Evidence for God from Science

Silvertusk wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:It is important to note that God's omniscience is something that is debated.
Not whether God is but to what degree and how it works ( things we do not know).
Does God know ALL or does God know ALL that can be known at any given time? or only what God chooses to know?
Does God know all outcomes because they are "preordained" or does He know all possible outcomes of every possible decision? ( the decision has not been made yet but whatever the decision, God knows the outcome)?

It is not preordained but rather full hypothetical knowledge I believe IMHO.

IMO, I believe that God knows every possible outcome from every possible decision.
ex:
I flirt with a lady at a bar, we are both married, God knows what will happen if ANYTHING happens, whatever choice I/Her make.
If we decide to smile and go our separate ways, if we decide to do what we know to be wrong, if we decide to do it, but both chicken out, if we realize that we know each other from high school, etc,tec.
The choice is still ours but God knows the outcome regardless because He knows every outcome possible.
Of course this is when God CHOOSES to know that "far ahead".
There is no reason to believe that God WANTS or NEEDS to know everything that will happen to Us every moment of every day of our lives.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:It is important to note that God's omniscience is something that is debated.
Not whether God is but to what degree and how it works ( things we do not know).
Does God know ALL or does God know ALL that can be known at any given time? or only what God chooses to know?
Does God know all outcomes because they are "preordained" or does He know all possible outcomes of every possible decision? ( the decision has not been made yet but whatever the decision, God knows the outcome)?

It is not preordained but rather full hypothetical knowledge I believe IMHO.

IMO, I believe that God knows every possible outcome from every possible decision.
ex:
I flirt with a lady at a bar, we are both married, God knows what will happen if ANYTHING happens, whatever choice I/Her make.
If we decide to smile and go our separate ways, if we decide to do what we know to be wrong, if we decide to do it, but both chicken out, if we realize that we know each other from high school, etc,tec.
The choice is still ours but God knows the outcome regardless because He knows every outcome possible.
Of course this is when God CHOOSES to know that "far ahead".
There is no reason to believe that God WANTS or NEEDS to know everything that will happen to Us every moment of every day of our lives.

I Kinda of agree with you - but I would go a bit further and more in line with WLC and say that God has all knowledge and therefore there is nothing new that he can learn.

Well, now we get into the philosophical debate that, if God can't learn, then we have put a limit on God , hence He is not God.
Of course, if God can learn, then that MAY imply that He doesn't know all, which means that, IF your view on omniscience is that God knows ALL including future events, then you have a conundrum of sorts.

PaulSacramento wrote:Well, now we get into the philosophical debate that, if God can't learn, then we have put a limit on God , hence He is not God.
Of course, if God can learn, then that MAY imply that He doesn't know all, which means that, IF your view on omniscience is that God knows ALL including future events, then you have a conundrum of sorts.

There is no such conundrum. The answer is Divine Simplicity.

Philosophically, there is always a conundrum, LOL !

MagSolo wrote: If anyone could provide a good argument for why God can watch something evil happen to a person and do nothing and thats considered good, but yet if a human with the power to stop evil choosing not to stop it then its not good. Can anyone explain that?

If you were reading my answers ...

MagSolo wrote:My problem with most of the arguments here is that you people are calling ...

Your problem is that you do not want to understand. I wanna ask you this Mag: If people here are not that capable of answering your questions, will you try to find some good website run by Professors in Theology? Please, do interact with them and see what they have to say.

PaulSacramento wrote:Philosophically, there is always a conundrum, LOL !

Er, no there isn't. There is, only if one ignores or does not attempt to understand classical theism.

PaulSacramento wrote:Well, now we get into the philosophical debate that, if God can't learn, then we have put a limit on God , hence He is not God.
Of course, if God can learn, then that MAY imply that He doesn't know all, which means that, IF your view on omniscience is that God knows ALL including future events, then you have a conundrum of sorts.

If God knows everything, hypothetically, propositionally, past and future - then there is nothing left to learn. He is All Knowing

Silvertusk wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Well, now we get into the philosophical debate that, if God can't learn, then we have put a limit on God , hence He is not God.
Of course, if God can learn, then that MAY imply that He doesn't know all, which means that, IF your view on omniscience is that God knows ALL including future events, then you have a conundrum of sorts.

If God knows everything, hypothetically, propositionally, past and future - then there is nothing left to learn. He is All Knowing

Paul, I agree with what Silvertusk said here. No conundrum. It's not logical to put a limit on God because He can't learn. He can't learn because He's omniscient.

We should put a limit on 'everything' caus4 everything could include a nonsense too. Period.

I think you guys are missing the point, in philosophical debates there is always a conundrum because, unless ALL agree with presuppositions ( like the definition of omniscience) then there is always a point of contention.
Can God be surprised? Can God search? Can God regret?
Well then, if He can ANY of these things, it means that, depending on your view of omniscience, he is or isn't.
I am not debating whether He is or isn't I am just stating that unless you accept a predetermined view of what omniscience is, there is room for debate and i think Christian Theological history shows as that.

PaulSacramento wrote:I think you guys are missing the point, in philosophical debates there is always a conundrum because, unless ALL agree with presuppositions ( like the definition of omniscience) then there is always a point of contention.

A point of contention is one thing, a conundrum is quite another.

PaulSacramento wrote:Can God be surprised? Can God search? Can God regret?
Well then, if He can ANY of these things, it means that, depending on your view of omniscience, he is or isn't.
I am not debating whether He is or isn't I am just stating that unless you accept a predetermined view of what omniscience is, there is room for debate and i think Christian Theological history shows as that.

Those are not debatable points IF they are understood as they are presented in the doctrine of divine simplicity. The fact that some do not understand them (a point of contention) does not in any way mean they are not understandable (conundrum).

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think you guys are missing the point, in philosophical debates there is always a conundrum because, unless ALL agree with presuppositions ( like the definition of omniscience) then there is always a point of contention.

A point of contention is one thing, a conundrum is quite another.

PaulSacramento wrote:Can God be surprised? Can God search? Can God regret?
Well then, if He can ANY of these things, it means that, depending on your view of omniscience, he is or isn't.
I am not debating whether He is or isn't I am just stating that unless you accept a predetermined view of what omniscience is, there is room for debate and i think Christian Theological history shows as that.

Those are not debatable points IF they are understood as they are presented in the doctrine of divine simplicity. The fact that some do not understand them (a point of contention) does not in any way mean they are not understandable (conundrum).

Well put.
And if one doesn't agree with the doctrine of "divine simplicity"?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think you guys are missing the point, in philosophical debates there is always a conundrum because, unless ALL agree with presuppositions ( like the definition of omniscience) then there is always a point of contention.

A point of contention is one thing, a conundrum is quite another.

PaulSacramento wrote:Can God be surprised? Can God search? Can God regret?
Well then, if He can ANY of these things, it means that, depending on your view of omniscience, he is or isn't.
I am not debating whether He is or isn't I am just stating that unless you accept a predetermined view of what omniscience is, there is room for debate and i think Christian Theological history shows as that.

Those are not debatable points IF they are understood as they are presented in the doctrine of divine simplicity. The fact that some do not understand them (a point of contention) does not in any way mean they are not understandable (conundrum).

Well put.
And if one doesn't agree with the doctrine of "divine simplicity"?

The most likely scenario is that they do not fully understand it. At its core is the true display of reason.