The omniscience of god?

OK, so that seems quite clear: god is everywhere, he sees everything, and nothing is hidden from god. (Well, what would you expect, given that he's almighty, and all that? A biblical CCTV system should have been a piece of cake.)But apparently, there's a few glitches: The Israelites have to mark their houses with blood in order for God to see which houses they occupy and "pass over" them, whilst he's doing a bit of light genocide. You'd think he'd know which people were which!Also: Samuel has to tell god what people have been saying.Also: God doesn't know where Abel is, and has to ask. He gets a cheeky response from Cain.Quite apart from the obvious contradiction between being all-powerful, and all-knowing, the all-knowing part seems a bit shaky at times.

Golly. This seems like a rather convoluted way of going about one's genocide! Still, rules are rules, eh? It's implied in the text. If god already knew what was going on, why not cut to the chase, and give the instructions? No need for Samuel to say anything at all. So god plays silly mind games? But hang on... god's omniscience would mean that god would already know in advance that Cain wouldn't confess. So the whole exchange seems a bit pointless. Do I need to?Regards,Edited by Blzebub, : No reason given.Edited by Blzebub, : No reason given.

Is this happy-clappy, lovey-dovey god the same god who allegedly sent a, "death angel" to do nasty things to the Egyptians? If so, is he some sort of psychopath? "Subduing" is an adjective rarely associated with "love", except in an abusive, wife-beating sense.Rather than try to reconcile the innumerable and often ridiculous contradictions in the bible, wouldn't it be easier to accept that different parts of it were written by different people who had different ideas from one another at different times?

You've misread my emotion. It's impossible for me to be angry with your imaginary god, just as it's impossible for you to be angry with, say, Father Christmas, or Thor, Zeus, Neptune, Aphrodite, or the Fairies at the Bottom of the Garden.

Hi there,I wasn't even slightly rude. I think it's perfectly legitimate to refer to something for which we have no evidence as "imaginary". The bible is full of proclamations from yahweh about how awful it would be to worship "false gods", "icons", "graven images", and the like. No one objects to any of that.I should imagine that jaywill doesn't believe in any of the ancient gods who were in vogue before yahweh appeared on the scene, and he would no doubt refer to them as "imaginary", "false" or "non-existent".Like Dawkins, I go one god further than jaywill in my non-belief.

I really can't get worked-up about anything which, in my opinion, doesn't exist. But there are many consequences of god-belief, which I believe to be harmful to human society. I'll go into what those are elsewhere, as we are way OT.Here's another non-omniscient god moment: God makes man, then later regrets this action, because man behaves badly. But an omniscient god would know in advance exactly how man was going to behave.

I can't say I follow your logic, if logic is the right description.OK, next: The lord changes his mind. Truly omniscient beings never need to change their minds, because they already know the future.Edited by Blzebub, : No reason given.

The thread is about omniscience. Omniscience means "all-knowing". This includes all events, thoughts and motives in the past, present and future. The biblical god doesn't satisfy these conditions, because he keeps changing his mind, and fails to anticipate future events (including various intercessions).Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive. This is because an omniscient entity knows all their future thoughts, decisions and actions. This knowledge robs them of the power to alter any of their future thoughts, decisions and actions: hence they are not omnipotent.OTOH, if the entity is truly omnipotent, including having the power to change their mind, then they cannot be omniscient.

According to the bible, god does lie. According to the bible, god is not omnipotent.

The point I am making is that "the scriptures" (I assume you mean the bible) is/are terribly confusing on this and almost every other subject. The bible is riven with contradictions and logical impossibilities. It can't all be correct, so which bits do you pick as being wrong?

Yes. It seems like the straightforward way to approach it. Are you saying that god isn't actually omniscient, and that the concept is man-made? Yup. So ... we shouldn't take the bible literally? So ... we should take the bible literally!

I've quoted "what the Bible says" verbatim. The words in the bible show quite clearly that the particular god under discussion within its pages is neither omniscient, nor omnipotent.And I have demonstrated that being both is logically impossible, in any case.Why can't you answer my questions?

I'm not quite certain what you mean. I suspect you have just written a global "get out clause" for anything controversial in the bible. Basically, any passage means whatever you want it to mean.

I'm using "p'shat", yet it shows biblical contradictions, or "paradoxes" as you call them.

This is just more wriggling on the hook. Allowing an untruth is morally the same as lying. Lying, IOW. Deceiving people as to what is true is called "lying". This raises the problem of which version of the bible is the correct one? LOL.