

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Dang, me too, but these days it makes me break out in a rash.

Determinism.

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I think the whole concern TENDS (not necessarily for any particular Individual including someone as knowledgeable as you) to want to be a desire to mix science with spirituality. 

But Truth, scientific or spiritual, doesn’t come in separate boxes. More like a bubbling cauldron, we may recognize an occasional piece, but what counts is the whole concoction and that is all one. God’s truth enfolds all that is spiritual truth and all that is scientific truth. 

So I wonder if that means his truth is somehow both subjective and objective and many other experiences as well without being the least paradoxical or is it neither as neither come close enough in describing what is sufficiently to apply. 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Determinism.

If only I could convince my primate brain its programming doesn’t actually exist. I could indulge myself without having to break out the hydrocortisone. 

Edited August 20, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

If only I could convince my primate brain its programming doesn’t actually exist. I could indulge myself without having to break out the hydrocortisone. 

[Calm]

It is a great frustration of mine that my mind appears to be willing to go down all sorts of paths and peek behind so many doors, but the ones I need it to most.  I can’t tell if it is because I can’t find them or if I am avoiding them. 

[Jerry Atric]

On 8/17/2022 at 5:21 PM, DT_ said:

Okay. I have two questions. The second question is dependent on the answer to the first one.  I'm interested in your opinions.

Is God omniscient?

No, God is not all-knowing, and I believe it is cruel to believe he is. Being omniscient implies God never learns. Nothing surprises him. He's never taken off guard. Doesn't that sound like a rather boring eternal life? Rather, a belief in God's omniscience gives the christ follower extraordinary piece in every area of life. As Mormons, we place a lot of emphasis on bringing peace and comfort into people's lives. That is what religion provides. Why some individuals complicate religion so much is beyond me.

  

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

He is not a being in Time. He stands outside it, precisely as I have argued here using Stephen Hawking's shortsighted vision of the nature of creation. Standing outside it as He does, He has full access to it from beginning to end. He doesn't remember what happened in the past, he sees what happened in the past because it is present to him. He sees what will happen in the future, also, because it is also present to him. To him, our universe is an open book in both time and space.

That's my understanding of it, anyway. YMMV. 

Placing God outside of time doesn't really solve the problem of determinism though. You just have to shift the words in the argument to accommodate that special property, like this: God is omniscient and exists outside of time; His knowledge is timeless—that is, God knows timelessly all that has happened, is happening, and will happen. Therefore, if He knows timelessly that a person will perform such-and-such an action, then it is impossible for that person not to perform that action.

 

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

God must be immanent to be a Father, and therefore not fully transcendent, but of course those are simply human words describing human ideas, or attempting to.

I agree. And I also agree with your other comments about language and the limits of our understanding.

Perhaps compatibilism is as far as we can get with our current understanding, but I still tend to favor a strong version of free will. 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Placing God outside of time doesn't really solve the problem of determinism though. You just have to shift the words in the argument to accommodate that special property, like this: God is omniscient and exists outside of time; His knowledge is timeless—that is, God knows timelessly all that has happened, is happening, and will happen. Therefore, if He knows timelessly that a person will perform such-and-such an action, then it is impossible for that person not to perform that action.

 

The whole alleged problem is the words.

Pull the door instead of pushing 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I agree. And I also agree with your other comments about language and the limits of our understanding.

Perhaps compatibilism is as far as we can get with our current understanding, but I still tend to favor a strong version of free will. 

 

I honestly have no opinion on any of this stuff anymore.

After 50 years of philosophy I see words as a big pile of construction materials.

What will we make today?  A house? An airplane? Gold? A cherry pie?

"And God CALLED it the first day"

"All that was made was made by the Word"

Define it however you want and you have created your own universe.

But none of it is real until it works, and then it doesn't matter WHAT you call it.

[BlueDreams]

On 8/19/2022 at 10:27 PM, Stargazer said:

I brought events, patriotism, and love into it because these are all "things" even if they are not tangible.

It does specifically talk about those things, yes. But must it be limited to those things? If God knows about all the worlds with inhabitants in them, can we conclude that He knows nothing about those worlds that have no inhabitants, simply because He doesn't mention them? I propose that we cannot conclude this. There are no inhabitants on earth's moon. Is it reasonable to suppose that God doesn't know much about the moon? God created all of the universe at the beginning. He must know everything there is to know about it, from beginning to end (if it has an end). This must naturally include events.

it’s not that one need be “limited” to those things, but I find it important to recognize the limit between what is actually in scripture or doctrinal and what is our own interpretation or speculation based on such. On the creation part, for example, there was a discussion here on whether the creation account was describing the solar system, galaxy, or universe. There’s been robust discussion on evolution v creationism based on this account too. None of these are explicitly written into the text, they’re our interpretations of said text. Interpretations can (and sometimes should) change over time. If we get stuck seeing them as absolutes, it can make it more difficult to shift our opinions long term, or to accept we may be wrong. It can leave us slower to receive new revelation when it comes. So I try hard to differentiate my interpretations or other interpretations in general from what the text actually says. 

On 8/19/2022 at 10:27 PM, Stargazer said:

Yes, God talks about knowing us, but I don't see why He would limit Himself to just us. Is it unnecessary to know more? In the construction of a house, the plumber knows about the plumbing, the electrician knows about the wiring, and the drywall specialist knows about the walls. But the General Contractor knows about it all. It is a very poor GC who doesn't know what the plumbing, the wiring, or the walls are all about. 

When Genesis talks about Creation, of all the heavenly bodies only the earth, the moon, the sun, and the stars are described. Does this mean that God doesn't know anything about Mars, Venus, or Pluto? Or that He didn't create them, and they just showed up on their own? I am pretty sure you know differently. The Solar System is enormous. So enormous that we cannot actually imagine how large it all is. And then we're faced with the Universe, whose size makes the Solar System look like literally nothing. It is hard to imagine any Being being able to not only have created it, but to know it all from beginning to end. But He must. I don't see how He can be limited to anything less than that.

first, God does know the other planet. Says so in D+C 88 41:44. I mean it doesn’t Name Venus and mars, but it does say “all the planets…” so that seems to be talking about all the planets. It’s one of my favorite passages. I find the word used in this interesting too. It uses comprehend rather than know or knowledge. Comprehend can mean “to understand” but it can also mean “encompass, comprise, or include.” Many of the scriptures that talk about God’s knowledge are in the context of creator relationship…a deep relational understanding. And likewise it doesn’t usually describe God as knowing the beginning to the end. But rather being the beginning and the end. It is innately experiential and relational, how the knowledge and power of God is described. There’s also things that it describes God NOT knowing: namely those who aren’t truly Theirs and sin. Again, pointing to knowing being an intimate relationship with God. I do think this is a little different than a traditional omniscience that we often think of…. Where God knows everything and anything. Thus why I conceptualize it a little differently. God’s knowledge is relational to me. It’s an interaction between creations and creator. Their foreknowledge is based on obedience. The earth, planets, stars, etc are given guidance according to Abr’ creation account, and over time the things were ordered and obeyed to the divine order of God. If you direct something and set the course of eternity of course you know the beginning from the end, because you are it. God is what makes all this. It’s also God that sets up the parameters for true choice. One that allows us to order ourselves within this God-led universe and decide if we will live up to our potential to be like God. Because we are called to be agents…to take on a sanctified nature, agency must have real impact. It’s impact is how well we relate to God. The less we do, the less God will relate to us in the life to come…thus scriptures talking about God not “knowing” people. The more we do the more we become like God: Knowing and acting in that knowledge through deep love and stewardship for all that is created. In this understanding of Godly knowledge, God not knowing isn’t really a limit to God, it’s a limit of us. We are out of divine ordering and construction. We are limited in the light we can comprehend and receive. 
 

On 8/19/2022 at 10:27 PM, Stargazer said:

Here you are dealing with three dimensions. As the creator of the maze you understand all the possible pathways. If there is more than one pathway, then there is the opportunity for surprise as each maze runner completes the puzzle. You truly do not know how it will turn out for each of them, though you may be able to make some kind of prediction based on what you know that the runners do not. They each have agency to make choices which will vary the outcome -- but in three dimensions only you cannot say with absolute certainty which choices they will make. So you may be surprised, because the fourth dimension, Time, runs in only one direction for you and the runners, and you and your awareness are all constrained to be in just one moment at a time.

However, if you as the creator of the maze are in mastery with that extra dimension, Time, then you know from the beginning which exit they will end up in.

God created Time when He created Space. He is the master of both, and is not constrained by anything other than the rules He set forth in the Creation.

 

That’s the thing. He set forth agency. And agency entails a degree of in uncertainty. It’s why in abr 3:25 there’s an IF in the middle of the sentence to see whether they will follow God. That’s one of the foundational laws set from the beginning. Again you may be comfortable with your understanding of how this makes sense. It just not how I interpret the same materials. Personally, it’s still seems like understanding the nature of God from our understanding of the universe and how things work. Which is still limited by our viewpoint.
 

also my maze analogy was not mean to ignore time. It was to note the relationship of one having greater knowledge and capacity than the subject in the maze. To point to the idea that one doesn’t need to know the exact actions of the subject to still know what will happen. How that levels up with God is something I likely won’t fully get. 
in all honesty what I picture most when I’ve been thinking about this, is my experience with working with people. My strong suit is understanding people and relational connections. I have a knack for reading people clearly and fairly accurately. It comes in handy with my line of work. Obviously, I am no where to God’s level of knowing Their children. But I do consider it a divine gift. When someone comes in and I’ve listened to them, in short order it becomes apparent where they’re at and where their trajectory likely will take them if they don’t change course. If they do the outcomes are also fairly straightforward. There isn’t really a surprise either way. It’s surprising just how often I’m not surprised by their actions. More often the emotion that meets me is sorrow for when they remain stuck in the negative patterns or joy when they begin to free themselves from their emotional traps and behavioral struggles. The times I have been surprised is usually because I was missing key info they hadn’t disclosed. In short, i didn’t fully know them. Obviously by no means am I omniscient under any definition. God knows more about us than I ever will in this life. But my experience teaches me that you don’t need to know exactly what they’ll choose to know where they’ll go if the choose right or wrong, health or dysfunction. God is the beginning and the end, They know us innately and deeply. Know us better than we often know ourselves. God won’t be surprised by our actions even if there is ab element of not knowing (by our earthy definition of the word) needed for agency. 

On 8/19/2022 at 10:27 PM, Stargazer said:

 

It's a confusing point in any case. It is said in the scriptures that once you repent God doesn't remember your sins any longer, but I'm pretty certain He does remember them, just as you do. It's one of those symbolic or illustrative things that is meant to show God's mercy, in that your sins don't "count" any longer, as if they had never been committed.

Which is just fine. As long as it’s clear this is an interpretation. There are other ways to interpret this, as I hope I’ve illustrated.

 

with luv, 

BD

Edited August 21, 2022 by BlueDreams

[mfbukowski]

On 8/21/2022 at 8:10 AM, BlueDreams said:

it’s not that one need be “limited” to those things, but I find it important to recognize the limit between what is actually in scripture or doctrinal and what is our own interpretation or speculation based on such. On the creation part, for example, there was a discussion here on whether the creation account was describing the solar system, galaxy, or universe. There’s been robust discussion on evolution v creationism based on this account too. None of these are explicitly written into the text, they’re our interpretations of said text. Interpretations can (and sometimes should) change over time. If we get stuck seeing them as absolutes, it can make it more difficult to shift our opinions long term, or to accept we may be wrong. It can leave us slower to receive new revelation when it comes. So I try hard to differentiate my interpretations or other interpretations in general from what the text actually says. 

first, God does know the other planet. Says so in D+C 88 41:44. I mean it doesn’t Name Venus and mars, but it does say “all the planets…” so that seems to be talking about all the planets. It’s one of my favorite passages. I find the word used in this interesting too. It uses comprehend rather than know or knowledge. Comprehend can mean “to understand” but it can also mean “encompass, comprise, or include.” Many of the scriptures that talk about God’s knowledge are in the context of creator relationship…a deep relational understanding. And likewise it doesn’t usually describe God as knowing the beginning to the end. But rather being the beginning and the end. It is innately experiential and relational, how the knowledge and power of God is described. There’s also things that it describes God NOT knowing: namely those who aren’t truly Theirs and sin. Again, pointing to knowing being an intimate relationship with God. I do think this is a little different than a traditional omniscience that we often think of…. Where God knows everything and anything. Thus why I conceptualize it a little differently. God’s knowledge is relational to me. It’s an interaction between creations and creator. Their foreknowledge is based on obedience. The earth, planets, stars, etc are given guidance according to Abr’ creation account, and over time the things were ordered and obeyed to the divine order of God. If you direct something and set the course of eternity of course you know the beginning from the end, because you are it. God is what makes all this. It’s also God that sets up the parameters for true choice. One that allows us to order ourselves within this God-led universe and decide if we will live up to our potential to be like God. Because we are called to be agents…to take on a sanctified nature, agency must have real impact. It’s impact is how well we relate to God. The less we do, the less God will relate to us in the life to come…thus scriptures talking about God not “knowing” people. The more we do the more we become like God: Knowing and acting in that knowledge through deep love and stewardship for all that is created. In this understanding of Godly knowledge, God not knowing isn’t really a limit to God, it’s a limit of us. We are out of divine ordering and construction. We are limited in the light we can comprehend and receive. 
 

 

That’s the thing. He set forth agency. And agency entails a degree of in uncertainty. It’s why in abr 3:25 there’s an IF in the middle of the sentence to see whether they will follow God. That’s one of the foundational laws set from the beginning. Again you may be comfortable with your understanding of how this makes sense. It just not how I interpret the same materials. Personally, it’s still seems like understanding the nature of God from our understanding of the universe and how things work. Which is still limited by our viewpoint.
 

also my maze analogy was not mean to ignore time. It was to note the relationship of one having greater knowledge and capacity than the subject in the maze. To point to the idea that one doesn’t need to know the exact actions of the subject to still know what will happen. How that levels up with God is something I likely won’t fully get. 
in all honesty what I picture most when I’ve been thinking about this, is my experience with working with people. My strong suit is understanding people and relational connections. I have a knack for reading people clearly and fairly accurately. It comes in handy with my line of work. Obviously, I am no where to God’s level of knowing Their children. But I do consider it a divine gift. When someone comes in and I’ve listened to them, in short order it becomes apparent where they’re at and where their trajectory likely will take them if they don’t change course. If they do the outcomes are also fairly straightforward. There isn’t really a surprise either way. It’s surprising just how often I’m not surprised by their actions. More often the emotion that meets me is sorrow for when they remain stuck in the negative patterns or joy when they begin to free themselves from their emotional traps and behavioral struggles. The times I have been surprised is usually because I was missing key info they hadn’t disclosed. In short, i didn’t fully know them. Obviously by no means am I omniscient under any definition. God knows more about us than I ever will in this life. But my experience teaches me that you don’t need to know exactly what they’ll choose to know where they’ll go if the choose right or wrong, health or dysfunction. God is the beginning and the end, They know us innately and deeply. Know us better than we often know ourselves. God won’t be surprised by our actions even if there is ab element of not knowing (by our earthy definition of the word) needed for agency. 

Which is just fine. As long as it’s clear this is an interpretation. There are other ways to interpret this, as I hope I’ve illustrated.

 

with luv, 

BD

I wish I could develop your kindness and patience and love. Thanks for being here.

[MiserereNobis]

On 8/20/2022 at 12:00 AM, mfbukowski said:

we must let go and be totally subjective.

God, the Ground of Being: "I Am that I Am"

Chinese poet Li Po:

Quote

The birds have vanished down the sky.

Now the last cloud drains away.

We sit together, the mountain and me,

until only the mountain remains.

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by MiserereNobis

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

God, the Ground of Being: "I Am that I Am"

Chinese poet Li Po:

 

I can only give you one rep point.👍👍

[Stargazer]

On 8/20/2022 at 7:25 AM, mfbukowski said:

Wittgenstein is spinning.

"What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent. "

 

Reminds me of Alma 12:9,10