Explain to me why you think that refutes my statement and I'll explain to you why it doesn't. It honestly makes no sense to me. I already agreed with that. Do you think maybe that there is a miscommunication going on? I do. So please, explain how you believe your statement refutes my logic and I will clarify for you.

I think you need to explain what you *think* I am saying, so that I can put it another way so you can understand.

Telling me how logical I am, etc doesn't help the conversation. If you aren't interested in having a conversation, just tell me and I'll stop trying.

I'm reading these and I don't get it...

If a person lived today and was killed tomorrow...both of those events would be true, so God would know. I am trying to understand what you are saying, please help me to understand. You aren't being clear or I am being dense or maybe it's a little of both.

I GET IT.

The confusion is on the word "true".

I am using "true" in the sense of a computer programmer, which is why I couldn't understand what you were saying.

Soandso did not die today = true
Soandso will die tomorrow = true

They are both true statements, although one is speaking of a negative. By "true", I mean "has happend, is happening or will happen". Any event that will happen in the timeline is the truth. God is aware of a lie which has been told, because the lie was told. In that case, it is "true that Soandso told a lie".

Sorry about the confusion, I'm so used to boolean logic that I take it for granted that everyone understands it.

In that light, I hope you can see that what I said makes sense.

man created evil

through mans beliefs

spider,

There comes a time when one sees that the conversation has halted in gaining another's understanding, and perhaps this is that time, however, I will respond as you asked...

In regards to the earlier mentioned refutation...

Your words were as follows:



And then I had said this:




Ok, to further clarify the illogical nature of your claim...

If "'God' cannot know something that will not happen", it would then follow that 'God' cannot know that a person will not be killed on any other day, since that would not happen, even though 'God' can and does know the day that a person will be killed.

That is the illogical part spider, because that person will not die on any other day. That will not happen, but 'God' must also know this in order to know when the person will die.

Seems clear from my perspective that for a 'God' to even be able to know what will happen, then 'God' must also know that which will not.

Please, if this is in error, clarify.

Nice try spider, but here were your words that gave me pause...

Again...




Wrong. Illogical. Confusing.


As I previously spelled out. I have no problem with your trueness... it is clearer and clearer...

Peace...

CreativeSoul,

I have been programming since I was a teenager. For me, boolean logic makes perfect sense, it's how many operations in programming are performed. I understand that I was confusing you, because I didn't think about the fact that most people don't know boolean logic.

"Soandso will die tomorrow" is true and so is "Soandso didn't die today". Both statements are true. They are truthful knowledge which God can know.

It's "Wrong. Illogical. Confusing." to you, but it make perfect sense when you understand boolean logic. Everything is true or false in boolean logic.

TODAY (Soandso is alive)
"Soandso IS NOT Dead = TRUE"
"Soandso IS Living = TRUE"
"Soandso IS Dead = FALSE"
"Soandso IS NOT Living = FALSE"

TOMORROW (Soandso is dead)
"Soandso IS NOT Living = TRUE"
"Soandso IS Dead = TRUE"
"Soandso IS Living = FALSE"
"Soandso IS NOT Dead = FALSE"

I hope I'm explaining it well, otherwise I'm probably just confusing you more.

spider,

You have explained the notion of Boolean logic rather well. In that regard though, anything considered could be manipulated into a true statement, after the fact.

This does not change what you wrote many times without a furthered clarification for another's comprehension of the true meaning of your thought(s) ...

God cannot know that which will not happen...

That statement is still false and intentionally misleading before you changed it into something else, which was not.

We could all write in binary code too, I suppose, if that was the method of communication that we chose, but it is not. I have witnessed you write those exact words many times, now I wonder of your true intent with that chosen method of delivery.

I understand and completely comprehend your 'Boolean point', it is unfortunate that it seems to have been a baited trap for another, and it does not connect all of your illogical dots concerning 'Gods' omniscience.

Apply this logic to your description of 'God' a little more frequently, as I will... I can assure you of this reminder to be.

I think that is a very unfair statement. If nothing else, it should be clear that I want people to understand what I'm saying. I explained that, for me, boolean is second nature. I had no desire to mislead anyone, I simply assumed that the audience would understand boolean logic. Yes, it's my fault, but surely you can see that it wasn't intentional. The spirit of the message did not change, just your understanding of the message. I am sorry that I didn't communicate properly before and I will do my best to be clear to everyone, rather than to just those who understand boolean, in the future.



I'm not sure what you mean, but it seems that you are implying that I was trying to "trap" someone. This is again, an unfair statement. I was writing directly to you and I was trying to be clear. Look at the fact that I did three posts in a row about your confusion and how I couldn't understand why you were confused. I want to be understood. I wouldn't post if I didn't want to be. I'm not here to play games, I take the subjects of God, the Bible and Christianity very seriously.

Edit: It was actually four posts in a row, trying to understand your confusion. If that doesn't show a desire to be understood, I'm not sure what would.

My apologies for my assumption of your intention(s), it seemed deliberate to me. I truly do apologize should it not have been.

I was not and am not confused in the least about what you said spider, you did not say what you meant. There is no need to take blame, we are having this conversation.

This 'boolean' logic, which I was unfamiliar with, quite simply flips the coin over after it has been tossed. Making the conclusion match the reality of what has already transpired.

After-the-fact is not an acceptable measure when logically considering an unknown.

Although it is a compelling application, it is done after the fact.

Your claim only suggested a future consideration.

The issue arose from your statement that 'God' cannot know that which will not happen.

That is still a false statement. I will explain why and how one arrives at this conclusion, while simultaneuosly logically refuting your 'boolean' refutation, which was based on inapplicable grounds to begin with.

Your explanation did not match what you had originally written, which was in question.

Here is that explanation, which is logical, by the way...



Although this is sound in nature spider, allow me to elaborate on why the above does not directly apply to what is in question. Later on, I will address the above underscoring ...

That which will not happen is the consideration of a future event which will not happen. Therefore, this notion cannot be described with your suggested terms of IS and IS NOT. The events are of a future reference, and must be described as WILL or WILL NOT.

Therein lies the confusion. Ah, my friend, I assure you it is not mine.

Here is what you did say which I have been questioning.





Regarding the previous example:



Today...

Soandso will die. This is false because that will happen tomorrow. This event IS that which will not happen.

Because an omniscient 'God' would know that this event will not happen, it only follows then, that 'God' does know that(this event) which will not happen.

Using your own example, which I previously underlined for this reference, you had said this...



You have four untrue statements here, which describe two seperate notions of that which will not happen.

An omniscient 'God' would know that these events are that which will not happen, and are false... BEFOREHAND.

That which will not happen is always a false statement. I am sorry spider, I realize that you believe that 'God' cannot know false information, but 'God' could and would actually have to be able to in order to know true information.

Therefore...

'God' knows that which will not happen.


Although compelling in a sense, your logic did not quite follow your claim.

creativesoul,

You and I need to be able to take evidence and come to conclusions, God does not. An omniscient God already knows all factual information. For God, speculation is pointless and would take away from his perfection. Knowing "false" information would serve no purpose if you already had all "true" information. "False" information is only helpful when trying to determine the "truth". God already knows the truth, God has no need for deductive or inductive reasoning. I see no reason for God to know "false" information, especially since there are orders of magnitude more "false" information than "true" information. The "false" information would serve absolutely no purpose to a omniscient God and a pefect God would (by defintion) not do or know anything which was unnecessary.

spider,

I want you to know that I absolutely gain from 'knowing' you... good things, in good ways... I hope that you are also able to recognize those reflections...

My goal is of self-awareness, to be completely at ease with why I choose what I do...

It is the removal of the thief teachings belonging to a worldy fingerprint which clouded my vision at an early age.




In regards to your post:



I agree with these statements when considering an omniscient 'God'. It is good that our understanding(s) are shared at least on this level...



The notion of purpose necessitates anthropomorphism.

When considering omniscience, knowing just is... if one knows all, then one would know all that is false and all that is true. For one to be able to recognize(know) any notion, it's opposite must also be recognized(known).

Either both are known or neither are known.



While I agree with your statement here, I am not so sure that it follows suit with most biblical representations of 'God' and 'Gods' character.



I already addressed this notion above.



I do not follow this thought, could you re-phrase it, for a later consideration?

I don't agree. Can you give an example of a situation in which you would need to know the "false" information to know the "true" information?



I can't think of a peice of information, where the "false" information would be necessary to understand or know the "true" information. So I believe that "false" information is unnecessary. If God is perfect, then God wouldn't have anything extraneous, such as knowledge which isn't useful. It is by that line of logic that I believe God does not know "false" information.

One last reply tonight spider, then I am retiring for the night... Did you get to see the lunar eclipse? It was quite an interesting picture in time... for sure.




In regards to your last response..

What would 'true' information be recognized as if there were no such a thing as untrue information?...

It would all just be, without a frame of reference that equates to distinguishing capabilities...

Nothing can be true, if there is no false.

Omniscience knows all.


If one knows truth, then one also knows what establishes truth.

What establishes truth? The knowing of that which is not.

That's all true for a human, but not for God. Omniscience means that God knows all facts. Everything God knows, God learned through observation. From outside of the universe, God can see the entire time stream. From that position, God knows all things which happen at any point in the time stream. God doesn't need to verify truth by knowing those things which are false. God only knows those things which are true. God sees all things, even thoughts, feelings and motives. Since God witnesses these things firsthand, God does not need to know what is "false" to assertain the truth.

Truth is information All information is truth. I doubt that there is a judge who sits somewhere and ascertains what is and is not this think you call "truth."

There is only information. That information is considered and compiled and put in order. It is not sorted into piles of that which is true and that which is false. All of it is true.

Jeannie

It is not true that I am an elephant. If anyone has told you I am an elephant, that person is sadly mistaken. Also, "SpiderCMB is an Elephant" is false information. Any non-truth is "false". I am not dead, therefore "SpiderCMB is dead" is false information.

You may not look like an elephant but inside of your DNA and inside each Atom resides all the information to create a perfect elephant. You are information. You are truth. The elephant is part of you. That is the way the holographic universe is constructed.

Let's assume what you said is true, for sake of argument...that doesn't begin to address what I said. "SpiderCMB is an elephant" is false information. Therefore God doesn't know that I am an elephant. You had stated that all information is true and I guess that is a truthful statement based on the definition of "information" you use.