Sentences with phrase «as omniscient»

Mirrors have long been symbols of vanitas — the mortality and folly of humans — , have served as portals to other worlds of existence, or as omniscient objects with the power of speech and future - sight.

Of course in the story of Adam and Eve, there are no other people inhabiting the earth yet, so as a viewer my role is sort of ambiguous and open, but not participatory unless I think of myself as one of the figures in the painting or as some omniscient presence.

Discuss the symbolism of Death as the omniscient narrator of the novel.

Yet the filmmaker, as in Funny Games, places himself above the viewer by relishing his role as omniscient puppeteer.

I abhor a framing story that inserts Burroughs (Daryl Sabara) as a young, aspiring writer who inherits uncle John's journal; and I resent the movie's representation of holy fakers the Thurn — led by Matai Shang (Mark Strong)-- as omniscient idiots à la The Adjustment Bureau.

Here, the motor - mouthed comedian serves as an omniscient narrator who calls the battle - of - the - sexes» play - by - play.

«And perhaps other technologies will enter the space, like Google's Deep Mind, to act as an omniscient matchmaker — it's exciting to think about.»

Traditionally God has been spoken of as omniscient, knowing all things, including the future.

God is not absolute, but relative, because, as omniscient, he perceives all those events that cause him to perceive them; not unmoved and impassible, but very moved, sharing all the joys and sorrows of the creatures; not timeless, but participating temporally in all that happens.

By the way I believe all Jesus» parables were about real people and real situations (as omniscient).

For Hartshorne the answer to this is a qualified no: «If God knows all the universe, then God - and - the - universe contains no more items than God (as omniscient).

The tradition had often conceived of God as omniscient while at the same time internally distant from what is known.

Consider this... if your «god» actually exists, and is as omniscient as you think it is, then it will know that your «just in case» belief is phony, and then you're toast.

Not exact matches

What Facebook means is that the algorithm chooses what to show you — as though the algorithm was some kind of omniscient entity, and not a thing programmed by flawed human beings.

if god is omniscient, he knows who will accept his son (himself) as a savior before they are born.

fred, They were atheists as far as your god is concerned, but I think the point was why couldn't an omniscient and omnipotent god have made itself known on all continents before the European invasion of the New Worlds?

Vic: «God did not cause people to crucify the Lord Jesus Christ, rather, as God is Omniscient, He knew beforehand what man will do at «Free Will,» and He (God) therefore predetermined the counter measure accordingly, hence turning the evil doing of condemning the Lord Jesus Christ to the Cross † into Salvation for humankind.»

Once you characterize God as eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, not subject to or constrained by the laws of nature you can claim anything you want about him.

But as I've explained before, if your imaginary friend is both omniscient and omnipotent, it's impossible to exist.

For example, a god who is described as omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient does not seem to square with reality.

you believe in an omniscient god who knows whether we will accept jeebus as a savior, but then punishes them for eternity if they do not believe in him.

As per the famous contemporary theologian, Edward Schillebeeckx, God is not omniscient.

It is not even true that the omniscient must know details of the future, unless it can be proved, against Bergson, Whitehead, Peirce, James, and many others, that the future has any details to know.3 (Of course it will be detailed, but this does not imply that it has detailed will - be's as parts of itself now...)

Or, a being may be omniscient if he knows all there is to know: that is, again, the cosmos as a totality.

As per the famous contemporary theologian, Edward Schillebeeckx, his God is not omniscient.

Don't you think that there's a uniqueness about the incarnation as opposed to God's normal omnipresent / omniscient state?

- «God» became angry at the world - «God» created Jesus (either as his son or as himself)- «God» has Jesus tortured and killed (and I've heard the argument that that wasn't the intention, but if a god is omnipotent and omniscient then, nothing is an accident.

At the very least, we know that Jesus was not immortal, omnipresent, or omniscient (Luke 2:52; Matthew 24:36) as a man, even though Jesus is all these things as God.

They believe that this loving merciful, infallible, all - knowing, omniscient god decided he made a terrible mistake at one point (which sort of negates his credibility as a «god») and committed global genocide with a flood.

If you only said you believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent «friend», that might be regarded as a mild delusion, dismissible as an eccentricity.

As an institution it was omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient.

If as imperfect humans, we would condemn that action, why would we think that an all powerful, omniscient, intelligent, loving God would do such a thing to his children?

Anyone can claim God as «almighty» or «omnipotent» or «omniscient» or whatever philosophical word we wish to append to him.

If god knows that some people, before they are born, will not accept jesus as a savior (remember the whole predestination / omniscient god thing) but allows them to be born anyway, what does that say about the nature of god?

But if a man believes in the omnipotent, omniscient and loving God his life will be destiny in an even deeper sense: for it is wholly borne by the power of God without which nothing, not even man's own free act, can exist; his life as a whole and in all its details is always lived before the omniscient God of love.

Just as «God the Omniscient» is not a particular Wise Being but a dimension within experience of limitless intelligibility, so «God All Holy» is not a particular Righteous Being but a dimension within experience of limitless moral perfectibility.

Being both omnipotent and omniscient is impossible, ergo, as described, the christian god can't exist.

The problem is that «it takes an omniscient God to bring justice out of these overturns,» as Jacques Barzun notes:

He is omniscient, for in knowing himself as Cause He knows all creature things and events by implication.

The answer to the first part, is yes, He does make some people with the full knowledge that they will go to Hell, as you said this is because He is omniscient.

Only a Creator God, who is omniscient can think these things up — amazing, use John as counter to the Greek Ioannes — it's almost laughable, like the 10 plagues — thanks for sharing!

They are all everlastingly preserved in their total value, exactly as originally experienced, in the everlasting and omniscient memory of God.

One is the scene in which Dolly is on her way to visit Anna at Vronsky's estate in the country; as she travels, the narrative takes us into her thoughts, which are perfectly ordinary: her anxieties as a mother, principally, and as a wife, and her moral uncertainties; but it is all rendered with such confident and seemingly omniscient artistry that one almost feels as if one has momentarily become this woman, and can think and feel as she does; and more than one female critic has called attention to how well Tolstoy succeeds here at imagining his way into the worries and regrets of a wife and mother.

God as love - in - action is more than any particular expression of His love (hence He is transcendent); God as love - in - action is always available (hence He is onmipresent); God as love - in - action is able to envisage every situation in its deepest and truest reality and accommodate Himself to it, so that He can indeed achieve His loving ends (hence He is omniscient and omnipotent); God as love - inaction is unswerving in His love, unfailing in its expression, unyielding in His desire to confront men with the demands of love (hence He is righteous).

Does your omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god really need Satan as a scapegoat?

Scripture depicts God as not - omniscient (see Genesis) and not omni - benevolent (see Job).

But if God is omniscient, and knows everything you are going to do before you do it and is never wrong, then there is no such thing as free will.

As for your god and biology — you'd have thought an omnipotent omniscient deity who created rabbits would know if they chew their cud or not.

Your logical contradiction is based on your judgement as to how an omniscient being would behave.

If the perceiver is really related to, and so affected by, his relation to what he perceives, God, as the supremely relative being, the omniscient perceiver, will be the most affected of all.