How can God know he is omniscient?

[Stacey Melissa]

How can God know that he is omniscient? After all, if there is something he doesn't know about, how would he know about what he doesn't know about?

Maybe God (if he were to exist) actually is omniscient, but there's no way he could know it for sure. And yet he has to have true knowledge on the question of whether he is omniscient in order to be omniscient. It doesn't seem as though omniscience is possible.

And now the tables are turned on the theists who think we atheists must be omniscient ourselves to say there is no god.

[phil]

Your post makes no sense. It's like saying "How can the best martial artist in the world be the best if there's someone better?" The best martial artist is the best martial artist.

You asked how can God be omniscient if he doesn't know something? Then he obviously wouldn't be omniscient. But if God created all that is in existance, and there is nothing in existance that he didn't create or is a byproduct of what he created, then there is nothing that he doesn't know about.

-phil

[Stacey Melissa]

Your post makes no sense. It's like saying "How can the best martial artist in the world be the best if there's someone better?" The best martial artist is the best martial artist.
God may be the most knowledgeable being, but that doesn't mean he knows everything. The best martial artist in the world may still lack a particular martial arts skill, and still have mastered more martial arts skills than anyone else.

But if God created all that is in existance, and there is nothing in existance that he didn't create or is a byproduct of what he created, then there is nothing that he doesn't know about.
How does he know for sure that he created the totality of existence? How does he know he wasn't created by some even higher power? How does he know that his body of knowledge is not illusory?

Solipsistic ideas apply to God as well as us. While we can never completely dismiss solipsism in our own experiences (we can dismiss solipsism for practical purposes, but not for theoretical purposes), that must not be the case for a being to be omniscient. An omniscient being has to know beyond all doubt that it's body of knowledge is true. And yet no being can possibly have this level of certainty. While its body of knowledge may in actuality be completely true, it cannot know that it is true beyond all doubt.

You asked how can God be omniscient if he doesn't know something? Then he obviously wouldn't be omniscient.
Indeed.

[liquid]

phil, you missed both the important points in the OP in your reply.

1) Being omniscient is more than superlatives. It isn't the 'best-knowledge', it's 'all-knowledge'. Important distinction which your analogy fails to capture.

2) You also missed the self-referential implications of all-knowingness, which was the main thrust of the OP.

however, I think the point you were getting at and probably distracted by, that the first 'if' in the OP isn't valid given the assumptions of the question, is correct to point out. But that just means the question needs to be phrased more carefully, not that there aren't inherent contradictions in omniscience.

[Good_anger]

Yes, to call God omniscient is what is known as an axiomatic statement (one that you either believe or disbelieve). The example that phil used was not entirely irrevelent, but the problem is that we cannot use human examples (which are falliable) to try and describe God. All analogies will fall short. Some will explain it better than others, but none are perfect.

How does he know for sure that he created the totality of existence? How does he know he wasn't created by some even higher power? How does he know that his body of knowledge is not illusory?

This question gets very complicated. There is no easy answer for this question. You quote God as a "being" and I disagree with you on that. You say that no "being" can know without a doubt. I would argue that God is not a "being" as you and I know beings, God is beyond it. That is the entire basis of a thestic argument. God is beyond matter and is beyond time. He knows he is above it because he created it and is entirely seperate from him. A painter cannot physically be part of the painting. He may put his heart and his soul into it, but those things are intangible qualities. If you dismiss the premise, then there is no way we can even discuss it.

[case]

This question gets very complicated. There is no easy answer for this question. You quote God as a "being" and I disagree with you on that. You say that no "being" can know without a doubt. I would argue that God is not a "being" as you and I know beings, God is beyond it. That is the entire basis of a thestic argument. God is beyond matter and is beyond time. He knows he is above it because he created it and is entirely seperate from him. A painter cannot physically be part of the painting. He may put his heart and his soul into it, but those things are intangible qualities. If you dismiss the premise, then there is no way we can even discuss it.

The problem, or course, is that a painter is still a "being". Using this analogoy, you've attributed to god exactly what you were trying to get around: human attirbutes, or a "being" that is bound by the rules of matter and time.

However, if we define god in this way, any argument becomes useless. I could just as easily say that a giant chicken that created the universe is omniscient, because it is not bound by the rules of matter and time. And, because there is no way to refute this claim, you couldn't prove that I was wrong. Placing god in this category is just as useless.

Another problem with defining god in this way is that one wonders why a non-being(?) would care to meddle in affairs of "beings" composed of matter, subject to its rules, along with those of time. He is beyond it; why waste time with it? Why create it in the first place? He is able to be "beyond it", but take such an interest in it at the same time? This also goes against what the bible says about man being made in god's image (this doesn't apply to other deites, however). If we were being made in god's image, aren't we to assume that god is somewhat like us? If not, it seems like alot of trouble to make us in the first place.

[ekis]

How can God know that he is omniscient? After all, if there is something he doesn't know about, how would he know about what he doesn't know about?

Maybe God (if he were to exist) actually is omniscient, but there's no way he could know it for sure. And yet he has to have true knowledge on the question of whether he is omniscient in order to be omniscient. It doesn't seem as though omniscience is possible.

And now the tables are turned on the theists who think we atheists must be omniscient ourselves to say there is no god.

God is all omni*. He knows it. The problem is 'knowing' cannot be proven without 'feeling'. The great illusion called CREATION was then made to provide medium for the experience of all His omni* qualities to be felt (dichotomially). In a Godly instant or billions of man years, He dissociated parts of himself (big bang) so that one part can look back ( a la Hubble) and be awed by the grandeur and magnificence of other parts. Seen and unseen are parts of Him. The seen parts, blah. blah. Source: Conversations with God, Book1 by Neale Walch.

You asked for it! :)

[case]

God is all omni*. He knows it. The problem is 'knowing' cannot be proven without 'feeling'. The great illusion called CREATION was then made to provide medium for the experience of all His omni* qualities to be felt (dichotomially). In a Godly instant or billions of man years, He dissociated parts of himself (big bang) so that one part can look back ( a la Hubble) and be awed by the grandeur and magnificence of other parts. Seen and unseen are parts of Him. The seen parts, blah. blah. Source: Conversations with God, Book1 by Neale Walch.

You asked for it! :)

Is this a joke, or are you being serious; I can't tell.

[Mageth]

How can God know that he is omniscient? After all, if there is something he doesn't know about, how would he know about what he doesn't know about?

Maybe God (if he were to exist) actually is omniscient, but there's no way he could know it for sure. And yet he has to have true knowledge on the question of whether he is omniscient in order to be omniscient. It doesn't seem as though omniscience is possible.

And now the tables are turned on the theists who think we atheists must be omniscient ourselves to say there is no god.

Stacey, you are making an argument I've made several times on this board about the asserted omniscience of God. Note that this argument affects the other asserted omni-properties of God.

In my version of the argument, I state that God cannot prove his omniscience, either to us (which should be obvious; how could God prove his omniscience, or any of his other omni-attributes to us finite beings?) or to himself. If you meet a God, and it claims to be omniscient, ask it to "Prove that there is not a fact X which you do not know." It could not do so, either to you or to itself. As you stated, how could God know what it doesn't know?

Essentially, a God that claims to be omniscient is lying. ;)

As stated, this problem extends to the other omni-qualities, particularly omnipotence (fact X may be a power that God does not know about) and omnipresence (fact x may be knowledge of a place that God does not know about).

Bottom line: omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence (and even omnibenevolence) can be asserted, but cannot be proved, either to us or to God itself.

[Stacey Melissa]

Yes, to call God omniscient is what is known as an axiomatic statement (one that you either believe or disbelieve).
That's not my understanding of "axiomatic." See this recent thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=77709), where several of us Infidels pounded out an understanding of the term. Our usage of the term was far more strict than yours. By your definition, my opinion that Italian food is preferable to Chinese food is axiomatic, because it is something that I believe. What you're talking about is, at the most, synonymous with a view, position or stance.


The example that phil used was not entirely irrevelent, but the problem is that we cannot use human examples (which are falliable) to try and describe God. All analogies will fall short. Some will explain it better than others, but none are perfect.
That's why I don't use arguments from analogy. Analogies are sometimes good for increasing understanding, but little else.

I don't, however, worry about being fallible. I just do the best I can. What else am I supposed to do, after all? In any case, God could make a mistake that he just doesn't know about yet. So he could be fallible too.


This question gets very complicated. There is no easy answer for this question. You quote God as a "being" and I disagree with you on that. You say that no "being" can know without a doubt. I would argue that God is not a "being" as you and I know beings, God is beyond it. That is the entire basis of a thestic argument. God is beyond matter and is beyond time. He knows he is above it because he created it and is entirely seperate from him. A painter cannot physically be part of the painting. He may put his heart and his soul into it, but those things are intangible qualities. If you dismiss the premise, then there is no way we can even discuss it.
The non-being you worship apparently has a penis and testicles. We are made in his image, and we refer to him as "he," not "it," according to the standard Christian doctrine. Given that YHWH said "I AM" was his name in Exodus 3:14, I had thought the term "being" was broad enough, but I'll use "entity" if you wish. Neither term is meant to imply that he is not "outside" his creation. It doesn't matter to the gist of my argument. How does God know that there isn't something beyond both him and his creation?

[Stacey Melissa]

however, I think the point you were getting at and probably distracted by, that the first 'if' in the OP isn't valid given the assumptions of the question, is correct to point out. But that just means the question needs to be phrased more carefully, not that there aren't inherent contradictions in omniscience.
My OP was a stream of consciousness type of writing. Any suggestions on how to formalize it would be much appreciated.

[Stacey Melissa]

God is all omni*. He knows it. The problem is 'knowing' cannot be proven without 'feeling'. The great illusion called CREATION was then made to provide medium for the experience of all His omni* qualities to be felt (dichotomially). In a Godly instant or billions of man years, He dissociated parts of himself (big bang) so that one part can look back ( a la Hubble) and be awed by the grandeur and magnificence of other parts. Seen and unseen are parts of Him. The seen parts, blah. blah. Source: Conversations with God, Book1 by Neale Walch.
Normally I worry about people who claim to converse with God - Chuck Manson, for example - but at least Mr. Walsch apparently talks to a more liberal God than the likes of Dubya and Pat Robertson.

Regardless, the god Walsch thinks he converses with only thinks and claims he is omniscient. How does this god know he is omnisicent? How God created whatever it is you think he created is rather irrelevant to the question.

[Stacey Melissa]

In my version of the argument, I state that God cannot prove his omniscience, either to us (which should be obvious; how could God prove his omniscience, or any of his other omni-attributes to us finite beings?) or to himself. If you meet a God, and it claims to be omniscient, ask it to "Prove that there is not a fact X which you do not know." It could not do so, either to you or to itself. As you stated, how could God know what it doesn't know?

Essentially, a God that claims to be omniscient is lying.
Exactly.

I'm defining omniscience minimally as true knowledge of all facts. There's a term for knowledge of the factual variety, but I can't think of it at the moment. That is as opposed to experiential knowledge, which I need not include in my definition to make my point.

One such fact is whether an entity has true knowledge about the set of all other facts. In order to be omniscient, an entity must have true knowledge of this fact, in addition to all others. And while the entity may in fact have true knowledge about all facts, except this one fact, it cannot know for sure that there are not facts outside its set of knowledge. It can believe it has true knowledge of all facts, but it cannot know it has true knowledge of all facts. Since there is a fact which it cannot know, omniscience is impossible.

An entity will, at best, come up one fact short of omniscience.

[Mageth]

One such fact is whether an entity has true knowledge about the set of all other facts. In order to be omniscient, an entity must have true knowledge of this fact, in addition to all others. And while the entity may in fact have true knowledge about all facts, except this one fact, it cannot know for sure that there are not facts outside its set of knowledge. It can believe it has true knowledge of all facts, but it cannot know it has true knowledge of all facts. Since there is a fact which it cannot know, omniscience is impossible.

An entity will, at best, come up one fact short of omniscience.

Interestingly, when I first proposed and argued this on this board some time back, I argued that point almost exactly. An entity may actually know every knowable fact, but it cannot know if it knows every knowable fact or prove that it knows every knowable fact. There's always that hypothetical fact X that it cannot know it doesn't know.

[Magus55]

Another problem with defining god in this way is that one wonders why a non-being(?) would care to meddle in affairs of "beings" composed of matter, subject to its rules, along with those of time. He is beyond it; why waste time with it? Why create it in the first place? He is able to be "beyond it", but take such an interest in it at the same time? This also goes against what the bible says about man being made in god's image (this doesn't apply to other deites, however). If we were being made in god's image, aren't we to assume that god is somewhat like us? If not, it seems like alot of trouble to make us in the first place.Then you get into the other attributes of God like emotion and love. God created because He want to share His glory and love with others. And yes we were made in God's image, but image in this case doesn't mean physically. We were made with spirituality, emotion, morals etc. Things that set us apart from the rest of creation.

[Paradox]

I've actually heard some Christians claim that God isn't omniscient.
There are some OT statements about God "repenting" over what he had done that could suggest more than just an emotional response.

Also, I often wondered why the Bible spoke about God being angry. I tend to get angry about things when they take me by surprise and cause me aggrovation. If I had known and understood what the issue was in advance of what was going to happen I would have been prepared with the appropriate action and not got upset over it. But then perhaps that's just me.

[Stacey Melissa]

I've actually heard some Christians claim that God isn't omniscient.
There are some OT statements about God "repenting" over what he had done that could suggest more than just an emotional response.
And then there are the verses where God is testing people to find out whether they really are loyal. On the other hand, what is with all the prophecy if he doesn't actually know the future?


Also, I often wondered why the Bible spoke about God being angry. I tend to get angry about things when they take me by surprise and cause me aggrovation. If I had known and understood what the issue was in advance of what was going to happen I would have been prepared with the appropriate action and not got upset over it. But then perhaps that's just me.
Just one more reason why most people are better than God.

[Magus55]

And then there are the verses where God is testing people to find out whether they really are loyal. On the other hand, what is with all the prophecy if he doesn't actually know the future? To tell those who read the prophecy what to expect.

[Stacey Melissa]

To tell those who read the prophecy what to expect.
If God doesn't know the future, then he shouldn't be telling people what to expect, since he doesn't know either. But if he does know the future, then he shouldn't have to test people to find out whether they are loyal.

[Mageth]

Several places in the OT suggest that, at the time the text was written, God's omniscience wasn't thought to be all what it's made out to be these days. For example (emphasis mine):

Deuteronomy 32:20 And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end [shall be]: for they [are] a very froward generation, children in whom no faith.

An odd thing for a God that already [i]knew what their end would be to say, no?

And then there's the case of Job, where God allows Satan to sorely test poor Job to see if he'd remain faithful. If God already knew that Job would remain faithful (which Job did), why allow the test? Why allow Job's children and servants to die just to test Job and win a wager with Satan, already knowing the results? Surely, Satan would know that God could not lie (that's the rumor, anyway), so if God just told him what the result of the test would be ("If I allowed you to test Job, he'd pass and I'd just have to restore everything to him, so just go away; there's no sense in testing him"), Satan would surely believe it. Did God doubt his assessment of Job: "Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"

[Mageth]

Then you get into the other attributes of God like emotion and love. God created because He want to share His glory and love with others. And yes we were made in God's image, but image in this case doesn't mean physically. We were made with spirituality, emotion, morals etc. Things that set us apart from the rest of creation.

Umm, if we didn't gain knowledge of Good and Evil until eating the wrong fruit, then how exactly were we created "with morals"?

But yes, according to Genesis 1, we were made "in God's image", e.g. a lot like God, so much like God that he had to kick A&E out after they ate from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to keep them from eating of the Tree of Life and so even more so "becoming like us".

But that conflict comes partly from conflating the two different and distinct creation accounts (the one in Chapter 1-2:4 and the one in the rest of Chapter 2 and 3). The first (and later written) account just describes A&E as being created "in God's image" and does not describe a "fall"; the second (and earlier) account is the one that describes how A&E ate the forbidden fruit, thus becoming more like God.

And why, I wonder, was God seemingly surprised when we revolted, if he created us so much "in his image"? Why is God surprised when people created with a godlike image are constantly struggling with him for control of their own lives? (An interesting note: God blessed Jacob for so struggling with him in the strange account where Jacob wrestled all night with the "angel").

[Stacey Melissa]

And then there's the case of Job, where God allows Satan to sorely test poor Job to see if he'd remain faithful. If God already knew that Job would remain faithful (which Job did), why allow the test? Why allow Job's children and servants to die just to test Job and win a wager with Satan, already knowing the results? Surely, Satan would know that God could not lie (that's the rumor, anyway), so if God just told him what the result of the test would be ("If I allowed you to test Job, he'd pass and I'd just have to restore everything to him, so just go away; there's no sense in testing him"), Satan would surely believe it. Did God doubt his assessment of Job: "Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"
Nah, I bet Satan knew God was a pathological liar, and they really had to go through with the bet just so Satan would know God was telling the truth that particular time.

[Mageth]

Nah, I bet Satan knew God was a pathological liar, and they really had to go through with the bet just so Satan would know God was telling the truth that particular time.

Yes; to me, the interaction between God and Satan in Job indicates that 1) God is not omniscient; he did not know what the results of the test would be beforehand (else he could just tell Satan to buzz off); 2) God is omniscient, but Satan for some reason does not trust God to tell him the truth about the future, so God had to allow Satan to test Job to demonstrate to him that Job would remain faithful; 3) God has omniscience available to him, but for some reason failed to access his omniscience at least in this case (thanks to C.F. Jung's Answer to Job for that one); or 4) God is omniscient but for some reason prefers to play "little reindeer games" with Satan and, of course, us. I may, of course, be leaving out some scenario that someone else might come up with.

Heck, as I indicated above, it may even indicate that God was not sure of his own assessment of Job. In other words, God did not even trust himself to know the truth about Job's heart or future.

[Magus55]

If God doesn't know the future, then he shouldn't be telling people what to expect, since he doesn't know either. But if he does know the future, then he shouldn't have to test people to find out whether they are loyal.
Oh I'm sorry, I misread your post. Thought you just asked why there was prophecy if God knows the future.

[case]

Then you get into the other attributes of God like emotion and love. God created because He want to share His glory and love with others. And yes we were made in God's image, but image in this case doesn't mean physically. We were made with spirituality, emotion, morals etc. Things that set us apart from the rest of creation.

So, for us to share in the glory and love of god, he created matter? This still doesn't solve the problem: why would he make matter? Why make us physical? This also leads us right into another problem, one that directly violates god's supposed omniscience: how can a matterless being have any clue what it's like to be a physical one? Or do we get to explain this away by invoking Jesus? Doesn't that make Jesus guilty of sin, because he was made flesh? We just keep hitting brick walls here...

[Mageth]

Then you get into the other attributes of God like emotion and love. God created because He want to share His glory and love with others. And yes we were made in God's image, but image in this case doesn't mean physically. We were made with spirituality, emotion, morals etc. Things that set us apart from the rest of creation.

To me, this simply reflects the anthropomorphic image that many believers have of God, a projection of themselves. We have attributes such as emotion, love, morals and spirituality; therefore God does. Of course, their conclusion is that we have them because God first had them and created us as "images" of himself, overlooking the obvious that their concept of God has them because they create him as "images" of themselves.

Magus claims that this does not mean we are in God's image "physically", but I almost guarantee that, when he pictures God, his image of God looks something like us (see Moses' interactions with God in Exodus), only made of some "spiritual" analog of the physical.

[Stacey Melissa]

To me, this simply reflects the anthropomorphic image that many believers have of God, a projection of themselves. We have attributes such as emotion, love, morals and spirituality; therefore God does. Of course, their conclusion is that we have them because God first had them and created us as "images" of himself, overlooking the obvious that their concept of God has them because they create him as "images" of themselves.

Magus claims that this does not mean we are in God's image "physically", but I almost guarantee that, when he pictures God, his image of God looks something like us (see Moses' interactions with God in Exodus), only made of some "spiritual" analog of the physical.
I think we have little choice but to anthropomorphize God if God-talk is to be anything more than complete nonsense with zero communicative content. We are only capable of making any sense of God if we describe him in terms we already know from experience. Those terms don't necessarily have to be human qualities, but they must be connected to our natural universe.

[Mageth]

I think we have little choice but to anthropomorphize God if God-talk is to be anything more than complete nonsense with zero communicative content. We are only capable of making any sense of God if we describe him in terms we already know from experience. Those terms don't necessarily have to be human qualities, but they must be connected to our natural universe.

But the problems that arise through anthropomorphizing the God image and/or describing the God image in terms of what we experience in the universe must be kept in mind. Those that wish to talk about God in those terms need to realize that that is what they are doing - projecting themselves and their experience onto their image of God. They should keep in mind that they are creating an experiential/anthropomorphic model of God that in all probability has little or no resemblance to an actual God, if a God exists.

Indeed, these problems have challenged deep-thinking theists, mystics and philosophers for centuries. Many have come to the conclusion that such efforts are self-defeating; the more you anthropomorphize God, the more you make it a God of experience, the farther away from (the ineffable) God you go. As I'm fond of saying, "When you define a God, you kill it".

Some, for example, have taken a rather eastern approach in attempts to destroy these "wrong" concepts of God by approaching thought on God through negation, e.g. being and non-being, in an effort to break through the mold of the self-projected image of God. Some have concluded that experiencing the ineffable God through mysticism/mystical experience is the only way to approach God, in particular preferable to the always-fallible intellectual approach, as the ineffableness of God dooms an intellectual approach from the outset.

As God told Moses, when asked his name, "I AM THAT I AM", a Hebrew idiom meaning "Mind your own business!"

[Light]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

But when God sees how man"kind" behaves toward one another then this may well be tinged with cynicism leading to despair.

Is our Love of God and of Creation FOR Him or for ourselves?

Do we live FOR Him or just for ourselves and our status?

Or, worse still, do we ONLY live for money?

Should we not be working toward the RE-Creation of Paradise rather than destoying everything?

Would this not be seen as being Respectful?

[Light]

"As God told Moses, when asked his name, "I AM THAT I AM", a Hebrew idiom meaning "Mind your own business!"

It sounds like a God idiom to Me, as it was God speaking to Moses.

But I thought that it was "I AM WHAT I AM"

Some seem to have changed this into "Mind your own business"

Nice bit of business, this pocket picking.

[Stacey Melissa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

But when God sees how man"kind" behaves toward one another then this may well be tinged with cynicism leading to despair.

Is our Love of God and of Creation FOR Him or for ourselves?

Do we live FOR Him or just for ourselves and our status?

Or, worse still, do we ONLY live for money?

Should we not be working toward the RE-Creation of Paradise rather than destoying everything?

Would this not be seen as being Respectful?
I'm trying to figure out the relevance your post has to the prior discussion in this thread, but I'm drawing a blank.


"As God told Moses, when asked his name, "I AM THAT I AM", a Hebrew idiom meaning "Mind your own business!"

It sounds like a God idiom to Me, as it was God speaking to Moses.

But I thought that it was "I AM WHAT I AM"

Some seem to have changed this into "Mind your own business"

Nice bit of business, this pocket picking.
Mageth appears to have been using the KJV and quoted it correctly. Most translations go with "I am WHO I am." A few go with "I am WHAT I am." His point about the idiom still stands.

[Mageth]

It sounds like a God idiom to Me, as it was God speaking to Moses.

No, it was a Hebrew author writing an account (in Hebrew, of course) describing what God allegedly said to Moses.

But I thought that it was "I AM WHAT I AM"

I'm pretty sure that's Popeye, not God. ;)

An alternative translation of God's response to Moses is "I AM WHO I AM".

Some seem to have changed this into "Mind your own business"

"Some" being Hebrew/Biblical scholars analyzing the text and recognizing the idiom for what it is.

From Karen Armstrong's A History of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Ch.1, p. 21-22):

When Moses asks his [God's] name and credentials, Yahweh replies with a pun which, as we shall see, would exercise monotheists for centuries. Instead of revealing his name directly, he answers: "I Am Who I Am" (Ehyeh asher ehyeh)." What did he mean? He certainly did not mean, as later philosophers would assert, that he was self-subsistent Being. Hebrew did not have such a metaphysical dimension at this stage, and it would be nearly 2000 years before it acquired one. God seems to have meant something rather more direct. Ehyeh asher ehyeh is a Hebrew idiom to express a deliberate vagueness. When the Bible uses a phrase like "they went where they went," it means "I haven't the vaguest idea where they went." So when Moses asks God who he is, God replies in effect: "Never you mind who I am!" or "Mind your own business!" There was to be no discussion of God's nature and certainly no attempt to manipulate him as pagans sometimes did when they recited the names of their gods. Yahweh is the Unconditional One: I shall be that which I shall be. He will be exactly as he chooses and will make no guarantees. He simply promised that he would participate in the history of his people.

Nice bit of business, this pocket picking.

The perception of which should be cleared up for you now, BTW.

[Light]

I'm trying to figure out the relevance your post has to the prior discussion in this thread, but I'm drawing a blank.

Mageth appears to have been using the KJV and quoted it correctly. Most translations go with "I am WHO I am." A few go with "I am WHAT I am." His point about the idiom still stands.

Quite simply, God is ALL-Knowing. He may be all-forcasting too but He still cannot know the enexpected turn. Although He may want to guess at it.

Certainly you cannot know that which has NOT happened.

Otherwise all that has happenend IS known.

Of course you may know that which may happen in the future, if you make it that way.

God could make it that way ... IF ... He chooses to do so. If you are nice to each other ... for His sake.

But I would guess that He is wandering in a desert somewhere, all alone.

Maybe He is crying, because you did not know how to love Him.