God died in Auschwitz

[Mavorpen]

"For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things." 1 John 3:20

Sounds all knowing to me.

One can infer from context that it refers to current things, given the condemnation of the heart is a current thing.

It is not necessarily inferring future things.

That's debatable. Just from the text it's rather ambiguous, however honestly it's hard to believe that the writers of the Bible intended it to only mean current things. If God can't see into the future, then he's not really God, which defeats the purpose of worshiping him.

[Galloism]

1. God is omniscient.

Given we are debating this very subject, using the conclusion as the premise of your argument makes the whole argument fall down.

Why do you suppose that God chooses to know everything that will happen down to the minutest detail?

We've been talking about biblical doctrine here, not necessarily the universe or beliefs as a whole. If you wish to bring something to the table, I suggest it have something to do with biblical doctrine.

See, he would have to know everything. That's the definition of omniscient.

But does God exercise omniscience?

[Crystalcliff Point]

Given we are debating this very subject, using the conclusion as the premise of your argument makes the whole argument fall down.

For the love of Rah people, READ MY POSTS. I've posted bible verses that describe YHWH as omniscient. Except then it's ignored.

Why am I trying to engage in reasoned discussion with you two again?

[Caninope]

One can infer from context that it refers to current things, given the condemnation of the heart is a current thing.

It is not necessarily inferring future things.

That's debatable. Just from the text it's rather ambiguous, however honestly it's hard to believe that the writers of the Bible intended it to only mean current things. If God can't see into the future, then he's not really God, which defeats the purpose of worshiping him.

What precludes God having to be omniscient? Or him exercising this?

[Genivaria]

That's debatable. Just from the text it's rather ambiguous, however honestly it's hard to believe that the writers of the Bible intended it to only mean current things. If God can't see into the future, then he's not really God, which defeats the purpose of worshiping him.

What precludes God having to be omniscient? Or him exercising this?

[Arbites]

Given we are debating this very subject, using the conclusion as the premise of your argument makes the whole argument fall down.

For the love of Rah people, READ MY POSTS. I've posted bible verses that describe YHWH as omniscient. Except then it's ignored.

Why am I trying to engage in reasoned discussion with you two again?

I've read your posts and it seems clear enough, the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god is omniscient. Furthermore, based on the argument in this thread so far, it seems most followers believe him to be omniscient as well (except, of course, when inconvenient for the sake of argument).

[Mavorpen]

That's debatable. Just from the text it's rather ambiguous, however honestly it's hard to believe that the writers of the Bible intended it to only mean current things. If God can't see into the future, then he's not really God, which defeats the purpose of worshiping him.

What precludes God having to be omniscient? Or him exercising this?

I'm pretty sure that's what "God" is defined as.

[Galloism]

So he knows all current things. present and past. He has given us free will to do be with him or to not be with him

What you're saying is incompatible with the bible.

By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done.

He knows what'll happen long, LONG in advance. Almost as if he knows everything that will happen.

Indeed. Thank you for making my argument in my behalf.

Knowing the future, or perhaps declaring certain items to occur in the future, is different from omniscience.

For instance, I can say with absolute certainty Obama is getting a second term. I can say that because I look at the republican candidates and go "shit, they don't have a prayer". It does not make me omniscient.

I can also say, with near 100% certainty, that I will be eating lasagna for dinner tomorrow, because I'm going to cause that to occur.

Neither implies omniscience, but only ability.

Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.

This one's a little more specific,

For that matter, where was he when the serpent was convincing Eve to eat the fruit of the knowledge good and evil? Clearly on omnipresent if he wasn't there. Clearly not omniscient if he didn't know if. Or clearly not omnibenevolent if he did nothing and knew.

Indeed. This is the argument we're having.

One cannot read the Bible and take God to be exercising complete omniscience and still see any sort of logical consistency, which is what I've been saying all along. Again, your quote implies some ability to foretell the future (no more than any Jedi has, really).

[Caninope]

What precludes God having to be omniscient? Or him exercising this?

I'm not moving the goalposts. This is a completely separate discussion. If you noticed, this is my first post on the whole "is God omniscient", therefore I cannot be moving goalposts.

Try again.

[Galloism]

One can infer from context that it refers to current things, given the condemnation of the heart is a current thing.

It is not necessarily inferring future things.

That's debatable. Just from the text it's rather ambiguous, however honestly it's hard to believe that the writers of the Bible intended it to only mean current things. If God can't see into the future, then he's not really God, which defeats the purpose of worshiping him.

Indeed, hence why we're on a debate forum.

If I wanted people to just agree with whatever I said while giving me a dumb look, I'd go to a political rally.

[Galloism]

Given we are debating this very subject, using the conclusion as the premise of your argument makes the whole argument fall down.

For the love of Rah people, READ MY POSTS. I've posted bible verses that describe YHWH as omniscient. Except then it's ignored.

Why am I trying to engage in reasoned discussion with you two again?

Jeez, I stepped out to get some pizza, started with your earliest post, and you decided somehow that I can't read because I started at the beginning.

I suggest you remember what order you posted your posts in, otherwise you will assume fallacious things.

[Crystalcliff Point]

Knowing the future, or perhaps declaring certain items to occur in the future, is different from omniscience.

Knowing everything (including the future) is part of omniscience. This is actually pretty basic christian dogma you're disputing here. Unless you're going to declare the wording to mean something radically different than what it says. One of the quotes even says directly says that YHWH "knows everything".

The bible has horrible problems with consistency. YHWH is described as being able to read hearts and minds (And even Jesus is described as this directly), but then YHWH has to test people's faith to see what's in their hearts and minds at that moment..

[Caninope]

What precludes God having to be omniscient? Or him exercising this?

I'm pretty sure that's what "God" is defined as.

So Zeus wasn't a god?

It's good to note that theologians have argued for centuries over whether God is omniscient.

[Galloism]

Knowing the future, or perhaps declaring certain items to occur in the future, is different from omniscience.

Knowing everything (including the future) is part of omniscience. This is actually pretty basic christian dogma you're disputing here. Unless you're going to declare the wording to mean something radically different than what it says.

The bible has horrible problems with consistency. YHWH is described as being able to read hearts and minds (And even Jesus is described as this directly), but then YHWH has to test people's faith to see what's in their hearts and minds at that moment..

I often debate basic christian dogma, because, biblically, it's often incorrect.

Next up, I'll debate trinity, hellfire, and immortality of the soul, and how they're all biblically impossible.

[Caninope]

Knowing the future, or perhaps declaring certain items to occur in the future, is different from omniscience.

Knowing everything (including the future) is part of omniscience. This is actually pretty basic christian dogma you're disputing here. Unless you're going to declare the wording to mean something radically different than what it says. One of the quotes even says directly says that YHWH "knows everything".

The bible has horrible problems with consistency. YHWH is described as being able to read hearts and minds (And even Jesus is described as this directly), but then YHWH has to test people's faith to see what's in their hearts and minds at that moment..

No, it's basic doctrine of some denominations.

[Mavorpen]

I'm pretty sure that's what "God" is defined as.

So Zeus wasn't a god?

It's good to note that theologians have argued for centuries over whether God is omniscient.

Not, "a god," but "THE God." There is a difference.

The Bible has been out for 2,000 years. The only reason theologians question anything in the Bible is because of skeptics asking questions.

[Caninope]

Knowing everything (including the future) is part of omniscience. This is actually pretty basic christian dogma you're disputing here. Unless you're going to declare the wording to mean something radically different than what it says.

The bible has horrible problems with consistency. YHWH is described as being able to read hearts and minds (And even Jesus is described as this directly), but then YHWH has to test people's faith to see what's in their hearts and minds at that moment..

I often debate basic christian dogma, because, biblically, it's often incorrect.

Next up, I'll debate trinity, hellfire, and immortality of the soul, and how they're all biblically impossible.

Then there's the fact that there is no basic Christian dogma. Some Gnostics have denied the divinity of Jesus.

[Galloism]

So Zeus wasn't a god?

It's good to note that theologians have argued for centuries over whether God is omniscient.

Not, "a god," but "THE God." There is a difference.

The Bible has been out for 2,000 years. The only reason theologians question anything in the Bible is because of skeptics asking questions.

*shrugs*

I questioned it when it was written.

Hell, I wrote part of it during my... clean years.

[Crystalcliff Point]

I often debate basic christian dogma, because, biblically, it's often incorrect.

Next up, I'll debate trinity, hellfire, and immortality of the soul, and how they're all biblically impossible.

Again, I'll have to repeat the line.

By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

"Knows everything". That sounds an awful lot like omniscient to me.

[Caninope]

So Zeus wasn't a god?

It's good to note that theologians have argued for centuries over whether God is omniscient.

Not, "a god," but "THE God." There is a difference.

The Bible has been out for 2,000 years. The only reason theologians question anything in the Bible is because of skeptics asking questions.

So if "a" god doesn't have to be omniscient, why does "the" God have to be omniscient?

Remember, after all, that you said it's pointless to worship him if he's not omniscient.

[Galloism]

I often debate basic christian dogma, because, biblically, it's often incorrect.

Next up, I'll debate trinity, hellfire, and immortality of the soul, and how they're all biblically impossible.

Then there's the fact that there is no basic Christian dogma. Some Gnostics have denied the divinity of Jesus.

Actually, many debate on the divinity of Jesus, and many have come to conclusion that Jesus is not The God, not just Gnostics.

[Galloism]

I often debate basic christian dogma, because, biblically, it's often incorrect.

Next up, I'll debate trinity, hellfire, and immortality of the soul, and how they're all biblically impossible.

Again, I'll have to repeat the line.

By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

"Knows everything". That sounds an awful lot like omniscient to me.

Does it?

Why? Contextually, it doesn't appear that's required.

[Mavorpen]

Not, "a god," but "THE God." There is a difference.

The Bible has been out for 2,000 years. The only reason theologians question anything in the Bible is because of skeptics asking questions.

So if "a" god doesn't have to be omniscient, why does "the" God have to be omniscient?

Remember, after all, that you said it's pointless to worship him if he's not omniscient.

Depends which religion you are talking about to be honest. The Greeks though did NOT believe that their gods were all powerful, all knowing, etc. In fact, their gods did were not always existing, and they were the product of other, higher beings (who were products of the universe itself). Thus it's quite absurd to compare the "a god" with "THE God" who is defined as being all knowing, all powerful, etc.

[Chinese Regions]

Obama is getting a second term. I can say that because I look at the republican candidates and go "shit, they don't have a prayer". It does not make me omniscient.

I can also say, with near 100% certainty, that I will be eating lasagna for dinner tomorrow, because I'm going to cause that to occur.
.

You don't have to be omniscient to know something but you have to know everything to be omniscient.

[Caninope]

So if "a" god doesn't have to be omniscient, why does "the" God have to be omniscient?

Remember, after all, that you said it's pointless to worship him if he's not omniscient.

Depends which religion you are talking about to be honest. The Greeks though did NOT believe that their gods were all powerful, all knowing, etc. In fact, their gods did were not always existing, and they were the product of other, higher beings (who were products of the universe itself). Thus it's quite absurd to compare the "a god" with "THE God" who is defined as being all knowing, all powerful, etc.

Stop moving the goalposts.

Why should "the" God not be worthy of worship if he's not omniscient?