Sentences with phrase «for omniscience»

They believed in a future partly indeterminate even for omniscience.

Omnipotence here becomes the foundation for omniscience, and the groundwork has been set for a thoroughgoing determinism.

When studying the strengths of noncategorial dispositions then, introspection, like natural and social science, seems bound to be measuring an amalgam of final and efficient causality, whose relative contributions to a given feeling are probably impossible in principle to distinguish, even for omniscience.

Jesus tells us that its death is redemption (loopho.le) for having created imperfect beings (so much for omniscience) and that its crucifixion is better than the previous attempt to rid the world of evil a few thousand years earlier.

Only an outline of future events, an abstract and determinable somehow, is available, even for omniscience.

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.

Not exact matches

I have struggled for years to reconcile God's omniscience with man's free will.

Rather, we find the ground of God's omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence in Jesus» «being there for others».

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.

Even so, Schleiermacher surrendered very little, and his own consciousness's appropriation of God's being, «in relation to us» of course, included and emphasized the traditional attributes of omnipotence, eternity, omnipresence, and omniscience.5 And for him, «immutability» is already contained within the notion of God's eternity.6 Causality within the entire system of nature can be exhaustively accounted for by God's causal activity.7 Following the lead of Aquinas, Schleiermacher declared that there is no distinction between potential and actual in God.8

The redefinition of omnipotence and omniscience provide the groundwork for process thought's unique treatment of theodicy, the question of how the concept of an all powerful yet loving God can be reconciled with the existence of evil in the world.

However much we recognize a profound ontological difference between elements of the world, including a fundamental difference between ourselves, many philosophers of religion want to say that God knows and empathizes with human experience in a way similar to divine relativity for several reasons: omniscience, a resolution to theodicy, and ontological unity.

For further definition of «the problem of radical particularity,» the position from which Hartshorne is criticized later in this article, and for more detailed discussion of Hartshorne's theory of divine relativity, please see my «Omniscience and the Problem of Radical Particularity: Does God Know How to Ride a Bike,» International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 42 (1997), 1 - 22, and «Divine Passibility and the Problem of Radical Particularity: Does God Feel Your PaFor further definition of «the problem of radical particularity,» the position from which Hartshorne is criticized later in this article, and for more detailed discussion of Hartshorne's theory of divine relativity, please see my «Omniscience and the Problem of Radical Particularity: Does God Know How to Ride a Bike,» International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 42 (1997), 1 - 22, and «Divine Passibility and the Problem of Radical Particularity: Does God Feel Your Pafor more detailed discussion of Hartshorne's theory of divine relativity, please see my «Omniscience and the Problem of Radical Particularity: Does God Know How to Ride a Bike,» International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 42 (1997), 1 - 22, and «Divine Passibility and the Problem of Radical Particularity: Does God Feel Your Pafor Philosophy of Religion 42 (1997), 1 - 22, and «Divine Passibility and the Problem of Radical Particularity: Does God Feel Your Pain?

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.

Doug Sloan makes a case for the opposite, but that calls into question the benevolence and omniscience of a god who would send such confusing and conflicting directives to his creations in the first place or for sending such messages that could be «lost» after millemnia of translations.

@Juanita I would then argue free will and the incompatibility of it with omniscience to show you that your god planned for all of it and that what you do was already decided.

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.

Disappeared for 33 years then showed up to commit suicide by cop to atone for imperfect beings that in its omniscience should have known would be imperfect in the first place.

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.

«PLEASE PRAY FOR OUR NATION» This is because the god (s) are not paying attention and must be begged to know, (well remember) what their omniscience already knows, and to do what their omniscience already knows they will be doing.

Armed with omniscience, he exercises this authority only for our good.

Since omniscience is not a human attribute, we are all dependent on our own and the collective subjective experience of our social group for our presuppositions.

He created man knowing he would fail (omniscience), then sent his avatar to earth to die for that sin that was baked in by him so that we would be grateful for his sacrifice and love him.

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.

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.

So much for God's judgment and omniscience of what was to come.»

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.

In a recent article in Process Studies, Richard Creel discusses the idea that the realm of possibility is a continuum and the implications of this idea for our understanding of God's omniscience (PS 12:209 - 31).

Given our stress on freedom in the divine nature, we need to reinterpret omniscience of the future so that it means not a fixed knowledge of every coming event held in a timeless instant, but the simultaneous grasp of an absolute infinity of possibles — a capability we human beings lack — and an instantaneous calculation of the odds for all future possible events and actions.

=============== 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.

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.»

We can not identify him by referring to some formal characteristic like righteousness or love (for everything depends upon the particular concrete meaning of such a term: other «Gods» have been thought of as loving and righteous, not to mention omnipotence, omniscience, and the rest).

Thus, for example, God's omniscience is the clear and complete cognition of all things just as they are.

Fortunately, you can toggle the level of the car's omniscience via a steering - wheel button, which is perfect for when you pull off the highway and face miles of twisty country roads.

Shows how much they know: I'm woefully short of the sort of omniscience I had hoped for, and I've... [more]

``... woefully short of the sort of omniscience I had hoped for...» You read my memory almost full mind.

Shows how much they know: I'm woefully short of the sort of omniscience I had hoped for, and I've largely given up the quest.