I don't know why nobody is talking about the book Your Life Your Game by Keezano. I read it last year, and it’s an excellent Catholic religious book. It beautifully shows how connecting with God and building meaningful relationships can lead to spiritual growth and success in both your personal and professional life. A must-read. God bless ❤🙏🏼
@arianab.99 If your Christianity came from the God of Abraham, can you provide me one thing you believe and practice as in Christianity that is valid before the God and it stands before the God, that which could lead you to salvation, just one thing please????? Hint: Five pillars of Islam that Muslims practice day-in and day-out are valid before the God and they stand before the God. Please make sure, your answer meet the required criterion.
@@MisMariaRosee Two anecdotal experiences posted by two fellow Americans and there was no middle man in both narrated story posted on YT. Two Americans asked God for guidance from their heart in whole sincerity, it was Allah who answered their call, one man came from Jewish family and other man came from U.S military family. Both men came to Islam for the miracle their experienced, true story posted on YT, unbias reports, both men started to hear Islamic call-to-prayer Azan in the middle of nowhere, both men reported same incident. Both men were former """enemies""" of Muslims. If it were NOT for the miracle, they wouldn't have bothered with Islam, both men were truly longing for God and guidance. If your heart is pure, this could be you in the next, you cannot fake your supplication to Allah. Your Creator knows about you, more than you know of your own self inside and outside...
@@MisMariaRosee Just an FYI... 1) These men truly longing for God guidance and they supplicated to God from their heart, which resulted in miracle, in other words two separate individuals had prior supplication to God and then their supplication was connected with a miracle and it was a not random miracle and these men were knew they had supplicated to God. 2) These men were former """"enemies""" of Muslims, which means they were not bias in their claim in the least. 3) These men had no exterior motives such as looking for immigration, looking for a spouse or looking for financial gain. 4) These men were not born to Muslims parents or brought up on Muslim culture. 5) These men had no Muslims friends or connection to Islam and there was no middle man between them the God showed and answered their supplication, no middle-man in the story posted. 6) The video was not made by Muslims and it was not posted by Muslims men.
@@MisMariaRosee Just an FYI... 1) These men truly longing for God guidance and they supplicated to God from their heart, which resulted in miracle, in other words two separate individuals had prior supplication to God and then their supplication was connected with a miracle and it was a not random miracle and these men were knew they had supplicated to God.
I have to confess this is an issue I’ve always had with William Lane Craig, from when I first came across him on his website, Reasonable Faith (15 yrs ago). And the issue I have is the way he assumes, with an almost unquestionable authority, that he fully understands the mind of God. Lane seems unaware that, when he has these revelations that ‘God is even more cognitively perfect than omniscient’, it's an intellectual fabrication of his own making. Note the use of 20th Century anthropomorphic terms like ‘cognitive’. All Gods are a projection of how we see ourselves, only at a supra-human level. Then he talks about someone else’s intellectual fabrication of God (prompted by Kuhn), a 16th Century Jesuit theologian, Luis de Molina. Note that God is restricted by logic, just like the rest of us (6.50). Note how he brings God’s will into this, which makes everything contingent on God. So there are alternative universes that God selects between. Sorry, I can’t help but be cynical as well as sceptical. Craig’s explication of ‘middle knowledge’ is how to overcome the apparent contradiction between God’s omniscience and an individual’s free will. Yet he starts the discussion with God ‘knowing’ what he and his interlocutor would or would not do, with the inference that God intrinsically knows all of us. I find this a sleight-of-hand: God gives us free will, so ‘He’s’ not responsible for our sins, basically; yet God must know if someone is a homosexual or not, just to give one controversial and eternally perpetuated example throughout humanity’s existence.
For you to claim Bill claims to “fully understand the mind of God” demonstrates you have no idea what Bill thinks. The fact that we can know SOME things about God, ie the things God has revealed, obviously does not mean that we know all things. Furthermore, certain truths follow from and/or are entailed in certain other truths so that we can infer truths from other truths. It sounds like you perhaps object to humans making truth claims about God. But why think humans cannot know things for certain about God? If the God of the Bible exists, it follows that such a God could reveal Himself to His creatures such that they could know it for certain. If we begin with human limitation instead of divine ability, then of course our confidence in humans knowing, not only things about God, but knowing ANYTHING at all, including the meaning of this post.
@@ppmealing dialogue is good 😊👍🏼 UA-cam comment section is not the best place for it as UA-cam does a crummy job keeping the replies near one another, but I’ll give it a shot.
@@jeffryblair6816 I admit I probably have an unusual concept of God, in that I think God is an experience that people have, rather than an external entity, yet of course, you could have both. It’s just that the only evidence of God is the internal experience. Karen Armstrong, in her book, The History of God, talks about the friction (for want of a better word) that’s existed throughout history, between those who believed God could only be understood by a mystical experience, and those who believed God’s existence can only be comprehended via an intellectual argument. The point is that this creates a dichotomy that God is either external or internal. My perspective is based on the fact that God is culturally dependent, therefore subjective. If there is an objective God who exists outside the Universe, we cannot know ‘Him’. We can only know the manifestation of God within our mind, which makes him subjective and unique to the person who has that experience - it can’t be shared. So there is a conflict, at a cognitive level, between this experience and institutionalised religion. Yuval Noah Harari made a similar point in one of his books (either Sapiens or Homo Deus).
@ Thank you for that. It seems to me that the dichotomy you describe is an unnecessary one. I can see how someone could conceive of the issue in this way, I suppose, but I frankly see no good reason for thinking this is the most helpful or accurate way to think about it. I agree that someone could imagine the sort of either/or binary - subjective/objective, internal/external, etc. But why think that? I don’t know any Christians who think of our experience of God in this way. Almost everything I know re 1) the experience of Christians, and 2) the textual testimony of scripture points to a both/and model. God is, for instance “wholly other”, ie transcendent, and within us, testifying inwardly with our spirits, ie immanent. Christians say that we see God in what God has created and through the works of God (Psalm 19), AND we know God immediately by His Spirit within us (Romans 8; Galatians 4). These are in no way, it seems to me, in conflict with one another but rather complement each other. I agree with you that there are different beliefs or expressions re God in different cultures. It’s not clear to me what the relevance of this could be. I’m not saying that an anthropological study of religion isn’t interesting or that it doesn’t reveal anything about humans, but how is it relevant re the existence of the Creator? There seems to be a lot of hidden assumptions required to make the sort of inference you seem to be making. On a 30k feet level, the vast majority of humans we have any record of HAVE believed (or DO believe) in God or gods. This doesn’t prove anything, of course, except that for some reason Homo sapiens are disposed to believe in the supernatural, an unseen realm. It’s a huge leap to assert that God is simply a projection. This argument is a wax nose that can be turned this way and that. It’s just as likely that the unbeliever is practicing projection. The most likely scenario is that we ALL project onto to external world the things in our imagination… or the things we want to see or believe. Bottom line for me: I don’t find highly speculative theories to be convincing at all. It is more natural and helpful to take the world and God as it presents itself to us rather than attempting to explain away what seems to most people to be immediately known and/or manifestly obvious, as the existence of God seems to be. Thanks again. I appreciate your engagement! Peace!
God did not have to create, yet chose to, right? Do you have any idea how ludicrous this sounds? Why should I waste one nanosecond worrying about what an entity said to be all-powerful thinks or feels? How utterly insulting.
@@steveburris6543 that would be like an amoeba saying it feels sorry for you with all of your capacities as a conscious human being to be hurt emotionally though able to experience love and joy, to be disappointed though also have satisfaction, have anxiety though also exhilaration, have plans, etc etc. It’s so incredibly arrogant for you, a finite creature, to say such a thing about the God of infinite love, wisdom, power, knowledge, and goodness. Now, you likely claim to believe that no such God exists and your comment is just snide sarcasm. Fine. But even so, it’s so silly as not to be worthy of you. You can do better, think better, be more human!
Humans cannot accept anything beyond their belief systems. They cannot ultimately know anything to it's depths. So they create conceptions. Atheists can shoot at those conceptins. So they believe they have shown God is merel a ridicous conception in some human's mind. Your conception of your dog is not your dog. If you can only conceive of things, and not see that you are mistaking your conception fort the thing itself, how can you think beyond your conceptions? By definition, God is beyond conceptions. Because God is inconceivable, you reject what you cannot conceive as possibly having an existence beyond the mundane definition of "to exist." Make sense?
@@OneMan-wl1wj But does he know how to create a man who has true free will ? Because obviously, if God knows everything, then he will know all that man will do and therefore by choosing to create him in such or such way, he will be setting that life and things will only happen as planned. This brings the question, could God creates a dice that is truly random ?
@@OneMan-wl1wj That's reassuring! Tell me, given that: 1. God chose to create _this_ universe and not any other possible universe, _knowing every consequence of that act of creation_ (God knows everything, right) 2. You are a consequence of that act of creation, and you are a part of the universe that God chose to create 3. God knew of every thought and action you would have throughout your life the moment he brought the universe into being (knows everything) Can you think any thought, or perform any act that God did _not_ know you would do?
@@En_theo God said, "Jacob I love, Esau I hate" before they were even born. We are the clay, God is the potter. When God is finished everyone will be as fully mature as Jesus. We are being made into the image of God.
The problem with many religious people is they separate the universe and nature and a random deity or deities that control this.The universe is information , it neither knows itself or not knows itself, the universe just is. All nature is an expression of the universe because it is just information.
We don't know that. It may appear that way from our perspective, the universe is mostly inanimate matter or empty space. But we don't know. We are the ones who are a mixture of some consciousness and sentience, and unconsciousness. That is the level we are at. A god would certainly be above this level. Atheists make the mistake of presuming thar their mind is ultimate mind, or that they are even at a level to be able to recognize vastly superior levels of being. And why do you say they believe in "random" deities? Craig's God isn't random. He clearly worships the idea of specific attributes. It's not random. There is a reason god is said to be all knowing, all powerful, and all good.
1) the universe and the nature are understood as as been the same concept. 2) Christianity for once does not separates "universe" and "nature" perhaps you mean to say the physical and spiritual or mental, which actually it also doesn't separate. 3) religions don't base its faith on "random Gods". Rather, are cosmologies with cultural, and to some extent philosophical beliefs at its core. There is no randomness at all in there 4) not all religions believe in Gods controlling things. Christianity believe in Free Will as a human trait for example. 5) What is your evidence to say that "the universe is information" and not rather, for example, that information can be extracted, or emerges from the universe. In the best of cases, what you claim is a philosophical position, which curiously reads more like idealism, than materialism as more atheists think they believe in. And as a philosophical position, you don't have any empirical base, no factual truth. You are then being as dogmatic, as the religious people you critique here Regards
@@marcogomez2736 " _what is your evidence to say that 'the universe is information?_ ". Science. This is latest level of understanding of science. It's more specific than saying something like, the universe is atoms, or the universe is waves. A spiritual person might say something more ambiguous, like, the universe is spirit in form. But anyway, saying the universe is information is consistent with our most advanced verified observations, which makes it seem like such a valid authority. But as you say, this could just be something that we interpret from the universe.... not that we can see what the universe literally IS.
Craig is a master debater, so he can manipulate any argument on any claim. He can equally argue for a God or for no God. I have heard all his arguments and learned nothing except his skill in debating.
Ehhhh... if you really believe in something, it might come off as "debating ". Maybe he just really believes in what he is saying. He never really argues against God, only de-constructs arguments against. He clearly believes in God. He would never sincerely argue against God.
@@JayS.-mm3qrMany who strongly believe in one religion or the other, do not have the debating skills of WLC. I am surmising that his skills outmaneuver his debate opponents regardless of topic and belief in it.
It's so utterly clear that theology (of the Craig sort) is a word game seeking internal consistency and not revelation of facts from a supernatural source.
1) Evidently is not utterly clear, otherwise we wouldn't have theologists would we? 2) Moreover, what would be wrong in theology (as a philosophical approach to questions like "does God exist, what is God, how would his mind, thoughts, will be, what would be His relationship to us etc) to procure internal consistency of it's propositions? 3) why should theology look for revelation, of what it is already understood to be a fact? That doesn't make much of a sense. In the best of cases theology would understood as factual truth something that is empirically proven, or can opt for considering truth something based on faith, that is: a revelation. But there is no sense on saying it should look for revelation on what is already taken as a fact
Knowing refers to the state of having knowledge. God is all knowledge. Perception is not the same as knowledge; while perception refers to the process of receiving and interpreting sensory information, knowledge encompasses a deeper understanding and awareness of facts. God does not have senses because God is a non-physical idea.
To know is to be certain. ⁴Uncertainty means that you do not know. ⁵Knowledge is power because it is certain, and certainty is strength. ⁶Perception is temporary. ⁷As an attribute of the belief in space and time, it is subject to either fear or love. ⁸Misperceptions produce fear and true perceptions foster love, but neither brings certainty because all perception varies. ⁹That is why it is not knowledge. ¹⁰True perception is the basis for knowledge, but knowing is the affirmation of truth and beyond all perceptions.
If God does not how it feels to be a sinner, then he does not know everything. To be a sinner is to know that you have intentionally done wrong to a person that did not deserve it. I know that feeling because I have sinned, in that sense of doing wrong. But God himself does not have that knowledge_ Maybe he can imagine it, but it would be like faking it. I think Craig trapped himself in a self-referential paradox.
The concept of sin is broader than that, tho. In addition to transgressions against others, it includes victimless crimes*. I can't take seriously a moral system that lumps them together. * by victimless, I don't mean that they are not problematic or potentially problematic, but simply not things done TO another person. Someone doing this might cause them to be analogous to actual victims, but that is distinct
In ACIM, "guilty' refers to the belief that you have committed a sin and are therefore deserving of punishment, essentially an illusion created by the ego, while "guiltless" means recognizing that this belief is a false and that you are inherently innocent and without fault, reflecting your true nature as a Son of God. The core teaching is that you are always guiltless, even when experiencing feelings of guilt. Recognizing your guiltlessness is achieved through the holy spirit's help, which reveals the illusion of guilt and guides you towards forgiveness. This is why Jesus forgave everyone, by forgiving he was also teaching forgiveness.
Much more than the knowing of facts. Too many believers today have been taken in by a modern deist/dualist mindset where the created realm has some kind of separate existence from God. The older understanding is more encompassing. "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." (Acts 17:28) "And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:17) This physical reality is being sustained every moment by the mind and power and will of God. Nothing is apart from his will, either direct or permissive will. There is no distance between His mind and all contingent, created things.
(2:06) propositions are entities, especially in so far as some variable could change the truth value, therefore non-propositional knowledge would have to also be sufficient for knowing everything
I missed this guy's podcast interview with God. I think it is highly arrogant to explain what God thinks or knows. The certainty he has is mind blowing.
He explains a very limited god. One with characteristics explainable by its creations. One that can be understood and debated. One that follows a very neat set of logical steps in its existence. A "relatable" God. Never once is it considered that such a thing would have very likely created the rules, concepts, possible ideas, logic, laws, etc, so that we can make sense of our tiny reality, but that they have nothing to do with its reality. No book or formula we could ever create would scratch the surface of such a thing. It would necessarily be beyond anything we could ever comprehend. IF such a thing existed.
so if i abûse or talk dîrty to a guy on earth do god hear a beep sound as cens0red bcz if he heard those word he not all good if he didn't then he is not all knowing
I am genuinely happy to see that you Closer to Truth people have 'remastered' the quality of this interview with Dr. William Lane Craig by Dr. Kuhn. I remember watching an upload of this before that was way outdated in quality due to the age of the content itself. LOL! God bless all of you and I hope youʼll do the same remastering with your other interviews with similar philosophers of religion/theistic scientists!
Honestly I had a very different idea on God's omniscience, that of God not knowing facts as mere propositions, but as an universal observer who then knows everything knowable. That, I thought, would held true for the macroscopic, and even the quantum. This means that what we conceive as randomness, or things that we don't know yet will happen, for a universal, eternal being that transcends space time, would be known facts. Moreover, if God, we asume, knows "everything", the "mental", the "abstract" should also be knowable. This means our feelings and thoughts would be known to Him and therefore, he would know "what it feels to be the other" or even "what it feels to be a siner" which doesn't necessarily means he thinks he's me, or you, or approves sin. After all, even us, humans can, to a limited extended do this mental experiments in which we speculate what would it be to be this or the other. Empathy couldn't be explained otherwise, neither maybe, moral judgement would be valid. True, we will never know as a fact how God thinks, nor even if God exists. After all, believing in God is a matter of faith, and his existence and relationship to us one of philosophical or theological discussion. However, unlike the very disrespectful, absurd and sadly poor comments of non believers here, there is value in speculating about God's nature, and more importantly: persona and mind. If we part from some of the attributes we assign to God in Christianity and other major monotheistic religions like those of omniscience, omnipotence and eternity, that God knows everything is not inconsistent, not even in the order of ideas I proposed
The Source may not understand the Creation. Because of its importance I will quote the verse in its original in Sanskrit: यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे व्योमन्त्सो अङ्ग वेद यदि वा न वेद ॥७॥ He who is the presiding deity of this universe in the supreme sky knows it or does not know it.
Because Reality is contingent upon the power of God the words, "to know", mean a very different thing for a Being who creates and sustains the existence of things like the present and future. Does prayer change what God knows? No. But it changes what He allows to be.
The Ultimate Truth So Far Is Everything Is Confusing Hence We must be confused. when things are confusing what else would You feel? confused right? Yes strive to be at peace with that confusing reality! :)
@@JodogioI’m curious as to what exactly did you understand from this video? I agree that he is one of the most articulate theologians of today, but the theological gymnastics required to defend the fallible notion of “free will”, is truly astounding.
"Reality" and "God," as used by humans who try to condemse a world beyond conception into ideas, then make decisions about those ideas, then use emotion to back uo their decisions. Quantum physics claims "realities" which are beyond conception, and to classical physicists, that something doesn't spin but "does," is and is not a wave or particle, etc ( look at the currrnt proton models!) Information is not real (as what holds it is, but it's sequences do not exist except as comparisons between the physical objects which hold it, so "it is real," The mental experience of color is not real, it exists as patterns of neuron firing, but is not in itself a thing ( Mary's Room thought Experiment) For the materialist ( and, i pity your spouse or children) love is not real, ultimately it is Dawkin's selfish genes which cause progrsmmed neuron activation geared towards the nurturing of young and maintenence of close social connection, which improves longevity. If your conception of God is ridiculous, of course you reject it. But if you mistake your human conception as "What God is" you will never know if a God Who is Beyond All Human Conception exists. We have Shakespeare's words and plays. To demand to see Shskespere during a play is ridiculous. To demand to see God is ridiculous. Yet we have phenomenon which strive towards goals, something that nothing random can do. Wecan examine atoms- utterly non-random. No group of non-random properties of their make-up can cause what atoms do. Water is so non-random scientists are still makinv discoveries about it. Look up Motor Proteins, especially Drew Berry's animations. If you believe random joining of atoms to make up the very first motor protein and microtubule, or thatthe code can be found in smaller pieces which spontaneously joined to just hsppen to create them, you simply do not have a clear conception of how scientifically impossible ( odds
🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT): There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, for the notion of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent Deity is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly. At the risk of seeming facetious, any person who believes in a gigantic man (or woman) perched in the heavens, is a literal moron. Why would the Absolute require, for instance, unlimited power, when there is naught but the Absolute extant? Of course, theists would argue that when God creates the material universe, He requires total power and control over His creation (otherwise he wouldn’t be, by definition, the Supreme). However, that argument in itself easily falls apart when one understands the simple fact that time is a relative concept and therefore has no influence on the eternal, timeless Absolute. The same contradiction applies to omnipresence. The ONLY omni-property which comes close to being an accurate description of Ultimate Reality is omniscience, since the Absolute knows absolutely everything (i.e. Itself). The English word “PERSON” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Therefore, the most essential aspect of personhood is that the individual possesses a face. The fact that we do not usually refer to a decapitated body as a “person”, seems to confirm this claim. If you were confronted simultaneously with a severed head and a decapitated body, and asked to point to the person, would you point to the head or point to the body? I'm sure most everyone would indicate the head, at least in the first instance, agreed? Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity (God or The Goddess), which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “PERSON”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Of course, they also believe that their fictitious God or Goddess embodies the aforementioned omni-properties, but as clearly demonstrated above, that is also a largely nonsensical, fallacious assertion. Of course, the more INTELLIGENT theists normally counter with “But God is not a person in the same sense as we humans are persons. God is an all-powerful spiritual being, without a body. He is all-knowing, all-loving and present everywhere”. In that case, God is most definitely not a person in the etymological sense, and not even a person in the common-usage of the word. When did you last hear anyone refer to an omnipresent “entity” as being a person? The mere fact that theists use personal pronouns in reference to their non-existent Deity (usually the masculine pronoun “He”), proves that they have a very anthropomorphic conception of Absolute Reality. If God is not a male, then why use masculine pronouns? If God is, in fact, male, then why would the Supreme Person require gender? Does God require a female mate in order to reproduce? The most popular religious tradition, Christianity, claims that God is “Spirit”, yet “spirit” is a very vague and undefined term. Incidentally, the term “person” can be (and, in my opinion, should be) used in reference to any animal which possesses a FACE, since most humans do not accept the fact that animals are persons, worthy of moral consideration. In recent times, animal rights activists have been heard referring to animals in such a way (as persons). The fact that vegans are still relatively rare in most nations/countries, seems to validate this assertion (that most humans do not see other animals, like birds, fish, and mammals, as persons), otherwise, non-vegetarians/non-non-vegans would have no qualms about saying such things as “I am planning to consume three persons for dinner tonight” (in reference to three animals). Many otherwise intelligent theists, particularly the members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (a radical Indian cult first established in the United States of America in the late 1960’s by a truly delusional retired pharmacist named Mr. A. C. De), HONESTLY believe that the Ground of All Being is a youthful Indian gentleman with dark-blue-tinged black skin colour, who currently resides on His own planet in the “spiritual” world, and spends His days cavorting around with a bunch of cowherd girls! If one were to ask those ISKCon devotees how Lord Krishna manages to incorporate relative time into the timeless realm (since it takes a certain amount of time for Him to play his flute and to frolic with His girlfriends), then I’m not sure how they would answer, but they would undoubtedly dismiss the argument using illogical semantics. I’m ashamed to admit that I too, was previously one of those deluded religionists who believed such foolish nonsense. Thankfully, I managed to break-free from that brainwashing cult, and following decades or sincere seeking, came to be the current World Teacher himself. Common sense dictates that Ultimate Reality must NECESSARILY transcend all dualistic concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization. Neither Eternal Beingness, Unlimited Consciousness, nor Blissful Quietude (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit) necessitate personality. See Chapter 06 to properly understand the nature of Ultimate Reality, and Chapter 03 to learn how to distinguish mere concepts from (Absolute) Truth. The wisest theologians will, when hard-pressed, admit that the primary reason for theists referring to the Absolute as personal in nature, is because the Absolute has some kind of MIND (by which they really mean some degree of Universal, Infinite Consciousness). However, it is indeed possible (and in fact, is the case) that the Ground of Being is Pure Consciousness Itself. Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa” or “brahman”, in Sanskrit) can and does include all characteristicss of Pure Being, such as unconditional love, unadulterated awareness, et cetera, and we humans are, quintessentially, of the same Nature. In other words, you are, fundamentally, “God” (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). Most arguments for the existence of a Supreme Creator God are actually arguments for the INTELLIGENT DESIGN of the perceivable universe, and not for the Intelligent Designer being a person as such. As explicated elsewhere, the phenomenal sphere is naught but an appearance in consciousness. Therefore, to assert that there is a cause of all causes is a a legitimate contention, but to abruptly attribute that first cause to be a male or female (or even an androgynous) Deity is a non-sequitur. There is no evidence for any phenomena without conscious awareness. There are at least FOUR possible reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Personal God (i.e the Supreme [Male] Deity): 1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). Cont...
If God uses photons as neural pathways and the universe is God’s Brain and can see the beginning and end simultaneously bc of entanglement…then probably
let's talk about God being The most generous , well I don't agree with that , a generous person is someone who give something that has value for himself to someone else , if someone has 100 $ and give awy 50 $ then we can call him generous, and if he gives away all his money then he would be very generous , but for God can't be true , because He can't giveaway all what he has , unlike human being that can giveaway all that he has , God can't do the same because He has unlimited possession , so he can't give it all away.
God is all powerful and knowing in a plural sense and collective effort. It is a network of minds but you always go back to the source or the Divine Server Matrix as an inter connected world. Yeshua already gave hint of 'Oneness' where he uttered, "Split a piece of wood, I AM there and lift up a stone and you will find me there.". It is akin to a computer where all data falls within the operating system and the progams are intelligently design. - Thonas Soler, One World Government, Religion and Leader
Do people understand the language of the Divine? - of course they don't, for it takes years to grasp. Omniscient in the context of God is not like the 'Knowing All Things' that man potentially can. God is one without a second - some intellect, reason, discipline and Will is required to understand this....for what is there for God to Know? Little transient temporal existential events? Imagine the very Knowledge of knowledge itself, and the very Logic of logic, the very Essence of all essence....for God there is nothing to Know. Therefore he is all knowing, for there is no avidya or ignorance in God. Where there's no ignorance what is there to know?... Platonics, Vedanta, Hindu metaphysics, the Rsis - praise to them.
Seems to me that he is trying to define God’s reality in human terms with human limitations. God is the Alpha and Omega. In the infinite past and for the infinite future, God is the foundation upon everything that exists, exists. God provided for the universe and defined the parameters of the universe, so that it could exist, develop according to the laws of the universe and in time allow us to come to be. God knows all, is all. God allowed for us to be, knows us as individuals and is there for us to lean on or have a relationship with, if we so choose. When you pray, God listens. When you need a shoulder to cry on, God is there. God knows all, for all time.
Omniscience means that since God is the cause of all that exists and the maintainer of all that exists nothing that exists can exists independent from God. But yet, at the same time everything that exists is not God thus realty would be that everything is one with God but different from him as well.
If God exist at all God doesn't actually need to know anything and therefore God cannot know anything. Just as as a human you have a need to know human things but you aren't compelled to know an ant's manner of thinking.
The catholic church has dogmas that state their beliefs about god. According to the dogma, yes, God knows everything and is everything, is all good, and also completely incomprehensible to humans. In Buddhism, whether there is or isn't a supreme being is itself not an ultimate truth, but merely a matter of perspective. Craig says God is only conscious of everything that is true. Ok. Maybe. That is the level God is at. What we can do on our level is aspire to end suffering.... at least, the context in which suffering is defined in Buddhism. Whether or not there is a God does not affect the aspiration. Just sayin.
People like Craig are not worth even listening; if we lend our ears and ask them questions, they might grow, feel important, when they just utter empty words and nonsense.
...Please, just think, if you are Eternal, no Past, present, or Future, now think not using your Time constraints/limited unperfect Entropy life, yew GOD Knows All Every & Every All, Perfectly. HE is the, Absolute Truth & will always, all ways be the Absolute Truth, respectfully ordinarychuck hotmail... captivus brevis... you tube... Blessings...How Wonderful is GOD...If GOD granted you the wish/desire to know everything, you would just blow up where you stand...Please think about this carefully... Blessings...
😅we are free to eat, so we sometimes eat that our sin is gone through jesus Christ also we eat that dajjal is coming, likewise we have eaten many things so now we are this and it's on all.....and this is a weak point to humans because we eat and it acts and stays on all......now i am searching for more weak points like this 😅 you can join me in the journey 😂😂😂😮😮😅😅
A lot rambling. How he knows absolutetly How figure out God mind? Absolutetly Impossible . He proposition is rambling gibberich. Proof logic out. Senseless.
So-called Christian's 'god' created Adam and Eve and Christians' 'god' did not know that Adam and Eve will fail the test of God but expected perfection from them, then later Adam and Eve came out to be imperfect being, then Christians 'god' shoot himself in the foot, as you know in the Christianity and its belief that god sacrificed god to god to save god’s creation from god. What a nonsensical faith.
So-called Christian's 'god' created Adam and Eve and Christians' 'god' did not know that Adam and Eve will fail the test of God but expected perfection from them, then later Adam and Eve came out to be imperfect being, then Christians 'god' shoot himself in the foot, as you know in the Christianity and its belief that god sacrificed god to god to save god’s creation from god. What a nonsensical faith.
Does God exist?? Yes and n0, do your thoughts exist, yes and n0. Because they come and go as they ma, in the realms of the infinite potentials. On and Off, switching, one way or the other, and yet all the same. 010
*"So If God Created Us Knowing We Aren't Perfect Could He Know What Is Perfect?"* ... I know that 1 + 1 ≠ 3, so does that mean that I couldn't know that 1 + 1 = 2?
William speaks as he has been God for a long time as he explains in-depth the amount of knowledge and what knowledge God would or would not have 🤣 he has truly lost it.
God is the minds of men. The utter speech. In the beginning was the utter of god. And knowing is memory. The present is not a memory. Language might be the issue for most people.
Nice video. I also have an analogy which I think would help to illustrate my own view in this matter of God's omniscience. God knows all that's necessary to know. Suppose if I were to build an ecosystem for fishes -- an aquarium, say. Now, I would of course know everything about this ecosystem as I built it. Every bit about its internal topography etc. But I would also know the general facts regarding the fishes living in this ecosystem. I would have a great idea regarding what it is like to live underwater all the time. I would know the behavioral traits of the fishes and have a good idea regarding their psychology. Although I would not know their precise thoughts at any moment in time I would know the kind of things they would likely be focusing their thoughts on; and also the limits to their imagination. I could even know each of the fishes individually! But of course it's not necessary for me to know all their "private" details contained within the recesses of their consciousness. It's also beyond the realm of possible knowledge. Moreover, even in respect of their public life, I would not be interested in knowing what they do at each and every instant of time and what they -- free-willed, independent souls each one of them -- do in future (where they go, how do they behave exactly with their fellow fishes and so on). But I would always know the bounds within which they would operate, the kind of actions they could perform and their general behavioral traits. And so it is, I believe, in respect of God and us conscious personalities too!
God doesn't know everything. The reason is that you are sure that God had TO MAKE HIS DECISIONS! But the ONLY REASON of an action of deciding is that you do NOT KNOW the outcome of that decision beforehand, this is why you decide: to pick one of many possibilities! If you already knew the outcome of your decision, then you didn't need that decision! In other words, it's in the unavoidable mechanism of any decision that you don't know its outcome. It is thus demonstrated that God was not omniscient before deciding. He got omniscient only after making all his decisions.
@@Roshan-q6n God respects logic, this is why you are here on the earth suffering. Without logic, God would command "everybody happy and good fellow"...but God cannot do that.
@claudiozanella256 Nonsense. You don't even know yourself, so how can you know God. First, discover what you are and stop pretending that you know God's intention when you're not even aware of your own.
@@Roshan-q6n Just a sweeping statement of yours that doesn't address my comments, thus useless. In short "don't investigate on God's nature because it's impossible to get to something". Well, it's not true. Do what you like and I do what I like.
Talk about muddying the waters. Omni/all scient/knowledge = all-knowing. Not that complicated. There is simply nothing God is ignorant of. God is knowing of all things at all times and in every moment. A being perfect in knowledge. So what might be a rational approach for dealing with something with such knowledge? I would suggest humility might be a good place to start.
Imagine you’re a parent who brings a child into the world. You raise them with love and guidance, but as they grow up, they make their own choices. If that child creates something harmful, like an atom bomb, are you responsible for their actions? Should you punish yourself for giving them the freedom to choose their path? This analogy draws a parallel to God creating beings with free will, emphasizing that free will entails the possibility of good and evil choices. The creator (God or a parent) might bear responsibility for setting things in motion but isn’t necessarily culpable for the individual choices made by those with autonomy. The key idea is that free will involves risk, and the responsibility for harmful actions lies with the one who chose them, not the one who provided the capacity for choice.
God has an uncanny tendency to value the free will of perpetrators much more highly than the free will of their victims. And God's worshippers praise him for it every single Sunday morning.
Yes, parents are ultimately responsible for the life of the human that they selfishly decided to create. Nobody asks to be born. Due to that lack of consent, it is that who made the choice to create a a life who is ultimately responsible for that life and everything that life does. However, we can’t hold the parents legally liable (as this has been attempted in court) BUT morally and ethically speaking, we can. Same goes for your god. A god who would create a human without the ability of obtaining consent and then punish that human with eternal punishment for a finite thought crime (not believing/worshiping).
@markanstrom2981 If God prevented all the wrong acts of human beings, none of us would be exempt, therefore, we would all be forced by God, none would have free will and we would all be like robots.
"Does God Knows Everything?" GOD knows what you believe now because it is an available information existing in your mind, but GOD does not know what you will believe next because it is not an available information yet... ..the reason why GOD can not know is because your WILL is no longer GOD's WILL but separate from it, as you are HIS free split with free will to believe anything for any reason... The Universe was once deterministic and predictable as it followed a certain path being driven by natural laws designed by GOD... ..but after GOD introduced lost souls (His free splits) to this Universe for a chance of salvation, this World is no longer deterministic because free souls can choose to believe anything for any reason and free to act on their beliefs that can drive this World in many undetermined directions... ..by the way, it is not the future that GOD knows but the effects of what is existing now.... and because GOD does not know what you will believe next, then it is impossible for GOD to know the effects of a belief that is not existing yet....
![William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens | "Does God Exist?" | Biola University | [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P0XRQd9YOUM/mqdefault.jpg)
![William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens | "Does God Exist?" | Biola University | [HD]](/img/tr.png)
I don't know why nobody is talking about the book Your Life Your Game by Keezano. I read it last year, and it’s an excellent Catholic religious book. It beautifully shows how connecting with God and building meaningful relationships can lead to spiritual growth and success in both your personal and professional life. A must-read. God bless ❤🙏🏼
l just bought it, thank you🙌🏼
@arianab.99 If your Christianity came from the God of Abraham, can you provide me one thing you believe and practice as in Christianity that is valid before the God and it stands before the God, that which could lead you to salvation, just one thing please?????
Hint: Five pillars of Islam that Muslims practice day-in and day-out are valid before the God and they stand before the God.
Please make sure, your answer meet the required criterion.
@@MisMariaRosee Two anecdotal experiences posted by two fellow Americans and there was no middle man in both narrated story posted on YT. Two Americans asked God for guidance from their heart in whole sincerity, it was Allah who answered their call, one man came from Jewish family and other man came from U.S military family. Both men came to Islam for the miracle their experienced, true story posted on YT, unbias reports, both men started to hear Islamic call-to-prayer Azan in the middle of nowhere, both men reported same incident. Both men were former """enemies""" of Muslims. If it were NOT for the miracle, they wouldn't have bothered with Islam, both men were truly longing for God and guidance. If your heart is pure, this could be you in the next, you cannot fake your supplication to Allah. Your Creator knows about you, more than you know of your own self inside and outside...
@@MisMariaRosee Just an FYI...
1) These men truly longing for God guidance and they supplicated to God from their heart, which resulted in miracle, in other words two separate individuals had prior supplication to God and then their supplication was connected with a miracle and it was a not random miracle and these men were knew they had supplicated to God.
2) These men were former """"enemies""" of Muslims, which means they were not bias in their claim in the least.
3) These men had no exterior motives such as looking for immigration, looking for a spouse or looking for financial gain.
4) These men were not born to Muslims parents or brought up on Muslim culture.
5) These men had no Muslims friends or connection to Islam and there was no middle man between them the God showed and answered their supplication, no middle-man in the story posted.
6) The video was not made by Muslims and it was not posted by Muslims men.
@@MisMariaRosee Just an FYI...
1) These men truly longing for God guidance and they supplicated to God from their heart, which resulted in miracle, in other words two separate individuals had prior supplication to God and then their supplication was connected with a miracle and it was a not random miracle and these men were knew they had supplicated to God.
I have to confess this is an issue I’ve always had with William Lane Craig, from when I first came across him on his website, Reasonable Faith (15 yrs ago). And the issue I have is the way he assumes, with an almost unquestionable authority, that he fully understands the mind of God. Lane seems unaware that, when he has these revelations that ‘God is even more cognitively perfect than omniscient’, it's an intellectual fabrication of his own making. Note the use of 20th Century anthropomorphic terms like ‘cognitive’. All Gods are a projection of how we see ourselves, only at a supra-human level.
Then he talks about someone else’s intellectual fabrication of God (prompted by Kuhn), a 16th Century Jesuit theologian, Luis de Molina. Note that God is restricted by logic, just like the rest of us (6.50). Note how he brings God’s will into this, which makes everything contingent on God. So there are alternative universes that God selects between. Sorry, I can’t help but be cynical as well as sceptical.
Craig’s explication of ‘middle knowledge’ is how to overcome the apparent contradiction between God’s omniscience and an individual’s free will. Yet he starts the discussion with God ‘knowing’ what he and his interlocutor would or would not do, with the inference that God intrinsically knows all of us. I find this a sleight-of-hand: God gives us free will, so ‘He’s’ not responsible for our sins, basically; yet God must know if someone is a homosexual or not, just to give one controversial and eternally perpetuated example throughout humanity’s existence.
For you to claim Bill claims to “fully understand the mind of God” demonstrates you have no idea what Bill thinks. The fact that we can know SOME things about God, ie the things God has revealed, obviously does not mean that we know all things. Furthermore, certain truths follow from and/or are entailed in certain other truths so that we can infer truths from other truths. It sounds like you perhaps object to humans making truth claims about God. But why think humans cannot know things for certain about God? If the God of the Bible exists, it follows that such a God could reveal Himself to His creatures such that they could know it for certain. If we begin with human limitation instead of divine ability, then of course our confidence in humans knowing, not only things about God, but knowing ANYTHING at all, including the meaning of this post.
@@jeffryblair6816 Thanks for responding to my comment. I will provide a reply when I have the time to give it proper consideration.
@@ppmealing dialogue is good 😊👍🏼 UA-cam comment section is not the best place for it as UA-cam does a crummy job keeping the replies near one another, but I’ll give it a shot.
@@jeffryblair6816 I admit I probably have an unusual concept of God, in that I think God is an experience that people have, rather than an external entity, yet of course, you could have both. It’s just that the only evidence of God is the internal experience.
Karen Armstrong, in her book, The History of God, talks about the friction (for want of a better word) that’s existed throughout history, between those who believed God could only be understood by a mystical experience, and those who believed God’s existence can only be comprehended via an intellectual argument. The point is that this creates a dichotomy that God is either external or internal.
My perspective is based on the fact that God is culturally dependent, therefore subjective. If there is an objective God who exists outside the Universe, we cannot know ‘Him’. We can only know the manifestation of God within our mind, which makes him subjective and unique to the person who has that experience - it can’t be shared. So there is a conflict, at a cognitive level, between this experience and institutionalised religion. Yuval Noah Harari made a similar point in one of his books (either Sapiens or Homo Deus).
@ Thank you for that. It seems to me that the dichotomy you describe is an unnecessary one. I can see how someone could conceive of the issue in this way, I suppose, but I frankly see no good reason for thinking this is the most helpful or accurate way to think about it. I agree that someone could imagine the sort of either/or binary - subjective/objective, internal/external, etc. But why think that? I don’t know any Christians who think of our experience of God in this way. Almost everything I know re 1) the experience of Christians, and 2) the textual testimony of scripture points to a both/and model. God is, for instance “wholly other”, ie transcendent, and within us, testifying inwardly with our spirits, ie immanent. Christians say that we see God in what God has created and through the works of God (Psalm 19), AND we know God immediately by His Spirit within us (Romans 8; Galatians 4). These are in no way, it seems to me, in conflict with one another but rather complement each other.
I agree with you that there are different beliefs or expressions re God in different cultures. It’s not clear to me what the relevance of this could be. I’m not saying that an anthropological study of religion isn’t interesting or that it doesn’t reveal anything about humans, but how is it relevant re the existence of the Creator? There seems to be a lot of hidden assumptions required to make the sort of inference you seem to be making.
On a 30k feet level, the vast majority of humans we have any record of HAVE believed (or DO believe) in God or gods. This doesn’t prove anything, of course, except that for some reason Homo sapiens are disposed to believe in the supernatural, an unseen realm. It’s a huge leap to assert that God is simply a projection. This argument is a wax nose that can be turned this way and that. It’s just as likely that the unbeliever is practicing projection. The most likely scenario is that we ALL project onto to external world the things in our imagination… or the things we want to see or believe.
Bottom line for me: I don’t find highly speculative theories to be convincing at all. It is more natural and helpful to take the world and God as it presents itself to us rather than attempting to explain away what seems to most people to be immediately known and/or manifestly obvious, as the existence of God seems to be.
Thanks again. I appreciate your engagement! Peace!
Feel sorry for God. He knows everything and how he will react to everything. He is locked in into his Being with no change possible.
God did not have to create, yet chose to, right? Do you have any idea how ludicrous this sounds? Why should I waste one nanosecond worrying about what an entity said to be all-powerful thinks or feels? How utterly insulting.
Ikr. If what Craig says is true, God knows how everything will turn out, but creates it anyway with his "free knowledge".
@JayS.-mm3qr No free will. God is cast to do what he already knows he will do and has done and will ever do.
@@steveburris6543 that would be like an amoeba saying it feels sorry for you with all of your capacities as a conscious human being to be hurt emotionally though able to experience love and joy, to be disappointed though also have satisfaction, have anxiety though also exhilaration, have plans, etc etc. It’s so incredibly arrogant for you, a finite creature, to say such a thing about the God of infinite love, wisdom, power, knowledge, and goodness. Now, you likely claim to believe that no such God exists and your comment is just snide sarcasm. Fine. But even so, it’s so silly as not to be worthy of you. You can do better, think better, be more human!
We are the expressions of God through our localized consciousness! God doesn't have Consciousness or feeling! It experiences everything through us!
Happy holidays, CTT!! 🙏🎄💝❤
If God are all time, time is God.
God knows everything.
Humans cannot accept anything beyond their belief systems.
They cannot ultimately know anything to it's depths. So they create conceptions. Atheists can shoot at those conceptins. So they believe they have shown God is merel a ridicous conception in some human's mind.
Your conception of your dog is not your dog.
If you can only conceive of things, and not see that you are mistaking your conception fort the thing itself, how can you think beyond your conceptions?
By definition, God is beyond conceptions. Because God is inconceivable, you reject what you cannot conceive as possibly having an existence beyond the mundane definition of "to exist."
Make sense?
@@OneMan-wl1wj
But does he know how to create a man who has true free will ? Because obviously, if God knows everything, then he will know all that man will do and therefore by choosing to create him in such or such way, he will be setting that life and things will only happen as planned.
This brings the question, could God creates a dice that is truly random ?
@@OneMan-wl1wj That's reassuring! Tell me, given that:
1. God chose to create _this_ universe and not any other possible universe, _knowing every consequence of that act of creation_ (God knows everything, right)
2. You are a consequence of that act of creation, and you are a part of the universe that God chose to create
3. God knew of every thought and action you would have throughout your life the moment he brought the universe into being (knows everything)
Can you think any thought, or perform any act that God did _not_ know you would do?
God knows everything 😅🤣😂
@@En_theo
God said, "Jacob I love, Esau I hate" before they were even born.
We are the clay, God is the potter.
When God is finished everyone will be as fully mature as Jesus.
We are being made into the image of God.
The problem with many religious people is they separate the universe and nature and a random deity or deities that control this.The universe is information , it neither knows itself or not knows itself, the universe just is. All nature is an expression of the universe because it is just information.
We don't know that. It may appear that way from our perspective, the universe is mostly inanimate matter or empty space. But we don't know. We are the ones who are a mixture of some consciousness and sentience, and unconsciousness. That is the level we are at. A god would certainly be above this level. Atheists make the mistake of presuming thar their mind is ultimate mind, or that they are even at a level to be able to recognize vastly superior levels of being. And why do you say they believe in "random" deities? Craig's God isn't random. He clearly worships the idea of specific attributes. It's not random. There is a reason god is said to be all knowing, all powerful, and all good.
1) the universe and the nature are understood as as been the same concept.
2) Christianity for once does not separates "universe" and "nature" perhaps you mean to say the physical and spiritual or mental, which actually it also doesn't separate.
3) religions don't base its faith on "random Gods". Rather, are cosmologies with cultural, and to some extent philosophical beliefs at its core. There is no randomness at all in there
4) not all religions believe in Gods controlling things. Christianity believe in Free Will as a human trait for example.
5) What is your evidence to say that "the universe is information" and not rather, for example, that information can be extracted, or emerges from the universe. In the best of cases, what you claim is a philosophical position, which curiously reads more like idealism, than materialism as more atheists think they believe in. And as a philosophical position, you don't have any empirical base, no factual truth. You are then being as dogmatic, as the religious people you critique here
Regards
@@marcogomez2736 " _what is your evidence to say that 'the universe is information?_ ".
Science. This is latest level of understanding of science. It's more specific than saying something like, the universe is atoms, or the universe is waves. A spiritual person might say something more ambiguous, like, the universe is spirit in form. But anyway, saying the universe is information is consistent with our most advanced verified observations, which makes it seem like such a valid authority.
But as you say, this could just be something that we interpret from the universe.... not that we can see what the universe literally IS.
If God is absolutely certain that there isn't anything bigger than It, then it knows everything.
Craig is a master debater, so he can manipulate any argument on any claim. He can equally argue for a God or for no God.
I have heard all his arguments and learned nothing except his skill in debating.
Ehhhh... if you really believe in something, it might come off as "debating ". Maybe he just really believes in what he is saying.
He never really argues against God, only de-constructs arguments against. He clearly believes in God. He would never sincerely argue against God.
@@JayS.-mm3qrMany who strongly believe in one religion or the other, do not have the debating skills of WLC.
I am surmising that his skills outmaneuver his debate opponents regardless of topic and belief in it.
@@georgegrubbs2966 well he is an actual practicing professor of analytic philosophy.
@@JayS.-mm3qrTa da!!
An omniscient being,doesn't get rage and wipe out villages with floods. Because he knows people are gonna sin so why the sudden anger?
Because of your Damm question.
He looks like he could be a long lost brother of David Lee Roth.
I thought the same thing! He looks exactly like him
It's so utterly clear that theology (of the Craig sort) is a word game seeking internal consistency and not revelation of facts from a supernatural source.
Why is it clear?
1) Evidently is not utterly clear, otherwise we wouldn't have theologists would we?
2) Moreover, what would be wrong in theology (as a philosophical approach to questions like "does God exist, what is God, how would his mind, thoughts, will be, what would be His relationship to us etc) to procure internal consistency of it's propositions?
3) why should theology look for revelation, of what it is already understood to be a fact? That doesn't make much of a sense. In the best of cases theology would understood as factual truth something that is empirically proven, or can opt for considering truth something based on faith, that is: a revelation. But there is no sense on saying it should look for revelation on what is already taken as a fact
@@marcogomez2736I just have to tell you. You have completely twisted the OPs comment. That is amazing.
@@ImpatientTheist is that so? Elaborate, refute each point
Knowing refers to the state of having knowledge. God is all knowledge. Perception is not the same as knowledge; while perception refers to the process of receiving and interpreting sensory information, knowledge encompasses a deeper understanding and awareness of facts. God does not have senses because God is a non-physical idea.
To know is to be certain. ⁴Uncertainty means that you do not know. ⁵Knowledge is power because it is certain, and certainty is strength. ⁶Perception is temporary. ⁷As an attribute of the belief in space and time, it is subject to either fear or love. ⁸Misperceptions produce fear and true perceptions foster love, but neither brings certainty because all perception varies. ⁹That is why it is not knowledge. ¹⁰True perception is the basis for knowledge, but knowing is the affirmation of truth and beyond all perceptions.
Knowledge is the state of knowing. While perception is how we interpret reality.
@Jay.. that's exactly what I said in my post.
Hitchens steamrolled Craig in their debate.
No he did not!
Tell us you actually didn’t see it without telling us.
No he didn't. I wish I could say he did, but he didn't.
What a gifted spin doctor
You just described A.I. in the very near future, a real "holy" being that has never existed before
Ehhhhh.... sort of maybe. We shall see.
Between Jordan Peterson, Russell Brand and William Craig, I choose William Craig, because he is the one that uses less words to talk non-sense.
If God does not how it feels to be a sinner, then he does not know everything. To be a sinner is to know that you have intentionally done wrong to a person that did not deserve it. I know that feeling because I have sinned, in that sense of doing wrong. But God himself does not have that knowledge_ Maybe he can imagine it, but it would be like faking it. I think Craig trapped himself in a self-referential paradox.
The concept of sin is broader than that, tho. In addition to transgressions against others, it includes victimless crimes*. I can't take seriously a moral system that lumps them together.
* by victimless, I don't mean that they are not problematic or potentially problematic, but simply not things done TO another person. Someone doing this might cause them to be analogous to actual victims, but that is distinct
In ACIM, "guilty' refers to the belief that you have committed a sin and are therefore deserving of punishment, essentially an illusion created by the ego, while "guiltless" means recognizing that this belief is a false and that you are inherently innocent and without fault, reflecting your true nature as a Son of God. The core teaching is that you are always guiltless, even when experiencing feelings of guilt.
Recognizing your guiltlessness is achieved through the holy spirit's help, which reveals the illusion of guilt and guides you towards forgiveness. This is why Jesus forgave everyone, by forgiving he was also teaching forgiveness.
We are the expressions of God through our localized consciousness! God doesn't have Consciousness or feeling! It experiences everything through us!
Much more than the knowing of facts. Too many believers today have been taken in by a modern deist/dualist mindset where the created realm has some kind of separate existence from God.
The older understanding is more encompassing. "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." (Acts 17:28) "And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:17)
This physical reality is being sustained every moment by the mind and power and will of God. Nothing is apart from his will, either direct or permissive will. There is no distance between His mind and all contingent, created things.
(2:06) propositions are entities, especially in so far as some variable could change the truth value, therefore non-propositional knowledge would have to also be sufficient for knowing everything
I missed this guy's podcast interview with God. I think it is highly arrogant to explain what God thinks or knows. The certainty he has is mind blowing.
Craig seems to "know" the "unknowable". How can anyone take him seriously?
He explains a very limited god. One with characteristics explainable by its creations. One that can be understood and debated. One that follows a very neat set of logical steps in its existence. A "relatable" God. Never once is it considered that such a thing would have very likely created the rules, concepts, possible ideas, logic, laws, etc, so that we can make sense of our tiny reality, but that they have nothing to do with its reality. No book or formula we could ever create would scratch the surface of such a thing. It would necessarily be beyond anything we could ever comprehend. IF such a thing existed.
so if i abûse or talk dîrty to a guy on earth do god hear a beep sound as cens0red
bcz if he heard those word he not all good if he didn't then he is not all knowing
Knows everything.yes
Then why does he allow evil?
@EvilXtianity he is blind, good as well as bad he is mad
A simple man cares for his wife and his children
William lane Craig is in deeep
I am genuinely happy to see that you Closer to Truth people have 'remastered' the quality of this interview with Dr. William Lane Craig by Dr. Kuhn.
I remember watching an upload of this before that was way outdated in quality due to the age of the content itself. LOL!
God bless all of you and I hope youʼll do the same remastering with your other interviews with similar philosophers of religion/theistic scientists!
Honestly I had a very different idea on God's omniscience, that of God not knowing facts as mere propositions, but as an universal observer who then knows everything knowable. That, I thought, would held true for the macroscopic, and even the quantum.
This means that what we conceive as randomness, or things that we don't know yet will happen, for a universal, eternal being that transcends space time, would be known facts.
Moreover, if God, we asume, knows "everything", the "mental", the "abstract" should also be knowable. This means our feelings and thoughts would be known to Him and therefore, he would know "what it feels to be the other" or even "what it feels to be a siner" which doesn't necessarily means he thinks he's me, or you, or approves sin.
After all, even us, humans can, to a limited extended do this mental experiments in which we speculate what would it be to be this or the other. Empathy couldn't be explained otherwise, neither maybe, moral judgement would be valid.
True, we will never know as a fact how God thinks, nor even if God exists. After all, believing in God is a matter of faith, and his existence and relationship to us one of philosophical or theological discussion.
However, unlike the very disrespectful, absurd and sadly poor comments of non believers here, there is value in speculating about God's nature, and more importantly: persona and mind.
If we part from some of the attributes we assign to God in Christianity and other major monotheistic religions like those of omniscience, omnipotence and eternity, that God knows everything is not inconsistent, not even in the order of ideas I proposed
Ronald Reagan didn't even know he was Ronald Reagan!!! 🤣
🧐Well to me it’s interesting and enjoyable dialogue/ conversation, me likes Closer to Truth 🤭👍
The Source may not understand the Creation. Because of its importance I will quote the verse in its original in Sanskrit: यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे व्योमन्त्सो अङ्ग वेद यदि वा न वेद ॥७॥
He who is the presiding deity of this universe in the supreme sky knows it or does not know it.
Yes Zeus is all-knowing. Even when he's dreaming.
Because Reality is contingent upon the power of God the words, "to know", mean a very different thing for a Being who creates and sustains the existence of things like the present and future. Does prayer change what God knows? No. But it changes what He allows to be.
God does not have any need to know a thing, does It?
The Ultimate Truth So Far Is Everything Is Confusing Hence We must be confused. when things are confusing what else would You feel? confused right? Yes strive to be at peace with that confusing reality! :)
To answer.I wouldn't know.
Completely seperate from anything mentioned in the video. But does William remind anyone else of French Stewart?
Not as "all knowing" as people who talk for him.
WLC is a master in using a lot of words to describe something that isn't based in reality. We should simply avoid this man.
He explains things very straight forward and simply. You just lack the mental capacity to understand.
@@JodogioI’m curious as to what exactly did you understand from this video?
I agree that he is one of the most articulate theologians of today, but the theological gymnastics required to defend the fallible notion of “free will”, is truly astounding.
"Reality" and "God," as used by humans who try to condemse a world beyond conception into ideas, then make decisions about those ideas, then use emotion to back uo their decisions.
Quantum physics claims "realities" which are beyond conception, and to classical physicists, that something doesn't spin but "does," is and is not a wave or particle, etc ( look at the currrnt proton models!)
Information is not real (as what holds it is, but it's sequences do not exist except as comparisons between the physical objects which hold it, so "it is real," The mental experience of color is not real, it exists as patterns of neuron firing, but is not in itself a thing ( Mary's Room thought Experiment)
For the materialist ( and, i pity your spouse or children) love is not real, ultimately it is Dawkin's selfish genes which cause progrsmmed neuron activation geared towards the nurturing of young and maintenence of close social connection, which improves longevity.
If your conception of God is ridiculous, of course you reject it. But if you mistake your human conception as "What God is" you will never know if a God Who is Beyond All Human Conception exists.
We have Shakespeare's words and plays. To demand to see Shskespere during a play is ridiculous. To demand to see God is ridiculous. Yet we have phenomenon which strive towards goals, something that nothing random can do.
Wecan examine atoms- utterly non-random. No group of non-random properties of their make-up can cause what atoms do.
Water is so non-random scientists are still makinv discoveries about it.
Look up Motor Proteins, especially Drew Berry's animations.
If you believe random joining of atoms to make up the very first motor protein and microtubule, or thatthe code can be found in smaller pieces which spontaneously joined to just hsppen to create them, you simply do not have a clear conception of how scientifically impossible ( odds
Only Deepak Chopra can beat him.
@ 😂
To pee or not to pee that is the question. LOL
I am curious, why does Craig consider this middle knowledge of God so important? He only says it's powerful, then doesnt go in to why.
🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT):
There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, for the notion of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent Deity is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly. At the risk of seeming facetious, any person who believes in a gigantic man (or woman) perched in the heavens, is a literal moron.
Why would the Absolute require, for instance, unlimited power, when there is naught but the Absolute extant? Of course, theists would argue that when God creates the material universe, He requires total power and control over His creation (otherwise he wouldn’t be, by definition, the Supreme). However, that argument in itself easily falls apart when one understands the simple fact that time is a relative concept and therefore has no influence on the eternal, timeless Absolute. The same contradiction applies to omnipresence. The ONLY omni-property which comes close to being an accurate description of Ultimate Reality is omniscience, since the Absolute knows absolutely everything (i.e. Itself).
The English word “PERSON” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Therefore, the most essential aspect of personhood is that the individual possesses a face. The fact that we do not usually refer to a decapitated body as a “person”, seems to confirm this claim. If you were confronted simultaneously with a severed head and a decapitated body, and asked to point to the person, would you point to the head or point to the body? I'm sure most everyone would indicate the head, at least in the first instance, agreed?
Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity (God or The Goddess), which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “PERSON”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Of course, they also believe that their fictitious God or Goddess embodies the aforementioned omni-properties, but as clearly demonstrated above, that is also a largely nonsensical, fallacious assertion.
Of course, the more INTELLIGENT theists normally counter with “But God is not a person in the same sense as we humans are persons. God is an all-powerful spiritual being, without a body. He is all-knowing, all-loving and present everywhere”. In that case, God is most definitely not a person in the etymological sense, and not even a person in the common-usage of the word. When did you last hear anyone refer to an omnipresent “entity” as being a person? The mere fact that theists use personal pronouns in reference to their non-existent Deity (usually the masculine pronoun “He”), proves that they have a very anthropomorphic conception of Absolute Reality. If God is not a male, then why use masculine pronouns? If God is, in fact, male, then why would the Supreme Person require gender? Does God require a female mate in order to reproduce? The most popular religious tradition, Christianity, claims that God is “Spirit”, yet “spirit” is a very vague and undefined term.
Incidentally, the term “person” can be (and, in my opinion, should be) used in reference to any animal which possesses a FACE, since most humans do not accept the fact that animals are persons, worthy of moral consideration. In recent times, animal rights activists have been heard referring to animals in such a way (as persons). The fact that vegans are still relatively rare in most nations/countries, seems to validate this assertion (that most humans do not see other animals, like birds, fish, and mammals, as persons), otherwise, non-vegetarians/non-non-vegans would have no qualms about saying such things as “I am planning to consume three persons for dinner tonight” (in reference to three animals).
Many otherwise intelligent theists, particularly the members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (a radical Indian cult first established in the United States of America in the late 1960’s by a truly delusional retired pharmacist named Mr. A. C. De), HONESTLY believe that the Ground of All Being is a youthful Indian gentleman with dark-blue-tinged black skin colour, who currently resides on His own planet in the “spiritual” world, and spends His days cavorting around with a bunch of cowherd girls! If one were to ask those ISKCon devotees how Lord Krishna manages to incorporate relative time into the timeless realm (since it takes a certain amount of time for Him to play his flute and to frolic with His girlfriends), then I’m not sure how they would answer, but they would undoubtedly dismiss the argument using illogical semantics. I’m ashamed to admit that I too, was previously one of those deluded religionists who believed such foolish nonsense. Thankfully, I managed to break-free from that brainwashing cult, and following decades or sincere seeking, came to be the current World Teacher himself.
Common sense dictates that Ultimate Reality must NECESSARILY transcend all dualistic concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization. Neither Eternal Beingness, Unlimited Consciousness, nor Blissful Quietude (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit) necessitate personality. See Chapter 06 to properly understand the nature of Ultimate Reality, and Chapter 03 to learn how to distinguish mere concepts from (Absolute) Truth.
The wisest theologians will, when hard-pressed, admit that the primary reason for theists referring to the Absolute as personal in nature, is because the Absolute has some kind of MIND (by which they really mean some degree of Universal, Infinite Consciousness). However, it is indeed possible (and in fact, is the case) that the Ground of Being is Pure Consciousness Itself. Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa” or “brahman”, in Sanskrit) can and does include all characteristicss of Pure Being, such as unconditional love, unadulterated awareness, et cetera, and we humans are, quintessentially, of the same Nature. In other words, you are, fundamentally, “God” (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit).
Most arguments for the existence of a Supreme Creator God are actually arguments for the INTELLIGENT DESIGN of the perceivable universe, and not for the Intelligent Designer being a person as such. As explicated elsewhere, the phenomenal sphere is naught but an appearance in consciousness. Therefore, to assert that there is a cause of all causes is a a legitimate contention, but to abruptly attribute that first cause to be a male or female (or even an androgynous) Deity is a non-sequitur. There is no evidence for any phenomena without conscious awareness.
There are at least FOUR possible reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Personal God (i.e the Supreme [Male] Deity):
1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit).
Cont...
If God uses photons as neural pathways and the universe is God’s Brain and can see the beginning and end simultaneously bc of entanglement…then probably
If God actually exists it is the most evil force in the universe.
Physical existence comes and goes. Consciousness does not come and go with physical existence. It has always been and always will be.
let's talk about God being The most generous , well I don't agree with that ,
a generous person is someone who give something that has value for himself to someone else ,
if someone has 100 $ and give awy 50 $ then we can call him generous, and if he gives away all his money then he would be very generous , but for God can't be true , because He can't giveaway all what he has , unlike human being that can giveaway all that he has , God can't do the same because He has unlimited possession , so he can't give it all away.
Why are you asking him?
God is all powerful and knowing in a plural sense and collective effort. It is a network of minds but you always go back to the source or the Divine Server Matrix as an inter connected world. Yeshua already gave hint of 'Oneness' where he uttered, "Split a piece of wood, I AM there and lift up a stone and you will find me there.". It is akin to a computer where all data falls within the operating system and the progams are intelligently design. - Thonas Soler, One World Government, Religion and Leader
I'm a bit wary of anyone who cites Ronald Reagan's name to make a point.
Do people understand the language of the Divine? - of course they don't, for it takes years to grasp. Omniscient in the context of God is not like the 'Knowing All Things' that man potentially can. God is one without a second - some intellect, reason, discipline and Will is required to understand this....for what is there for God to Know? Little transient temporal existential events? Imagine the very Knowledge of knowledge itself, and the very Logic of logic, the very Essence of all essence....for God there is nothing to Know. Therefore he is all knowing, for there is no avidya or ignorance in God. Where there's no ignorance what is there to know?...
Platonics, Vedanta, Hindu metaphysics, the Rsis - praise to them.
can not see past the choice you have not yet made
Seems to me that he is trying to define God’s reality in human terms with human limitations. God is the Alpha and Omega. In the infinite past and for the infinite future, God is the foundation upon everything that exists, exists. God provided for the universe and defined the parameters of the universe, so that it could exist, develop according to the laws of the universe and in time allow us to come to be. God knows all, is all. God allowed for us to be, knows us as individuals and is there for us to lean on or have a relationship with, if we so choose. When you pray, God listens. When you need a shoulder to cry on, God is there. God knows all, for all time.
Omniscience means that since God is the cause of all that exists and the maintainer of all that exists nothing that exists can exists independent from God. But yet, at the same time everything that exists is not God thus realty would be that everything is one with God but different from him as well.
If God exist at all God doesn't actually need to know anything and therefore God cannot know anything. Just as as a human you have a need to know human things but you aren't compelled to know an ant's manner of thinking.
If God does know everything... then everything is his own doing.
Only god knows how William Lane Craig is continually touted as an academic. That’s a mystery well beyond human understanding.
5 minutes in it already stupid and boring.
He a lot older than this now how you got a video 4 day ago with him being young this don’t add up
The catholic church has dogmas that state their beliefs about god. According to the dogma, yes, God knows everything and is everything, is all good, and also completely incomprehensible to humans. In Buddhism, whether there is or isn't a supreme being is itself not an ultimate truth, but merely a matter of perspective. Craig says God is only conscious of everything that is true. Ok. Maybe. That is the level God is at. What we can do on our level is aspire to end suffering.... at least, the context in which suffering is defined in Buddhism. Whether or not there is a God does not affect the aspiration. Just sayin.
Does he know he's imagery though?
People like Craig are not worth even listening; if we lend our ears and ask them questions, they might grow, feel important, when they just utter empty words and nonsense.
Of course.
This man refers to God as “he”. Now why would God have a gender and how do we know what that gender would be?
Just an artifact from language.
...Please, just think, if you are Eternal, no Past, present, or Future, now think not using your Time constraints/limited unperfect Entropy life, yew GOD Knows All Every & Every All, Perfectly. HE is the, Absolute Truth & will always, all ways be the Absolute Truth, respectfully ordinarychuck hotmail... captivus brevis... you tube... Blessings...How Wonderful is GOD...If GOD granted you the wish/desire to know everything, you would just blow up where you stand...Please think about this carefully... Blessings...
Random to us.
Is God an Imagination?
What is it that is imagining that it is conscious of itself? That is no imagination. That is what is unborn and shall never die.
Sooo...knowledge of everything does not include everything? If it sounds like bs, then maybe it is bs.
So do you believe yet Mr Kuhn?
Which god? Brahma? Vishnu? Zeus? Posiedon? Mithras?
😅we are free to eat, so we sometimes eat that our sin is gone through jesus Christ also we eat that dajjal is coming, likewise we have eaten many things so now we are this and it's on all.....and this is a weak point to humans because we eat and it acts and stays on all......now i am searching for more weak points like this 😅 you can join me in the journey 😂😂😂😮😮😅😅
But Where Are The Truth's And How Are They Found And Not By Man's Words!
Jesus Christ of Nazareth 😅🤣😂
So concise and scientific!
A lot rambling. How he knows absolutetly How figure out God mind? Absolutetly Impossible . He proposition is rambling gibberich. Proof logic out. Senseless.
😅😂😂😂😂
That smile always in his face… is he a joker or what?
😅😂😂😂😂😂
Simple answer..... Yes....God is all knowing....☝️
So-called Christian's 'god' created Adam and Eve and Christians' 'god' did not know that Adam and Eve will fail the test of God but expected perfection from them, then later Adam and Eve came out to be imperfect being, then Christians 'god' shoot himself in the foot, as you know in the Christianity and its belief that god sacrificed god to god to save god’s creation from god.
What a nonsensical faith.
Source?
So-called Christian's 'god' created Adam and Eve and Christians' 'god' did not know that Adam and Eve will fail the test of God but expected perfection from them, then later Adam and Eve came out to be imperfect being, then Christians 'god' shoot himself in the foot, as you know in the Christianity and its belief that god sacrificed god to god to save god’s creation from god.
What a nonsensical faith.
@@EvilXtianity trust me bro
@@roqsteady5290 don't say "trust me bro", come up with a source or else you're just like this Craig guy
ua-cam.com/video/2R-gm0WW0aA/v-deo.htmlsi=m6ubFE8ouNncA3WT this amazing video answers the question beautifully
Does God exist?? Yes and n0, do your thoughts exist, yes and n0. Because they come and go as they ma, in the realms of the infinite potentials. On and Off, switching, one way or the other, and yet all the same. 010
This fairy 🧚 doesn’t exist
Show a proof that god exist
The burden of proof is on you
Thanks! JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH 😅🤣😂
So If God Created Us Knowing We Aren't Perfect Could He Know What Is Perfect?
*"So If God Created Us Knowing We Aren't Perfect Could He Know What Is Perfect?"*
... I know that 1 + 1 ≠ 3, so does that mean that I couldn't know that 1 + 1 = 2?
William speaks as he has been God for a long time as he explains in-depth the amount of knowledge and what knowledge God would or would not have 🤣 he has truly lost it.
?
Define everything... oohh this guy uses the p and p not... nothing like binary logic. Easy math.
Some offense to William Lane Craig but you should really bring back David Bentley Hart
nonsense
God is the minds of men. The utter speech. In the beginning was the utter of god. And knowing is memory. The present is not a memory. Language might be the issue for most people.
This guy...again. 🤦♂️
he doesn't because he doesn't exist (obviously). case closed.
Nice video. I also have an analogy which I think would help to illustrate my own view in this matter of God's omniscience. God knows all that's necessary to know. Suppose if I were to build an ecosystem for fishes -- an aquarium, say. Now, I would of course know everything about this ecosystem as I built it. Every bit about its internal topography etc. But I would also know the general facts regarding the fishes living in this ecosystem. I would have a great idea regarding what it is like to live underwater all the time. I would know the behavioral traits of the fishes and have a good idea regarding their psychology. Although I would not know their precise thoughts at any moment in time I would know the kind of things they would likely be focusing their thoughts on; and also the limits to their imagination. I could even know each of the fishes individually! But of course it's not necessary for me to know all their "private" details contained within the recesses of their consciousness. It's also beyond the realm of possible knowledge. Moreover, even in respect of their public life, I would not be interested in knowing what they do at each and every instant of time and what they -- free-willed, independent souls each one of them -- do in future (where they go, how do they behave exactly with their fellow fishes and so on). But I would always know the bounds within which they would operate, the kind of actions they could perform and their general behavioral traits.
And so it is, I believe, in respect of God and us conscious personalities too!
God doesn't know everything. The reason is that you are sure that God had TO MAKE HIS DECISIONS! But the ONLY REASON of an action of deciding is that you do NOT KNOW the outcome of that decision beforehand, this is why you decide: to pick one of many possibilities! If you already knew the outcome of your decision, then you didn't need that decision! In other words, it's in the unavoidable mechanism of any decision that you don't know its outcome. It is thus demonstrated that God was not omniscient before deciding. He got omniscient only after making all his decisions.
So, says the person who claims to know the mind of God.
@@Roshan-q6n
God respects logic, this is why you are here on the earth suffering. Without logic, God would command "everybody happy and good fellow"...but God cannot do that.
@claudiozanella256 Nonsense. You don't even know yourself, so how can you know God. First, discover what you are and stop pretending that you know God's intention when you're not even aware of your own.
@@Roshan-q6n
Just a sweeping statement of yours that doesn't address my comments, thus useless. In short "don't investigate on God's nature because it's impossible to get to something". Well, it's not true. Do what you like and I do what I like.
@claudiozanella256 It is the only thing that is true, and that is know thyself
Talk about muddying the waters.
Omni/all scient/knowledge = all-knowing. Not that complicated.
There is simply nothing God is ignorant of.
God is knowing of all things at all times and in every moment. A being perfect in knowledge.
So what might be a rational approach for dealing with something with such knowledge?
I would suggest humility might be a good place to start.
Scientifically talk about God.That's for me not closer to truth.
Imagine you’re a parent who brings a child into the world. You raise them with love and guidance, but as they grow up, they make their own choices. If that child creates something harmful, like an atom bomb, are you responsible for their actions? Should you punish yourself for giving them the freedom to choose their path?
This analogy draws a parallel to God creating beings with free will, emphasizing that free will entails the possibility of good and evil choices. The creator (God or a parent) might bear responsibility for setting things in motion but isn’t necessarily culpable for the individual choices made by those with autonomy.
The key idea is that free will involves risk, and the responsibility for harmful actions lies with the one who chose them, not the one who provided the capacity for choice.
God has an uncanny tendency to value the free will of perpetrators much more highly than the free will of their victims.
And God's worshippers praise him for it every single Sunday morning.
Yes, parents are ultimately responsible for the life of the human that they selfishly decided to create. Nobody asks to be born. Due to that lack of consent, it is that who made the choice to create a a life who is ultimately responsible for that life and everything that life does. However, we can’t hold the parents legally liable (as this has been attempted in court) BUT morally and ethically speaking, we can.
Same goes for your god. A god who would create a human without the ability of obtaining consent and then punish that human with eternal punishment for a finite thought crime (not believing/worshiping).
@markanstrom2981 If God prevented all the wrong acts of human beings, none of us would be exempt, therefore, we would all be forced by God, none would have free will and we would all be like robots.
@@rafaelb7920 That has nothing to do with my comment.
@@mjfraser04 Sorry, that answer was for @markanstrom2981.
I will also respond to your comment.
Middle knowledge😂.
sophistry
Mathematical truth exists. Moral truth exists. Jesus is that light 😇🙏🏼
What is moral truth?
Are you going to ignore the 4 billion years of no maths and no morals?
@TurinTuramber mathematical truth and moral truth have existed since the beginning of time. Existence is good. Jesus is the light 🕯️♾️🔥😇
"Does God Knows Everything?"
GOD knows what you believe now because it is an available information existing in your mind, but GOD does not know what you will believe next because it is not an available information yet...
..the reason why GOD can not know is because your WILL is no longer GOD's WILL but separate from it, as you are HIS free split with free will to believe anything for any reason...
The Universe was once deterministic and predictable as it followed a certain path being driven by natural laws designed by GOD...
..but after GOD introduced lost souls (His free splits) to this Universe for a chance of salvation, this World is no longer deterministic because free souls can choose to believe anything for any reason and free to act on their beliefs that can drive this World in many undetermined directions...
..by the way, it is not the future that GOD knows but the effects of what is existing now.... and because GOD does not know what you will believe next, then it is impossible for GOD to know the effects of a belief that is not existing yet....
Yes Zeus is all-knowing. Even when he's dreaming.