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?

[Purple Knight]

In other words, if this god isn't all knowing, is it worth being worshiped at all?

Sure, if it is good. If a sparrow was good, it wouldn't need to have all the information, just more information than I have about what is good and what is not. If it can teach me something and better me by being listened to, then I listen to it.

The reason I call myself an atheist is not because I don't think it's likely that the God of the Bible exists (even though I indeed do not believe it is likely). If this entity could teach me something I wouldn't care the back half of a rat whether it existed or not.

I call myself an atheist because the Bible's teachings take on such an authoritarian and frankly selfish tone that this entity can't help me be a good person. Kill on God's orders = good. Chosen People = good, everyone else = not as good. It's individual ethical egoism, with the individual being God. That doesn't help me.

It doesn't help me because, first of all, such an entity, even if we assume it creates right and wrong because it's that powerful, could simply be messing with me. It could be wringing its hands in sadistic glee, telling me to be nice to Bob when having the real answer in its head the whole time that Bob was evil and I ought to have killed him. Secondly, I'm not a Jew. This God is not on my side and never will be. Thirdly, God doesn't even speak to me, so not knowing what it wants means I can't know good from evil in the first place, since good and evil rests not on the nature of my actions but on what actions God desires or doesn't... and since I don't know what he wants, he's useless to me.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #3]

I'm not sure that I understand your meaning. Perhaps you could expand on this a little more.

I was addressing the OP question: "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?" And was trying to get across the point that "omniscient" is not a good word to describe god. That his actions as described in the Bible make it exceedingly doubtful he's omniscient. And on further reflection I'd say that some of his actions even preclude being omniscience.


.

[bjs1]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

I am trying to understand your point here. You seem to be saying that God cannot use rhetorical questions, such as in the third chapter of Genesis. You seem to be saying that if God asks a question then it must be out of a lack of knowledge and that there can be no other reason to ask a question.

As this would be absurd I am left to assume that I have misunderstood. Are you suggesting that God cannot use rhetorical questions? If so, why? If not, what are you saying?

[bjs1]

[Replying to Miles in post #3]

I'm not sure that I understand your meaning. Perhaps you could expand on this a little more.

I was addressing the OP question: "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?" And was trying to get across the point that "omniscient" is not a good word to describe god. That his actions as described in the Bible make it exceedingly doubtful he's omniscient. And on further reflection I'd say that some of his actions even preclude being omniscience.


.

Okay, now could you expand on that? What in actions attributed to God in the Bible make you think that He is not omniscient?

Are you follow the logic of this thread that God cannot ask a rhetorical question? That position seems unreasonable. So in what ways is God described as lacking knowledge in the Bible?

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #3]

I'm not sure that I understand your meaning. Perhaps you could expand on this a little more.

I was addressing the OP question: "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?" And was trying to get across the point that "omniscient" is not a good word to describe god. That his actions as described in the Bible make it exceedingly doubtful he's omniscient. And on further reflection I'd say that some of his actions even preclude being omniscience.


.

Okay, now could you expand on that? What in actions attributed to God in the Bible make you think that He is not omniscient?

Are you follow the logic of this thread that God cannot ask a rhetorical question? That position seems unreasonable. So in what ways is God described as lacking knowledge in the Bible?

Certainly. Given that an omniscient god would know the future, and if he didn't know something in the future then he wouldn't be omniscient. So, what didn't the god of Abraham know about the future? Well how about the fact that making Saul the king of Israel wouldn't work out?

1 Samuel 15:35
"Even though Samuel felt sad about Saul, Samuel never saw him again. The Lord was sorry he had made Saul the king of Israel."

Or how about not knowing that saddling Jeremiah with terrible things would be a mistake?

Jeremiah 42:10
10 ‘If you will stay in Judah, I will make you strong—I will not destroy you. I will plant you, and I will not pull you up. I will do this because I am sad about the terrible things that I made happen to you.

OR simply making mankind would turn out to be a colossal blunder?

Genesis 6:6
The Lord was sorry he had made human beings on the earth. His heart was filled with pain.

Thing is, any rational god worthy of the title "Omniscient" would have known these actions would be a mistake and wouldn't carry them out, but obviously the god of Abraham didn't. Hence, he's o̶m̶n̶i̶s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶t̶. Either that or he's some kind of dunderhead.



.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Miles in post #15]

This approach seems deeply problematic since it requires God to withhold grace, or even actively punish someone, before that person has done anything wrong.

Take King Saul as an example. God knew that Saul would turn away from Him. So God could have withheld His grace and never allowed Saul to become king in the first place. But then Saul would never have been king to have the opportunity to follow God or to turn away from God. For this to become a reality God had to give Saul the opportunity to succeed or to fail, even knowing the final outcome. Otherwise God was acting unjustly be treating someone negatively who not in fact done anything wrong.

Or take the flood. God could have refrained from creating people who would do evil. But that in effect punished people for doing evil before they actually did anything evil. They need the opportunity to do evil before God could respond to that. Responding to something before it happened in inherently contradictory.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

I am trying to understand your point here. You seem to be saying that God cannot use rhetorical questions, such as in the third chapter of Genesis. You seem to be say that if God asks a question then it must be out of a lack of knowledge and that there can be no other reason to ask a question.

As this would be absurd I am left to assume that I have misunderstood. Are you suggesting that God cannot use rhetorical questions? If so, why? If not, what are you saying?

Exactly. Most conclude an omniscient God can ask a rhetorical question; miles position seems to be that it is impossible for an omniscient God to choose to ask a rhetorical question. I too would like to see reasons for such a conclusion.

JW

JOB 38:1-4

Then Jehovah answered Job out of the windstorm: “Who is this who is obscuring my counsel and speaking without knowledge? Brace yourself, please, like a man; I will question you, and you inform me. Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you think you understand.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #13]

I am trying to understand your point here.

If god wanders around the garden asking Adam 'where are you?' that seems to indicate god's not all knowing. If so, is there another term other than 'all knowing' that should be used to describe god?

Are you suggesting that God cannot use rhetorical questions

If god's the god as many claim, it can ask or do whatever it wants. But does that, in this case, make sense?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Miles in post #3]

I'm not sure that I understand your meaning. Perhaps you could expand on this a little more.

I was addressing the OP question: "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?" And was trying to get across the point that "omniscient" is not a good word to describe god. That his actions as described in the Bible make it exceedingly doubtful he's omniscient. And on further reflection I'd say that some of his actions even preclude being omniscience.


.

Okay, now could you expand on that? What in actions attributed to God in the Bible make you think that He is not omniscient?

Are you follow the logic of this thread that God cannot ask a rhetorical question? That position seems unreasonable. So in what ways is God described as lacking knowledge in the Bible?

Certainly. Given that an omniscient god would know the future, and if he didn't know something in the future then he wouldn't be omniscient. So, what didn't the god of Abraham know about the future? Well how about the fact that making Saul the king of Israel wouldn't work out?

1 Samuel 15:35
"Even though Samuel felt sad about Saul, Samuel never saw him again. The Lord was sorry he had made Saul the king of Israel."

Or how about not knowing that saddling Jeremiah with terrible things would be a mistake?

Jeremiah 42:10
10 ‘If you will stay in Judah, I will make you strong—I will not destroy you. I will plant you, and I will not pull you up. I will do this because I am sad about the terrible things that I made happen to you.

OR simply making mankind would turn out to be a colossal blunder?

Genesis 6:6
The Lord was sorry he had made human beings on the earth. His heart was filled with pain.

Thing is, any rational god worthy of the title "Omniscient" would have known these actions would be a mistake and wouldn't carry them out, but obviously the god of Abraham didn't. Hence, he's o̶m̶n̶i̶s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶t̶. Either that or he's some kind of dunderhead.



.

One could also add, god knows what's going to happen and that's its plan. This would mean, in many cases, god's a jerk and likes to play games with humanity - not all lives matter as it's more than willing to sacrifice lives to prove a, or get to, a point. Which seems contradictory to what an all powerful, all capable (if it is, which some seem to debate) being could do.
Maybe god's lazy and allowing people to die to get to a point is 'easier'? I mean, it did 'rest' on after creation for a day. That, in itself, would indicate it's not all powerful but that's for another thread I suppose.

[TRANSPONDER]

I see that both Omniscience and Omnipotence are topic titles here, so both attributes seem open for discussion.

Just as morals have to be discussed reasonably, God having to have a moral nature that is like the one He supposedly gave us (not crediting a doctrine that God could still be perfectly good if He gave us a moral code that he didn't use himself, brutal dictatorship being His morality - I've heard the bullet -biting 'God can do as He likes' apologetic before now) I prefer to talk about a logically reasonable (if such terms are not contradictory ) Omnipotence - God (if He is the creator of everything) being able to do pretty much anything (if logically possible) and working with the doctrine that God knows everything and (logically) knew everything that would happen through Adam, the Flood, Egypt enslaving the Hebrews, Assyria obliterating the Northern Kingdom, the Exile...damn' we are doubting that God couldn't find some better way before we even get to the Jesus- story..., we have to grapple with the question of whether, if that was so, it would have happened that way.

The apolgetics explanation of Rhetorical questions was lurking in the wings all this time (for example with the Syrio -Phonecian woman). 'Where were you when I created everything?' is of course rhetorical. God knows as well as do where he was; nowhere and we know the point of that 'question'. But some of these questions are not rhetorical. Perhaps God (genesis 18.22) let Abraham talk him out of destroying Sodom if there were just ten righteous persons in it because he wanted an excuse to spare it. But He knew he'd destroy it in the end, and he'd know how many Righteous persons there were in the city, where they lived and what they'd had for breakfast. He could just have them walk out of the city and then destroy it. Even I can work that one out, so why couldn't God?

Aside that I have a very easy option - it is ALL the work of men and so their god thinks like a man - how can this problem (one of many) be explained? Because the 'rhetorical question' apologetic doesn't do it, nor for Jesus asking to be excused crucifixion when he knew (if the gospel is to be trusted) that he had to die and why and it couldn't be avoided. Of course he also knew it was just for a weekend and he'd up and about and displaying his appendix -scar by Sunday, so it was just a nasty few hours, and mere human beans have endured worse than that with nothing to show for it. In Jesus' place I'd pray for a few days' immunisation, so the flogging and nails were no worse than having your teeth out. I could have done the salvation of mankind myself on those terms.

Again, as a goddless unbeliever, it is easy for me to understand if it was just written by men and the story is full of plot - holes. If it claimed to be reliably accurate, never mind supposed to be inerrant, I do not see how it works at all. The apologists will try various excuses or red -herrings or tricks, frankly, like finding one obvious rhetorical question and implying that answers all. That could only be expected to work by crossing the fingers and praying 'Lord Jesusgod, let those goddless bastards not know the Bible any better than that'.

But (as I remarked before) half of we hellbound heathens used to be Christians and know the Bible pretty well, and even a lifetime atheist like myself has picked up enough apologetics wriggles not to be bamboozled by Christian apologetic wangles.