I wondered often, at different times throughout my life, if the notion of omniscience could be true as I had been taught. By Websters... it means "having infinite knowledge, knowing all things"...

Is that notion even remotely possible outside of religious scripture? It seems that the sole function of the word is to describe one of the humanly impossible traits of "God"... which I do not believe as I have been "taught"...

How would that tie into (or not) a notion of all possibilities of choice and those products thereof existing simultaneously? A forever changing "landscape", because with each choice made, the "unchosen" ones and all of their products "fall away"...

Our lives are just one huge "if - then" program anyway, right?

Many people refer to the divine powers that be as "Original Substance". I believe Original Substance is omniscient. It's all scientifically feasible. Religion is just a way for people to explain what they can't explain, and that's okay because we as humans are not meant to understand everything. And just because it's science doesn't mean that it's not because of an ultimate good. Metaphysics and the laws of the universe coincide perfectly with the teachings of the bible (first testament), which is used by Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Think that's for a reason? I do. And everything can, and has been backed up with solid science. Most people just haven't been exposed to it. I'd go into this more, but I have to go to work now. Hahaha

Did I say first testament? I meant old testament. Coffee hasn't kicked in yet. Haha

Enjoy your workday Guitar_Hero... and welcome to this site...

I resonate with the notion that there is one source ... one creative source ... call it what you will but there is some consciousness that keeps everything in motion.

It is pure consciousness ... pure thought ...

Notions of past, present and future are timelines that only have a context within the realm of physical experience. Time is a man-made construct useful only in this plane of existence.

With that there is no future ... there is no past ... there is only now. And in the perpetual 'now' this source knows all because this source is all.

Well I think if you ignore the word ‘infinite’ and just leave it as ‘knowing all things’ it might help.

Man has often made up words that actually serve to refer to things that are not knowable. If you just leave it at ‘knowing all things’ then you can reduce the concept to knowing only what’s actually happening. There isn’t much sense in knowing what isn’t happening. That is merely dreaming which even men can do!



As Artgurl suggests, if we think of the universe as god, or maybe it might be easier to think of god as being the universe (not really different, but just a differnet perspective ), then the universe knows itself in much the same way that we know ourselves.

In other words, the universe doesn’t need to be totally and completely conscious of its every little part. Not that it can’t be, but rather than it doesn’t need to be. Just as you aren’t constantly aware of the toenail on your left big toe. Just because you aren’t constantly focused on it doesn’t mean that you don’t have knowledge of it.

The same is true of an omniscient god. It is not necessarily for an omniscient god to be completely aware of all it’s parts simultaneous.

Moreover, just as you can’t ‘see’ the back of your head without the aid of mirrors, it is also possible that an omniscient being may not be able to ‘see’ all of itself in every conceivable way at all times. In fact, in the pantheistic view it may well be that the universe can only comprehend itself though it own sensory parts, which would be through conscious animals and humans.

However, even many humans have claimed to be able to sense things via ESP or other types of revelations and/or visions. So it is also quite possible that the universe too has powers and senses beyond what we normally deem to be physical.



I think it would be incorrect to think of “God” (the universe) as having a central ego with an agenda. Just because it is capable of consciousness doesn’t automatically imply that it is necessarily egotistical (i.e. having a sense of ‘self’ with respect to OTHERS). If the universe is all there is, then there are no “others’ to become egotistical relative to.



Again, you might do well to drop the philosophical notion of ‘perfect knowledge’. Instead of thinking in terms of all ‘impossible’ choices simultaneously just think in terms of all ‘possible’ choices simultaneously. This does away with any paradoxes because now, simply by definition, you are only considering what’s ‘possible’.



And that would be from the perspective of the omniscient source itself.



I wouldn’t say that time is a man-made construct. Time appears to be a property of the physical world. Man didn’t create the physical world, and therefore man didn’t create the illusion of time. The ‘illusion’ of time is very real. In fact, the illusion of all physical reality is very ‘real’. The Wizard of Oz has done a good job!

As a physicist I have often had philosophers say to me, “What if life is nothing more than a dream with no physical reality at all?”

That’s a really silly question because physics is nothing more than the rules of the DREAM!

Omniscience best describes the polarity between itself and ignorance and nescience.



Hope that helps!!

I'll save the gas for the trip to the store....

ignorance= not knowing what one should know

nescience= not knowing what one doesn't need to know

ignant=not knowing enough

ArtsyGurl...

as always, very consistent and approachable...

Abra...

Thank you for your time in explaining your views, it is appreciated... as you should already know, my friend...

GuitarHero...

I hope that you do not find that your views or beliefs to be "confined", I believe in our freedoms, including speech, and religion... Again...welcome

Ahhh wouldee...

Confined is the last thing I've ever been. :) Limits do not exist.