Eljay,

I am not at all in disagreement with the notion that man's logic, when based on empirical knowledge, can successfully portray or defend any notion of a 'God'.

I am absolutely against any notion of the personification of 'God', however, when speaking with most Bible believers the method used is that by which the description is measured.



If one cannot do 'God' any logical justice with human knowledge, then why do so many believers(pastors and followers alike) try?

Biblical beliefs in 'God' are completely contingient upon anthropomorphic notions.

The belief I resonate with is based upon a priori logic as opposed to empirical knowledge, and or biblical personification(s)...

On the matter of knowing "false" information.

I believe I do understand Spider when he makes this statement because as is learned in the law of attraction and in all books on manifesting reality, and in the subconscious mind and its handling of information this is what is discovered:

The collective subconsciouses mind (all one thing here) and our subconscious mind (same thing) cannot tell the difference between what is true and what we call "false" information.

That is why affirmations must be stated in the positive and visualizations and prayer must be seen in the positive because if you think: "I do not want to be sick." and if you think of the illness and the nature of the illness, that is all the subconscious mind sees is the illness. (or situation) and it then proceeds to manifest that thing that it sees.

So to focus on negative things manifests them. So in doing your visualizations you are taught to focus on winning if you want to win. Do not focus on loosing.

The higher consciousness which spider speaks of lives above this massive amount of information that is in the subconscious. This information does not see or comprehend "not" "negative" "false" or "untrue".

That is why I say that truth is information. All information. And that is probably why spider says that God cannot see "false" or "not" or "nothing."

If you were to imagine an experience enough times that you believed it to be your personal experience, your subconscious mind would accept this as true. It cannot tell the difference.
To the subconscious mind all things thought about, and all information is true. It accepts this programing without question, just like a computer accepts programing.

Jeannie

jeannie:

Following your claim, falseness does not exist.

Therefore, no one could know false information...

That is untrue.

What does it mean to know? One's ability to recognize and identify...

So falseness does exist, which makes it a thing, and according to the Bible, 'God' knows all things.

CreativeSoul,

So you believe that God believes lies. What you are saying is that God must believe lies in order to be omniscient. Interesting.

If your "god" KNOWS that SpiderCMB is an elephant, then "god" believes a lie. Not really much of a god if you asked me, but to each his own.

My God doesn't believe lies. My God is aware of the existance of lies, but my God doesn't believe them. Score one for the God of Abraham.

Your god has more useless information than useful information. Your god has some sort of running list of dates/times when Soandso didn't die and one peice of information when Soandso died. A god who knows useless information isn't perfect. Since you have stated that your god knows all useless information, you have stated that your god isn't perfect. My God only knows postive truths. My God knows all facts and therefore doesn't need to know the opposite of those facts, which is simply useless information to an omniscient being. Score another for the God of Abraham.

Tell me, why would an omniscient being need to know negative truthful information? X is NOT Y. etc? Would an omniscient being need to be able to think deductively? You said "no" earlier. I think that your position is logically untenable. You prepose a god who lacks perfection and believes lies. What kind of god is that? You insist that God must think like a human, but clearly God doesn't need to. God needs only to know the positive truths. X is X. Y is Y. What purpose would negative truths serve when all positive truths are known?

The subconscious mind holds all information, even that which conflicts. It does not determine or judge which is false or true. To the subconscious mind, it is just information and all of that information is important and valid.



Rather information is true or false is decided by the individual point of view or the observer. That it is true or false is an opinion.



The only way to know a thing is to be it. The only way to know is to be or experience from a personal point of perception.



All things imagined exist as thoughts. Thoughts are things. Rather a thought or a thing is false is an opinion. Opinions are not things, they are conclusions.

edit: P.S. If God knows all "things" then It knows all "thoughts" and if you personally believe that a thought is "false" then in your opinion God may know something "false" but "false and true" are opinion and perspective. They are not Things. So if "false" does not exist, then neither does "true."

All that exists are thoughts and information.


It is "nothing" that does not exist. Nothing or the negative does not exist. All things that have existence are something.

Jeannie

From "The Science of getting Rich"

There is a thinking stuff from which all things are made, and which, in its original state, permeates, penetrates, and fills the interspaces of the universe.

A thought, in this substance, Produces the thing that is imaged by the thought.

Man can form things in his thought, and, by impressing his thought upon formless substance, can cause the thing he thinks about to be created.

Wallace D. Wattles 1910

This entire book can be found here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Getting_Rich

It is an awesome book

Jeannie

Jeremaih 42:10
For I [God] repent me of the evil that I have done unto you.

Even in your quote he admits that he has done evil and inflicted it on the people he addresses.

My only point being that God did not create evil he is just evil by his actions. Something that he says about his own actions in his own words in the Bible. The infallible non-interpretable word of God.

spider,

Your 'God'?...my 'God'?...

Act like an adult, will you?

I am going to dissect your fountain of misinformation...

...right here

...right now

Line by line you have spewed your own untruthes...

Allow me...



Quote my words spider... and substantiate your claim.

Your opinion has been invalidated. Spider you are acting as if you have some unattainable knowledge... you do not. In all reality, no one can know a lie in the sense that you speak. NO one. Therefore, 'God' would be no different than a human in that regard.



Lies are untruthes spoken intentionally and knowingly. You know it is a lie. As would an omniscient 'God'.

Knowing and believing are not equal spider, as hard as it is for you to comprehend, it is true, none-the-less. I am really tiring of your nonsensical misdirection.



If one is aware of lies then one knows lies.

Knowing is not equal to believing.

Your turning into an illogical trainwreck, while your 'God' watches it happen.



An omniscient 'God' knows all things.



Quote me spider... and substantiate your claim.



Shall I quote the scripture(s) which say(s) that 'God' knows all things, or that 'God' created all things?



My position?

No. You cannot follow a logical train of thought because it contradicts what you love. Therefore, yours is more like an illogical train-wreck of a thought...



What? You are lost in space with this one, somewhere you have mixed me up with another person, spider. I consistently refute anthropomorphical notions of 'God'.

Quote my words to substantiate your claim, or shut up.

I am reminded of a kid who is pissed off because they did not get their way, and I have noticed how you completely avoided the clear logical refutation of your theory...

Quote my words spider and substantiate your claim.

I did yours and mine.

Nice job...

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Eljay:



Eljay spider is misrepresenting what he is trying to say, I am quoting him



No argument here.



All things is everything...



No argument here.

He should have said that then.

The god you are describing isn't the one I worship. I didn't want there to be any confusion on that subject.





I said that God can't know a lie, you say that God can know a lie. Therefore whatever god it is you worship, can be fooled.



Right. I said that a couple pages back, that God would know it was a lie, but wouldn't believe it. If you read my posts instead of looking for ways to tear apart my logic you would learn something.





I have tried to be polite, up until my last post. Remember when I said this:



Like I said, this is my first time putting my theory down on paper. I'm not sure of the proper wording. You could have choosen to be polite and ask for clarification (like I did several times), but you choose instead to be rude and insulting.



That must be true, because you repeat it! Have you read my logic on why God wouldn't need all information? Sure you have, that's why you haven't responded to it. Your belief is that God has a huge memory filled with useless and redundant information. My arguement is that God would only need to know about the universe what God witnessed within the universe. Therefore, God knows positive true information. You cannot witness a negative true event, negative true information is gathered through deduction, which you agreed an omniscient being cannot do.





You insist that God knows all false information. Then you deny it? Why? Because you are simply trying to disprove what I have to say. You have no interest in determining if what I have said has any value.



God created all things, both spiritual and physical. I haven't argued that...why are you reaching? Yes, please quote scripture that says God knows all things. Why would you volunteer to do something that's impossible?



I already have. You have insisted that God must know all things, truthful and false. Human minds require both true and false information for us to think. Because we don't know all things that have happened. God knows everything that has happened. You know what the Bible says again and again? The Bible says many times that God knows all thoughts and sees all things. We are assured that nothing can be hidden from God. Why would a God who already knew everything (like you claim God does) need to see our thoughts...if he already knows?

I did tell you I was trying to communicate the ideas. I asked you several times to bear with me.



And I'm not just talking about events, I'm talking about thoughts and emotions. I tried to explain my theory using "positive true" and "negative true", but maybe that wasn't clear.

One of the difficulties that we have experianced in this discussion is this: alternating definitions.

To say "God knows all things" is untrue at it's face. Because you are alternating the defintion of KNOW within the sentence.



If God knows something that happened, then you use Defitnion 1a1 "To perceive directly". But if you are talking about God knowing something that is untrue, then you have switched defintions to 1a3 "To recognize the nature of".

In this thread, when I say "KNOW", I'm using the first defintion exclusively. CreativeSoul, you are alternating the meaning of "KNOW" from one sentence to another and even within the same sentence. Or does God "perceive directly" lies? That would mean that God witnesses the events which are lied about. Events which never happen, because they are a lie.

So when I say "God doesn't know lies", I mean "God doesn't believe that lies are the truth". Yes, I know that's confusing. I admit it. But in my defense, I have admited that I haven't written about this topic in any depth ever. I am working on a document that covers this subject, but it's nowhere near completion. Maybe it would be best if we stop discussing the issue and I can finish my document and post it in toto?

During this conversation, the entire issue was based on the plausibility of a 'Gods' omniscience...


I am not going to nail you to the floor.


Your effort to equate knowing with believing was and will always be an issue, an impossibility, and the core of the problem concerning your claim.


You refuted nothing I have said. You quoted me, then interpreted my words into your meanings and refuted your own meanings. Actually, you had the audacity in one of your last responses to claim that I denied my own claim. Quote those words of mine, would you?

You contradicted yourself within the same post...

Here you go. Your words...not mine.



and then




If 'God' created all things, then 'God' must have known what 'God' was creating... right?

Unless 'God' does not think.

'God' created all things = 'God' knows all things

Knowing is not believing. The confusion belongs to you.



Should you re-phrase your theory based upon this most important distinction, you will find it results in a different conclusion.

We help each other spider, I hope you recognize this.

Here is what began this alternate discussion... your claim...



That has been proven to be a false claim.


Now, regarding that STC thing you spoke of...


If 'God' were outside of it, as you suggested, the above claim would be nonexistant, to begin with... 'God' knows all simultaneously, remember?

There would be no reason for 'God' to see if it would work, 'God' would have already known... 'God' knows everything, past, present, and future, that has or will happen, according to your theory.

The most problematic portion of this omniscient notion lies in the necessitating need for determination of the truth. For if 'God' had to see, it must follow that 'God' did not know the truth. Therein lies the issue of knowing and believing.

Anthropomorphic claims are always inherently problematic.

What really disturbs me about this whole series of exchanges is your sheer, unmitigated effrontery, in that you could possibly deign to analyze and discern the workings of the mind of your deity.

To know God is to be God.

It has always intrigued me how some have assumed to know what I believe, based upon my logical refutation of their claims, then argue(within themselves) according to their own previous misinterpretation(s), while ignoring my expression(s) of what those beliefs actually are...



I once began a thread called If 'God' was first, which began to logically spell out what my beliefs are, without personification, based upon the premise that 'God' was first, which is a logical absolute when considering the notion of a monotheistic creator 'God'...

Believers always fall onto an anthropomorphical claim, continually supporting their belief(s) with human logic, but will refuse to accept human logic, should it prove problematic to their belief(s).

Aba is correct. To know a thing you must be it. To know a thing you must experience its being and doing.

Creativesoul said:

"Knowing is not believing. "

He is correct in this IMO

Believing has to do with the mind and the conclusions made from our understanding of our perceptions.

The only way God can know all things is to be all things.

So Spider should understand that if God knows all things, then God is all things. Hence he is a pantheist and doesn't realize it.

All things being God, then it follows that we are God. It follows that we are also creators and thinking centers and that we manifest thoughts and our thought manifest reality.

Wallace D. Wattles, "The science of getting rich" tells this truth.