Originally posted by sonhouseThe way I see it, whatever mental gymnastics are performed to concoct an omniscient god must, along the way, strip the god of any ability to think or even possess consciousness. In which case even a rock is omniscient.
Well, we think with electrical charges zipping through trillions of brain cells. What do you imagine your god is physically doing to do the same thing if it in fact thinks. If what it has is an infinite data base knowing the past present and future of every particle in the universe, what need would there be for such a being to have thoughts like we do? It c ...[text shortened]... its mind to allow that god to form active thoughts? And to whom would it be communicating with?
How would a self-styled god know that he knows everything, anyway? I mean, you can build Euclidean geometry as a closed system completely from scratch with a set of five basic postulates and a few fundamental elements (points, lines, planes), but even today we don't know all the geometric facts that are implied by those few ingredients.
Originally posted by sonhouseWhy do refer to God as "it"??????
Well, we think with electrical charges zipping through trillions of brain cells. What do you imagine your god is physically doing to do the same thing if it in fact thinks. If what it has is an infinite data base knowing the past present and future of every particle in the universe, what need would there be for such a being to have thoughts like we do? It c ...[text shortened]... its mind to allow that god to form active thoughts? And to whom would it be communicating with?
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm quite fine with what and who I think God is, what you guys are discussing
Well, we think with electrical charges zipping through trillions of brain cells. What do you imagine your god is physically doing to do the same thing if it in fact thinks. If what it has is an infinite data base knowing the past present and future of every particle in the universe, what need would there be for such a being to have thoughts like we do? It c ...[text shortened]... its mind to allow that god to form active thoughts? And to whom would it be communicating with?
are what you think...again....your views of what your god can or cannot do.
I never once said God thinks like we do, as a matter of fact I don't believe that.
Since He is never suprised with new data, what He intends and what He deems
as good or bad, I just accept as true. Why God wants us to have our own wills,
and why we are limited the way we are I'm sure there are good reasons for, I
do not pretend to know why.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy does an omniscient god need to be assigned a sex? I think it is because Christians, Jews, and Muslims, the Abrahamic religions, are all immensely biased against women.
Why do refer to God as "it"??????
Do you think your god has male genitalia? Does that mean your god has sex? Does it therefore reproduce sexually?
Have you ever asked your god about its sexuality? Maybe it would tell you. Would it bum you out to find out it had female genitalia instead and we should have called it "her' all along?
Either way, male or female, wouldn't that imply it was made of ordinary matter just like us?
If it was older than the universe and omniscient, what use would it have for sex except for maybe pleasure? If it could just think ANYTHING into existence, it surely could just snap its ultracosmic fingers and poof, a kid would appear.
Seems like just another case of proof of the man made idea of god.
But mainly, I thought it would just pisss you off😉
Originally posted by RJHindsSince this thread is about thinking, an omniscient God would know equally what it is like to be a human female and a human male. In every other way, there would be no priority of male over female or female over male in God's way of thinking. We have she, he, and it as pronouns, but have no fitting pronoun for God. That's OK, we can just say "God" wherever we might want to say he or she or it.
Why do refer to God as "it"??????
Originally posted by Conrau KGödel's Incompleteness Theorem is not wordplay, it's actually one of the crowning achievements of 20th century mathematics and perhaps also among the most underrated achievements. I think it was what caused Bertrand Russell to give up mathematical research. It has repercussions in nigh every field of inquiry, both scientific and (I think) spiritual.
I think this takes omniscience far too legalistically. Just as God's omnipotence does not require logically impossible feats (lifting the unliftable rock) so too does God's omniscience not require infinite regressions. You have to look at how theists use these terms rather than take them strictly legastically and try to refute them through wordplay.
One certain conclusion that can be drawn from the theorem is that, if a hypothetical god were "omniscient," then the god would not function as a Turing machine. I mean, that's a pretty fun fact they should put on the caps of Snapple bottles or something.
I think all the discussion around here about free will and libertarianism is the real wordplay going on. I mean, it's interesting, but rather divergent from the topic at hand.
Originally posted by sonhouseI think for some reason some folks want their god to have a big ding-dong. Probably compensating for something...?
Why does an omniscient god need to be assigned a sex? I think it is because Christians, Jews, and Muslims, the Abrahamic religions, are all immensely biased against women.
Do you think your god has male genitalia? Does that mean your god has sex? Does it therefore reproduce sexually?
Have you ever asked your god about its sexuality? Maybe it would t ...[text shortened]... of proof of the man made idea of god.
But mainly, I thought it would just pisss you off😉
Originally posted by Conrau KIt makes no sense because you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say.
But that makes no sense to me. You are essentially saying that God's ability to decide something means that he should be able to decide to do something even when he has decided on its opposite. I don't get it.
I don't see how that follows. God's mind is fixed, if he has definitely decided on something. I don't see however why God's ability to think requires that his mind not be fixed.
Thinking involves change. A fixed mind, cannot think. It is a follows by definition.
No. I am not suggesting that at all. I was simply illustrating that a redecision does not necessarily entail a change in knowledge.
And you must decide between:
a) arbitrary decision making.
b) decisions based on a change in knowledge.
If you reject b) due to God being all knowing, then a) must be your conclusion.
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59That is the difference, I think anyway, between 'thinking', and 'intent'.
Arent 'thinking' and 'knowing' subtley different?
Perhaps I'm not being clear. I am trying to find out how a god who knows all (including all future events) can think. (This is not my god and it may not be yours ... a hypothetical entity)
for instance: he thinks about whether or not to part the Red Sea ... does he weigh up the pros and cons? No! bec ...[text shortened]... how its going to pan out, he already knows his own decision, there is no thinking involved.
A rat displays intent when it invades a bag of rice, it certainly does not debate internally about the morality of that act.
An omniscient god would be like an encyclopedia of intent.
Another way to view free will would be the infinite alternate universe concept:
A person thinks about doing A or not doing A.
An omniscient god knows about both decisions because they both happen, A in one universe and null A in another. Since your god is omniscient, it 'sees' the results of both, lets both A and null A happen but in different universes.
Of course that leads to its own conundrum, would that god have an existence outside the infinite universes postulated? Another set of infinities outside the infinities of universes?
You end up with an infinite number of universes where all decisions are played out in all combinations thereof.
Either that, or theists have to come to the realization that their precious god is not omniscient.
If they could actually come to that realization, would the universe collapse on itself instantly, or would it just go on as before with theists a bit wiser?
Originally posted by JS357How bout a new pronoun, combining all those qualities: SHEIT? It has the She, it has the He, it has the It. Problem solved.
Since this thread is about thinking, an omniscient God would know equally what it is like to be a human female and a human male. In every other way, there would be no priority of male over female or female over male in God's way of thinking. We have she, he, and it as pronouns, but have no fitting pronoun for God. That's OK, we can just say "God" wherever we might want to say he or she or it.
Originally posted by sonhouseMorality is not required for thought. The rat in your example most definitely thinks and decides and even debates internally.
That is the difference, I think anyway, between 'thinking', and 'intent'.
A rat displays intent when it invades a bag of rice, it certainly does not debate internally about the morality of that act.
Originally posted by twhiteheadMorality is not required for thought but thought is definitely required for morality. A different level of thought than the mere intent to fill one's belly. No doubt the rat in question has to decide the internal debate as to whether there will be a predator like man or eagle or snake to stop the intent to raid the cookie jar, but that has president going back hundreds of millions of years and even modern animals with no brain has the ability to avoid predation, like jellyfish. They have built in avoidance schemes involving absolutely no brain-like neurons.
Morality is not required for thought. The rat in your example most definitely thinks and decides and even debates internally.