If God is Omniscient, Isn't Everything Determined?

[The Sum of Awe]

Let's say I am all knowing of what would happen, and I have to throw away a pop bottle, although I know there is a wasp's nest in there, and the next person who will come will be strolling her 2 month old baby boy, giggling at the wind. She will need to throw a candy wrapper away, but once they open it the baby will get stung and die, being allergic to beestings, and the woman will be trying to escape the swarm.

Am I held responsible for the child's death? Or was it the freewill of the mother who had opened it up with her child there?


The same works for God and the nature of evil. If God knows everything that will happen if he makes the universe doing this and that, then he also knows that evil will happen, should he be held responsible for the evil of the world in that case?

 

[Koldo]

Let's say I am all knowing of what would happen, and I have to throw away a pop bottle, although I know there is a wasp's nest in there, and the next person who will come will be strolling her 2 month old baby boy, giggling at the wind. She will need to throw a candy wrapper away, but once they open it the baby will get stung and die, being allergic to beestings, and the woman will be trying to escape the swarm.

Am I held responsible for the child's death? Or was it the freewill of the mother who had opened it up with her child there?

Both. Each with different degrees of responsibility.

The same works for God and the nature of evil. If God knows everything that will happen if he makes the universe doing this and that, then he also knows that evil will happen, should he be held responsible for the evil of the world in that case?

Yes. Particularly because he is also omnipotent ( or so some people say ).

 

[Copernicus]

It is hard to imagine how any being could possibly be omnipotent and omniscient. The philosophical literature contains a lot of discussion on this question, and you might be interested in the Impossibility of God, if you have not already seen that book. The question always comes down to what we mean by omniscience. Some believers will claim that God knows everything that it is possible to know at any given time, but not the future. That view has God being as time-bound as humans, so it goes against the traditional concept of God as a being that is not bound by our time frame. Others will claim that God knows all the evil that will happen, but he chooses not to alter it for good reasons that we might not comprehend. Trying to rationalize the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent being can be hard, but people who are determined to do so will use their imagination and ingenuity to its fullest extent.

What strikes me as ironic is how limited an omniscient being must be. If it knows the future of our reality for certain, then it is powerless to change it, because the omniscient being must necessarily know all of its own actions in the future. That is, God must know that he will not decide to change the future in order to know what the future must be. Hence, God's omniscience robs him of his own free will, and it renders his omnipotence a sham.

 

[Skwim]

What strikes me as ironic is how limited an omniscient being must be. If it knows the future of our reality for certain, then it is powerless to change it, because the omniscient being must necessarily know all of its own actions in the future. That is, God must know that he will not decide to change the future in order to know what the future must be. Hence, God's omniscience robs him of his own free will, and it renders his omnipotence a sham.

And such a god would know that in the future he would change something.

 

[Splarnst]

It seems impossible to know anything that isn't determined.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

It seems impossible to know anything that isn't determined.

Quantum indeterminacy, which mostly cancels out at the macro level, still leaves a hint of uncertainty about the future.

 

[Skwim]

Quantum indeterminacy, which mostly cancels out at the macro level, still leaves a hint of uncertainty about the future.

But an all knowing god would not be limited in the measurement of all properties. Or so "omniscience" + "omnipotence" suggests.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Well, the God doesn't even have to be omnipotent to be blamed, just omniscient and have the power to create.

 

[Copernicus]

And such a god would know that in the future he would change something.

But he would not have the power to do anything other than make that change. There is no logical way that an omniscient being could have even limited omnipotence. It would be completely powerless to change its mind about anything. The Supreme Automaton.

 

[Skwim]

But he would not have the power to do anything other than make that change. There is no logical way that an omniscient being could have even limited omnipotence. It would be completely powerless to change its mind about anything. The Supreme Automaton.

Yes, I know. Just seeing if I could trip you up.

The whole idea of an omniscient and omnipotent god who has free will simply flies in the face of too much logic. Heck, a god with just free will flies in the face of too much logic.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, I know. Just seeing if I could trip you up.

The whole idea of an omniscient and omnipotent god who has free will simply flies in the face of too much logic. Heck, a god with just free will flies in the face of too much logic.

Right, but explanation is not the reason so many people believe in gods. Empowerment is probably the biggest factor that motivates belief. "Keeping the faith" involves being able to avoid thinking clearly about such things.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's say I am all knowing of what would happen, and I have to throw away a pop bottle, although I know there is a wasp's nest in there, and the next person who will come will be strolling her 2 month old baby boy, giggling at the wind. She will need to throw a candy wrapper away, but once they open it the baby will get stung and die, being allergic to beestings, and the woman will be trying to escape the swarm.

Am I held responsible for the child's death? Or was it the freewill of the mother who had opened it up with her child there?


The same works for God and the nature of evil. If God knows everything that will happen if he makes the universe doing this and that, then he also knows that evil will happen, should he be held responsible for the evil of the world in that case?

I agree. With an all knowing all (including the future) all powerful god, it would be logically impossible to make a decision which would run counter to what
the god would know in advance that you would choose. The god cannot be wrong, so you cannot do something he (she? it?) didn't foresee. The whole free
will thing strikes me as ill defined & untestable anyway. So whether I have free will or just an illusion of free will, it makes no difference in my life.

 

[tarasan]

Yeah I love the whole question about Gods omniscience and Libertarain freedom. I main problem I think that some Christian have to contend with is that they dont allow for God to incoperate contingent truths into Gods omniscient knowledge. Those contingent truths are of course the genuine free actions of his creations.

Does anyone here know about a Christian doctrine called Molonism?

 

[Copernicus]

Yeah I love the whole question about Gods omniscience and Libertarain freedom. I main problem I think that some Christian have to contend with is that they dont allow for God to incoperate contingent truths into Gods omniscient knowledge. Those contingent truths are of course the genuine free actions of his creations.

Please explain how contingencies could exist for an omniscient God, who would ipso facto know the outcome of every contingency. Another way of putting it is that contingencies cannot logically exist in the presence of omniscience, because their existence contradicts the presupposition that the outcome is known. From God's perspective, nobody can choose to do other than he knows they will do.

Does anyone here know about a Christian doctrine called Molonism?

It doesn't resolve the conundrum, because it is just the position that God simulates all possible outcomes and chooses to create only one string of possible outcomes--what we know as reality. He also, presumably, knows the outcome of his simulations before he runs them and which string of outcomes he will favor over all the others. In fact, he knows that he will take this course of action, because he is omniscient and cannot choose to do other than everything he knows he will do. I could go on, but you get the gist of it. God's omniscience turns him into an automaton.

 

[tarasan]

Please explain how contingencies could exist for an omniscient God, who would ipso facto know the outcome of every contingency. Another way of putting it is that contingencies cannot logically exist in the presence of omniscience, because their existence contradicts the presupposition that the outcome is known. From God's perspective, nobody can choose to do other than he knows they will do.

Actually thats not true a contingency is something that he can know, yet have no control over, for example God can know that "Matthew will eat a sandwich at eleven oclock" however he didnt make that truth the case, I did. foreknowledge of an action doesnt make that action the case.

It doesn't resolve the conundrum, because it is just the position that God simulates all possible outcomes and chooses to create only one string of possible outcomes--what we know as reality. He also, presumably, knows the outcome of his simulations before he runs them and which string of outcomes he will favor over all the others. In fact, he knows that he will take this course of action, because he is omniscient and cannot choose to do other than everything he knows he will do. I could go on, but you get the gist of it. God's omniscience turns him into an automaton.

Molinism I believe does solve the problem because it provides us with genuine libertarian choices. it does this by showing firstly, that human beings affect Gods decisions because God logically cannot make us do something that ultimately we would never do ourselves. It also shows that there are genuine possible scenarios that could have happened. for example the "Matt eats a sandwich at eleven Oclock" is true in one possible world, but it is also the case, that if the scenario was different, "Matt eats a bagle at 12 oclock" would be true.

so how does this affect God? it shows us that while God has perfect knowledge of every scenario that humans do, he also has every scenario of what he himself will do, will he make us all automitons? or will he give us libertarain free will? isnt it true that God himself has a genuine free choice in exactly the same way as Matt does?

 

[Acim]

Let's say I am all knowing of what would happen,

I find this desiring more info. I understand what follows is an attempt at that but the 'what' here leaves a lot to be desired. Even in the very very very shortsighted example.

and I have to throw away a pop bottle, although I know there is a wasp's nest in there, and the next person who will come will be strolling her 2 month old baby boy, giggling at the wind. She will need to throw a candy wrapper away, but once they open it the baby will get stung and die, being allergic to beestings, and the woman will be trying to escape the swarm.

Am I held responsible for the child's death?

No.
Primarily because there is no death. Not in reality.

From this all important point, the other aspects of argument pertinent to what you are getting at (I think) is a) you didn't have to throw away pop bottle, b) you apparently didn't know effects it would have on (all) others and c) mom didn't need to throw a candy wrapper away

Or was it the freewill of the mother who had opened it up with her child there?

Has next to nothing to do with free will as you have it set up. You are referring to (illusion of) free choice. Yes, it was her choice to put wrapper in bottle that had wasp's nest. No, she is not responsible for bee stings that resulted in perceived end of life of her infant. These questions of responsibility are distractions away from simple truths.

The same works for God and the nature of evil. If God knows everything that will happen if he makes the universe doing this and that, then he also knows that evil will happen, should he be held responsible for the evil of the world in that case?

This is where 'what' would happen falls apart in way that Knowledge addresses and purifies with ease. As if what 'will' happen is matter of doubt, unforeseeable. That which is happening, but appears as 'will happen,' in short explanation, is the dream of separation from Source will end in nothingness of which it came. The perception of death will come to an end. That will happen because in reality the separation never has happened, so its undoing is already done. Within illusion that asserts separation is still happening, it is a matter of time (illusion within illusion).

We are responsible for seeing illusion in place of truth, and insisting truth cannot effect illusion and have any influence on 'all the evil that has been made manifest.' That is our responsibility. While the burden is perceived as overwhelming, the simple truth is evil can be undone when illusion is brought to truth, and NOT kept hidden. At this level of understanding, things can get a bit complex in terms of explanation. Thus short explanation may no longer be plausible. While illusion appears to be hiding the truth, Free Will is perceived as not possible. Thus the illusion of free choice is born as way for imprisoned will to have 'way out.' Without the injection of freedom of choice within the paradigm of separation, the 'reality' is the world is playing out an elaborate chain of cause and effect based on a cause that is an illusion, or distortion, of will. It is perpetuating myth or understanding that the will of a creator can be unknown and/or separated from its Source.

 

[tarasan]

something you guys might like, and something ive enjoyed pondering over here is a quote:
"Newcomb's Paradox provides an illuminating non-theological illustration of the problem of divine foreknowledge and human freedom. We are to imagine a being with great predictive powers and to suppose we are confronted with two boxes, B1 and B2. B1 contains $1,000; B2 contains either $1,000,000 or nothing. We may choose either B2 alone or B1 and B2 together. If the being predicts that you choose both boxes, he does not put anything in B2; if he predicts that you choose B2 only, he puts $1,000,000 in B2. What should you choose? A proper construction of the pay-off matrix for the decision vindicates the one-box choice. If this is correct, then those who claim that God's knowledge is counterfactually dependent on future contingents foreknown by Him are likewise vindicated."
Source: "Divine Foreknowledge and Newcomb's Paradox," Philosophia 17 (1987): 331-350.

originally the paradox was used against decision theory however as the quote points out it can also be used against the concept of an omniscient God.

 

[religion99]

Let's say I am all knowing of what would happen, and I have to throw away a pop bottle, although I know there is a wasp's nest in there, and the next person who will come will be strolling her 2 month old baby boy, giggling at the wind. She will need to throw a candy wrapper away, but once they open it the baby will get stung and die, being allergic to beestings, and the woman will be trying to escape the swarm.

Am I held responsible for the child's death? Or was it the freewill of the mother who had opened it up with her child there?


The same works for God and the nature of evil. If God knows everything that will happen if he makes the universe doing this and that, then he also knows that evil will happen, should he be held responsible for the evil of the world in that case?

Extremely good question.

In Jain System , It is the Will and Willful Action which holds someone accountable , not the prior knowledge or a will-less action.

A doctor , while operating a patient to save him , is not accountable if the patient dies, because his will was good. Actually he gets some good karma points for making the effort to try to save him.

Similarly , If you think of killing somebody , but not actually kill him, makes you accountable for the ill-will and gives you bad karma points.

In Jain system , An Omniscient is totally will-less. Hence he is not accountable slightest for either the good or the evil happenings in the Universe.

Simultaneous presence of Omniscience and a slightest Will in the same person is a logical impossibility.

 

[Madhuri]

The same works for God and the nature of evil. If God knows everything that will happen if he makes the universe doing this and that, then he also knows that evil will happen, should he be held responsible for the evil of the world in that case?

If God intentionally created the world and evil or allowing evil, then yes, he is a d***, though has nobody to punish him. However, I do not believe that God intentionally did any of this. Nature and the material world are a part of His Being and there was never a point when it was decided that the world should be made. It exists as naturally as God does.

 

[idav]

The same works for God and the nature of evil. If God knows everything that will happen if he makes the universe doing this and that, then he also knows that evil will happen, should he be held responsible for the evil of the world in that case?

A god that has the ability to change it should be held accountable for all that happens. Just knowing about it isn't enough, God would have to actually be able to do something about it. However enough knowledge might give god the ability to find ways around obstacles even in the face of limitations.