Omniscient the right term or does there need to be another?

[nobspeople]

In a recent, 'hot topic', otseng said: "I have no problem with God being omniscient, the only thing I've mentioned is God not being omnipotent." and can be seen here if interested (or you somehow missed it)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38657&start=120

Notice the bolded section.
Otseng believes, by their own admission, god isn't all powerful. They outline their reasoning based on at least one specific biblical passages about god not being able to lie, but they say it's, basically, 'OK with them' that god is all knowing.

But the bible does seem to indicate god isn't all knowing as well. Or does it?
From the genesis story:
[3:9] But the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?" - this seems to indicate god didn't know where Adam was - why else would be call to the man? Surely, he could have just went to where he'd know Adam was?
[3:11] He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"
Again, surely god would know. It could be he wanted Adam to admit it, as god does seem to play games with humanity throughout the bible and seems to love riddles (see here: https://www.gotquestions.org/riddles-in-the-Bible.html). This would be much akin to the 'god doesn't need us to tithe, we need to tithe' reasoning (lucky for god's ledger it seems!).
[3:13] Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" See above reasoning and potential response.
Genesis 3:15 and the following few verses seem to indicate god was angry (or at least annoyed) and kicked them out of the garden.

Now if god is omniscient, this means knowing everything, past, present and future. He would have know where everyone was, what they did, why they did it (and that they would do it), and on and on. There's literally no legitimate need to ask questions when you know the answers. I don't see any reason why Adam or Eve, literally being with god, they'd think 'Well, he won't know we ate it! We'll just act like everything copasetic!"
Some would counter that 'parents do this to their children'. But the whole god/parent comparison isn't legitimate as parents aren't god in any way. Comparing parents and god are like comparing apples to an apple tree.

This is a very amateur look at the 'all knowing' issue, for sure. But when one uses the bible and quotes to create their own paradigm, it's quite easy to do.

Now then, it's quite possible that god is knows all, except for what it chooses not to know. If that's the case, then the term omniscient isn't apt at all.

For discussion: Is the omniscient term completely correct when describing god, or should there be another term to use? Or is it simply god isn't all knowing?

[Tcg]

Alternatives such as "He should have removed the snake", "He should have removed the tree"..."He should have stopped the woman" ..."He should have zapped the man" "the garden" "The planet" ad inifinitum...are all variations on the theme of : He should have contolled our choices. These arguments are illogical, totally impractical and if followed through to their natural conclusion would be laughable if they were not so dangerous.

How are they "illogical?"

How are they "totally impractical?"

How are they "dangerous?"


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

Alternatives such as "He should have removed the snake", "He should have removed the tree"..."He should have stopped the woman" ..."He should have zapped the man" "the garden" "The planet" ad inifinitum...are all variations on the theme of : He should have contolled our choices. These arguments are illogical, totally impractical and if followed through to their natural conclusion would be laughable if they were not so dangerous.

How are they "illogical?"

How are they "totally impractical?"

How are they "dangerous?"


Tcg

In my opinion ...

• They are illogical because according to the text under discussion they represent the impediment by the creator of that which He himself purposed.

• They are impractical because they represent a choice of action that would be counterproductive to the stated and/or implied aims of a said creator.

• They "dangerous" because they imply it is right and proper to deny humans the right to self determination , a worldview which sows the seeds of tyranny and oppression.

JW

[Tcg]

Alternatives such as "He should have removed the snake", "He should have removed the tree"..."He should have stopped the woman" ..."He should have zapped the man" "the garden" "The planet" ad inifinitum...are all variations on the theme of : He should have contolled our choices. These arguments are illogical, totally impractical and if followed through to their natural conclusion would be laughable if they were not so dangerous.

How are they "illogical?"

How are they "totally impractical?"

How are they "dangerous?"


Tcg

In my opinion ...

• They are illogical because according to the text under discussion they represent the impediment by the creator of that which He himself purposed.

You are suggesting that "the creator" purposed his own impediment?

• They are impractical because they represent a choice of action that would be counterproductive to the stated and/or implied aims of a said creator.

That would only hold true if it could be shown that the "stated and/or implied aims of a said creator" were practical. Can you do so?

• They "dangerous" because they imply it is right and proper to deny humans the right to self determination , a worldview which sows the seeds of tyranny and oppression.

In what way do they imply that it is "right and proper to deny humans the right to self determination?"

What do you mean by a "worldview?" How would one sow "the seeds of tyranny and oppression?"


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

You are suggesting that "the creator" purposed his own impediment?

No. Why do you ask?

That would only hold true if it could be shown that the "stated and/or implied aims of a said creator" were practical.

I cannot see how that is the case. Can you prove your statement true?

[JehovahsWitness]

In what way do they imply that it is "right and proper to deny humans the right to self determination?"

Obviously if one proposes preemptive judgement and manipulation of their environment so they cannot make certain choices this amounts to denying them their right to self determination. If you say would you like an apple or an orange but take away all the oranges how is that not denying them the right to détermine for themselves which they want?

What do you mean by a "worldview?"

How would one sow "the seeds of tyranny and oppression?"

By denying people their basic human rights.

[TRANSPONDER]

I am of course not advocating Mind Control or some sort of Totalitarian Theocratic Authority.

That is exactly what you are advocating, whether or not you know it or not. You are suggesting that the best "solution" to rebellion is preemptive judgement. You are advocating not only the suspension of individual autonomy (I choose to be an atheist) by the removal of that choice but even the EXISTENCE of the possibility of that choice (I see that baby will choose to be an atheist: kill it now!) You think that the best thing would be for God to give us the ability to choose but to look ahead and zap anything and anyone that may lead to choices that he does not approved of. If you don't call that tyranny, what do you call it?


{snip}

Maybe we have so long lived in mental slavery we have forgotten that choice *is* freedom. Where goes one, so goes the other.




JW

Quite apart from making sure that Adam didn't disobey.

I'm sorry maybe I should rephrapse

Alternatives such as "He should have removed the snake", "He should have removed the tree"..."He should have stopped the woman" ..."He should have zapped the man" "the garden" "The planet" ad inifinitum...are all variations on the theme of : He should have controlled our choices. These arguments are illogical, totally impractical and if followed through to their natural conclusion would be laughable if they were not so dangerous.

That makes no sense to me. Let me use an analogy. There is a kids' playground. The kids are always getting hurt, even injured. The Christian solution is either 'be very careful not to get hurt' (which isn't a lot of help) or 'Thou shalt not play'. Which is Control and lack of freedom if I ever heard of it. The Rational way is to see why kids are hurting themselves and work out how to change the rides so kids are less likely to get hurt and a few rules to make sure they don't act so silly that no safety precaution can prevent it.

That's a the rationalist way and it's not mind control. Even having the park supervisor there stepping in and saying 'don't do that' isn't curtailing Freedom other than Freedom to act like an idiot, which is too often what Some seem to use the term to mean. So I'd say that even your rewrite doesn't help you much.

[JehovahsWitness]

That makes no sense to me. Let me use an analogy. There is a kids' playground. The kids are always getting hurt, even injured.

How is this in anyway applicable to the Edenic story? Adam and Eve were not "always getting hurt" they were presented with a simple choice to obey (and continue their idyllic existence) or rebel and face the consequences. Suggesting the removal of all choice and the manipulation of their environment (even the preemptive judgement and removal of any contenders to the narrative) or removing their ability to make any negative choices in no way matches the analogy provided.

But the answer is clear ... don't have the snake there. For that matter, don't have the tree there.

Suggesting that God should not allow anything that he doesn't agree with to happen (especially after according Adam and Eve permission to make their own choices) has nothing to do with your analogy; rather your previous suggestions amount to telling children to go play and then removing the park, their ability to play and preemptively zapping any potential playmates that God didnt like the look of.


JW

[TRANSPONDER]

That makes no sense to me. Let me use an analogy. There is a kids' playground. The kids are always getting hurt, even injured.

How is this in anyway applicable to the Edenic story? Adam and Eve were not "always getting hurt" they were presented with a simple choice to obey (and continue their idyllic existence) or rebel and face the consequences. Suggesting the removal of all choice and the manipulation of their environment (even the preemptive judgement and removal of any contenders to the narrative) or removing their ability to make any negative choices in no way matches the analogy provided.

But the answer is clear ... don't have the snake there. For that matter, don't have the tree there.

Suggesting that God should not allow anything that he doesn't agree with to happen (especially after according Adam and Eve permission to make their own choices) has nothing to do with your analogy; rather your previous suggestions amount to telling children to go play and then removing the park, their ability to play and preemptively zapping any potential playmates that God didnt like the look of.


JW

That seems to me to be everything to do with it, by analogy. You have kids in a playground. You have a supervisor watching. She or he can see the potential danger in a swing or slide and can get it made safe or stop them using it. That is hardly interfering if Free Will (much less turning them into mental robots (a favourite apologetic term in the context of free will). The kids still have the wish to play on the rides or not, and preventing them from doing so in their own interests is not abrogating their free will, nor is zapping (with a tazer or manacles and a black mariah) any shady character lurking around the fence.

Thus it seems to me God could make all the swords turn into ploughshares (or plowshares, as you bods viscerally spell it) and we'd soon have got the message, as well as all those bods who egg us on to sword each other to ensure their wealth and power could be Removed to some remote island, where they can fight it out if they want to. The only abrogation of free will there is the one in the apologetic excuse, that it removed the value of Faith (necessary for salvation) because the only Faith worthwhile is faith without good reason as distinct from Belief with good reason.

[JehovahsWitness]

You have kids in a playground. You have a supervisor watching. She or he can see the potential danger in a swing or slide and can get it made safe or stop them using it.

I suppose the "playground" in this scenerio would be the Garden of Eden so the PLAY would be life itself; life as a free moral agent In short, the play is the exercise of their free will.

God made a perfectly safe environment (the garden) with nothing intrinsicly dangerous in it. Any the potential danger lay in the misuse of their free will (how are you going to play? Will they choose to play according to the To the rule (s) or not? Your solution : STOP them from being able to choose anything. What do you call someone that has no choice but obey you. .. does the word SLAVE not come to mind?

Quite apart from making sure that Adam didn't disobey.

And how do you propose doing that without removing his free will ? The more logical and morally sound choice would be what God did, warn them if the consequences (dangers) of the misuse of free will. Tell them " if you play wrong you'll get hurt" but let them do as they choose. God is our Father not our dictator.

... zapping (with a tazer or manacles and a black mariah) any shady character lurking around the fence.

All that Satan (who also had free will and the right to talk to whoever he wished) did was talk to them; he did not kidnap them, torture them or threaten them in and way. Your solution ? Censor speech or just kill anyone that says what you dont like? Satan simply highlighted the choice Adam and Eve already knew they had: exercise your freedom to CHOOSE to obey or not (play according to park rules or not). Your solution ? Gag the contender. Zap him, before he has even spoken. Can you say "Rule by tyranny" because you certainly can describe it?




JW

[William]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #69]

God made a perfectly safe environment (the garden) with nothing intrinsically dangerous in it.

According to some, The Serpent was dangerous. Certainly as far as the story goes, the environment was not "perfectly safe" as there was a tree within it which caused death to those who were tempted to eat its fruit, and their offspring. One cannot get more dangerous than that.

Perfectly safe isn't the issue. Obviously the Earth is not perfectly safe...nor for that matter, is Heaven.