The Creator CANNOT Be Omniscient

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

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

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

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

Is it even logically possible for a single entity or a collection of entities to be omniscient?

knowledge is power sir.

All is mind the universe is mental. Your denying that there is a consciousness greater than a finite mind out there. God is infinite mind, something that we may never understand because god is unknowable, but still omniscient for sure!

[wstein]

Originally Posted by serenesam

I was just thinking that if an external Creator exists, it would be omnipotent but it cannot be omniscient.

I see no reason that a creator could not be omniscient.

Originally Posted by serenesam

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

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

Depends on what you label as a ‘mistake’. Creation just is as it is. Internal inconsistencies from a certain point of view does not constitute a mistake. A creation can be made in any arbitrary fashion (via omnipotent) without any need for continuity, reason, logic, constancy, predictability, or any other property. It’s only a mistake if it was not made as intended.

Creation appears to be omnipresent. Creation manifests in all kinds of ways, even in ways that some may consider mistakes, I love mistakes, I have learned so very much from mine, so much so that I think I will be making a whole lot more .

Learning through experience seems integral to evolution.It's almost as if creation is selective in so far as it is refining , discarding that which does not work (and yes, I already figured that we being a part of that process at length face being discarded, but theres no new model available yet , creative forces seem to require manifestation into the physical, Its a funny old business, that which flows from creative source must at length flow back into it, or so it would seem.

I could not attribute rhyme or metre to creation for creation is as is, It does what it does, so perhaps a fundamental instinct does not require any sentience at all.

[Rawnrr]

What is a mistake from and omniscient point of view?

What may appear as a mistake from our limited human point of view may look drastically different from an omniscient viewpoint.

[Simon_Templar]

what about the devils and their sentience, and all the grey beings in between? Surely after consideration there is an omniscience just not in a hierarchy we can consider.

(btw, Jesus is omniscient in Christianity, or so they say)

[charly233]

I am not sure if being omniscient means to know every fact or whether it means to know all facts that contribute to our knowledge of reality.

Maybe you are omniscient in a practical sense if you know everything that you need to know. And in reality you need to know little or nothing. Wisdom is more important than knowledge.

God may be omniscient but God is also the Unknown and the one who doesn't need to know. The more I know I don't know, the more I know myself as God.

It seems to me that mistakes only apply to the realm of illusions or the relative level - the "matrix".

Within reality there can be no mistakes and the creator (that is You, Me and Everyone) does know everything that he/she/it needs to know.

[God-Like]

The creator is of the mind .

If we relate the self within mind and the no self beyond, then likewise, there is no creator beyond .

x daz x

[IsleWalker]

Sam--

I think the flaw in the logic is that it is an "external" creator. If you believe that at the base of all matter--physical, non-physical--is consciousness, awareness, then it's not difficult to believe that a Creator (aka Source) is omniscient, because it is fundamental to anything we are, create, therefore that creative force "knows" what each of those awarenesses are experiencing.

It IS the composite of all those awarenesses, so it isn't anything external to it.

To me, that's totally believable because I feel it in myself--in the totality of me.

Lora

[Fairyana]

Originally Posted by serenesam

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

It does make sense to me. First of all, in order to create something, you have to be outside that something. For instance, (metaphorically speaking) computer avatars are created by someone outside the virtual reality. The creator knows everything there is to know about the creation and the process of this virtual world. But our "virtual reality" is programmed in such a way that the the characters have free will and their development is pushed forward by programing negative stimulus when they are in the wrong path, and positive stimulus when they are in the right path. The future of each individual character, then, is in the hands of each character. But if the creator is a greater consciousness, and consciousness is immaterial, able to transcend space and time, then what does the future look like to this greater consciousness? Perhaps He can see all probable futures?

Originally Posted by serenesam

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

What if there is an external Creator, but we are part of the external creator, so we are also creators? We could be part of His greater consciousness. I think it makes more sense to have an omnipotent consciousness system, which works under certain physical rules in our reality, than a personified omnipotent entity, like an all powerful man. Because we all know how illogical an all powerful man is. Atheists love pointing that out. So we are part of a consciousness system that creates and controls everything, and that is as powerful as a system can get, isn't it? I think that when we are able to tap into the greater consciousness system (I'm using Tom Campbell's terminology here), we can get a glimpse of this omniscience: in dreams, psychism, meditation, etc.

Originally Posted by serenesam

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

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

I believe the future is uncertain because it's open to probable outcomes. One can predict a possible outcome. I don't think it's a mistake if one outcome happens instead of another.

Originally Posted by serenesam

Is it even logically possible for a single entity or a collection of entities to be omniscient?

I think it is possible, in pure consciousness, non material state, to be able to be omniscient of past and present since there is no constrain of space and time. And I believe it is possible to see the future also, specially the near future, as a set of probabilities. For instance, in Dean Radin's book "Entangled Minds" (I recommend this book!), a psychic man in the Afghanistan war was always able to avoid the road which would be attacked because he foresaw each different day which road was the going to be the dangerous one, and it always changed.