This is the problem. All Gods continually take form out of human thought. To classify a God as Omniscient is a human characterization. "Knowing" is a human perception, to know, knowledge, perception and awareness. Things may very well "just be" because they "just are". To hold that a being is total knowledge, perception and awareness is in itself a human characterization at its "infinite" quality. Therefore it can be concluded that God is a human concept born out of human knowledge, perception and awareness. As people perceived having knowledge it followed that if humans can "know" then surely God would know all things in totality, ie; omniscience. Out of these concepts come variations in view resulting in deity multiplicity; a sort of parallax effect. Ergo, the disparity in beliefs on a global scale and the expansion of beliefs such as trinitarian concepts etc. Your belief is based on how you see it or from where you stand and affected by knowledge and experience.
On Mar 11, 4:31 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11 Mar, 00:06, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I believe that I don't believe in any belief or at least I don't > > believe that I do believe and I believe that is what I truly believe; > > believe it or not. > > After reading this, I've come to the conclusion that omniscience > confers perfect immunity against all beliefs; therefore, an omniscient > God cannot hold any belief. And there's one more limitation on such a > deity. God cannot believe; He can only know via omniscience. > > > On Mar 10, 12:36 pm, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I would not aspire to convince anyone or otherwise try to prove > > > my beliefs at all. Not by means of explaination for the fact that no > > > one believes as I do. Likewise one could not properly relate to an > > > explanation from me as none but myself fully understands the > > > explaination biased or not. As I read through this disscussion I have > > > found one certain proof; All have beliefs (disbeliefs) based upon > > > their individual experiences. I think that it would be difficult for > > > one to rightly prove a belief (system) by means of science as science > > > deals mainly with the material rather than the etheral. Beside this, > > > science can not maintain that which is fact due to it's own advances. > > > The more science moves towards micros and away from the macros the > > > further it is from seeing the big picture and there will be more > > > theories and differences. This is within the same diciplines as well > > > as across. Look at the differences between Ben Franklin's and Sir > > > Nikoli Tesla's electrical theories and the contovrsy it wrought. And > > > is it not a shame that Tesla's theories oppressed and all but > > > completly lost. Had it not been for greed's sake...!!! Gain adversely > > > influences science, religion and politics on all levels. > > > > On Mar 10, 11:47 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 10 Mar, 15:58, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > " We understand > > > > > nothing of the works of God unless we take it as a principle that He > > > > > wishes to blind some and to enlighten others."......Pascal > > > > > > I can see how this fits in with your monistic view of God, Pat, but it > > > > > shows up one of the major conceptual weaknesses of the conventional > > > > > Abrahamic views of the all-loving, all-caring, at the same time > > > > > judging-to-heaven-and-hell God. It's the basic problem of > > > > > predestination, stated in all of its horrific unavoidable logic by > > > > > John Calvin: > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvinism) > > > > > > Personally, even if I tended towards belief, I'd want nothing to do > > > > > with such a God. > > > > > > Francis > > > > > {snickers} If there is such a God, you can't escape it by disbelief > > > > or wishes. God is NOT all-loving, as that goes against omnipotence. > > > > "Caring" is a difficult word due to its ambiguity. He is intimately > > > > involved and cares (by virtue of force!) that those who disbelieve > > > > remain in their disbelief and that believers remain in their belief > > > > and is perfectly capable to enforce that. Cherishing, is a better > > > > term. But it still comes with the concept that He cherishes the > > > > atheist to remain an atheist in order to do that which only atheists > > > > can do. Thus my "willingly or unwillingly" comment to Slip. > > > > > > On 10 Mrz., 15:31, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 10 Mar, 14:21, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I guess this swings over to Fidd's thread (very busy but..) on > > > > > > > Pascal's Wager. > > > > > > > To a degree, it does...yes. No one will be able to prove it to > > > > > > others, but rare experiences serve as proof to a few. > > > > > > > > "If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. > > > > > > > If I > > > > > > > saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure > > > > > > > me, I > > > > > > > am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that if a > > > > > > > God > > > > > > > sustains nature it would reveal Him without ambiguity. We > > > > > > > understand > > > > > > > nothing of the works of God unless we take it as a principle that > > > > > > > He > > > > > > > wishes to blind some and to enlighten others."......Pascal > > > > > > > That last line of 'blind(ing) some...' is very true. But that is > > > > > > necessary in order to test the faith of the faithful. Thus the VERY > > > > > > important role of atheists. > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager > > > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye/browse_thread/thread/fbeaab7... > > > > > > > > On Mar 10, 8:01 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?" > > > > > > > > That is the question Pat.. and I have no intention of trying to > > > > > > > > prove it. > > > > > > > > nor will I attempt to. > > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Pat > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 9 Mar, 20:21, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Pat > > > > > > > > > > I have no need to ask for proof of what i know to be true. > > > > > > > > > > Nor do I need > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > create strange arguments.. even science knows that a > > > > > > > > > > perfectly straight > > > > > > > > > > line will end at its starting point. enjoy your physics and > > > > > > > > > > geometry I > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > enjoy my God. > > > > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > My arguments aren't strange, they're logical. And, of > > > > > > > > > course, you > > > > > > > > > aren't the only reader here. So, when I address your > > > > > > > > > statements, I > > > > > > > > > address them (your statements) for a larger audience with you > > > > > > > > > as a > > > > > > > > > primary audience. Whilst you may have no need of proof or even > > > > > > > > > examples, others might, so I proffer them. In my opinion, > > > > > > > > > God must > > > > > > > > > work within a framework of His design and I view my 'job' as > > > > > > > > > being to > > > > > > > > > discover and reveal as much of that framework and design as I > > > > > > > > > can. > > > > > > > > > The doctor needn't treat the healthy but not all are healthy > > > > > > > > > and some, > > > > > > > > > whilst believing thay are healthy, aren't; and some whilst > > > > > > > > > believing > > > > > > > > > they are ill, aren't. And I have to address them all or I'm > > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > unfair. > > > > > > > > > > BTW, your example of a perfectly straight line ending at its > > > > > > > > > starting > > > > > > > > > point is only true in the case of a line that extends > > > > > > > > > throughout all > > > > > > > > > of space-time (and THAT assumes a curvature TO space-time, > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > contradicts the 'straightness' of the line). And, since you > > > > > > > > > didn't > > > > > > > > > specify the length of the line, your example is incorrect, > > > > > > > > > for a > > > > > > > > > straight line that is one inch long will prove your example > > > > > > > > > false. > > > > > > > > > Yet, if the one inch line is drawn around a sphere that has a > > > > > > > > > circumference of one inch, your statement is still false, as > > > > > > > > > the line > > > > > > > > > is curved and not straight. I value geometry and there is > > > > > > > > > much to be > > > > > > > > > learned from it. > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Pat > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9 Mar, 15:32, iam deheretic <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Whoa Pat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That One is beyond gender, which is why He > > > > > > > > > > > > > can't have children. Although all creatures are, in > > > > > > > > > > > > > a metaphorical > > > > > > > > > > > > > sense, His children, none are, in reality, because > > > > > > > > > > > > > they do not grow > > > > > > > > > up > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. If any > > > > > > > > > > > > > did, there'd > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > chaos, as how can you have two omnipotent entities? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Logic doesn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > allow for it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > With your statement you just separated God from the > > > > > > > > > > > > rest of the > > > > > > > > > > > universe! > > > > > > > > > > > > To me that is one of greatest mistakes made by the > > > > > > > > > > > > religions of the > > > > > > > > > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not want to separate God as I understand him from > > > > > > > > > > > > from his > > > > > > > > > universe > > > > > > > > > > > ,, > > > > > > > > > > > > I only want to be part of it although it is only the > > > > > > > > > > > > tinest part.. > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > long > > > > > > > > > > > > as I am part that. That is my dream > > > > > > > > > > > > ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay if you read your statement carefully Or better > > > > > > > > > > > > yet as I read it > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > are saying God can not have children, there is nothing > > > > > > > > > > > > metaphorical > > > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > > Gods children. When you have a child Pat both you and > > > > > > > > > > > > the woman that > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > involved are nothing more than the tool the Father > > > > > > > > > > > > Creator uses to > > > > > > > > > bring > > > > > > > > > > > > about the new child's life into the universe. As I > > > > > > > > > > > > watch new life > > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > > born > > > > > > > > > > > > into the universe whether it is a baby an ant or > > > > > > > > > > > > insect, or even > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > entire galaxy I can only sit in awe at the skill and > > > > > > > > > > > > abilities of > > > > > > > > > God. > > > > > > > > > > > > > His children, none are, in reality, because they do not > > > > > > > > > > > > grow up > > > > > > > > > > > > to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you start making statements like this you are in > > > > > > > > > > > > my mind > > > > > > > > > separating > > > > > > > > > > > God > > > > > > > > > > > > from his universe. Though it is suttle like placing God > > > > > > > > > > > > else where l > > > > > > > > > (he > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > in heaven) in reality you are separating yourself from > > > > > > > > > > > > God. or > > > > > > > > > placing > > > > > > > > > > > > limits like (because they do not grow up to be...) > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
