Question about omniscience

[_The Nehor]

I see every speck of existence before me eternally and all of it obeys my every command

including the specks of existence that made up Lamen and Lemuel huh?

If he'd wanted them to, he could have. Because of his goodness he created free beings and even gave them the power to rebel against him. But yes, he could have snuffed out their life with a thought or enslaved their souls to him.......I for one am glad God forbears.

[_The Nehor]

Omniscience. Latter-day Saints differ among themselves in their understanding of the nature of God's knowledge. Some have thought that God increases endlessly in knowledge as well as in glory and dominion. Others hold to the more traditional view that God's knowledge, including the foreknowledge of future free contingencies, is complete. Despite these differing views, there is accord on two fundamental issues: (1) God's foreknowledge does not causally determine human choices, and (2) this knowledge, like God's power, is maximally efficacious. No event occurs that he has not anticipated or has not taken into account in his planning.

I can agree with the definition but I think the former belief is dangerous and the latter much more sound. I can't find the quote but Hyrum once mentioned that he could not have total faith in a being that did not know everything. Will try to dig through my books and find it.

[_cksalmon]

Now I object to the idea that whatever an omniscient being says is "worth it" is in fact worth it (worth it to whom?)

Let me give you something to rib me with in the chat room.

One reads in Romans 8:28:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

I read at least the following propositions here:
(1) In order for all things in one's life to work together for good, one must love God.
(2) In order for all things in one's life to work together for good, one must be called according to his purpose (in a redemptive manner).
(3) If one does not love God, there is no guarantee that all things will work together for good (and, to my mind, the opposite conclusion is guaranteed: all things will not work together for good).
(4) If one is not called according to his redemptive purpose, there is no guarantee that all things will work together for good (and, to my mind, the opposite conclusion is guaranteed: all things will not work together for good).
(5) All things will be worth it to those who love God and are called according to his purpose.
(6) All things will not be worth it to those who do not love God and are not called according to his purpose.

Rather, all things will work against and to the detriment of those who do not love God and are not called according to his purpose.

Now, even among many EV's, what I've just attempted to describe is seen as, at best, unappealing and, at worst, utterly heretical.

But, I'm convinced that such is the message of the Bible, should one choose to accept or reject it on whatever grounds--these or others.

But then, I'm also a thoroughgoing theological determinist--a seven-point Calvinist, if you will.

Best.

CKS

[_wenglund]

Q: How does a being that is decidedly not omniscient, nevertheless determine that another being is omniscience?

Why do you suppose it is the omniscent-challenged being that is making the determination, rather than the omniscient being making the determination and declaring it to the omniscent-challenged being?

Sounds to me like Nehor is explicitly stating the latter.

Do you see a logical problem with the determination of omniscience being made by an omniscient being who then conveys that determination to a omniscient-challenged being?

While The Nehor was speaking of an omniscient making the declaration of his omniscience, Tarski's question was about an omniscient-challenged being (namely us) making the determination as to whether that omniscient being is what he says he is. In short, how do we know that someone claiming to be omniscient isn't lying?

I suspected that was what Tarski was asking, but I wanted to get clarification.

The answer to that question is the same as the answer to all questions that contain a measure of uncertainty or elements that can't be known with absolute surity (which, to one degree or another, includes most questions facing finite humans who look as if through a glass darkly). For example, how does a person who has only lived for the last 50 years determine what may have happened to other people or things more than 50 years ago? How does a person living in Utah determine what is happening to someone living in Texas? How does a teenager determine that his parents know better which of certain life choices may be best to make? How does a juror determine whether OJ killed Ron Goldman? How does a sociologist or psychologist determine what is going on in a patient's mind? How does a child determine if a parent loves them or not? Etc., etc.

For each of these questions (and near-endless others--including those you posed to me) there is the possibility of lies, distortions, or false information, or at the very least the possibility for reasonable people to come to wrong conclusions.

These things, as with an omniscient-challege being determine the omiscience of an omniscient being, are matters of trust and increased confidence bases on limited evidence. They are matters of faith. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Now I object to the idea that whatever an omniscient being says is "worth it" is in fact worth it (worth it to whom?)

Let me give you something to rib me with in the chat room.

One reads in Romans 8:28:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

I read at least the following propositions here:
(1) In order for all things in one's life to work together for good, one must love God.
(2) In order for all things in one's life to work together for good, one must be called according to his purpose (in a redemptive manner).
(3) If one does not love God, there is no guarantee that all things will work together for good (and, to my mind, the opposite conclusion is guaranteed: all things will not work together for good).
(4) If one is not called according to his redemptive purpose, there is no guarantee that all things will work together for good (and, to my mind, the opposite conclusion is guaranteed: all things will not work together for good).
(5) All things will be worth it to those who love God and are called according to his purpose.
(6) All things will not be worth it to those who do not love God and are not called according to his purpose.

Rather, all things will work against and to the detriment of those who do not love God and are not called according to his purpose.

Now, even among many EV's, what I've just attempted to describe is seen as, at best, unappealing and, at worst, utterly heretical.

But, I'm convinced that such is the message of the Bible, should one choose to accept or reject it on whatever grounds--these or others.

But then, I'm also a thoroughgoing theological determinist--a seven-point Calvinist, if you will.

Best. CKS

With all due respect, if each of your "propositions" are based solely on Romans 8:28, then they were derived fallaciously (via the fallacies of Affirming the Consequent and illicite minor). That biblical passage does not exclude life working to the good of those who do not love God or who aren't called according to God's purposes, but rather it speaks inclusively of what happens to those who do love God and are called to His purposes.

Think of it as similar to saying: "And we know that for those who love Microsoft Office Suite and learn to properly use it, things will work together for their good." Can one logically propose from this that "in order for things in one's life to work together for good, one must love Microsoft"?

Clearly, the answer to that question is "no". Things have worked together for peoples' good long before MS Office was ever devoloped, and things continue to work for peoples' good who use competators' products (perhaps even more to their good than were they to use MS Office).

I hope this helps. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_cksalmon]

-snip-

With all due respect, if each of your "propositions" are based solely on Romans 8:28, then they were derived fallaciously (via the fallacies of Affirming the Consequent and illicite minor).

Wade--

I'm quite familiar with the fallacy of affirming the consequent, as I've actually taught the topic of logical fallacies, at the grad level, while a TA. No, I don't derive the "propositions" (solely) from Romans 8.28--or, at least, I find support elsewhere. And I wasn't attempting to demonstrate them logically. I was setting out some of my assumptions and Romans 8.28 happens to be a convenient text useful for highlighting some of the issues involved. Perhaps I should have made some distinction between what is explicit and what is implicit in the text. But I believe you're still manifestly wrong. The text refers to "all things" (Gr. panta)--this is a universal term. It does not refer merely to good things happening to individuals in the course of their lives. For traditional Christians, the only possible outcome of the working together of "all things" in the lives of those who do not love God and are not called according to his purpose is eternal damnation. Ergo, yes, logically, we can propose that for those who do not love God and are not called according to his purpose, all things will ultimately not work together for their good, but for their destruction.

In that light, your MS example is trivial and not so useful.

I hope this helps.

Not so much, but I do appreciate the attempt.

Best.

CKS

[_wenglund]

-snip-

With all due respect, if each of your "propositions" are based solely on Romans 8:28, then they were derived fallaciously (via the fallacies of Affirming the Consequent and illicite minor).

Wade--

I'm quite familiar with the fallacy of affirming the consequent, as I've actually taught the topic of logical fallacies, at the grad level, while a TA. No, I don't derive the "propositions" (solely) from Romans 8.28--or, at least, I find support elsewhere. And I wasn't attempting to demonstrate them logically. I was setting out some of my assumptions and Romans 8.28 happens to be a convenient text useful for highlighting some of the issues involved. Perhaps I should have made some distinction between what is explicit and what is implicit in the text. But I believe you're still manifestly wrong. The text refers to "all things" (Gr. panta)--this is a universal term. It does not refer merely to good things happening to individuals in the course of their lives. For traditional Christians, the only possible outcome of the working together of "all things" in the lives of those who do not love God and are not called according to his purpose is eternal damnation. Ergo, yes, logically, we can propose that for those who do not love God and are not called according to his purpose, all things will ultimately not work together for their good, but for their destruction.

In that light, your MS example is trivial and not so useful.

I hope this helps.

Not so much, but I do appreciate the attempt.

Best. CKS

I suppose it may have proved more useful were I to have been more compassionate in my reconstruction and assumed a broader context than what your syllogism explicitly mentioned. But, at least my critique made way for further clarification. I see some value in that. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-