Omniscience

[POI]

I am moving along to topic number (4) with The Tanager. The first three were (justice, free will, and belief), as they spawned from the 'Carnivore thread' (viewtopic.php?t=42773). FYI, below were the climactic conclusions for the prior three topics...

1) viewtopic.php?t=42916 -- (ended at posts 65, 67, and 69)
2) viewtopic.php?t=42936 -- (ended at post 52)
3) viewtopic.php?t=42958 -- (ended at posts 9, 11, 16, and 20)

**********************

Omniscience is the state of possessing unlimited, infinite knowledge. Derived from the Latin words omnis ("all") and scientia ("knowledge"), it is most commonly associated with divine attributes, narrative perspectives, or advanced systemic technology.

For debate:

A) Name one thing from the Bible that humans could not think of, or write about, all on their own accord alone at the time. Meaning, something written which absolutely requires additional help (and/or) inspiration from a "higher" source?

B) If you think you can provide one, or more, we can certainly discuss and explore accordingly. But if you cannot produce a single piece of wisdom/information/other, for which humans could not have formulated upon their own accord(s) alone at the time, then why in the heck should anyone think or believe that the Bible was actually inspired by a 'higher power'?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #20]

I’m thinking of how just knowing everything isn’t the same as having a relationship with another being. Take Genesis for example. Yahweh asks the adam where he is even though Yahweh knows where he is in order to have interaction and allow the adam to tell the truth, lie, etc.

That opens up the question as to whether Adam had a relationship with YHVH before and if so, what type.
Even so, IF YHVH is omniscient, YHVH would have known what Adam would have done (tell the truth, lie, etc.) but even if YHVH was not, this still doesn't mean that information was unknown to YHVH - meaning YHVH may not have known where Adam was hiding BUT the mere fact that Adam was hiding may have been enough for YHVH to deduce the most likely thing that would have taken place.

I do not think a creator must necessarily be omniscient or that existence requires omniscience.

Then we agree on that.

[The Tanager]

I’m thinking of how just knowing everything isn’t the same as having a relationship with another being. Take Genesis for example. Yahweh asks the adam where he is even though Yahweh knows where he is in order to have interaction and allow the adam to tell the truth, lie, etc.

That opens up the question as to whether Adam had a relationship with YHVH before and if so, what type.
Even so, IF YHVH is omniscient, YHVH would have known what Adam would have done (tell the truth, lie, etc.) but even if YHVH was not, this still doesn't mean that information was unknown to YHVH - meaning YHVH may not have known where Adam was hiding BUT the mere fact that Adam was hiding may have been enough for YHVH to deduce the most likely thing that would have taken place.

The wider context may help us answer those questions, but the point here is that knowing everything doesn't necessarily mean you don't ask any questions.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #22]

The wider context may help us answer those questions, but the point here is that knowing everything doesn't necessarily mean you don't ask any questions.

Perhaps - but then these wouldn't really be genuine questions. They would be rhetorical device. Perhaps for performance purposes, or some other purpose you might want to argue. But any such arguments would seek to serve what particular purpose? To try and argue that omniscience is viable and even necessary?

[The Tanager]

The wider context may help us answer those questions, but the point here is that knowing everything doesn't necessarily mean you don't ask any questions.

Perhaps - but then these wouldn't really be genuine questions. They would be rhetorical device. Perhaps for performance purposes, or some other purpose you might want to argue. But any such arguments would seek to serve what particular purpose? To try and argue that omniscience is viable and even necessary?

Teachers ask students questions they know the answer to help the student (or the wider "audience") think, answer, engage, gain self-awareness, self-reflect, confess, interact, etc. So, there are many genuine purposes.

[William]

The wider context may help us answer those questions, but the point here is that knowing everything doesn't necessarily mean you don't ask any questions.

Perhaps - but then these wouldn't really be genuine questions. They would be rhetorical device. Perhaps for performance purposes, or some other purpose you might want to argue. But any such arguments would seek to serve what particular purpose? To try and argue that omniscience is viable and even necessary?

Teachers ask students questions they know the answer to help the student (or the wider "audience") think, answer, engage, gain self-awareness, self-reflect, confess, interact, etc. So, there are many genuine purposes.

Agreed. And while teachers might do this, they are still learning themselves.

[The Tanager]

Teachers ask students questions they know the answer to help the student (or the wider "audience") think, answer, engage, gain self-awareness, self-reflect, confess, interact, etc. So, there are many genuine purposes.

Agreed. And while teachers might do this, they are still learning themselves.

They aren't learning the answer to those specific questions they are asking, though. That's the important context. The teacher isn't silly for asking questions they know the answer to for a variety of meaningful, genuine purposes focused on the growth of individuals other than themselves. In the same way, an omniscient being who cares about humans pursuing any number of genuine purposes like I named, wouldn't be silly for asking them questions it knows the answer to.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #26]

Well then, please explain what YHVH - by pretending not to know where Adam was hiding - was attempting to teach Adam.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #26]

Well then, please explain what YHVH - by pretending not to know where Adam was hiding - was attempting to teach Adam.

That is irrelevant to the more general point we were discussing, but things like allowing Adam agency and true interaction, self reflection on why he was hiding, a chance to confess (yet Adam plays the victim), and so forth as the narrative moves forward.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #26]

Well then, please explain what YHVH - by pretending not to know where Adam was hiding - was attempting to teach Adam.

That is irrelevant to the more general point we were discussing,

The "more general point" being that YHVH "could" be omniscient...

but things like allowing Adam agency and true interaction, self reflection on why he was hiding, a chance to confess (yet Adam plays the victim), and so forth as the narrative moves forward.

All of which could be achieved without omniscience, and none of which require the question to be asked by a being who already knows the answer.

What possible use would one have in the belief that YHVH "could be" omniscient?

That YHVH could be omniscient - is a weak claim. It does not require defense. Almost anything could be true. The question is: Is there any good reason to believe it is?

Your list of benefits - agency, true interaction, self-reflection, chance to confess - all work perfectly well without omniscience. In fact, they work better without it, because genuine ignorance on YHVH's part makes the interaction real rather than theatrical.

If the belief serves no practical, relational, or explanatory purpose - if it adds nothing to agency, love, justice, or interaction - then why hold it? Why defend it? Why privilege it over the simpler, more coherent alternative?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #29]

The "more general point" being that YHVH "could" be omniscient...

No. The more general point being that it’s not silly for an omniscient being to ask questions. I have not made any argument in this thread for either the claim that YHVH could be omniscient or that YHVH is omniscient. I’ve only been addressing things you’ve said or asked me.