I was listening to a debate between George Williamson and William Lane Craig on the existence of God. Williamson argued that the concept of God is incoherent. He claimed omniscience would require that God possess all empirical knowledge (experiential, know-how), and yet God clearly does not know what it is like to play basketball, ride a bike, or sin. Craig responded that the classical definition of omniscience holds that God knows all true propositions, not that He knows all experiences. Williamson counters that theists have so defined omniscience only to escape the logical absurdities involved in a being who is truly omniscient. So is the classical definition ad hoc as Williamson claims? No. There is good reason to limit omniscience to propositional knowledge.
If omniscience included empirical knowledge, then God could never create anything. If He created an atom, He would have to have the experience of what it is like to be an atom. Essential to the “experience” of being an atom is the lack of any conscious experience. God, as a conscious being, cannot experience the lack of conscious experience (it’s a logical and metaphysical contradiction), and thus could not have the experience of being an atom. Perhaps God could at least have the experience of being constituted by the physical entities that make up atoms: protons, neutrons, quarks, etc. But then the atom would become a new way in which God exists. Ultimately, we would end up with pantheism or monism, in which everything is God.
If omniscience included empirical knowledge, God could not even create other conscious beings, because omniscience would require that He have the experience of being that person. But what makes a person a person is their unique consciousness. If God had the experience of being the persons He created, then their consciousness would be God’s consciousness. If their consciousness is indistinguishable from God’s consciousness, then there is in fact only one consciousness. And if there is only one consciousness, then in reality there is only one person, not many. For example, God could not create Napoleon Bonaparte because that would require both that Napoleon Bonaparte have the experience of being Napoleon Bonaparte, and God have the experience of being Napoleon Bonaparte. Since two persons cannot have the experience of being a single person, God could not create other persons!
Requiring empirical knowledge of an omniscient being prohibits Him from being able to create other beings, and if God is unable to create other beings He is not omnipotent. Knowledge of all empirical facts would be an imperfection, not a perfection. There is, then, good reason for limiting omniscience to propositional knowledge.
April 4, 2011 at 10:52 pm
“20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.” Rev 3
“23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.” John 14
How can God not know how it feels to play basketball when He indwells both you and me?
He not only knows everything that we know through us, but I believe He knows how it feels to be us. He understands us better than we understand ourselves. He watched us grow up, He knows every aspect of our lives He understands our reactions as He leads and guides us to walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh. It’s why we can trust Him.
I personally think that’s also why Jesus is said to be a man of sorrows. I think with just a glance at any of us, He knew our spiritual battles, our weakness, the torment many of us feel internally plagued with toxic thoughts…and His loving heart breaks for us.
Just my .02
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 9:55 am
As God exists in Christ, he knows what it is to experience certain things, but clearly not all things (e.g. driving a car, since cars were not invented yet when He walked the Earth).
God’s indwelling of us no more means that He experiences what we experience than God’s general omnipresence. His knowledge is not experiential, but propositional.
Jason
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 10:25 am
jasondulle wrote: “His knowledge is not experiential, but propositional.”
On what do you base that belief?
The relationship that a believer has with the Lord can be distant or closer than any relationship you’ve ever had because He INDWELLS us. Even helps shape us like a Potter with the clay. He does this both internally and externally, even helping us to heal with unbelievable dreams at times.
We are His temples, He is IN us, what good is a temple if He never comes IN, and when He does, when we seek Him and invite Him and focus on Him…my gosh, He even speaks through us. He even knows what we’re going to do before we do it.
Where do you get that His knowledge is limited to proposition?
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 12:09 pm
On what do you base God is limited to proposition?
“For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 12:40 pm
On the basis of the arguments I outlined in this post. E.g.: You would not be able to exist since God would have to know what it is like to be you. Since “being you” is a singular experience, and God must have it, then you could not have it; i.e. you could not exist.
Jason
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Who cares…
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Interesting that atheists are now arguing against God’s experiential knowledge of all things when they’ve never (or almost never) accepted theists experiential knowledge of God. They always and only want empirical, scientific data. Weird.
As for the argument, God, being an eternal being, and also just in being a BEING, doesn’t know what it’s like to not be, i.e. to have never existed. Neither do we. It is impossible to be conscious of non-existence. Does that make us not exist?
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Joe,
Who cares that you don’t care? Tell someone who cares that you don’t care. And if you truly don’t care, why waste the time to tell us you don’t care? Do you expect us to care? Does your comment itself reveal that you actually do care–enough to post a comment saying you don’t?
Jason
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Joe,
My previous comment was both in fun, and to make a point. It boggles my mind when people take the time to share their apathy. I can never figure out what they are trying to accomplish. Are you asking a question? If so, then obviously George Williamson cares since he raised the argument. Obviously I care, or else I wouldn’t have posted on this. Shewalksaway and Aaron care, or else they would not have commented on my post. I’m not saying you should care. That’s up to you, but if you don’t, why go the extra step of voicing your apathy to those who think it is a meaningful question? What do you hope to accomplish? What point do you hope to make?
Jason
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Joe,
I actually think there are good reasons for you to care about this topic. If Williamson is right, then the concept of a perfect being (God) is flawed. And if there is no God, that has huge ramifications on our lives. I would hope that anyone who is concerned about the truth and the nature of ultimate reality would care about this subject, even if only a tiny bit.
Your response reminds me of the student who responded to his teacher’s question, “Which is a greater problem today: ignorance or apathy?” by saying, “I don’t know, and I don’t care.” That’s a poor philosophy of life–one that will never lead to deeper meaning and fulfillment. I hope that is not a philosophy you live by.
Jason
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Aaron,
Williamson isn’t arguing against God’s experiential knowledge of all things. He’s arguing that God can’t be omniscient because God does not have experiential knowledge of all things. It was God’s (lack of) experience—rather than our experience—that Williamson was focused on.
You are absolutely right. God does not know what it is like not to exist. And as you rightly point out, this is a feature of all conscious beings, not just eternally conscious beings. I don’t know what it is like not to exist. I know propositionally that at one point in time I did not exist, but I do not know (experientially) what it is like not to exist since that would require that I exist during my non-existence to experience non-existence, which is a contradiction.
Jason
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 5:35 pm
I feel that i have wasted my team in reading this stupid post, “who cares” expresses how pointless this whole thing really was. I wish i could have my 2 minutes back, plus the time it took me to write this comment
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Also, beleive what you want about god, who cares about how some one else defines something… yep “who cares” pretty much sums it up.
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 8:22 pm
jasondulle said: “God’s indwelling of us no more means that He experiences what we experience than God’s general omnipresence. His knowledge is not experiential, but propositional…If Williamson is right, then the concept of a perfect being (God) is flawed. And if there is no God, that has huge ramifications on our lives.”
What kind of fruit are you dangling there? These suppositions you’re making…it vaguely sounds familiar, like, “Did God really say…” jumping into flat out lying. There’s nothing concrete in what you’re saying except a made-up conclusion that’s completely incohesive.
Maybe you’re just forgetting that God is the Alpha and the Omega. He’s not limited to time so He always knew what it would be like to be me.
It’s like you’re a train stuck on a track and trying to compare that to the direction of butterflies. Williamson needs to think outside the box. Attempting to put limits on God…well that IS a waste of time. Playing word games won’t have any ramifications on anything.
LikeLike
April 5, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Aaron wrote: “As for the argument, God, being an eternal being, and also just in being a BEING, doesn’t know what it’s like to not be, i.e. to have never existed. Neither do we. It is impossible to be conscious of non-existence. Does that make us not exist?”
🙂 cute
LikeLike
April 6, 2011 at 4:25 pm
joe,
I just find it funny that you don’t care, and yet you express this sentiment to others, apparently thinking that they should care. Why shouldn’t they just say back to you, “Who cares that you don’t care?” But perhaps you don’t care enough to answer that question anyway. 🙂
Jason
LikeLike
April 6, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Shewalksaway,
I’m not sure I understand your first paragraph, but if you are suggesting that I am questioning God, then you are not interpreting me correctly.
How can anyone have the experience of being you, other than you? Essential to the experience of being you is having your consciousness. And yet the nature of consciousness is such that it can only belong to a single subject. So either you have your consciousness, or God does. It can’t be both. Time has nothing to do with the equation, though I would disagree with you that God is not in time. See my article at http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/divineeternity.htm.
I should add that I don’t know of a single theologian throughout church history who has ever held that God’s omniscience included experiential knowledge. Christians have always understood God’s omniscience to be propositional in character. That’s what made Williamson’s argument so silly: he was defining omniscience in a way that no theist does, and then thinking that it shows God cannot exist.
Jason
LikeLike
April 6, 2011 at 4:56 pm
“For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”
“20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.” Rev 3
“23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.” John 14
“55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God…”
“16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” 1 Cor 3
__________________________
What do those verses mean to you, Jason?
LikeLike
April 6, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Obviously you don’t want me to provide an exegesis of each of these verses, so what is your point? I don’t see how any of these verses prove that God’s omniscience extends to experiential knowledge. All these show is that God knows our thoughts and intents, and that God can dwell within us. But it doesn’t follow from that that God knows what it is like to ride a roller coaster.
Jason
LikeLike
April 6, 2011 at 5:11 pm
19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body[a] and in your spirit, which are God’s.
1 Cor 6
For you[b] are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
“ I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.”
2 Cor 6
For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him. Matthew 6:7
________________________________
If He knows our thoughts, how can He not know what it feels like to be us?
LikeLike
April 6, 2011 at 5:17 pm
In fact, since He never forgets anything about us, since He knows even the number of hairs on our head, and everything that anyone ever said to us now or growing up or in the future…He knows what shapes us, He knows our gut reactions and why we react, He knows why the alcoholic drinks, why and how our vices plague our minds, He knows our downfalls, what trips us, what helps us stand up, He knows every infinite detail in memories and understanding we don’t even have ourselves.
He more than experiences who we are, He grieves with us, comforts us, guides us, strengthens us, He is there for every moment, if we receive Him, that is.
There are no words that can express how great the wonders of God are.
LikeLike
April 7, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Shewalksaway,
The verses you are citing are not proving your point, but mine. They have to do with propositional knowledge.
As for God’s knowledge of our thoughts, this too is propositional knowledge. That’s the point. Let me give you an example from the finite realm. Neuroscientists have begun mapping out the correlation between brain states and mental thoughts. When the MRI image of your brain looks a particular way, the neuroscientists can know what you are thinking. But does that mean they share your experience of what it is like to have that thought? No. They only know the propositional content of your thought. Only you can have the experience of “knowing what it is like to think X.” The same is true of God. God can know what you are thinking, but He does not have the experience of thinking it.
If you think that because God is in us He experiences what we experience, then God must be a sinner. If a person in whom God’s Spirit dwells commits fornication, then God not only had the experience of having sex with the individual, but also the experience of sinning. I think that should make it clear just how absurd the idea is that God’s omniscience entails experiential knowledge.
Jason
LikeLike
April 7, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Jason, where does it say God is limited to propositional knowledge? Where does it even hint such a thing? As for sin, you’re right, God doesn’t sin, He is holy, He will NOT mix with sin. But that’s why Christ came. Why do you think we had to be cleansed? Why did Christ come? What did Christ do that changed us, and why would He go to such extremes and suffer stripes and the cross that we would be healed and cleansed of all unrighteousness? Christ had to come so that we could be reconciled to God. It’s why it’s referred to as Holy Spirit filled. To compare a relationship with God to a scientist being able to document our brain patterns is hardly the same thing.
Ah, but we still sin at times, right? So what happens then?
_______
“6 Then He came to Simon Peter. And Peter said to Him, “Lord, are You washing my feet?”
7 Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but you will know after this.”
8 Peter said to Him, “You shall never wash my feet!”
Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.”
__________
When we receive Christ we are given a robe of righteousness. But when we fail that standard and sin, it’s as though we have gotten our feet dirty. Therefore:
_____________
10 Jesus said to him, “He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; (John 13)
___________
And how do we wash our feet? By confession, by communion, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9) and by literally washing each other’s feet:
“14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you.”
Jason, a relationship with God is intense and can be as close or as far as you seek it to be, because God is more than willing…we’re the ones that keep the distance.
LikeLike
April 9, 2011 at 12:20 am
Jason, why do you fight so hard against God? Don’t you understand? The further you walk away from Him, the darker your mind until He will give you over to it.
Turn around, Jason. Again, you were meant to be a leader. Eternity is so much more than this temporal life.
LikeLike
April 9, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Shewalksaway,
I am appalled by your comment! Do you accuse everyone you disagree with of fighting against God and walking away from Him? Do you not think that people of genuine faith can disagree about a theological point for purely intellectual reasons?
What I find so humorous about this is that it is you who is holding to a theological perspective that is unchristian. You will not find any church theologian, past or present, who understands God’s omniscience in the way you do. Your view is truly heterodox. And yet even then I do not question your walk with God.
Jason
Esepcially over a matter
LikeLike
April 9, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Oh Jason, I’m sorry, I’m not accusing you of anything, I’m just reading some of your recent posts and the direction your musings struggle to conclude.
As for “it is you who is holding to a theological perspective that is unchristian. You will not find any church theologian, past or present, who understands God’s omniscience in the way you do.”
Have you asked any? I’ve listened to many pastors and theologians of many denominations, and all of them believe God is omniscient.
Taking the truth, coating it in doubt and then musing over it to others has been around since the garden. It doesn’t really matter who you quote or where you found the doubt…it’s just dangerous. jason…can you show me one of your articles where you add information that SUPPORTS the Bible? I’d love to read one. Thanks.
LikeLike
April 10, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Shewalksaway,
Anyone engaged in theology long enough learns to take criticism, so I’m not offended. But to say you weren’t accusing me of anything is a bit hard to swallow given the directness of your statements.
You said the varioius pastors and theologians all believe God is omniscient. I agree. God’s omniscience is not in dispute here. What is in dispute is the nature of God’s omniscience. And what I am telling you is that I do not know of a single theologian, past or present, who understood God’s omniscience in the way you understand it. The universal understanding is that God knows all propositional truths.
As for your last paragraph, this just blows me away. I had to honestly ask myself, “Has she read anything I have ever written?” Everything I write is in support of Biblical truth. You act as if I am skeptic who is trying to undermine the Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t even know where you are coming up with this.
Jason
LikeLike
April 11, 2011 at 3:39 am
Jason, I’m not accusing you, but I do notice that you have a slant that seems to reach to discredit the Bible in your last few posts and I’m just sayin that’s dangerous from everything I’ve read in the Bible.
For instance, in your recent piece about Moses, you wrote:
“Such a comment presumes that the narrator is writing from the perspective of the land of Canaan—a place Moses never stepped foot on (Numbers 20:12; Deuteronomy 32:48-52).”
Why would you come to that conclusion based on those verses? God simply told Moses he would not enter at the end. Where does it say Moses “never stepped foot” in Canaan? Have you looked at a map of Canaan? I don’t see how you could possibly come to that conclusion, especially after the Bible marks out the vastness of Canaan clearly in Numbers 34 and it is mapped out where Moses went. You continue:
“At the very least this would seem to indicate at least part of the first chapter was not written by Moses, and perhaps more;”
Not if you look at the boundaries of Canaan and where Moses went…
You started this with:
“I never had reason to seriously question Mosaic authorship of the other 32 chapters until recently…”
Doubt, doubt, doubt
Chip, chip, chip
Oh well. Let’s look at another recent one…
“Perhaps some of you have heard about the discovery of ~70 lead codices that many involved with its promotion have claimed date to the 1st century, and could reveal interesting information about Jesus. Some were even saying this find was more important than the Dead Sea Scrolls. Based on the initial reports and media fluff (claims without any substance to back them up),”
Can you show me ONE report from a Christian (as hinted) where they said this find was more important than the Dead Sea Scrolls? All I saw were words in the media like “possibly” and “hoping”, but the way you begin with obvious believer statements, slightly changing the words to make it sound like they were making that claim, then presenting your proof that it was definately a fraud…
Then we come to this current article, and you say God is not omniscient the way…what, by the true meaning of the word omniscient? And that I’m the only one that thinks He is???
“I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings…” (Jeremiah 17)
But, O LORD of hosts, You who test the righteous, And see the mind and heart…(Jeremiah 20)
20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us…” (John 17:20)
Jason, you quoted Williamson: “He claimed omniscience would require that God possess all empirical knowledge (experiential, know-how), and yet God clearly does not know what it is like to play basketball, ride a bike, or sin.”
Then you wrote: “If omniscience included empirical knowledge, then God could never create anything…”
How can you come to that conclusion? And how can you think God doesn’t know what it’s like to play basketball or ride a bike? Do you really think there are limits to what God knows? Who studies the heart and tests the mind? How do you think He does that? He knows our most intimate thoughts, our motives, our reactions…and He has the experience of coming onto the scene Himself as Jesus of Nazareth, purposely in the lowliest of beginnings to experience the depths of poverty, purposely experiencing the pain of the most brutal of deaths Himself…
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1 and 1:14)
God does all that and more, and you think He doesn’t know every spasm of pain or agony that you or I go through? Our joy, our sorrow, our humaness?
“23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.” John 14
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to insult you or attack you or accuse you in any way. I have concern that if you have many readers, even just one reader, and you write that God knows less than this after all that He has written and done that He could live in us and comfort us, nurture us, shape us into who He created us to be…
I just think it’s dangerous Jason. I am not God so I don’t know your intentions or motives, I can’t judge a heart at all, obviously. Only God can. But I’ve just read some of your articles lately, and maybe you don’t realize it yourself, but I am concerned. If you’re going to be a shepherd, you have to be concerned about where you’re leading people. That’s why I’ve asked, and would honestly love to read, a piece where you bring to light information that supports the Bible. You know your work, will you direct me? I honestly think you probably have some. Thanks.
LikeLike
April 11, 2011 at 6:25 am
Shewalksaway,
I hate to meddle but I have to say I’m not sure how you came to your conclusions about Jason.
Jason does tend to look at things from all angles….some that the average Christian may not consider but he is a theologian. The Bible is his whole life!
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 10:53 am
Shewalksaway,
My last post asks whether Moses wrote Deuteronomy. How is that discrediting the Bible? The book itself is anonymous, so it’s not as if the book claims to be written by Moses and I am questioning its own claim (such as would be the case if I questioned that Paul wrote Ephesians). And if you read the post, you’ll see that I conclude that Moses did write most of what is contained in Deuteronomy (based on what other inspired writers said about the book), but not all (and leave open the question of whether or not the final composition of the book was shaped by the editor, or by Moses himself).
As for your comments on the Moses post, God told Moses he would not enter the land. The opening verses of Deuteronomy are clearly from the perspective of someone who was living on the other side of the Jordan (not just stepping on the land), looking back in retrospect. Clearly this could not have been Moses because he did not enter the land, yet alone live there. Even if I conceded your point about the opening of the book, there is absolutely no question that Moses did not write the last chapter. So it’s not even open to serious debate whether someone besides Moses contributed to the final form of the book.
As for the lead codices, who cares whether it was a Christian who said the discovery was more important than the Dead Sea Scrolls? What matters is that this was a claim that was made (if you followed my links you would have found the quote—it is from Ziad al-Saad, the director of Jordan’s Department of Antiquities, who said “They will…perhaps be more significant than, the Dead Sea Scrolls”). People were claiming this find was very significant, and that these books could be the sealed books referred to in the Book of Revelation, or that they could tell us information about the last days of Jesus (which could contradict the Biblical accounts). And I never attributed this statement to a believer in the first place. That was your (false) assumption. Besides, the purpose of the post was to show that these codices, being promoted by non-Christians, are bunk.
As for the omniscience issue, I’m not going to keep going around the table with you on this. Once again, no one is questioning whether God is omniscient (which is why your Scripture citations miss the point entirely). The question is the nature of omniscience. What does it mean to say God is omniscient? And the way you are defining it is a heterodox definition, that to my knowledge, no major theologian in the history of the church has adopted. It is simply not the Christian understanding of omniscience, plain and simple. And my post gave good reasons as to why it should not be part of the Christian definition. Omniscience has to do with knowing all truths, not personally experiencing everything that can be experienced. When you ride a roller coaster and get an adrenalin rush, God knows the truths that “Shewalksaway is riding a roller coaster” and “Shewalksaway is experiencing an adrenalin rush,” but God Himself is not having the experience Himself.
You asked, “Do you really think there are limits to what God knows?” No, if we are talking about truths because omniscience means God knows all, and only all truths. You are the one who has the problem because if omniscience requires that God be able to experience all experiences, then God must also have the experience of sinning since that is an experience that can be experienced. And if you say God does not have that experience, then God is not omniscient (since on your definition God must experience everything in order to be considered omniscient).
Jason
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 10:55 am
Thank you Tiny. I’m glad to see I’m not the only one completely taken back by Shewalksaway’s comments. You are right. Defending Christianity and the truth of the Bible (a conservative view of the Bible, to-boot) is my entire life.
Jason
LikeLike
April 16, 2011 at 2:16 pm
I am not God and God is not me. We are not the same person.
If and since this is so, Jason’s point is made.
LikeLike
April 17, 2011 at 8:41 am
To say that God lacks experiential knowledge is to deny that God is all-knowing, and says He’s just some-knowing. But I don’t think a some-knowing God is anti-Bible, and theologians like Bart Ehrman would likely agree with Jason’s view.
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Arthur,
You cannot just assert that God’s omniscience requires experiential knowledge. First, theists have never held to this definition of omniscience, so if you think this must be part of the definition you must provide a Biblical and rational argument as to why the church has been wrong for 2000 years.
Secondly, this post provided reasons why omniscience cannot entail experiential knowledge. Do you care to show why these reasons are mistaken? I don’t mind people disagreeing with me if they interact with my arguments and present arguments on behalf of their own position, but just negating my conclusion and asserting a different one is not fair.
As for Ehrman, he is not a theologian. He is a NT text critic and historian.
Jason
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Jason, you wrote to Arthur, “You cannot just assert that God’s omniscience requires experiential knowledge”
But aren’t you, Jason, trying to make that case that if God’s knowledge was empirical, God could not create? i.e., your original post was “If omniscience included empirical knowledge, God could not even create other conscious beings, because omniscience would require that He have the experience of being that person.”
How did you come to the conclusion that empirical knowledge predisposes creation?
God clearly has experiential knowledge whether it’s required or not.
You claim that means God would have to then know sin and yet God will not mix with sin. God, in the flesh, BECAME sin and yet was separated from God in doing so. This is probably the closest we will ever come to understanding the need of a Savior and why Christ had to become sin and die, putting sin away for those who receive Christ, who rose again, sinless, cleansed, washed, able to be indwelled through the Holy Spirit and through Him making the way for us to be indwelled as well.
Some things about the Trinity is a mystery. I think we just have to wait to know the depths of it but in the meantime, I, for one, am more than grateful for Christ who came for me.
And for everyone that receives Him.
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Shewalksaway,
If I am “trying to make that case,” then clearly I am not asserting–I am making a case for my view.
I came to my conclusion through the reasoning in my post.
Jason
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 3:58 pm
And again, as politely and respectfully as I can ask, would you mind showing me one of your posts where your conclusions best support Biblical truth?
I have no doubt that there are many, it’s just that whenever I wander through your writings, I find a lot of interesting twists that somehow don’t exactly come to that conclusion, IF I’m understanding you correctly.
So would you mind showing me a few that clearly support God and the Bible? Thanks! 🙂
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Shewalksaway,
You can browse the history of this blog, as well as read my articles at onenesspentecostal.com.
Jason
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 12:24 pm
One?
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 12:35 pm
(back from search)
You write really well Jason. I’m very impressed.
LikeLike
May 8, 2013 at 7:59 pm
At the end of the day, you and I are floating down the same river, heading the same direction , DEATH! we are living organisms, we are born to die, so my theory is, why argue? Disagree, yes! but only to come to common grounds.
LikeLike