Now, somewhat parenthetically, let me offer you a different way of thinking
about omniscience, which is connected to God's timelessness.
I hope I haven't got you wrong, Jeremy, on your understanding
about the omniscience of God.
My conviction
about the omniscience of God is that He knows exactly every event in the universe that has occurred, that is occurring and that will ever occur, whether the event relates to me or to any other entity in the universe.
Nothing is said
about omniscience including any direct prehension of actuality.
Your point
about the omniscience of God assumes a linear knowledge of the future.
Not exact matches
Omniscience is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known
about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc..
Liddon was slightly uneasy
about the verse in which Jesus said that only the Father knew the date of the End, but claimed that «the knowledge infused into the human soul of Jesus was ordinarily and practically equivalent to
omniscience».17
The Bible is not
about «proof of
omniscience.»
Moreover, there are unexplored questions
about the problem of evil and the neoclassical concept of
omniscience.
For as God is love, so that the affirmation of His love is no afterthought or addendum to a series of propositions
about His omnipotence,
omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, etc.; in similar manner in respect to human nature and activity, to human becoming, to human existence as such, love is no addendum, no afterthought, no extra, but the central reality itself.
The songs and stories sung
about him attribute to him
omniscience, the judgment of children's behavior, and the free dispensing of gifts — all sung in the language of faith.
Since His love - in - operation is His essential nature — He is love, which is His «root - attribute», not aseity, as the older theology claimed — the other things said
about Him (transcendence, immanence, omnipotence,
omniscience, omni - presence, righteousness, etc.) are to be understood, as I have already argued earlier, as adverbially descriptive of His mode of being love rather than set up as separate or even as distinct attributions.
Creel objects to Hartshorne's view on the grounds that it raises doubts
about God's
omniscience.
Chris, there is nothing
about God's
omniscience that precludes free will, nothing at all.
=============== Summary: Other than your comment
about God being constrained by time when He is within our space / time (which was addressed in point # 1 above), the remainder of your comments had to do with objections that you have with respect to God's actions, nothing to do with the traits of
omniscience and omnipotent being mutually exclusive, which was your original data point for the impossibility of God to exist.
God's
omniscience is not «inaccurate»: that is, God is not confused
about matters already settled, possibilities unresolved, and the current moment of self - actualization.
You said, «Summary: Other than your comment
about God being constrained by time when He is within our space / time (which was addressed in point # 1 above), the remainder of your comments had to do with objections that you have with respect to God's actions, nothing to do with the traits of
omniscience and omnipotent being mutually exclusive, which was your original data point for the impossibility of God to exist.»
Your self - proclaimed
omniscience in that regard is strong evidence that you are profoundly belief or faith based, but that implies nothing
about people who are not like you.