The Creator CANNOT Be Omniscient

serenesam

serenesam

Banned
MBTI
INTJ
I was just thinking that if an external Creator exists, it would be omnipotent but it cannot be omniscient. Agree? Disagree? Somewhat agree? Somewhat disagree? Any other alternative thoughts?

If there is no such thing as an external Creator and we are the Creator (meaning everything is the Creator in cumulation), the same would still apply in that the collective consciousness of everything is omnipotent but it cannot be omniscient. Agree? Disagree? Somewhat agree? Somewhat disagree? Any other alternative thoughts?

A single mistake or error immediately equates to non-omniscience. Examples may include being wrong about a single future prediction or being wrong about a future set of variables.

A partial mistake or error also immediately equates to non-omniscience. Examples may include being partially wrong about certain variables pertaining to the future.

Is it even logically possible for a single entity or a collection of entities to be omniscient?
 
the creator is all knowing but not all experiencing because the creator does not participate. therefore humans have the experiences and translate that to the creator who then can both know and experience. (according to certain faiths, that is. i happen to like this explanation.)

what you are calling errors or mistakes may well only be our perception. there are no real mistakes. they all play into all the rest of what is happening or going to happen or not happen as it were.
 
I think these ideas are absurd human creations. Omniscience is not really a thing, but if it were a thing then the creator would be it because the creator is the collective of all.

But really what is happening is that people have this goldfish in a fishbowl notion that the creator is somehow like themselves but super powered. e.g. you 'know' something so the creator must 'know' everything! You have some limited 'power' so therefore the creator must have infinite 'power'! These are silly little human ideas that don't necessarily even apply.

However yes if you must use these terms then the creator is 'omniscient', and as [MENTION=4855]JGirl[/MENTION] said, there are no mistakes.

Edit:
Also the creator isn't external either. Internal and external also are not things in the grand scheme of all things.
 
[MENTION=4433]serenesam[/MENTION]

Also look at it this way. Let's just take the human collective as we know it - the human collective 'knows' everything that humans can know because it's all the humans ever. Expand that to the entire everything of creator/creation. It 'knows' everything because it is everything. Something that the universe doesn't 'know' is not a thing that is ever happening.
 
sprinkles said:
[MENTION=4433]serenesam[/MENTION]

Also look at it this way. Let's just take the human collective as we know it - the human collective 'knows' everything that humans can know because it's all the humans ever. Expand that to the entire everything of creator/creation. It 'knows' everything because it is everything. Something that the universe doesn't 'know' is not a thing that is ever happening.
Click to expand...

I agree. I am just concern more of the "acts" or "implementations" done to certain individuals assuming an outside Creator exists. If there is no outside Creator, I completely agree with you.

Would such "acts" such as punishment be fair?
 
If by Creator, one understands the cause of all existence; and presumably the Creator is aware of all existence he causes. Therefore there is nothing that exists that the Creator does not know.

Moreover, since art only partially resembles what is in the mind of an artist, it is likely that there are many more things the Creator could create, but has not, meaning his knowledge is beyond what could be known from any universe.
 
serenesam said:
I agree. I am just concern more of the "acts" or "implementations" done to certain individuals assuming an outside Creator exists. If there is no outside Creator, I completely agree with you.

Would such "acts" such as punishment be fair?
Click to expand...

Well I think the concepts of punishment and fairness are just far afield of what actually takes place.

This is like asking how heavy the sun is - the question itself comes out of a somewhat flawed paradigm due to a human's constant perception of 'weight' as an inherent property of mass. Well it isn't an inherent property and it might lead a few people to flip their lid when the response ends up being "The sun is actually weightless"
 
Flavus Aquila said:
If by Creator, one understands the cause of all existence; and presumably the Creator is aware of all existence he causes. Therefore there is nothing that exists that the Creator does not know.

Moreover, since art only partially resembles what is in the mind of an artist, it is likely that there are many more things the Creator could create, but has not, meaning his knowledge is beyond what could be known from any universe.
Click to expand...
Yes, meaning the actual "essence" and "fullness" of knowledge is not in what is created, Creation, but rather in the mind of the Creator. This is to say that infinite knowledge is possible if there is a infinite mind.
 
LucyJr said:
Yes, meaning the actual "essence" and "fullness" of knowledge is not in what is created, Creation, but rather in the mind of the Creator. This is to say that infinite knowledge is possible if there is a infinite mind.
Click to expand...

Yes but don't get too close to human with that because an infinite anthropocentric mind could also be full of an infinite amount of trash as well. I find it best to not think of it as a person.

People compare it to making art or a sculpture or a building but really it isn't even close to that because those concepts in themselves are already woefully inadequate and human-centric.
 
sprinkles said:
Yes but don't get too close to human with that because an infinite anthropocentric mind could also be full of an infinite amount of trash as well. I find it best to not think of it as a person.

People compare it to making art or a sculpture or a building but really it isn't even close to that because those concepts in themselves are already woefully inadequate and human-centric.
Click to expand...
That's apophatic theology in a nutshell.

However, there is a strong tradition of cataphatic (positive statements) about God. Analogy is used:
God's knowledge is like human knowledge, but infinitely greater.
 
sprinkles said:
Yes but don't get too close to human with that because an infinite anthropocentric mind could also be full of an infinite amount of trash as well. I find it best to not think of it as a person.

People compare it to making art or a sculpture or a building but really it isn't even close to that because those concepts in themselves are already woefully inadequate and human-centric.
Click to expand...
God is defined as 'the most perfect conceivable Being", which has "great-making" properties.
But "an infinite amount of trash" is NOT a great-making property.
 
the said:
What's an external creator and what's an internal creator?
Click to expand...

I define an external Creator as an Entity or Being that created everything and is separate from you, me, each, and every thing.

I define a non-external Creator (I suppose you can call it internal then) meaning that the Creator is everything and everything is the Creator like pantheism.
 
We are like unto a grain of sand and think we can understand a creator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top