Who is this "God of the Omnis"......

[Stranger]

I'm not going to revisit your unwanted redefinition of omnipresence and omniscience or prediction.

You mean you're going to ignore (yet again) your total failure to point out a flaw in what I said...       

However if you want a Christian view try omnipresence which is good for any theory of time, eternalism, growing block or presentism.

If God is everywhere anytime then he has knowledge of everything.

That's ambiguous. Do you mean present at all times or at any one time? If the latter, do you include the future in "knowledge of everything" or not?

In terms of the universe God can therefore grant freedom and yet still have knowledge by dint of omnipresence.

What do you mean by 'freedom' and grant it to what?

There is also the point that up to now with the exception of God everything has been a physicalist view of the universe.

So go ahead and introduce something else...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You mean you're going to ignore (yet again) your total failure to point out a flaw in what I said...       

That's ambiguous. Do you mean present at all times or at any one time? If the latter, do you include the future in "knowledge of everything" or not?

What do you mean by 'freedom' and grant it to what?

So go ahead and introduce something else...

Look

Are you or are you not continually churning out the word Prediction in connection with a thread on knowledge?

I mean present at all times and places and spaces

When you say future are you referring to gods future or the future of any point or all points?

Something else? What about emergent morality which doesn't seem to be linked identifiably to anything physical or mathematics which is the same? I don't really want to introduce anything else that you will have trouble with.

What freedom? The ability to change, evolve, choice, degrees of freedom that sort of thing.

[Udayana]

Does god have to obey or follow the rules of logic?

[Stranger]

Are you or are you not continually churning out the word Prediction in connection with a thread on knowledge?

My full argument and its context is in post #46. If you don't think it is a valid argument, why not? Where is the flaw?

I mean present at all times and places and spaces

When you say future are you referring to gods future or the future of any point or all points?

I'm trying to get you to explain what you mean. The crucial point that you brought up is that a an omniniscient god may not know the future, if the future doesn't exist. I still don't know if that's what you're trying to say here or not.

Something else? What about emergent morality which doesn't seem to be linked identifiably to anything physical or mathematics which is the same?

What about them?

This is about the god of the omnis and your rather bizarre claim that it's some sort of straw man. I have seen nothing at all that supports that view.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My full argument and its context is in post #46. If you don't think it is a valid argument, why not? Where is the flaw?

I'm trying to get you to explain what you mean. The crucial point that you brought up is that a an omniniscient god may not know the future, if the future doesn't exist. I still don't know if that's what you're trying to say here or not.

What about them?

This is about the god of the omnis and your rather bizarre claim that it's some sort of straw man. I have seen nothing at all that supports that view.

But who is the God of the omnis. Is it the God of the bible?or a God forged by atheists for disproving the Christian God which ,since it has been confected because it lacks omnipresence, is definitively a straw man god!

How can you know something that doesn't exist?

Again when you say future do you mean gods future or what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Does god have to obey or follow the rules of logic?

If logic is dependent on the physical then I would hazard No
If logic can be independent from the physical then.........what right do we have to deny that to Maths or God for that matter?

[Stranger]

But who is the God of the omnis. Is it the God of the bible?or a God forged by atheists for disproving the Christian God which ,since it has been confected because it lacks omnipresence, is definitively a straw man god!

I have never heard of an argument against a god that requires said god to lack omnipresence. You do understand what a straw man argument is, don't you? You need to point to an atheist argument that is based on something that no theists actually believe. Still haven't seen that.

How can you know something that doesn't exist?

As I said on the other thread: propositional knowledge [sense 1.3] is usually defined as true, justified belief. If a god is capable of making perfect predictions, then its predictions will be true, it will believe them, and will have adequate justification for that belief. Hence, it will be knowledge.

Again when you say future do you mean gods future or what?

Yet gain: I'm trying to get at what you mean, for example when you said "...the argument that the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it "."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If there is no future and there is an omniscient and omnipotent god, then the future will happen for some of the following reasons.

• According to rules (physical laws) this god has ordained and understands perfectly and can hence perfectly predict.
  
  
• According to some 'supernatural' interventions that this god decides to make.
  
  
• According to some element that this god has decided it will remain in ignorance of.

First of all Stranger whatever God you are talking about it is not the Christian God.
It is not the Christian God because God has the power to end the universe immediately.

Your first point confuses God with something like an extremely clever human.

I don't quite get your second point ....or your third for that matter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wait a minute.
It is Up to God whether the universe has a future.
If there is no future then there is nothing to know about....and most certainly a future that will never exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have never heard of an argument against a god that requires said god to lack omnipresence. You do understand what a straw man argument is, don't you? You need to point to an atheist argument that is based on something that no theists actually believe. Still haven't seen that.

If you have no problem with omnipresence why are you working in prediction which is an act occurring at one point in a timeline? in other words trying to make omnipresence redundant.

And why are you still confusing prediction with knowledge?

[Stranger]

First of all Stranger whatever God you are talking about it is not the Christian God.
It is not the Christian God because God has the power to end the universe immediately.

See point 2.

Your first point confuses God with something like an extremely clever human.

No idea why you would think that.

I don't quite get your second point ....or your third for that matter.

They aren't difficult. Bear in mind that these are all based on your idea that the future doesn't exist, even for god.

The second point just says that a god might perform miracles that override normal rules (physical laws). The third is just speculating that a god might have introduced something that it's decided not to know about (no idea why it would do that, but it's a logical possibility)

Wait a minute.
It is Up to God whether the universe has a future.
If there is no future then there is nothing to know about....and most certainly a future that will never exist.

I do wish you'd pay some attention. That is in point 2. And I as already pointed out, presumably god knows its own mind...

If you have no problem with omnipresence why are you working in prediction which is an act occurring at one point in a timeline?

FFS! Because YOU said that god might not know the future because it doesn't exist yet.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

See point 2.

No idea why you would think that.

They aren't difficult. Bear in mind that these are all based on your idea that the future doesn't exist, even for god.

The second point just says that a god might perform miracles that override normal rules (physical laws). The third is just speculating that a god might have introduced something that it's decided not to know about (no idea why it would do that, but it's a logical possibility)

I do wish you'd pay some attention. That is in point 2. And I as already pointed out, presumably god knows its own mind...

FFS! Because YOU said that god might not know the future because it doesn't exist yet.

That's rich from someone claiming that Gods knowledge is down to what he predicts!

If the future does not exist yet the I think you'll agree it does not exist....got it?
If that is the case then you can still be omniscient if you knew everything that does exist...savvy?
If God deigns that there should be a future then he is there in person since he is omnipresent and not subject to time and that is how he derives his omniscience.
It is prediction that is redundant.

Now what future are you talking about?

[Stranger]

That's rich from someone claiming that Gods knowledge is down to what he predicts!

Jeez - I'm basing what I'm saying on what you've said about god not knowing something (the future, if it doesn't exist). It is you who is trying to limit your god's knowledge (for some bizarre reason).

If the future does not exist yet the I think you'll agree it does not exist....got it?
If that is the case then you can still be omniscient if you knew everything that does exist...savvy?

None of which prevents an omniscient god knowing about the future that doesn't exist yet, for the reasons I've reiterated several times and you seem unable to grasp or even explain what you find difficult about them.

If God deigns that there should be a future then he is there in person since he is omnipresent and not subject to time and that is how he derives his omniscience.

If god is not subject to time, then in what sense can the future not exist for it? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

It is prediction that is redundant.

Not if the future doesn't exist for god.

Now what future are you talking about?

What future were you talking about when you said "...the argument that the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it "."?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

None of which prevents an omniscient god knowing about the future that doesn't exist yet,

If something else also knew everything about the present and the past could that thing be said to be omniscient? would it know everything that existed? arguably yes.

Can perfect prediction could be categorised as knowledge?arguably no.

Does perfect prediction knowledge equate to omnipresence knowledge? arguably no.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If god is not subject to time, then in what sense can the future not exist for it?

If it is the Christian God then God could decide to end time.

If it is your confected Straw man God of the Omnis then you are suggesting that God becomes subject to physical laws and that there is existential inertia which God cannot resist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let me get me head straight.

Here's me manifesto taken from the new atheist thread reply #42

It is my belief that

1: It is God who decides if there is a future

2: If existence can only be attributed to what has been and what is now, then the idea of God's omniscience being dependent on ''knowing the future'' is not logical.

3: If there is a future then God, by dint of OMNIPRESENCE, would know the future rather than predict the future which itself would be at most a supremely informed opinion made in ''a present''.


4: It might seem that God has at least suggested a bit of a future. Due to omnipresence he would be in any future.


Here's the relevant bit
2: If existence can only be attributed to what has been and what is now, then the idea of God's omniscience being dependent on ''knowing the future'' is not logical.


I suppose it depends on what is doing the attributing.

[Stranger]

If something else also knew everything about the present and the past could that thing be said to be omniscient? would it know everything that existed? arguably yes.

Here we go again - why is it some theists need everything explaining multiple times?

If that something was an omnipotent and omniscient (and omnipresent or any other attribute you want to add), then there is no need to limit it's knowledge to what already exists - for reasons I've now explained several times.

Can perfect prediction could be categorised as knowledge?arguably no.

Then argue it. This is just an assertion.

Does perfect prediction knowledge equate to omnipresence knowledge? arguably no.

You still haven't explained your model of time and god to a sufficient extent to know the answer to that. On the one had you are limiting your god's knowledge to the past and present and on the other you say it's not limited by time.

If it is the Christian God then God could decide to end time.

Yes, and...?

If it is your confected Straw man God of the Omnis then you are suggesting that God becomes subject to physical laws and that there is existential inertia which God cannot resist.

I have suggested no such thing. As is so often the case, you are studiously ignoring what I'm actually saying in favour of what you'd prefer that I'd say.

You have yet to point out a single argument that can be classified as a straw man.

[Stranger]

1: It is God who decides if there is a future

Fine.

2: If existence can only be attributed to what has been and what is now, then the idea of God's omniscience being dependent on ''knowing the future'' is not logical.

It's not that it's dependant on it, it's that, by dint of knowing all about the present, all about how things work, and all about its own mind, it would necessarily know the future (unless it deliberately arranged not to).

3: If there is a future then God, by dint of OMNIPRESENCE, would know the future rather than predict the future which itself would be at most a supremely informed opinion made in ''a present''.

You seem to want omnipresence to extend through time to a future that you say might not exist. You need to define what you think the relationship between your god and time actually is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fine.

It's not that it's dependant on it, it's that, by dint of knowing all about the present, all about how things work, and all about its own mind, it would necessarily know the future (unless it deliberately arranged not to).

You seem to want omnipresence to extend through time to a future that you say might not exist. You need to define what you think the relationship between your god and time actually is.

If it was using present knowledge then it would be making an act of prediction. That as you point out is an act at a point of time.

Prediction is never referred to as knowledge and you have had to justify your equation of prediction and knowledge and maybe the time is right to put that under scrutiny.


In any case placing God in a timeline at a point, predicting THE future in it's entirety ignores Omnipresence and the direct knowledge of everything that confers. That is not the Christian conception of God.


God is omnipresent in all timelines is his relation to time also incarnated in time in Jesus.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Here we go again - why is it some theists need everything explaining multiple times?

If that something was an omnipotent and omniscient (and omnipresent or any other attribute you want to add), then there is no need to limit it's knowledge to what already exists - for reasons I've now explained several times.

I think I'm rather saying that something that knows all of what can be demonstrated to exist could go by the title Omniscient.

[Stranger]

If it was using present knowledge then it would be making an act of prediction. That as you point out is an act at a point of time.

Prediction is never referred to as knowledge and you have had to justify your equation of prediction and knowledge and maybe the time is right to put that under scrutiny.

I have already explained why 100% accurate prediction is knowledge and invited you to provide a counterargument. I'm still waiting...

In any case placing God in a timeline at a point, predicting THE future in it's entirety ignores Omnipresence and the direct knowledge of everything that confers. That is not the Christian conception of God.


God is omnipresent in all timelines is his relation to time also incarnated in time in Jesus.

So what the fuck were you talking about when you said "...the argument that the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it "."?

What do you actually think the relationship between god and time is?

Here we go again - why is it some theists need everything explaining multiple times?

If that something was an omnipotent and omniscient (and omnipresent or any other attribute you want to add), then there is no need to limit it's knowledge to what already exists - for reasons I've now explained several times.

I think I'm rather saying that something that knows all of what can be demonstrated to exist could go by the title Omniscient.

Which doesn't address what I said.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have already explained why 100% accurate prediction is knowledge and invited you to provide a counterargument. I'm still waiting...

So what the fuck were you talking about when you said "...the argument that the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it "."?

What do you actually think the relationship between god and time is?
I think I'm rather saying that something that knows all of what can be demonstrated to exist could go by the title Omniscient.


Which doesn't address what I said.

A subject S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:
P is true, and
S believes that P is true, and
S is justified in believing that P is true


So how do we know the event predicted is true? Because God has direct knowledge of it through presence. So he knows it is true without prediction. Therefore Prediction is redundant. Unless you are saying that God predicts something as it happens? Then how is it a prediction?

[Stranger]

A subject S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:
P is true, and
S believes that P is true, and
S is justified in believing that P is true


So how do we know the event predicted is true? Because God has direct knowledge of it through presence. So he knows it is true without prediction. Therefore Prediction is redundant. Unless you are saying that God predicts something as it happens? Then how is it a prediction?

Glad to see you've finally acknowledged the definition of knowledge I cited yesterday.

However, either you think your god has direct access to every moment; so as I type this, it has direct access to your response (the future already exists for it), and you were talking bollocks when you said: "...the argument that the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it ".", or you are talking bollocks in what you just said in #71 above and you think what you said before, that god cannot directly know of future events until they happen, in which case, it will still know, via perfect prediction, as I've explained.

So, on which occasion were you talking bollocks?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Glad to see you've finally acknowledged the definition of knowledge I cited yesterday.

However, either you think your god has direct access to every moment; so as I type this, it has direct access to your response (the future already exists for it), and you were talking bollocks when you said: "...the argument that the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it ".", or you are talking bollocks in what you just said in #71 above and you think what you said before, that god cannot directly know of future events until they happen, in which case, it will still know, via perfect prediction, as I've explained.

So, on which occasion were you talking bollocks?

My main thrust is to point out that the God of the three omnis you attack isn't the Christian conception of God and therefore is a straw man argument


By dint that your theories of God put him at the beginning of time predicting what will happen. That is the Deists conception of God.


It was pointed out to you that relativity of simultainity was irrelevant.


I've achieved my Goal do you disagree that any perfect prediction made at the beginning would already be validated and based on by Gods attendence at the actual event. You are therefore redefining what prediction is and perhaps you should use a different word.


My point was to say that if it were to be established that only the past and present existed anything that knew everything about those two still would be omniscient definitionally. I never claimed that WAS the case and unfortunately any future that we can come up with is a prediction. any future God can come up with is ordination


You have made the question this.......... is

the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it ".

the same as

god cannot directly know of future events until they happen?

Could you please direct me to where I said this anyway?




 

[Stranger]

My main thrust is to point out that the God of the three omnis you attack isn't the Christian conception of God and therefore is a straw man argument

Except I haven't actually put forward an argument against the god of the omnis. Further, I've been trying, without success, to get you to back up your assertion that anybody has produced a straw man argument against such a god.

By dint that your theories of God put him at the beginning of time predicting what will happen. That is the Deists conception of God.

I have no such theories. I'm just pointing out some of the logical consequences to what you (and Steve) said about omniscience not including the future if it doesn't exist.

How many more times do I need to explain this? Are you even reading my posts?

It was pointed out to you that relativity of simultainity was irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what? It's not irrelevant to a growing block universe or any other in which the future doesn't exist.

I've achieved my Goal do you disagree that any perfect prediction made at the beginning would already be validated and based on by Gods attendence at the actual event. You are therefore redefining what prediction is and perhaps you should use a different word.

You still haven't said whether you think the future exists for your god or not. Until you define what relationship you think your god has with time, this is just meaningless wittering.

My point was to say that if it were to be established that only the past and present existed anything that knew everything about those two still would be omniscient definitionally.

...and would, if it were also an omnipotent god, know the future too, via perfect prediction.

I never claimed that WAS the case...

Yes, that's the problem with you trying to make a straw man accusation, you won't say what you think the "true Christian" view is and you haven't said what specifically you think are straw man arguments.

...and unfortunately any future that we can come up with is a prediction. any future God can come up with is ordination

You can call god's predictions ordination, if you want, there would be no functional difference. That was part of my original argument: god has established any rules and would know of anything it wants to do outside of them,

Could you please direct me to where I said this anyway?

What the hell was the point in saying "the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it "." if you didn't mean that "god cannot directly know of future events until they happen"?

Jeez, do you have any idea at all what you actually think about god and time or the first clue of which arguments are based on a view that no Christians hold and are therefore straw man arguments, or is the all just hot air and bullshit?