Wizardry

Tercel

Straw, what straw?

I might think that they meant that God possessed the property of omniscience. But then, omniscience is a polysyllabic word, and thus completely out of reach of my inferior atheistic intellect.

So I might try to break that word etymologically. From Latin:

Omnis + scientia = omniscientia -> omniscient

"Omnis" means all, or every and "scientia" means knowledge, so I might think that omniscientia meant all-knowing or knowing all things. I might think that if theologians meant to say that god had "much knowledge" rather than "all knowledge" they might use a more appropriate word like multiscient = multi(much) + scientia(knowledge). But since they didn't I might think that they meant all-knowing rather than much-knowing. But what does an atheist like me know from etymology, I still think that a + theist means "no belief in god(s)" when it clearly means "belief in no god(s)".

So, having fallen into the "common usage" trap before, I might move over to the dictionary to see what the word means in current parlance.

So I might go over to an <a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary" target="_blank">online dictionary</a> to look up the word omniscient and get the following:

So I might think that omniscient meant "having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight" or "possessed of universal or complete knowledge". But what does a dictionary know about the definition of a word?

Or I could look at what Christians seem to be saying when they talk about God's properties. When I do that, I tend to see the words "infinite" and "all knowing" bandied about quite frequently when you consider that it's in reference to a being who is neither of those things. So I might think that the common understanding of the word omniscient among Christians would have something to do with infinite knowledge. But who does that?

It would seem that I am in the unfortunate position of assuming that a person should mean what they say and say what they mean. Unfortunately, when dealing with theologians, that is rarely the case.

Yeah, well I'll bet that at least a few Christians reading that their God was all-powerful and all-knowing actually took those words to mean all-powerful and all-knowing. We're just debunking that for them. Plus, it's good wholesome fun.

Then why does the Church continue to use the word "omniscient" when that is quite clearly not what they mean? Is there some problem with simply calling him "the most knowledgeable being around"?

I mean, hell, the Old Testament is mostly figurative, Jesus spoke in parables, the Church uses inaccurate terms, what is this aversion Christians have to actually saying what they mean?

It's still a silly doctrine.

advocate_11

Since it has been mentioned, perhaps it would be helpful to look at the actual definitions.

See in the subsection, "Divine Knowledge", in the entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia for Divine Attributes <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IID1" target="_blank">here</a>

I believe that this view is typical (though perhaps more elaborately defined) of non-reformed Protestants and Evangelicals.

You might also do a search on Open Theism which claims as one of its tenents (if I understand correctly) that God does not know the future exhaustivly and definitely because the future is contingent upon the actions of free agents. Since the future as exhaustively definite does not exist to be known, God still knows all that exists to be known with exhaustive and definite knowledge. To require more would be unreasonable they say, and so God is still said to be omniscient.

Perhaps it would also be helpful to do a search on Process Theology.

Koyaanisqatsi

The "actual" definitions?

Well, that's certainly how Catholics define it. And that helps us how?

Not to be rude, but your stipulation helps us how?

Fascinating how the mind can legitimize just about any construct by misconstruing the technical qualities of logical tools of inference, while missing the intended qualities, but then that's what "soundness" and "validity" are all about, I guess.

Only if we were interested in further deconstructing apologetics, I suppose, but then, having been indoctrinated into the cult myself as a child, I can more readily address exactly what was taught, as opposed to what has subsequently been "spun," for example.

Like the Catholic definition, which I'll come back to later. Time to go home.

advocate_11

Perhaps I was incorrect in my judgement as to the direction of this thread... If not, I think that there is good reason to address alternative definitions and qualifications (and yes, I will gladly participate in doing so should I feel particularly able to offer insight).

Certainly the Catholic discussion of the term represents quite a large number of theists, or at least I should think that it does; perhaps the Vatican web site would have been a better choice.

As to non-traditional definitions, (depending upon the audience) the two that I noted portray their definitions of omniscience as both technically accurate, and as finding more support in the findings of modern physics than traditional definitions. I would suspect that theists endorsing these views in part for their possible intellectual appeal may be more demanding in their requirements for a convincing refutation (and may or may not be justified in being so).

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: advocate_11 ]</p>

Synaesthesia

If God is omniscient, and that is indeed logically contradictory (I am not satisfied that it is!), do you think that make a difference to God? Isn’t the idea that God “invented” things like logic?

Devilnaut

If God is omniscient, and that is indeed logically contradictory (I am not satisfied that it is!), do you think that make a difference to God? Isn’t the idea that God “invented” things like logic?


God invented logic, sounds like presuppositionalism to me. I guess in this way you can define anything in any way you want and it doesn't make a difference. I think though that the people here are interested in rational debate...

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

ju'iblex

well, didnt Foucault say something about those who possess power have the ability to define what knowledge is according to them and enforce it?

Koyaanisqatsi

Could be. I'm fairly certain it wasn't meant to discuss how apologists spin the logical inconsistencies of their beliefs, but I could also be incorrect.

The topic is whether or not omniscience is logically contradictory on its own, so while it's always interesting as a study in propaganda to deconstruct how apologists will avoid dealing with direct issues through self-serving redefinitions and invalid qualifications, I'm not sure analysing it will offer anything beyond such revelations, but you could be right.

After all, a good argument can be made that there is no better way to "root out" logic than to examine illogic, yes?

I take it then that you consider the spin to be of more interest than the actual construct?

Well, to some degree, I suppose, like if you want to deconstruct the illogic of National Socialism you might want to first go to a Pro Nazi website to get their propaganda on the issue, but I would be willing to stipulate that most everyone in this thread is sufficiently well versed on the invalid logic of the Catholic apologists.

Anyone else concur?

I'd be glad to pick apart the definition you originally linked to (or any apologist spin on it) that you like, I just didn't want to beat a dead horse.

Perhaps the problem is in your misapplication of the term "traditional definition?"

You would agree, for example, that if I stated I am a purely loving man of peace and yet proclaimed, even metaphorically, "I am here to make war, not love," and you came along as my follower and said, "What he meant to say was that he comes to make love, not war," your spin on my logically inconsistent declaration would not exactly be the primary topic of discussion, yes?

Certainly important in its own right, but perhaps not the primary concern for anyone interested in examining and deconstructing my logically inconsistent statements and actions, yes?

Would you now? This is what you would suspect of theists?

Well, don't you worry. Just remain non-committal and posting your suspicions behind a thinly veiled third person conceit and you won't have to deal with anything directly.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, while I'm waiting for another non-committal response from advocate, let's deconstruct the "logic" of the definition he provided us from the <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IID1" target="_blank">Catholic Encyclopedia</a> to reveal the illogic of it all, yes?

Well, that's pretty straight forward, don't you think? Oh, wait, there's an "or" in there that doesn't qualify properly.

The phrase, "That God is omniscient" means, literally, that God is "all knowing." It is a qualification of God; he is "all knowing."

The phrase "possesses the most perfect knowledge of all things," however, does not necessarily qualify God as much as it qualifies what kind of knowledge God merely "possesses," so right out of the gate we find a logical inconsistency, or, at the very least, a subtle, deliberate redirection.

With the inclusion of the "or" we go from what God is to what God merely possesses.

As you will notice, from that point forward, all the encyclopedia focuses upon is the quality of possession of a "perfect knowledge" and what it means to possess a "perfect knowledge," instead of what it means to claim that God is "all knowing."

Within the very first sentence the spin is employed and the topic redirected to something that has nothing to do with the topic.

See? It is now nothing but a deconstruction of what it means to possess (redundantly, by the way) "the most perfect knowledge" of all things, not what it means to claim that God is "all knowing."

See how cleverly they have obfuscated and therefore buried discussion about what it means to claim that God is omniscient?

In fact, let's turn to the source of some of this and see what is says, shall we?

"Thou knowest all things" and by this they believe that Jesus came "forth from God."

Note the proof is not predicated on Jesus "having a perfect knowledge" of all things (which he did not, by the way), but rather the omniscient quality that he "knowest all things" that links him to God.

More, perhaps that distinguishes the difference between declaring Jesus/God to be "all knowing" as opposed to merely describing what it means to possess "the most perfect knowledge?"

He knows all things; aka, he is "omniscient," which is where the description initially came from and what the Catholic Encyclopedia started out by saying, only to then immediately redirect the definition away from this concept.

Why? Because the concept of omniscience ("knowing all things") is logically inconsistent!

Instead of reading the words the authors of the myths presented and recognizing that the concepts aren't logically consistent and cause multiple problems when deconstructed as opposed to merely accepting like sheep, the Catholic spin doctors went into bold-faced redirection in the very first sentence!

That's a record, I think.

See how it spins? Literally? Around and around and around. Everything that our limited minds can recognize as "perfection and completeness of knowledge" may be "predicated of Divine omniscience" (hey, we've come back to it!).

"Predicated of" divine omniscience. See? Once again the spin is to direct attention away from the logically inconsistent claim that God is "all knowing" to the marginalized claim that what God knows (as far as our imperfect minds can comprehend) is perfect and complete, which, in turn, is a result of God's omniscience.

Isn't that fantastic? They start by declaring "God is omniscient," redirect away from that in order to describe the quality of his knowledge and then come full circle around to say, "The perfection of his knowledge--as far as we can tell--is complete, because he's omniscient!"

It's really quite beautiful, actually, and worthy of anything under the Reagan spin control juggernaut.

Of course! He's omniscient due to his omniscience, so whom else would he depend upon for his omniscience?

Who has a May pole we can all dance around in beat to the spin?

Of course. That only makes perfect, circular sense. Here we go loop de loop; here we go loop de lie...

What this has to do, however, with a claim that God is omniscient escapes me, but then, that's the whole point of redirection.

Ohhhh, I get it. Because he is omniscient because he is omniscient, he is therefore omniscient!

Who could argue with that?

I certainly see why you thought it was a good idea, advocate, for us to refer to this "traditional definition..."



Ooh! Here we go onto the logical inconsistency pre-emptions. Pay close attention to the bouncing point...

Is it now?

I see. So, we're now discussing the Divine "essence."

I see...So it's our fault that the concept of an omniscient God being omniscient as a result of his omniscience is logically inconsistent?

Wow! How stupid of us!

Is there more?

Un hunh....

"We" do? What the hell is wrong with us? Aren't we ever satisfied?

No, of course not, because as was so patiently explained to us, the "knowledge in itself" is completely perfect and perfectly complete.

Oh! We need distinctions because we're finite and he's infinite, so because he's infinite, his omniscience being a result of his omniscience being the result of his omniscience being the result of his omniscience can circle around and around and around our finite heads ad infinitum so that we get so dizzy that, presto chango, Outer Mongolia, Ladies and Gentleman! Abrakazam, volcanoes! Ta Da! Nothing up his sleeve, insects! Madame et Monsieur!

All week in Nineveh!

"Simple" intelligence. Make sure the boys downplay that as much as possible...Stüm! Stüm!

In other words, now that we have completely confused you as to all of the logically inconsistent crap we've tried to slip in under your radar, we'll just assume it's understood that infinity and yada, yada, yada, means that God will eat your babies if you don't bow down to him.

Anyone up for more?

See? They didn't define what it means to claim that God is "omniscient" they simply qualified the nature of God's "most perfect knowledge of all things," looped around and have now considered the issue settled and firmly established.

Astounding, both that the authors can sleep at night and that the cult members who swallow this tripe don't storm this Bastille every Sunday.

Now we're in the very heart of the logical inconsistency pre-emptive apologetics, so this should be fun.

What they just said above, of course, is, "Since we've just fooled you into accepting that God is omniscient, we now, for some reason--just for the hell of it--need to make sure we pre-emptively explain away all of the conclusive arguments against this nonsense, just in case you ever hear them."

After all, why go into this except as a pre-emptive conditioning against the logical deconstruction? Didn't they just establish God's omniscience to be beyond human deconstruction?

This is how you know it to be spin propaganda and nothing else, by the way. Just in case the fifth graders reading along hadn't picked that up yet.

Thus, remember to always to qualify the argument regarding God's "omnimax" abilities to "that which is possible," even though a defining quality of his "omnimax" abilities and God himself is his ability to perform the impossible.

The way around it of course, is to make a further distinction to that which is "logically possible," thereby pre-empting anyone who would come along and challenge this, though of course no one will, since this is absolute and inviolate, but, you now, what the hell, just in case....

Because it's not logically consistent with the never defined concept of God being "omniscient."

See what elaborate setup they go through to explain the simplest concepts? How they force you away from the actual topics in order to re-route your thinking through a cognitively dissonant maze that serves only one purpose; to make your brain hurt sufficiently enough that you won't notice that they then just slipped in at the end the "proof" that God is omniscient based on the fact that his omniscience comes from him being omniscient?

Just incredible.

But let's turn now to "free will" and see how far they will go to twist and turn the constructs any possible way so as to never actually address the logical inconsistencies inherent in an omniscient God who grants his creation "free will;" which, again, any fifth grader following along should be able to recognize automatically contradicts God omniscience.

Beyond doubt, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury!

Of course, that goes without saying...literally, since they never said it.

Got that everybody? God knows "from eternity"--meaning, presumably, from the instant of God's own uncaused cause--that you will not believe and he will therefore throw you into the lake of fire as punishment.

He knows this when you are born, when you are five, when you are dating for the first time, when you have your first kiss, when you fall in love and marry and have your first child, when you grow old together with your mate and watch your children struggle and suffer and be happy and prosper, he knows when you take a dump and when you wash your hair, he knows every second of your existence that when you die he will throw you into the lake of fire to punish you for something he know about you from the Alpha, but he's still going to do it.

Why? He knew the instant he came into being the fate of every single soul he ever created--the very nanosecond of his uncaused cause--[b]millennia upon millennia before you or I were actually born, before you or I existed in order to be ultimately punished by him, but he's still going to do it.

Yet, we all have "free will." Before we even know what "knowing" is, we're doomed to the fiery pits of eternal damnation all because of a decision of our own free will that we had no idea we were ever going to make.

He created us this way and knew even before he created us that he would ultimately throw us into hell to punish us for a crime we did not yet commit, but we have "free will."

Right....

I notice there was no question mark at the end of that question...hmmmm....

That's why I'm glad I never went to the Dominican school...(rimshot, please)

Wake me when we get somewhere...

Funny how there's all this pointless filler to wade through right at the moment they finally ask the most important question (without signifying it as such with the proper punctuation, I should add?)

And a hey nonny nonny and a ha cha cha!

Brain hurtin' again, yet? Don't worry. That's what it's supposed to do, hyuck!

Poor Peter. Anyone have any coffee?

Which is...? Think they'll actually present the "real" real problem?

Foul tipped and into the bleachers! Pitcher seems tired having trotted through all that gibberish. Looks like they're going to get a walk on balls...

Well...? The suspense is killing me! Does he know or doesn't he know....wait a minute!

God knows all!

The password is: inconsistent, unless of course you accept their redirection, which started in the very first sentence right after the "or."

What a remarkably long and convoluted misdirectional setup just to get here, don't you think?

Well, of course, it's so simple now that it's been so clearly and plainly spelled out!

In other words, God knows Peter will do "X" because God created Peter to do "X" and will force Peter to agree (of his own "free will") to do "X" in line with God's will.

Thus, Peter has only a pretend "free will," not an actual "free will!"

It's so simple when you don't have to remain logically consistent!

God sets it all up, creates you to do "X" and then agree to do "X" and then when you actually do "X" punishes you for all eternity.

God gets away...Scott Free!

What kind of sick maryf*cker is this rat bastard?

See? It's so painfully simple. God creates you with the free will to do what it is he determines you will do and then tosses you into the lake of fire as punishment for "agreeing" to do what he created you to do from the instant of his own existence!

It is obviously and incontrovertibly inconsistent?

Can't have that, boys, so toss it back in the hopper and spin it around!

Oh, that again...

...and...?

Whoa, whoa, whoa! How about resolving the first difficulty, yes?

Which, ironically, I could find no definition of anywhere in the <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/p.htm" target="_blank">Catholic Encyclopedia</a>. It means "physical pre-motion," and it is a theological doctrine from the Thomist sect (a philosophical-theological movement based upon leading ideas of St Thomas Aquinas).

Roughly, it means that "God's concurrence with man's free acts is physical, previous, immediate, special, intrinsic, and also simultaneous," (<a href="http://radicalacademy.com/jdtheodicy3.htm" target="_blank">Jonathan Dolhenty</a>), and was argued largely by <a href="http://www.xrefer.com/entry/553706" target="_blank">Domingo Bánez</a> and his fellow Dominicans "in the spirit of Aquinas, that a person cannot freely accept the grace that God offers unless moved by God to do so."

Now back to our regularly scheduled program...

Still no resolution (or just a simple answer) to the logically inconsistent construct. Why? Because it's logically inconsistent and evidence of obvious fraud at worst; terrible mythmaking at best, that's why, but a cult can't admit either of these so we get this gymnastics...

"Middle knowledge," wherein God has his very own P.O. Box where he keeps "possible actions" on hold...

Aspirin anyone?

So, even in the "hypotheticals" that God apparently amuses himself with--faking himself out, as it were--there is no ultimate, i.e., non-trivial "free will."

But please, let's continue with the charade for the sake of the children.

You know, by the way, "suffer the children unto me" has a whole knew meaning these days...

But I digress.

WHOA, little doggie! How the hell did we get to a "thus" all of a sudden, from that?

Get it? God knows--from looking in that special "middle knowledge" P.O. Box he fools himself into owning--that what Peter might do is probably what he will do, long before he see it done.

Which is course, complete and utter cod's wallop, but certainly pays lip service to the notion that they're actually try to spin something here.

God "knows all," the instant God came into being, so what is this pathetic bullshit about God simply pretending not to know what he instantly knows, created and forced upon us?

This is the mental equivalent of walking out your back door and around the goddamned globe in order to finally come back around so that you can close your back door.

And here, finally , one and all, Dammen und Herren, we come to the secret hidden nugget that allows us all to toss the entire ridiculous crap right into the toilet where it all belongs.

Let's just repeat that one more time so that it sinks completely into our very beings, since we have "free will":

In other words, we just have to pretend it's this way and move on.

Unf*ckingbelievable.

Thank you so much advocate for suggesting we all waste so much time on this bullshit only to finally have the conclusion be, "just shut the hell up and bow!"


Of course.

No, not in the least, regardless of all the directly contradictory crap you just stated...

You mean, "and if you're asked to ever explain what the hell all of this nonsense means?"

Translated: "only God knows."

No, there's one more turn you could have taken, but then, that would have been the obvious choice and it is abundantly clear that you folk don't want to have anything to do with the obvious.

Of course! Shut up and bend over, Timmy! It's time to "pray...."