(February 19, 2011 at 3:14 pm)Hunkie Hedgehog Wrote: Given this definition of omniscience,
What definition do you prefer?
Quote:your argument ignores at least one omniscient deity—the God of Christianity, for whom the concept of "will happen" is inapplicable because that involves being temporally bounded.
Lets be careful here, are you saying that God exists in one states of affairs eternally? If that is the case how do you propose his thoughts work? After all thought is a process and common to all process there is necessarily more than one state of affairs.
The temporal issue is really a sideline here, I don't think it's overly important. God's existence prior to the creation of the universe is a state of affairs in which there was a knowledge about all things, for this deity to exist as a brute fact is far less likely than a natural alternative.
Quote: It is not as though God knows in sum "the position and momentum of every particle in the universe at every moment of time throughout existence" at the initial t0.
So he doesn't have knowledge of everything?
Quote:God has no temporal locality, he is not temporally bounded. "In God there is no was or will be, but a continuous and unbroken is.
So he experiences all states of affairs simultaneously, that does naught to change that he 1) existed in a state of affairs where the universe did not, 2) Caused the universe to exist 3) Is, because of his omniscience, a being who is extraordinarily complex .
When we examine the two alternative explanations for the origin of the universe, the hypothesis with the omniscient deity is still the one that demands more.
.
