Exactly, unlike Christianity that merely claims that God is omniscient, Pantheists actually believe it!

How can a religion that claims that God is omniscient then turn around and say that pantheists have a weird concept of God?

It seems that they don’t even understand what omniscient means.

But only if it actually happens in time/space. God knows about us through observation, the Bible is VERY clear on that subject.



Doesn't a sculptor choose where his chisel strikes? Doesn't the sculptor choose how hard his hammer strikes the chisel? So why couldn't God create the universe and leave his mark upon it at the same time? What law prevents God from creating the universe instantly and choosing how it's created at the same time?



The above verse supports what I'm saying perfectly. When the world was created, Jesus was slain at the same time.

From outside of Time-Space, everything happened at the same time, but from within Time-Space, everything is spreadout along the fourth dimension.

God's actions within Time-Space are determined by God's character, not God's knowledge of the future.



These verses show that God is fully aware of the future, but is acting within the present. God's behavior is based on God's character (You deserve to be blessed now, so I will, even though you won't deserve it in the future), not God's awareness of the future (You won't deserve these blessings in the future, so you won't get them now).

As God was creating the universe, God saw what was happening in the world and acted upon those events. Yes, outside of time, the universe was created instantly, but God was still able to take whatever actions within his creation which he desired. God's knowledge of the WHOLE creation is based upon all actions within the creation, including God's. If God's character had prevented God from picking the Israelites out of humanity to be his choosen people, then God couldn't know what the Israelites would have done as God's choosen people. Look at the verses above, God knows through observation. Which brings us back to negative true information, God cannot KNOW (perceive directly) any negative true information. God can use "If/Then" logic to determine negative true information, but God doesn't KNOW any negative true information. Now think about this, do you know any negative true information? Do you KNOW that a "Dog isn't a fish" or do you REASON that a "Dog isn't a fish?" Negative true information is always REASONED. There is too much Negative true information for the human mind to possess. We are able to use the most simple form of reasoning to determine what is negative true information. If you know what time your neighbor died, do you need to know what time your neighbor didn't die? No, because simple "IF/THEN" logic determines that efficiently. "IF SOANDSO DIED AT 5:30 THEN SOANDSO COULDN'T HAVE DIED AT 4:30" There is no need to KNOW negative information. Therefore, God doesn't need to KNOW all information, some of the information can be aquired through simple logic. Now please, don't come back and mention how I have said God cannot use deductive or inductive logic, because that's still true and I haven't contradicted that. "IF/THEN" logic is NOT deductive or inductive reasoning, it is a seperate form of logic. (See: http://www.changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/types_reasoning/types_reasoning.htm) So you will probably repeat "God knows all things." Okay...but the Bible never says that. Why should I believe that about the God of Abraham if the Bible never says that about the God of Abraham?

spider:

I truly admire your faith in what you believe, to me there is no right or wrong, per se...



Logical consistency is key for me to believe anything, as it is of my belief that any 'God' would be completely consistent. It is quite unfortunate, in one respect, that this logically negates any plausibility of a 'God' playing a separate, direct and consciously aware role into human life or choices therein.

However, in another respect, I can be so thankful for the recognition of manifestation possibilities, and of the comfort and peace contained within the idealogy of 'God' living within us.

This is so true. The scripture was written in such a manner that the people in those early times might understand part of it, but in such a way that the true nature of reality was hidden.

People were not aware enough to comprehend the true nature of reality then, -- and most are still not aware enough to comprehend it today. But many people are waking up, and science (quantum science) is putting together the pieces.

Even when they prove it--there will be some people who will not comprehend it and other who will reject it.

Things just keep getting weirder and weirder in the uncovering of the true nature of reality.

I know a man who has invented a product that will teach a deaf man to hear through his skin.

He patented it but in order to do so he had to demonstrate it to the patent office first hand because they did not comprehend how it worked and they simply did not believe it could possibly work. He proved it did.

It places sound directly into the center of the brain and does not require the ears for the hearing of it. The device is used for sleep learning.

My point is this. There exists today, technology beyond the comprehension of most people. It will not be understood or comprehended for another 50 years. This technology is being hidden from society because they cannot use it, produce it or understand it yet.

Who is keeping this technology hidden? "THEY" ARE.

Jeannie

C.S.



Basically, any notion of God is going to boil down to empirical reasoning - for that is all we have at our disposal when it comes down to "evidence" to substanciate a "proof" of his existance. Some can look at the sky at night as their evidence, but when it comes right down to it - moving beyond subjectivity to substanciate the belief is a mere lesson in futility. It's nothing more than a matter of faith. Either one has it, or one doesn't.



But that is the whole point of the Gospel message. Without the incarnation there is no point to scripture. It is the essential tie in to the biblical question "why are we here?" To reject this notion - is to reject the God of creation as described in scripture. But then what God are "we" left with? One of man's creation. One who is at least as "nice" as Abra is. But does anyone other than Abra know how nice he is? Where does the idea of God come from if it is not the one described in scripture? Is it a smorgasboard of attributes taken from all of the worlds religions until that God suits one's needs? Does this God exist? If so - why?



Again - in order to satisfy the gospel message - the incarnation must take place.



But here again - you are picking and chosing your premises according to the particulars which satisfy you. What evidence - if not scriptural - do you have to establish a "priori" concept to begin with? If you reject the testimony of the ancients who gave testimony of their experiences with God, doesn't it follow - logically - that the God you are attributing existance to has only been around as long as you've had the ability to reason him out? For previous to your definition of God, who did this God exist for?

Eljay:

I will address your last response in the order that it was received, broken down for focus...



This is only true if one's personal experience(s) is used as a measuring instrument for a justification of some sort Eljay. That is the distinct difference between empirical and a priori knowledge.

A priori involves one's ability to grasp a concept(s) based upon an understanding of the meaning of the words being used without the use of personal experience as an application which substantiates the notion.

An infallible proof of 'Gods' existance(or not) does not exist. Quite simply, it must be either accepted or not. Beyond that is where empirical and a priori knowledge play a significant role in reason and/or logic.




A priori knowledge and it's use in logic yields consistently sound conclusions, without the possibility of the personal implication mistakes created by an individual's perception of actual events.




I would guess that at least two other biblically based religions would argue this notion with you, but I will not.




This question has been around far longer than the Bible, I would guess.



We would be left with the same 'God' that always was.




Eljay, the Bible was not the first description of a notion of a 'God'.... by far.



If one chooses to believe different aspects of several religions, then I suppose this could be the case.



Why? The same reason 'God' has always existed, whatever that may be.




Although this has personal implication(s), my reason(s) for the rejection of the personification of 'God' is quite simple. 'God' is not man, therefore 'God' would not act as a man would act.

Who would argue with the premise that a monotheistic creator 'God' must be first in order to be a creator 'God' at all?




If I know that first means before anything else... that constitutes a priori knowledge. It does not require personal experience to grasp the concept. Therefore, it results in the reduction of personal perceptual biases(mistakes) while establishing the axioms which result in sound conclusions, based upon an accepted premise. It is personally unbiased, and much less prone to a logical mistake.

If I know that ice cream is cold, it is because I have experienced this as being the case... that constitutes empirical knowledge. Although this may seem insignificant, how much could one then argue the definition of cold? What constitutes cold, what type of ice cream, etc., etc. It is inherently biased, therefore prone to mistake, as a result of it's contingiency upon personal interpretation and/or perception.

Empirical knowledge is based upon the substantiation of worldy experience(s) whereas a priori knowledge is pure reasoning based upon accepted definitions of the terms being used, without necessitating the inference of personal experience(s).




No, it would not logically follow that 'God' has been around for as long as I. It would follow that I reject the logical implausibility concerning the personification of 'God'.

'God' has always been around as long as 'God' has been around, regardless of any particular description at any given point in time.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/priori


A priori is the result of either deductive reasoning or it is an assumption. If your understanding of God is a priori, what information did you base your deductive reasoning upon? Perhaps others can review your information and come to the same conclusion.

Before you argue whether "God" exists you must agree on what "God" is. It is clear that you don't.

IMO
God does not depend on the Bible to make Itself Known.

Only imposter's would need to convince people that they are the one and only almighty God and only an impostor would demand that you only worship him and no other Gods.

If ancient people claim to have spoken to God they may have either have been fooled by an impostor, magician, hypnotist, advanced race, or what you would call a sorcerer. To them, an apparition of any kind was either God or the devil. They had no other way to comprehend it.

UFO's were said to have been seen throughout all time. How would they have perceived such a thing?

If modern man still believes an puts faith in the writings of ancient scripture as gospel proof of God, they are not using common sense. They are putting their faith in the perceptions of privative people.

Jeannie

spider,

You and I have been down this road before, your proposed definition is quite lacking in clarity and your personal interpretation robs one of clarity...

For philosophical(ontological) purposes the appropriate definition would be the self-evident one, which is not an assumption, in and of itself, as was your extrapolation...

For your clarification purposes...

If we think of a proposition which is necessary, we can determine that it's true a priori.

If we needn't look elsewhere to decide if it's true, our judgement about it's truth is a priori.

So, which propositions are the necessary ones?
The ones we can judge to be true a priori.

And when can we judge that they are true a priori?
When we needn't look elsewhere to decide if they're true.



I said to Eljay:



If 'God' was first, then 'God' was all there was at that time, then...

THAT is the a priori knowledge which should begin any ontological argument concerning the consideration of a creator 'God'...

I hope this clears up any confusion...

creativesoul,



One of these days, you are going to have a grand realization that I'm not some sort of twisted sociopath who seeks to twist the meaning of words to create confusion and I truely look forward to that day. "My" "proposed defintion" is from Miriam Webster. I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with the term priori. You say that the defintions in Miriam Webster are wrong. Could you point me to the correct definition? It's really hard to understand what someone is trying to say when he use words, but don't intend the reading to use any traditional definitions for those words.



You aren't making much sense. I understand how that is, because oft times I am told that I don't make sense. So please, could you clarify?

One of the downsides to a high vocabulary is that others don't know what you're talking about. Don't feel bad I have no idea what a priori is and can't even find it in the dictionary either. Maybe it is French or something?

It's call rhetoric.
If you don't understand it, then the person using it has accomplished his mission. He has made you feel ignorant.



If you want to get a point across, speak simply. If you want to show how many words you can use, you do so at the price communication.

No sorry he hasn't made me feel ignorant. Just made me feel I didn't know what he was talking about. Why would that give you pleasure anyway?

It doesn't give me pleasure. That is why I try to make myself perfectly clear and speak plain and simple English.

I don't know... it must be a "guy" thing or an "ego" thing.

Ok cool it hurts my brain

It doesn't hurt my brain it numbs it and my eyes glaze over and I fall to sleep. ZZZZZZZZZZ

Sorry boys.... talk amongst yourselves.

Enjoy your nap

Abra....

For clarification, I wish to denote that I used "your", not "everyone's". I emphasize, for the rational participants in this thread, that I was not referring to them; this comment was intended primarily for the Lord High Presbyter & Proselytizer.

spider:

No offense intended, I had remembered some of your previous intentional sarcasm, and was reminded of it, somehow. Evidently it was lingering within myself...



Immanuel Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' is a necessity for understanding the differences between a priori and a posteriori(empirical) knowledge and logic(reason)...

It is of my understanding that a priori and a posteriori are the two generally categorized types of obtainable knowledge, philosophically speaking. A priori is self evident in some way, either by one's understanding other conceptual truthes which make the knowledge self-evident(deductive), a priori, or without the necessary means of being dependant on personal experience for jusification... (inductive) a priori.

The two are extensively used(and distinguished) within logic.

Mathematics is the easiest body of knowledge to associate as being a priori. There is experience required to obtain the ideas, but not in order to substantiate the claims(what we learn by inspecting the ideas). All mathematics is contained within a conceptual framework , is built upon itself(inductively) following what is considered as self-evident knowns, none of which conflicts previously accepted truthes...(leave me be James! )which makes it an inductive a priori body of knowledge.

Everyone knows what five of something is, but show me a 5 in nature. It is self-evident based within the conceptual framework of mathemetics' given knowns, but does not depend on an experience to substantiate the claims after the knowledge(idea) is obtained.

As Kant suggested,

THERE can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience. For how should our faculty of knowledge be awakened into action did not objects affecting our senses partly of themselves produce representations, partly arouse the activity of our understanding to compare these representations, and, by combining or separating them, work up the raw material of the sensible impressions into that knowledge of objects which is entitled experience? In the order of time, therefore, we have no knowledge antecedent to experience, and with experience all our knowledge begins.


One example (deductive) a priori) would be that if I chop down a tree, it will fall down.

The knowledge of it falling down is self-evident(a priori). Although this is of the deductive variety, based upon one's knowing(or previous witnessing) of the physics behind it, it becomes self-evident and I would not have to see it happen in order to know that it would(again). However, I would have to have other knowledge at my disposal in order to arrive at this as an a priori statement, without actually watching it happen, though this knowledge is also originally empirically(experience) based, it would be of the a priori variety as a result of not actually experiencing(witnessing) it.

If I had no idea of what happens when a tree is cut down, then it would be purely empirical(a posteriori), should I cut one down in order to make a determination of cause and effect. After that had been witnessed and understood, the idea that when I cut a tree down, it will fall can be stated as an a priori statement, although the knowledge is empirically based, the known becomes self-evident(a priori.

The importance of this distinction within a logical framework is critical to obtaining a logically sound inductive theory. The expression a priori is used for all statements which reflect their accepted conceptual frameworks, for one must adhere to these statements as a result of adopting the conceptual framework. Once the framework is in place, and accepted, there is no longer a point in checking these statements for validity. The conceptual framework is constructed in such a way that no evidence against them can turn up (so long as one continues to operate "within" the framework). This equates to a logical, inductively sound concept.

Reflecting on the tree...

If I were to say that should a birdhouse be attached to the tree when it was felled, the birdhouse would also be felled, then I would have made an a priori deductively sound statement, as a result of the self-evident nature of the claim.

Should one need to measure the rate of speed at which the birdhouse descends, if the fall rate of the tree is known?

No.

That knowledge would be of the a priori variety, although the conceptual framework consists of mostly empirical knowledge to arrive at the ability to know.

One last quote from Kant... he says it well...

'In what follows, therefore, we shall understand by a priori knowledge, not knowledge independent of this or that experience, but knowledge absolutely independent of all experience. Opposed to it is empirical knowledge, which is knowledge possible only a posteriori, that is, through experience. A - priori modes of knowledge are entitled pure when there is no admixture of anything empirical. Thus, for instance, the proposition, 'every alteration has its cause', while an a priori proposition, is not a pure proposition, because alteration is a concept which can be derived only from experience.'



Jeannie,

I usually agree with your notions on some level, I apologize for not addressing those more often... I have tunnel vision...

I assure you that your statement below is misguided...



This could not be further from the truth. The attempt at simple has not sufficed. Some things are not so simple, unfortunately so.