Definition:
Omniscience is defined as the state of knowing everything. The idea of an Omniscient Creator is widely acclaimed by Abrahamic Scriptures and Theology.
Premise :
The Knowledge of Everything that an Omniscient Creator would possess will also include the knowledge of past, present and future (relative to us). Now let's go back to the conception of our universe and our existence, back when God first came up with an idea to create the cosmos and the humans within it. As he is Omniscient, when this first idea appeared in whatever conscious God has, he was and would be able to know all of the occurrences of our cosmos and our lives and the results of our existence all before even deciding to create us.
He’d already know even before creating a particular soul (soul as per Abrahamic Theology) to be sent the deed whether good or bad he/she would perform and ergo whether it would end up in heaven or hell. The concept of evil is associated with a Satan figure in Abrahamic faiths who is responsible for these evils, but as Satan himself is a part of his Model of Creation and existence, God also knew even before creating Satan what kind of harms and evils to what extent and to whom it would inflict upon.
As his knowledge is perfect, it is absolute. It cannot be changed as an Omniscient God cannot be wrong. So we Humans would only perform those actions that wouldn’t break his omniscience, that is we follow his forethought which first originated when the idea of creation was first, by his will, conceptualized in his conscience which the Abrahamic God possesses. All the choices we make, Our thoughts and actions have already been fixed as we cannot deviate from his knowledge and this leads to this that everything is predestined and what we possess is just an illusion of free-will.
Thus ultimately we don’t own the free agency of our thought and the free will to act upon them. Now this is logical opposition to the claims of the scriptures that Humans possess free will but as we’ve established: Free-will and Omniscience cannot exist simultaneous as it is paradoxical and illogical, as illustrated.
From this it leads to that people who commit evil cannot be held accountable because their actions were a consequence of their mere existence of them and the whole model of existence which was created by a God who exactly knew that his creation would commit evil act but still decided to create the evil person ignoring the inherent flaws in its creation that leads to a man to commit evil. But this is not the issue, the issue is that on top of that, he claims that he’d punish and torture his own flawed creation, that caused him to sin because the whole model was already rigged since conception of the idea of its existence, in hell for eternity.
Now at this point I’d like to address the argument of potential timelines that many theists would present to retaliate with. The Argument of potential timelines goes like this,
Yes God is omniscient and knows our future. But what he knows is the different futures and outcomes of our existence. As the Butterfly-effect has shown that different choices leads to widely different outcomes and what God knows is the different choices we’d be presented with and what different outcomes would be resulted with our different decisions and the paths we take.
I hope that I’ve not created a straw-man here but nevertheless I’ve seen this argument being used quite often and here is my problem with the argument. This argument seems to have put a limit on God’s omniscience. Does God not know which of the potential timelines of events is the true timeline? Yes an Omniscient being would know what exact decision you would make and what outcome would be the true result.
Conclusion:
He thought to create a whole model of existence, knew the flaw of its model and also that this would lead his creation to commit sins. He knew the outcome of our existence even before creating us then why did he still decided to create Heaven or Hell? It also goes against his claim of Omni-Benevolence and Supreme Morality. All of his claims are contradicting and paradoxical.
Does this God and his model of existence seem rational or logical?
Board index ‹ God
10 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Re: The Omniscient God problem
by jimwalton » Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:29 pm
> Omniscience is defined as the state of knowing everything.
The first problem with your case is the foundation of it, which may topple your whole case. This is not the definition of omniscience. When we say that God is omniscient, we are undeniably talking about all things that are proper objects of knowledge. For instance, God doesn't know what it's like to learn, he doesn't know what it's like not to know everything, he doesn't know what would happen if an unstoppable force met an immoveable wall. These are absurdities. By omniscience we mean that God knows himself and all other things, whether they are past, present, or future, and he knows them exhaustively and to both extents of eternity. Such knowledge cannot come about through reasoning, process, empiricism, induction or deduction, and it certainly doesn't embrace the absurd, the impossible, or the self-contradictory.
To complicate the problem of defining omniscience, it can't be established what knowledge really is and how it all works. What are the principle grounds of knowledge, and particularly of God's knowledge? Does he evaluate propositions? Does he perceive? What about intuitions, reasoning, logic, and creativity? We consider knowledge to be the result of neurobiological events, but what is it for God?
But let's continue on to the true issue at hand: Is an omniscient being capable of thought? Of course he is, because thoughts are more than just knowledge, and they are more than just evaluating propositions, and the Bible defines God's mind as...
- creating new information (Isa. 40-48)
- showing comprehension
- gaining new information (Gn. 22.12, but it's not new knowledge)
- He orders the cosmos (Gn. 1)
- He designs (viz., the plan for the temple)
- He deliberates (Hos. 11.8)
- He can reason with people (the whole book of Malachi; Gn. 18.17-33)
- He can change a course of action (Ex. 32; 1 Sam. 8-12)
- He remembers (all over the place)
Is God's omniscience propositional or non-propositional? Can God have beliefs (since beliefs can be true, and beliefs are different than knowledge)? Are God's beliefs occurrent or dispositional? As you can see, this can all get pretty deep pretty quickly. At root, a cognitive faculty is simply a particular ability to know something, and since God knows everything, his cognitive faculties are both complete and operational. Perhaps we can define God's omniscience as:
- Having knowledge of all true propositions and having no false beliefs
- Having knowledge that is not surpassed or surpassable
In other words, your definition of omniscience is an inadequate foundation for your contention. But let's move on.
You go on to assume that God's omniscience is deterministic, making free will impossible, yet I would contend that knowledge is never causative. It doesn't matter how much I know, it doesn't mean that knowledge has caused anything. Only power is causative, so even supreme knowledge is not causative. In other words, God's knowledge (being able to see ahead of time) what you will choose doesn't mean that he used any power to create or manipulate that choice in you.
I think the real problem is that we perceive time as linear but time may not be linear, i.e., "the future already exists." But you construe knowledge of the future as determining the future, but this is not necessarily the case. Suppose I know that the sun will rise tomorrow—not just assume it, but suppose (for the sake of argument) that I know it. That doesn't mean I caused it. Knowledge is not causative. There are truly alternate possible futures, but an omniscient timeless being can see all simultaneously—and that capability doesn't require that he made those decisions himself, robbing free agents of their alternatives. Free will and omniscience are not mutually exclusive if the divine being is omniscient and timeless, and if time is not solely linear.
Free will cannot be an illusion because it is necessary for human life. First of all, the ability to reason is grounded in free will. Reasoning involves deciding if something is true or credible by equating it to the reality to which it refers, then comparing it with competing ideas, and choosing which idea best fits reality. Without free will and the legitimate ability to choose, the role of reason itself in any intellectual discipline is suspect—there is no mechanism for evaluating information and deciding on plausibility. Without free will, then, science itself is an illusion, all conversations are meaningless, and our thoughts are unreliable. Our lives are irredeemably incoherent.
We study our natural world (the sciences) as if self-awareness, self-direction, and reason are real. We can evaluate that there are realities outside of ourselves that we can observe and draw true conclusions about. The notion of truth takes us beyond mere biological determinism, which is only concerned with survival (food, flight, fight, and reproduction). We act as if we honestly believe that we can ask "what if..." questions, assess the possibilities, make authentic decisions, and conclude truth. All of these are evidences of free will, reason, and objective truth, all of which show that we live and function as if these things are real, reliable, and even have a facet to them that could be considered "true."
Secondarily, if free will didn't exist, we couldn’t know it, because I can't evaluate possibilities or draw conclusions. I couldn't think my way out of a paper bag let alone ascertain free will. Without free will, we couldn't know anything. Knowledge is justified true belief. We decide if a belief is true by comparing it to the reality to which it refers, comparing it with competing ideas, and choosing which idea best fits reality. This requires some level of free will. If you don't believe in free will, then you don't believe in the validity of reasoning, and all arguments to the contrary are self-defeating.
Third, without free will, the characteristics that most make us human are impossible: love, forgiveness, grace, mercy, and kindness, to name a few. If I have no choice but to love you, it's not love at all. Love requires the will to choose. If the only reason I forgive you is because I have no other alternative, then I have not forgiven you at all, but only followed an irresistible force. Without free will, I am a determined animal, perhaps even robotic, but I am not human.
Fourth, without free will there is no such thing as justice. I can neither find nor enforce justice in a court of law if there is no self-direction, either on the criminal's part (he can't be held accountable if he was determined to do it) or on the judge’s part (he can't make a rational decision if there is no such thing).
One cannot have free will without self-direction, and one cannot have self-direction without self-awareness, and one cannot have self-awareness without consciousness. The evidences are convincing that we have all these things. I have consciousness, therefore I am self-aware, and therefore I am self-directed. Both reason and experience tell us these things are so. Everything about humanity and reason point to the necessity of free will.
The first problem with your case is the foundation of it, which may topple your whole case. This is not the definition of omniscience. When we say that God is omniscient, we are undeniably talking about all things that are proper objects of knowledge. For instance, God doesn't know what it's like to learn, he doesn't know what it's like not to know everything, he doesn't know what would happen if an unstoppable force met an immoveable wall. These are absurdities. By omniscience we mean that God knows himself and all other things, whether they are past, present, or future, and he knows them exhaustively and to both extents of eternity. Such knowledge cannot come about through reasoning, process, empiricism, induction or deduction, and it certainly doesn't embrace the absurd, the impossible, or the self-contradictory.
To complicate the problem of defining omniscience, it can't be established what knowledge really is and how it all works. What are the principle grounds of knowledge, and particularly of God's knowledge? Does he evaluate propositions? Does he perceive? What about intuitions, reasoning, logic, and creativity? We consider knowledge to be the result of neurobiological events, but what is it for God?
But let's continue on to the true issue at hand: Is an omniscient being capable of thought? Of course he is, because thoughts are more than just knowledge, and they are more than just evaluating propositions, and the Bible defines God's mind as...
- creating new information (Isa. 40-48)
- showing comprehension
- gaining new information (Gn. 22.12, but it's not new knowledge)
- He orders the cosmos (Gn. 1)
- He designs (viz., the plan for the temple)
- He deliberates (Hos. 11.8)
- He can reason with people (the whole book of Malachi; Gn. 18.17-33)
- He can change a course of action (Ex. 32; 1 Sam. 8-12)
- He remembers (all over the place)
Is God's omniscience propositional or non-propositional? Can God have beliefs (since beliefs can be true, and beliefs are different than knowledge)? Are God's beliefs occurrent or dispositional? As you can see, this can all get pretty deep pretty quickly. At root, a cognitive faculty is simply a particular ability to know something, and since God knows everything, his cognitive faculties are both complete and operational. Perhaps we can define God's omniscience as:
- Having knowledge of all true propositions and having no false beliefs
- Having knowledge that is not surpassed or surpassable
In other words, your definition of omniscience is an inadequate foundation for your contention. But let's move on.
You go on to assume that God's omniscience is deterministic, making free will impossible, yet I would contend that knowledge is never causative. It doesn't matter how much I know, it doesn't mean that knowledge has caused anything. Only power is causative, so even supreme knowledge is not causative. In other words, God's knowledge (being able to see ahead of time) what you will choose doesn't mean that he used any power to create or manipulate that choice in you.
I think the real problem is that we perceive time as linear but time may not be linear, i.e., "the future already exists." But you construe knowledge of the future as determining the future, but this is not necessarily the case. Suppose I know that the sun will rise tomorrow—not just assume it, but suppose (for the sake of argument) that I know it. That doesn't mean I caused it. Knowledge is not causative. There are truly alternate possible futures, but an omniscient timeless being can see all simultaneously—and that capability doesn't require that he made those decisions himself, robbing free agents of their alternatives. Free will and omniscience are not mutually exclusive if the divine being is omniscient and timeless, and if time is not solely linear.
Free will cannot be an illusion because it is necessary for human life. First of all, the ability to reason is grounded in free will. Reasoning involves deciding if something is true or credible by equating it to the reality to which it refers, then comparing it with competing ideas, and choosing which idea best fits reality. Without free will and the legitimate ability to choose, the role of reason itself in any intellectual discipline is suspect—there is no mechanism for evaluating information and deciding on plausibility. Without free will, then, science itself is an illusion, all conversations are meaningless, and our thoughts are unreliable. Our lives are irredeemably incoherent.
We study our natural world (the sciences) as if self-awareness, self-direction, and reason are real. We can evaluate that there are realities outside of ourselves that we can observe and draw true conclusions about. The notion of truth takes us beyond mere biological determinism, which is only concerned with survival (food, flight, fight, and reproduction). We act as if we honestly believe that we can ask "what if..." questions, assess the possibilities, make authentic decisions, and conclude truth. All of these are evidences of free will, reason, and objective truth, all of which show that we live and function as if these things are real, reliable, and even have a facet to them that could be considered "true."
Secondarily, if free will didn't exist, we couldn’t know it, because I can't evaluate possibilities or draw conclusions. I couldn't think my way out of a paper bag let alone ascertain free will. Without free will, we couldn't know anything. Knowledge is justified true belief. We decide if a belief is true by comparing it to the reality to which it refers, comparing it with competing ideas, and choosing which idea best fits reality. This requires some level of free will. If you don't believe in free will, then you don't believe in the validity of reasoning, and all arguments to the contrary are self-defeating.
Third, without free will, the characteristics that most make us human are impossible: love, forgiveness, grace, mercy, and kindness, to name a few. If I have no choice but to love you, it's not love at all. Love requires the will to choose. If the only reason I forgive you is because I have no other alternative, then I have not forgiven you at all, but only followed an irresistible force. Without free will, I am a determined animal, perhaps even robotic, but I am not human.
Fourth, without free will there is no such thing as justice. I can neither find nor enforce justice in a court of law if there is no self-direction, either on the criminal's part (he can't be held accountable if he was determined to do it) or on the judge’s part (he can't make a rational decision if there is no such thing).
One cannot have free will without self-direction, and one cannot have self-direction without self-awareness, and one cannot have self-awareness without consciousness. The evidences are convincing that we have all these things. I have consciousness, therefore I am self-aware, and therefore I am self-directed. Both reason and experience tell us these things are so. Everything about humanity and reason point to the necessity of free will.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Omniscient God problem
by Login » Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:43 pm
om·nis·cience
ämˈniSH(ə)ns,ämˈnisēəns/
noun
noun: omniscience
the state of knowing everything.
"the notion of divine omniscience"
You begin your rant stating that OP doesn't have the true definition of omniscience. Then you begin to unpack it and redefine it in the same way.
ämˈniSH(ə)ns,ämˈnisēəns/
noun
noun: omniscience
the state of knowing everything.
"the notion of divine omniscience"
You begin your rant stating that OP doesn't have the true definition of omniscience. Then you begin to unpack it and redefine it in the same way.
- Login
Re: The Omniscient God problem
by jimwalton » Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:47 pm
Rant? I prefer to call it explanatory comments and a response to the question.
You'll also notice that I didn't define it as "the state of knowing everything." It's an inadequate and misleading definition. In contrast, what I ended up defining omniscience as is:
- comprehending all things that are proper objects of knowledge
- Having knowledge of all true propositions and having no false beliefs
- Having knowledge that is not surpassed or surpassable
You'll also notice that I didn't define it as "the state of knowing everything." It's an inadequate and misleading definition. In contrast, what I ended up defining omniscience as is:
- comprehending all things that are proper objects of knowledge
- Having knowledge of all true propositions and having no false beliefs
- Having knowledge that is not surpassed or surpassable
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Omniscient God problem
by Answer Man » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:30 pm
> Having knowledge of all true propositions and having no false beliefs Having knowledge that is not surpassed or surpassable
You just reframed my defintion i.e "True Knowledge of Everything" The Everything comes under "not surpass able" as per your definition because if there is something he doesn't know then who knows that knowledge? Is there another being that possesses the knowledge that God doesn't possess? If you believe in Monotheism then No. So Yes I agree with your definition and the other guy has pointed out the same. I agree that God doesn't "attains" knowledge He just possesses it by default.
> Free will and omniscience are not mutually exclusive if the divine being is omniscient and timeless
On your whole point above, I made it pretty clear in my argument how omniscience leads to the logical conclusion that free will ULTIMATELY doesn't exists. I'll state it again for you here.
As his knowledge is perfect, it is absolute. It cannot be changed as an Omniscient God cannot be wrong. So we Humans would only perform those actions that wouldn’t break his omniscience, that is we follow his forethought which first originated when the idea of creation was first, by his will, conceptualized in his conscience which the Abrahamic God possesses. All the choices we make, Our thoughts and actions have already been fixed as we cannot deviate from his knowledge and this leads to this that everything is predestined and what we possess is just an illusion of free-will.
You really didn't address my argument honestly and you're a bit strawmanning me and argued extensively for against something else which isn't my argument...
You just reframed my defintion i.e "True Knowledge of Everything" The Everything comes under "not surpass able" as per your definition because if there is something he doesn't know then who knows that knowledge? Is there another being that possesses the knowledge that God doesn't possess? If you believe in Monotheism then No. So Yes I agree with your definition and the other guy has pointed out the same. I agree that God doesn't "attains" knowledge He just possesses it by default.
> Free will and omniscience are not mutually exclusive if the divine being is omniscient and timeless
On your whole point above, I made it pretty clear in my argument how omniscience leads to the logical conclusion that free will ULTIMATELY doesn't exists. I'll state it again for you here.
As his knowledge is perfect, it is absolute. It cannot be changed as an Omniscient God cannot be wrong. So we Humans would only perform those actions that wouldn’t break his omniscience, that is we follow his forethought which first originated when the idea of creation was first, by his will, conceptualized in his conscience which the Abrahamic God possesses. All the choices we make, Our thoughts and actions have already been fixed as we cannot deviate from his knowledge and this leads to this that everything is predestined and what we possess is just an illusion of free-will.
You really didn't address my argument honestly and you're a bit strawmanning me and argued extensively for against something else which isn't my argument...
- Answer Man
Re: The Omniscient God problem
by jimwalton » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:33 pm
Hmm. I did address your argument. Though you stated that "omniscience leads to the logical conclusion that free will ultimately doesn't exist," I strongly disagree and don't think that the logical conclusion at all, as I said. I'll state it again for you here.
"You go on to assume that God's omniscience is deterministic, making free will impossible, yet I would contend that knowledge is never causative. It doesn't matter how much I know, it doesn't mean that knowledge has caused anything. Only power is causative, so even supreme knowledge is not causative. In other words, God's knowledge (being able to see ahead of time) what you will choose doesn't mean that he used any power to create or manipulate that choice in you.
"I think the real problem is that we perceive time as linear but time may not be linear, i.e., "the future already exists." But you construe knowledge of the future as determining the future, but this is not necessarily the case. Suppose I know that the sun will rise tomorrow—not just assume it, but suppose (for the sake of argument) that I know it. That doesn't mean I caused it. Knowledge is not causative. There are truly alternate possible futures, but an omniscient timeless being can see all simultaneously—and that capability doesn't require that he made those decisions himself, robbing free agents of their alternatives. Free will and omniscience are not mutually exclusive if the divine being is omniscient and timeless, and if time is not solely linear.
"Free will cannot be an illusion because it is necessary for human life. First of all, the ability to reason is grounded in free will. Reasoning involves deciding if something is true or credible by equating it to the reality to which it refers, then comparing it with competing ideas, and choosing which idea best fits reality. Without free will and the legitimate ability to choose, the role of reason itself in any intellectual discipline is suspect—there is no mechanism for evaluating information and deciding on plausibility. Without free will, then, science itself is an illusion, all conversations are meaningless, and our thoughts are unreliable. Our lives are irredeemably incoherent.
"We study our natural world (the sciences) as if self-awareness, self-direction, and reason are real. We can evaluate that there are realities outside of ourselves that we can observe and draw true conclusions about. The notion of truth takes us beyond mere biological determinism, which is only concerned with survival (food, flight, fight, and reproduction). We act as if we honestly believe that we can ask "what if..." questions, assess the possibilities, make authentic decisions, and conclude truth. All of these are evidences of free will, reason, and objective truth, all of which show that we live and function as if these things are real, reliable, and even have a facet to them that could be considered "true."
"Secondarily, if free will didn't exist, we couldn’t know it, because I can't evaluate possibilities or draw conclusions. I couldn't think my way out of a paper bag let alone ascertain free will. Without free will, we couldn't know anything. Knowledge is justified true belief. We decide if a belief is true by comparing it to the reality to which it refers, comparing it with competing ideas, and choosing which idea best fits reality. This requires some level of free will. If you don't believe in free will, then you don't believe in the validity of reasoning, and all arguments to the contrary are self-defeating.
"Third, without free will, the characteristics that most make us human are impossible: love, forgiveness, grace, mercy, and kindness, to name a few. If I have no choice but to love you, it's not love at all. Love requires the will to choose. If the only reason I forgive you is because I have no other alternative, then I have not forgiven you at all, but only followed an irresistible force. Without free will, I am a determined animal, perhaps even robotic, but I am not human.
"Fourth, without free will there is no such thing as justice. I can neither find nor enforce justice in a court of law if there is no self-direction, either on the criminal's part (he can't be held accountable if he was determined to do it) or on the judge’s part (he can't make a rational decision if there is no such thing).
"One cannot have free will without self-direction, and one cannot have self-direction without self-awareness, and one cannot have self-awareness without consciousness. The evidences are convincing that we have all these things. I have consciousness, therefore I am self-aware, and therefore I am self-directed. Both reason and experience tell us these things are so. Everything about humanity and reason point to the necessity of free will."
In other words...
- omniscience doesn't override or rule out free will
- omniscience and free will can both exist in the same arena
- knowledge is not causative, and therefore God's knowledge cannot determine our actions
- therefore, everything is NOT predestined. We are not robots and cannot be. This conclusion, your conclusion, is impossible.
"You go on to assume that God's omniscience is deterministic, making free will impossible, yet I would contend that knowledge is never causative. It doesn't matter how much I know, it doesn't mean that knowledge has caused anything. Only power is causative, so even supreme knowledge is not causative. In other words, God's knowledge (being able to see ahead of time) what you will choose doesn't mean that he used any power to create or manipulate that choice in you.
"I think the real problem is that we perceive time as linear but time may not be linear, i.e., "the future already exists." But you construe knowledge of the future as determining the future, but this is not necessarily the case. Suppose I know that the sun will rise tomorrow—not just assume it, but suppose (for the sake of argument) that I know it. That doesn't mean I caused it. Knowledge is not causative. There are truly alternate possible futures, but an omniscient timeless being can see all simultaneously—and that capability doesn't require that he made those decisions himself, robbing free agents of their alternatives. Free will and omniscience are not mutually exclusive if the divine being is omniscient and timeless, and if time is not solely linear.
"Free will cannot be an illusion because it is necessary for human life. First of all, the ability to reason is grounded in free will. Reasoning involves deciding if something is true or credible by equating it to the reality to which it refers, then comparing it with competing ideas, and choosing which idea best fits reality. Without free will and the legitimate ability to choose, the role of reason itself in any intellectual discipline is suspect—there is no mechanism for evaluating information and deciding on plausibility. Without free will, then, science itself is an illusion, all conversations are meaningless, and our thoughts are unreliable. Our lives are irredeemably incoherent.
"We study our natural world (the sciences) as if self-awareness, self-direction, and reason are real. We can evaluate that there are realities outside of ourselves that we can observe and draw true conclusions about. The notion of truth takes us beyond mere biological determinism, which is only concerned with survival (food, flight, fight, and reproduction). We act as if we honestly believe that we can ask "what if..." questions, assess the possibilities, make authentic decisions, and conclude truth. All of these are evidences of free will, reason, and objective truth, all of which show that we live and function as if these things are real, reliable, and even have a facet to them that could be considered "true."
"Secondarily, if free will didn't exist, we couldn’t know it, because I can't evaluate possibilities or draw conclusions. I couldn't think my way out of a paper bag let alone ascertain free will. Without free will, we couldn't know anything. Knowledge is justified true belief. We decide if a belief is true by comparing it to the reality to which it refers, comparing it with competing ideas, and choosing which idea best fits reality. This requires some level of free will. If you don't believe in free will, then you don't believe in the validity of reasoning, and all arguments to the contrary are self-defeating.
"Third, without free will, the characteristics that most make us human are impossible: love, forgiveness, grace, mercy, and kindness, to name a few. If I have no choice but to love you, it's not love at all. Love requires the will to choose. If the only reason I forgive you is because I have no other alternative, then I have not forgiven you at all, but only followed an irresistible force. Without free will, I am a determined animal, perhaps even robotic, but I am not human.
"Fourth, without free will there is no such thing as justice. I can neither find nor enforce justice in a court of law if there is no self-direction, either on the criminal's part (he can't be held accountable if he was determined to do it) or on the judge’s part (he can't make a rational decision if there is no such thing).
"One cannot have free will without self-direction, and one cannot have self-direction without self-awareness, and one cannot have self-awareness without consciousness. The evidences are convincing that we have all these things. I have consciousness, therefore I am self-aware, and therefore I am self-directed. Both reason and experience tell us these things are so. Everything about humanity and reason point to the necessity of free will."
In other words...
- omniscience doesn't override or rule out free will
- omniscience and free will can both exist in the same arena
- knowledge is not causative, and therefore God's knowledge cannot determine our actions
- therefore, everything is NOT predestined. We are not robots and cannot be. This conclusion, your conclusion, is impossible.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Omniscient God problem
by Egghead » Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:37 pm
> Perhaps we can define God's omniscience as:
Having knowledge of all true propositions and having no false beliefs
Having knowledge that is not surpassed or surpassable
Are you are positing that god cannot think about things that are not "true"?
Having knowledge of all true propositions and having no false beliefs
Having knowledge that is not surpassed or surpassable
Are you are positing that god cannot think about things that are not "true"?
- Egghead
Re: The Omniscient God problem
by jimwalton » Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:40 pm
It's an excellent question. I would consider that he can think about things that are not true, but he would harbor no false beliefs. For instance, in the book of Job (1.11), the Adversary says something to God that is not true. God obviously considers what he says, but doesn't believe it (1.12).
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Omniscient God problem
by For Me » Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:43 pm
> These are absurdities. By omniscience we mean that God knows himself and all other things, whether they are past, present, or future, and he knows them exhaustively and to both extents of eternity
This is part of the absurdity. Your definition of future as an object is quite absurd. There is no such thing.
Quite apart from this flaw, your definition is still incorrect. Omniscience is about knowledge not about the accumulation of gossip information. Knowledge qua Wisdom and nothing else. The everyday affairs of men are, the affairs of men. If the creature wishes for help, then he must ask for it.
This is part of the absurdity. Your definition of future as an object is quite absurd. There is no such thing.
Quite apart from this flaw, your definition is still incorrect. Omniscience is about knowledge not about the accumulation of gossip information. Knowledge qua Wisdom and nothing else. The everyday affairs of men are, the affairs of men. If the creature wishes for help, then he must ask for it.
- For Me
Re: The Omniscient God problem
by jimwalton » Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:19 am
> This is part of the absurdity. Your definition of future as an object is quite absurd. There is no such thing.
I made no statement about the future being a "thing." The future is an abstraction.
> your definition is still incorrect.
I was trying hard not to define omniscience, but only to describe it. I think a firm definition is elusive, and that was the point I was trying to make with the original poster, who seemed to arrive at a definition quickly and casually. I thought his definition was inadequate.
> Omniscience is about knowledge not about the accumulation of gossip information.
I agree. I didn't make any claim or hint that this would be the case.
I made no statement about the future being a "thing." The future is an abstraction.
> your definition is still incorrect.
I was trying hard not to define omniscience, but only to describe it. I think a firm definition is elusive, and that was the point I was trying to make with the original poster, who seemed to arrive at a definition quickly and casually. I thought his definition was inadequate.
> Omniscience is about knowledge not about the accumulation of gossip information.
I agree. I didn't make any claim or hint that this would be the case.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:19 am.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
10 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest