Questions for God

[dybmh]

Rowling knows almost nothing about Harry Potter. Once her work was released she lost all claims to it,

No. That is not the original Harry Potter, those are adaptations. They are not Rowling's Harry Potter. That's like saying I don't know all I had for breakfast, because there are other people named "Daniel" in the world.

The question is about the character Harry Potter in Rowling's books. No other Harry Potter, just that one.

 

[dybmh]

No, that again is mere assertion. HOW does [he] know that?

It comes from the bible's descriptions. I brought you verses supporting it. It is asserted by definition. That's what definitions do.

There cannot be anything beyond God, nor can there be anything prior to God. That is the definition of an eternal, omnipresent, creator.

There is nothing incoherent about these concepts. You seem to be confused.

You're pointing to the circular reasoning which is inherent in the bible. That's a perfectly valid objection. That doesn't mean the concepts are incoherent.

When there is a being described in the manner that the bible describes it, it is absolutley omniscient. It does not need any other being to confirm it. This being is, itself, declaring these qualities about itself, which means yes, they could be false. That's where faith comes in. But it doesn't mean that the declaration made by this being MUST be false because it is illogical. For you, it is implausible, and you require proof. That's your standard. It's not a logical objection, it's a preference. I do not need proof. I am not limited in that way.

I never asked you to believe the bible is true. I never asked you to believe the declarations that the God in the bible is making about itself. All I asked is that the bible is the authority on the qualities of the God of the bible. If the bible is ignored, that is illogical, because, you are asking about the God of the bible.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Rowling knows almost nothing about Harry Potter. Once her work was released she lost all claims to it, save for those she can enforce via legal means - iow, the smallest portion. All of the interpretations of the hundreds of millions of readers generated facts about the character that she will never know or understand. All of the reader interpretations. All of the sneaky Pottermore programmers. All of the fan fiction.

Yes, she has added supposed details after the last book was released, such as stating that Dumbledore is gay and that the Wizarding World started to utilize indoor plumbing, which is a Muggle invention. She said that beforehand, witches and wizards just went to the bathroom anywhere and used magic to clean up after themselves. Some Potterheads accused her of trying to stay relevant. I'm not sure they took into account that she is already extremely controversial, and the vast majority of the fandom has rejected and abandoned her because of her personal views of transgender people. As a Potterhead myself, I can honestly say that the mention of her name is highly contentious among the fandom. In fact, she has earned the moniker "She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named." Furthermore, at one time, her name was scrapped from many popular Harry Potter fandom sites, such as MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron.

 

[blü 2]

The problem is, I am not the God, therefore I don't know like God. And I think you also are not the God, therefore, I don't think you can know what He knows.

As for what God knows, the claim is, absolutely and without exception everything.

I don't know what that's based on. For example, you can ask God very politely and earnestly to tell you the proof or disproof of Riemann's hypothesis, but [he] won't. You can ask [him] to warn you when your kids are in danger, you can ask [him] for next week's powerball numbers, you can ask him where you can get water when you're stuck in the desert, but [he] won't tell you.

In fact [he] seems to know exactly as much as [his] petitioner in each case, and not a syllable more.

God has not abandoned His covenant

[He] hasn't abandoned his covenant with Jewish people, as I understand it, but Christians abandoned [his] covenant when they dropped the circumcision clause because it was bad for sales.

Whatever the Christian God is, [he's] thus not the God of Judaism, and didn't exist before the first century CE. Come to think of it, [he] didn't become triune till the end of the third century, so the triune Christian God is the Mark II. Then there's the Western and the Eastern version, the Catholic and the Protestant version, the Pisco and the Southern Baptist version, the Rasta and the Mormon version ─ something for everyone as it were.

, it was people who broke the covenant that was done before Jesus.

Who broke the covenant before the Christians did?

That is why God send Jesus to declare the new covenant where "the law is written into person's heart".

But of course that assumes Jesus was, in Jewish terms, a messiah, and plainly whatever else Jesus was, he was not a Jewish messiah, being neither a civil, military or religious leader of the Jewish people nor anointed by the Jewish priesthood (which as you know is the meaning of 'messiah').

 

[blü 2]

There cannot be anything beyond God, nor can there be anything prior to God. That is the definition of an eternal, omnipresent, creator.

Says who? And with what satisfactory demonstration that the proposition is correct?

When there is a being described in the manner that the bible describes it, it is absolutley omniscient.

No, we haven't established omniscience yet, merely the claim of omniscience. Hence this thread, and the question, How does God know there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know?

Which remains unanswered except by assertion, and if assertion is sufficient then Donald Trump is equally omniscient, perfect, everlasting and truthful.

It does not need any other being to confirm it.

Of course it does. Why should I, why should any unacculturated person, believe it without a satisfactory demonstration?

That's where faith comes in.

Faith is not how we can establish whether some particular statement is true or not, accurately reflects reality or not.

If the bible is ignored, that is illogical, because, you are asking about the God of the bible.

From where I'm standing, that's a total non sequitur. Is the God of the bible omniscient, or merely said to be omniscient?

 

[siti]

The problem is, I am not the God

Personally, I don't see this as a problem.

 

[setarcos]

1. How does God know there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know?

Are we assuming an existent God with particular attributes? Of course this is all speculation but I'll take a stab at it....
So, if we assume an existent God along the lines of a monotheistic one, this is a question on the same order of "How do WE KNOW we exist?" Wouldn't we presuppose a form of self evidence?
Self evidence is found in the theoretical construct of how some have defined the being which is God.
We can easily conceive of something as human beings that we do not or cannot know. In other words we are self aware of our own limitations. In the same vein of thinking God would be that being which is self aware of his own infinite capacities as concerns that which is possible. It would be epistemologically self evident to God that there is nothing that God does not know that is possible to know. I would say that as finite beings we haven't the capacity to understand the mechanisms by which an infinite being would know that it knows all that can be known which would necessarily preclude the possibility of something unknown to the knower.

2. How does God know [he] didn't spontaneously spring into existence. fully formed with memories and all, with the rest of the universe last Thursday?

This is mostly just a stream of consciousness reply. Something to thresh out.
To answer this I think we need a conception of what temporality consists of in relation to self aware beings, specifically God (being the only singular element within its particular set, and the set containing all other self aware elements of reality). If temporality consists of recognizable changes in relations between differentiable things but Gods self awareness includes awareness of nothing differentiable within itself except those things which change in relation to things other than God, then temporality in relation to existence and non-existence would be meaningless as applying to a conception of Gods particular status.
Incidentally, it is a tenet of Christianity which believes that all of temporal existence (past, present, future) happened in one divinely creative moment. Hence Gods atemporality. Time does not "pass" for God. Time is not an "experience" God has. It is an experience mankind has. Time unfolds within mans awareness of his own existence. However with God, reality presents itself to Gods infinite awareness atemporally. That is in its entirety (past, present, future) in one infinite moment.

Our awareness of our existence is in direct relationship with our awareness of our temporal condition and the finite conditions encompassing that awareness. Our presumptions of our previous and potentially future non-existence is in direct relation to observations of other temporal things in a temporal framework and our awareness of the finiteness of those observations. Our experience of reality is temporally derived. Because it is temporally derived it is finite. Because it is finite it is epistemologically equivalent to say everything, memories and all popped into temporal existence at once versus over a real extended temporally evolved frame of reference. That is, it is equivalent to temporal beings.
Gods awareness however, being atemporally derived is in direct relationship to Gods awareness of its singularly unchanging divine nature
and its infinite knowledge of that awareness as suggested in 1 above. Gods existence as derived atemporally would not have a "when it began" so it would be nonsensical to say God sprang into existence "fully formed with memories etc." versus God simply never not existed atemporally fully formed memories and all.

IF God is an atemporal thing then questions of existence or non-existence cannot be sensibly applied to questions about God. You couldn't say...God exists now but not then or then but not now. That would be absolutely meaningless outside of the existence of a temporal standard by which a temporal beings changing state could be used in comparison.
So if the answer to question 1 above is somewhat true then God would be aware of its absolutely unique atemporal state and the temporal states of temporally dependent beings in comparison.

3. How does God know [he]'s not just a dream in the brain of a human?

I would refer back to 1 to perhaps help answer this question.

 

[siti]

...as finite beings we haven't the capacity to understand the mechanisms by which an infinite being would know that it knows all that can be known

Gosh! That's nearly as incomprehensible as something I might say...actually it isn't really, but I think you have taken the discussion on a slightly different tack with the phrase "all that can be known"...so far defenders of God's omniscience seem to have been focused on God's knowledge as absolutely unlimited, but this phrase suggests that there might be a limit...i.e. that there might be some things that just cannot be known. And perhaps, a more productive line of inquiry might be interpreting the OP question "how does god know that there is nothing he doesn't know he doesn't know" along that those lines.

Might God (if there is one), perhaps, know what he doesn't know, in a sense analogous to the way that I would know that I don't know the content of a novel that may not even have been written?

You have also brought in the term "awareness". Is that the same as "knowledge"? I am, for example, aware that the "Complete Works of Shakespeare" exists, but I have almost no "knowledge" about it. Could God (if there is one) be "aware" of everything and yet not necessarily have intimate knowledge of everything?

 

[F1fan]

I don’t see it as you do

You are surely a product of religious indoctrination, and you have, for non-rational reasons, agreed with what you were exposed to. No one comes to religious belief through evidence and rational thought. Me on the other hand had doubts from an early age and asked questions, most of which had very unsatisfactory answers, which led to more suspicion.

and by no means consider it was a set-up or that God’s creation was anything but good. I definitely agree, though, that God knew exactly what He was doing.

You can't have it both ways. If God knew what he was doing then the Fall was planned and deliberate. It was not the fault of A&E, they simply fell into the trap that God created. And being naive they had no idea they were being duped.

 

[dybmh]

Says who? And with what satisfactory demonstration that the proposition is correct?

The God of the bible is defined by the bible.

There is no demonstration. It is a concept, an idea.

No, we haven't established omniscience yet, merely the claim of omniscience

You asked a question in the form of "How does God know ..."

All that's needed is a claim. You've argued the claim itself is incoherent. You are wrong.

Of course it does. Why should I, why should any unacculturated person, believe it without a satisfactory demonstration?

You're question was not "why should I believe it". That is shifting the goal posts. Pick a question and stick with it.

Faith is not how we can establish whether some particular statement is true or not, accurately reflects reality or not.

You didn't ask, is it true. You asked "how could it be?"

Pick a question and stick to the topic.

God of the bible omniscient, or merely said to be omniscient?

The bible is a claim, not evidence. You know that.

You didn't ask for evidence.

Ask a question, stick to the topic. You asked how, and you seem to be doing backflips to avoid listening to the answer.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

You are surely a product of religious indoctrination, and you have, for non-rational reasons, agreed with what you were exposed to. No one comes to religious belief through evidence and rational thought. Me on the other hand had doubts from an early age and asked questions, most of which had very unsatisfactory answers, which led to more suspicion.

When I was a Christian, I thought I was strengthening my belief in God and the Bible by studying the Bible and Christian theology extensively, but all I did was ultimately study my way out of believing in God and the Bible. My studies inspired me to conduct further research within and outside of Christianity, which eventually led me to renounce my belief in God and faith in Jesus. Other circumstances contributed to my decision to renounce my belief in God and abandon Christianity, but I essentially studied my way out of believing in the Bible and God. I read and studied the Bible on a daily basis throughout the years I was a Christian. I extensively studied the Bible and Christian theology while training to be a street preacher and evangelism team leader, as well as while assisting my nephew in his extended theological studies to become an ordained minister. He was studying hard to earn a Master of Theological Studies (MTS) degree. A few weeks after I decided to renounce my faith, he called me to tell me that he had made the decision to renounce his faith after extensively studying the Bible and Christian theology with me. He studied his way out of believing in the Bible and God. He's now an agnostic, like I am.

 

[InChrist]

Of course you don't. What is your response to post 152? God regreted creating humans. Does that suggest a God that knows what he is doing?

Post 152 is very long. I normally don’t respond through entire posts whose sole point is to deride God. Which point do you want me to respond to?
I don’t see anything irregular about God expressing grief and regret over human sin, evil, and all the harmful resulting consequences.

When things are really bad, and a parent sees their child immersed in self-destructive behavior harming themselves and others around them, how many think “I wish I never had kids.”? This only expresses the deep hurt and pain we can feel as parents. This would only be an expression out of grief over a loved one, but doesn’t mean the parent really doesn’t love their child or actually want them to live. God saw the wickedness of humanity and was grieved, but God looks beyond the pain and He knew/knows the ultimate outcome is good.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Of course you don't. What is your response to post 152? God regreted creating humans. Does that suggest a God that knows what he is doing?

I didn't expect her to respond to my prior post or even read it.

Questions for God

Do you know, that's not quite right. Those of us who can't bring ourselves to believe in the existence of the deities we've been introduced to (by their adherents) don't claim to know everything - Please re-read what I wrote. I didn't say "claim to know everything" unqualified. I specifiied...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Unseeking seeker]

Interesting thread.

A temporary entity (us) asks who or what God is (corollary ~ what He knows or does not know speculated).

Who is the entity? Or to put it in Ramana‘s words, ‘who am I?’ Unless this is known, is not God merely a concept, an idea, based on a this or that belief system?

In my view, the ego (identity) can believe or disbelieve anything but belief, a product of lower mind, is never free from doubt ~ only when ego recedes do we see ourselves as we truly are in direct awareness.

 

[siti]

When things are really bad, and a parent sees their child immersed in self-destructive behavior harming themselves and others around them, how many think “I wish I never had kids.”...

...I know, I'll kill a few of 'em, and then let one or two grow up as they are and have their own kids and hope they turn out better than my lot...???

 

[InChrist]

You are surely a product of religious indoctrination, and you have, for non-rational reasons, agreed with what you were exposed to. No one comes to religious belief through evidence and rational thought. Me on the other hand had doubts from an early age and asked questions, most of which had very unsatisfactory answers, which led to more suspicion.

You can't have it both ways. If God knew what he was doing then the Fall was planned and deliberate. It was not the fault of A&E, they simply fell into the trap that God created. And being naive they had no idea they were being duped.

God says in Isaiah…

Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

So, while faith is involved, I think God expects people to use their minds and reason to exercise faith in Him. I can guarantee you that I am not indoctrinated, whether you accept that or not is not in my control. Nevertheless, I have only come to my beliefs through seeking God and truth and waiting for answers and proofs which I found adequate. I understand the methods of indoctrination after having a background of experience in religious cults.

I believe God knew what He was doing and still knows what He is doing. Human understanding is finite, but God’s infinite knowledge and wisdom perfect, therefore I have no doubt His ultimate plan for humanity will work out perfectly and gloriously.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

...I know, I'll kill a few of 'em, and then let one or two grow up as they are and have their own kids and hope they turn out better than my lot...???

Last time I checked, if a parent drowned their children for being disobedient and rebellious, that was considered first-degree murder. If the guilty parent is apprehended and there is sufficient evidence, they are arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison, or they receive the death penalty.

 

[blü 2]

So, if we assume an existent God along the lines of a monotheistic one, this is a question on the same order of "How do WE KNOW we exist?" Wouldn't we presuppose a form of self evidence?

I don't think that's quite the case here. The claim is that God is omniscient ie there's nothing God doesn't know.

That's assertion, not demonstration or anything else useful.

And the question is intended to test the assertion. The result so far is a FAIL for omniscience.

(The fail for omnipotence, or one of them, is that God can't make a perfect copy of [him]self occupying the same frame of reference.)

It would be epistemologically self evident to God that there is nothing that God does not know that is possible to know.

Then let God articulate the part explaining how [he] knows there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know. Until then, nope.

I would say that as finite beings we haven't the capacity to understand the mechanisms by which an infinite being would know that it knows all that can be known which would necessarily preclude the possibility of something unknown to the knower.

We can invent gods and goddesses and angels and demons and miracles and magic wands. If we invent infinite beings, we take responsibility for giving credible accounts of them, surely? Such as giving reasoned and sufficient answers to questions about omniscience?

To answer this I think we need a conception of what temporality consists of in relation to self aware beings, specifically God (being the only singular element within its particular set, and the set containing all other self aware elements of reality).

Ahm, jn my view one can't quite say that until one has answered the question here about omniscience. Are there in fact elements of reality that God is not aware [he]'s not aware of?

(And if God is said to exist outside of reality, whatever that might mean, are there in fact elements of outside-of-reality that God is not aware [he]'s not aware of?)

If temporality consists of recognizable changes in relations between differentiable things but Gods self awareness includes awareness of nothing differentiable within itself except those things which change in relation to things other than God, then temporality in relation to existence and non-existence would be meaningless as applying to a conception of Gods particular status.

But that again amounts to assertion that God knows there's nothing [he] &c &c. The question is HOW goes God know this?

Incidentally, it is a tenet of Christianity which believes that all of temporal existence (past, present, future) happened in one divinely creative moment.

Is that the case? Then it involves a form of determinism, meaning that everything good bad or irrelevant that ever happens anywhere in the universe happens exactly as God intended it to, and there can never be personal responsibility in fact; in which case the whole sin thing is the merest of guilt traps, a tool for manipulating others ─ albeit manipulating others exactly as God foresaw and intended when or before [he] made the universe.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Then lay it out! Nobody ever does, did you know that?

Oh, yes, I get it. Somebody "said" something that "sounded right" and we announced his prophet-hood right away. But lots of people say lots of things that sound right, wrong, indifferent, stupid, mysterious or just plain mean, and we don't call any of it "evidence" for anything other than what's going on in their own heads.

So, do us all a favour. Next time you say "evidence," provide some of it.

The evidence for God is within you. And all around you. But for reasons best known to yourself, you refuse to look. So do us all a favour - instead of constantly demanding evidence only you can provide, go and search within your soul. If you can do that with an open heart and mind, who knows what you might find?

 

[loverofhumanity]

1. How does God know there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know?

2. How does God know [he] didn't spontaneously spring into existence. fully formed with memories and all, with the rest of the universe last Thursday?

3. How does God know [he]'s not just a dream in the brain of a human?

Because He is All Knowing He knows all, everything.