Sentences with phrase «as omniscience»

Of course, we have to admit that human beings have neither the unlimited power that characterizes divinity with respect to humanity nor the scope of insight and knowledge which has been characterized in the tradition as omniscience.

God is one entity, which is manifested as omniscience, omnipotence, power, will, and the like.

Just as omniscience means that all existence is regarded as intelligible, so holiness means that all action is involved in some moral order and that every moral achievement, however worthy, stands under a higher judgment.

As far as omniscience being incompatible with omnipotence, I'm not really clear on what your argument was there.

That said, though, I also disagree with your throwing away of human concepts such as omniscience.

Not exact matches

@David Johnson If «knowledge is power» as the academic world loves to instill omniscience justify omnipotence?

@Laughing: If you read the Genesis story, it does not strike one as a story of a meticulous Designer who used some form of omniscience to look into the future and predict what was going to happen.

It seems to me that omniscience is a Divine, not a human, quality and as long as there is something that I don't know I WILL have questions.

To «know all that exists» is, in one sense, to have perfect knowledge, it is literal omniscience (provided possibilities are also known as such, as a special class of existences or, at least, of realities).

29 Concomitantly, God's omniscience is not subject to alteration by what occurs in time: «God's knowledge, as omnipotent knowledge, is complete in its range, the one unique and all - embracing knowledge.»

2:7), and on the other hand we have the gospel portraits of a Jesus who manifests his divinity in his miracles, omniscience, and mysterious elusiveness, and the similar description of him in Acts as «Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs» (Acts 2:22).

Other concepts are also discussed: The meaning of the Word «God, Monotheism, «God» defined, God's existence, Polytheism, Arguments for existence of God, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Immanence and Transcendence, Creation, and God as personal.

To imagine him, with divine Omniscience, deliberately translating his message into the language of a world - view he knew to be false would make him a figure so artificial and unreal as to be neither credible nor attractive.

In spite of the fact that Hartshorne universally posits a strong sense of relativity to account for omniscience (as well as for other reasons), I will argue that even Hartshorne is forced in important specific cases to attenuate his claims for a strong interpretation of divine relativity; one that says God feels in exactitude the experience of others.

The «synthesis of omniscience» is described as including «all possibilities of physical value conceptually, thereby holding the ideal forms apart in equal, conceptual realization of knowledge» (RM 147).

Omniscience may have to be conceived as objective knowledge, at least to some extent.

My results regarding divine relativity are tentative, but there are already ramifications for the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence as well as for the problem of theodicy.

Just as God's omnipotence is circumscribed by the possible, he argued, so God's omniscience must be limited to the knowable.

God's omniscience, omnipotence and art, His perfect design of everything, and the miraculous character of the Book are better understood as we contemplate them.

The Muslim philosophers do not omit the Quranic attributes of God such as omnipotence, omniscience, justice, generosity, and the like, but they interpret them philosophically or explain them away.

He posits, for example, that Jesus in his omniscience knew that there were smaller seeds than the mustard seed, but nevertheless used «this facet of the culture of the people to whom he was speaking as a vehicle for conveying the cargo of revelational truth.

Philosophers and theologians have often defined «divine omniscience» as «God's knowledge of the truth value of all meaningful propositions.»

The extreme quantitative difference between human knowledge and divine knowledge makes a qualitative difference, making it possible to conceive of divine omniscience as «all that can be known» without resorting to some absolute difference.

From Sonja: So if I'm understanding open theism right, it sounds like it's similar to — if not the same as — the idea that «omniscience» in God doesn't mean «knows exactly what will happen» but instead means «knows every single permutation of what could happen.»

But process thinkers may go a step further than Hauerwas in their understanding of divine power as noncoercive, persuasive, beckoning love with their reinterpretation of the traditional divine attributes of omnipotence and omniscience.

The attribute of omniscience is not as easily interpreted.

It's true that Chad's God has not provided him with enough material to frame an argument for its existence, much less its identity as Creator, or qualities of omnipotence and omniscience, or even status as a necessary being.

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.

I realize that Calvinism is correct on the subject of the omniscience of God that He does know who will be saved or not (Job 34:21 - 22) and He chooses and elects them for His service but going as far as saying that God makes the choice for their salvation can never come into agreement with John 3:216.

Accordingly, he concludes that the world apart from God is an abstraction from the cosmic manifoldness as the integrated contents of the divine omniscience.52

Among other attributes used to describe God is Omniscience as well.

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.

But God, who is love, who is «the fellow - sufferer who understands», and whose wisdom penetrates all that is actual and is aware of the relevant possibilities (but as possibilities, not in whatever may be made actual among them, for that is «open» until it happens and God's omniscience can not mean that He knows, hence must determine, what will occur before it occurs), can make an appraisal that is both accurate and merciful — that is «just» and loving.

God's attributes as such, his holiness, his justice, his mercy, his absoluteness, his infinity, his omniscience, his tri-unity, the various mysteries of the redemptive process, the operation of the sacraments, etc., have proved fertile wells of inspiring meditation for Christian believers.

I can't remember where I heard it, but the other day I chanced upon an audio clip of a few pastors discussing that Christians often view God's omniscience of their souls as a warm fuzzy sort of thing.

He demonstrated that God could not be conceived of as a being (which would make him subordinate to the category of Being per se and merely one being among other beings), and he cautioned against identifying the traditional God with Being (for Being could have none of the attributes — beneficence, love, omniscience, etc. — that are applied to the God who is a being).

The third way in which Creel develops his criticism of the implications of Hartshorne's view for God's omniscience has to do with the nonrepeatability of qualities and the purported consequence that God's memory of an event must inevitably grow more and more erroneous as time passes (PS 12:225 - 28).

Only in the latter sense is it true that the categories are «beyond all decision,» for it is indeed impossible for God ever to choose whether to sustain or revise what will always have been the parameters of possibility; as Hartshorne has noted, for God even to attempt or want to attempt to revise those parameters would imply some divine confusion incompatible with omniscience (LLF).

God is to be known in human form, as a man existing for others; and the sole ground for the doctrine of His omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence in His freedom from self, maintained even to the point of the death of God incarnate.

Even if some professors today do have pretensions to omniscience, the explosion in the quantity of information to be imparted makes them as well as Dr. Whewell — and Faust too, for that matter — amusing anachronisms.

William Austin asks whether humanity and divinity can be thought of as complementary models of Christ.2 Each model limits the use of the other (e.g. from Christ's humanity we can not make the inference of sinfulness, and from his divinity we can not make the inference of omniscience).

It is not clear either that all positive properties are logically compatible, as in the paradox of divine omniscience and omnipotence.

Omniscience is a Divine, not a human attribute and as long as there is something that I do not know I WILL have questions.

When I use the term god, I am referring to a traditional model of a supernatural ent - ity that exhibits omniscience and omnipotence as characteristics.

I am not in the Gnostic, Jesus - is - only - divine - not - human camp; He was and is human (yesterday, today and forever, in fact); however, I would argue that as divine, Jesus shares in the divine attributes, of which omniscience is one.

In traditional theology, we can phrase the question as one of God's omniscience and omnipotence.

Just as the divine omnipotence and omniscience can not be realized existentially apart from his word uttered with reference to a particular moment and heard in that moment, so this Word is what it is only in the moment in reference to which it is uttered.

The Earth as universal mother and creatrix par excellence is not omniscient, that is to say that she does not have that omniscience which is rooted in all - seeing (the Greek oida, «I know,» properly means «I have seen»).

What's in view here, however, is not really the divine attribute of omniscience, but the experiential knowledge gained by Jesus as he lived, died and was resurrected.

You said, «So, again, as demonstrated, omniscience and omnipotent are clearly not mutually exclusive traits.»