God and Omniscience??

[Kurieuo]

I dont think that all.To understand faith one must first question it.

And forgive me for being a flagrant 'post-modernist' but im a political scientist,Anthropologist and Linguist by training so we do nothing but be objective and open minded.Because bias will skew our research

How does one be objective when everything is coloured with the subjective?

[Imperium]

I dont think that all.To understand faith one must first question it.

And forgive me for being a flagrant 'post-modernist' but im a political scientist,Anthropologist and Linguist by training so we do nothing but be objective and open minded.Because bias will skew our research

How does one be objective when everything is coloured with the subjective?

lol i like to think we try pretty much by assuming first and foremost that everything is equally valid and for a given value 'true'

[Kurieuo]

I dont think that all.To understand faith one must first question it.

And forgive me for being a flagrant 'post-modernist' but im a political scientist,Anthropologist and Linguist by training so we do nothing but be objective and open minded.Because bias will skew our research

How does one be objective when everything is coloured with the subjective?

lol i like to think we try pretty much by assuming first and foremost that everything is equally valid and for a given value 'true'

And from there we attempt to disprove what we don't like, and muster all we can for what we do?

I think it safe to say noone comes to the table a clean slate. There will always be the subjective involved whether we like it or not. While this can distort truth, unlike post-moderns I don't necessarily think this is always a bad thing when it comes to matters of truth.

[Imperium]

I dont think that all.To understand faith one must first question it.

And forgive me for being a flagrant 'post-modernist' but im a political scientist,Anthropologist and Linguist by training so we do nothing but be objective and open minded.Because bias will skew our research

How does one be objective when everything is coloured with the subjective?

lol i like to think we try pretty much by assuming first and foremost that everything is equally valid and for a given value 'true'

And from there we attempt to disprove what we don't like, and muster all we can for what we do?

I think it safe to say noone comes to the table a clean slate. There will always be the subjective involved whether we like it or not. While this can distort truth, unlike post-moderns I don't necessarily think this is always a bad thing when it comes to matters of truth.

That more than a little cynical and quite unfair.I believe your viewpoint is equally true as mine.We all find our own ways to God

And yes i'd have to agree with you on that one.Our worldviews are built on certain assumptions and generalisations and even the best of us can't get rid of them for we need them to function in society

[Kurieuo]

I dont think that all.To understand faith one must first question it.

And forgive me for being a flagrant 'post-modernist' but im a political scientist,Anthropologist and Linguist by training so we do nothing but be objective and open minded.Because bias will skew our research

How does one be objective when everything is coloured with the subjective?

lol i like to think we try pretty much by assuming first and foremost that everything is equally valid and for a given value 'true'

And from there we attempt to disprove what we don't like, and muster all we can for what we do?

I think it safe to say noone comes to the table a clean slate. There will always be the subjective involved whether we like it or not. While this can distort truth, unlike post-moderns I don't necessarily think this is always a bad thing when it comes to matters of truth.

That more than a little cynical and quite unfair.I believe your viewpoint is equally true as mine.We all find our own ways to God

I intended the rhetorical question to be taken as true of us all. I don't believe this is unfair - it is what I see everyone do including myself. Not necessarily intentionally, but the thing about evaluating anything is that it requires our self (subjectiveness) to do it. So either consciously or subconsciously we are all going to slant towards what we believe and resist against what we don't.

Your statement that "We all find out own ways to God" is a truth claim. I believe it is false. I do not believe it is just as true as Christ being the only way to God as was taught by Christ Himself. The two are contrary. At least one must be wrong. Thus, not all viewpoints are equally true, but all viewpoints might possibly be false...

And yes i'd have to agree with you on that one.Our worldviews are built on certain assumptions and generalisations and even the best of us can't get rid of them for we need them to function in society

Not necessarily only assumptions and generalisations either (very scientific ), but intuitions, experiences, relationships, feelings and the like. Unlike what is taught to us in our modern education, I do not necessarily see these things as bad when trying to decipher what is true, but rather if properly honed and working I think they can be more truth conducive than trying to take a purely rational and objective approach. Of course everything together as a whole I see would be even better at attaining truth than trying to keep to one side or the other.

[Canuckster1127]

Most roads of this nature don't lead anywhere.

Thankfully, Christ often will come and seek us out and move us to the main road.

[Leprechaun]

There are several ways to view this and I have thought about this for some time before even coming to this website although my thoughts are flawed and scattered. If God exists within eternity then he is not bound by time. So therefore he can see all of time at the same instant (wasn't sure what word to use here) so within eternity all of time (and everything else) exists within the same instant (I like to think of a book although it may progress along a timeframe all of the times or chapters within the book exist at once despite the fact they are chronological (if you know what I mean, I will explain that further if needs be)(This also allows us to envisage God as a reader who has already read it and can freely skip to any page he likes). So therefore the past present and future exist simultaneously and God can "see" any of these times at the one instant. So if God has absolute knowledge then he knows what will definitely happen (and if we have choices he knows which one will be taken) and as all of time exists at once (within eternity) then everything that I have done, will do and am doing have already happned as such (or are already happening). So if I have done everything that I will do and made every choice I will then I can't change my mind as such and decide to do something different as if I do it already has been done and so I didn't actually change my mind (or the future). So this confirms with the idea predestination (so this tihnking is slightly calvinist although I don't particularly believe any of this as I feel I am missing some fundamental point and these are basically incoherent thoughts that I managed to assemble to form some sort of a post) that it is already decided whether or not we will go to hell or heaven. However some may argue that at the instant (again I use this word to descirbe eternity as there is no timeline by definition) of creation I made all the choices I would make and it was then that I sinned or did not sin. However if God is omniscient then even before Creation he knew what choices would be made etc.. (this is interesting because it raises questions about the meaning of original sin (is it possible that it was all of our sins at the moment of Creation?)). So using this argument it can be said that one cannot change ones mindas such and therefore our freewill does not exist as our decisions have already been made (not by us however as God with his omniscience must have envisaged all of time at the instant of creation,or before possible, and so he/she/it? knew what "choices" would be made and how all of time would pan out.
Another argument could be made using the "Multiverse" as a framework for free will as at the moment of the choice another universe is spawned etc. however this would inevitably mean that at every choice ever made (or to be made) an "evil" choice was made (along with all the others, good or otherwise). This means in at least one universe as such we are condemned to hell and in another we will go to heaven. This is higghly improbable as why would God create a system within which at least one "version" of each person is condemned and then it also raises questions about freewill as we will make all the possible choices, as it were, so if we chose to do good it doesn't matter as we also chose to do bad and it would be unfair for God to punish these bad people as they had to exist. So this seems highly unlikely and even it is not free from the conundrums facing the single universe model regarding choices etc. (1st paragraph).
If any one has any questions (about clarity etc.), comments or aguments please post them as I am not trying to disagree with anyone I just wanted to give my understanding ( as flawed as it may be) of freewill and omnisciene and by extension eternity as I developed these ideas about a year ago and it's only know that I find a forum with a similar disucussion however I am surprised that the question of eternity was not raised as I find it hard to think/disuss these matters without factoring it in (although it may be superflous in this case but I feel it is highly relevent) and judging from the posts I have read (albeit that is a small number) you all seem to have more wisdom/knowledge of these matters than I do particularly when it comes to the Bible.

[Leprechaun]

ok.....nevermind..

[zoegirl]

I can understand the perplxing nature of this...Everytime I ponder the infinity concept it is stunning to me.

[Imperium]

Id have to agree zoegirl, the very idea of infinity is mindbendingly difficult to contemplate.Perhaps it is proof of God, or perhaps it is just proof we need to try harder to understand the universe we find ourselves in.