If God is Omniscient, Isn't Everything Determined?

[Penumbra]

There are different degrees of responsibility depending on the specifics.

If a being has knowledge of something that can prevent truly negative outcomes (without some greater good that could not be brought about in a better way), and does not share this knowledge in order to prevent the negative outcome, then that's an issue of poor ethics. A quick example would be Dr. Manhattan from the watchmen, where he has instances where he can help but choose not to simply due to feeling detached about all of it.

On the other hand, if a being has perfect knowledge of something that is a truly negative outcome, and caused that thing (like, for example, being able to create the universe in a number of ways, with knowledge of how they would all turn out, and choosing one that is not optimal), then responsibility is in the hands of that being. Free will is an undefined and probably undefinable concept in my view, and therefore nonexistent whether there exists a god or not.

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.

This seems to operate under the assumption that a god would have a mind that is kind of like a human's; limited in spacetime. Like some sort of monotheistic god. But any conception of god I've seriously considered must conceive time differently, or it is bound externally by the very laws of physics that it has created or expressed. That is, all times are like the present to such a god; all spacetime is understood simultaneously, instantly, and eternally, and there is no such concept as "deciding to change", or "the future", since all choices or expressions have occurred at once, and infinitely and eternally.

I don't believe in such a god, primarily because there isn't any evidence of any sort of a mechanism or process for how a mind can exist outside of spacetime, but if we're going to consider hypotheticals, I find it odd that a god would be assumed to exist within spacetime, rather than transcendent.

 

[religion99]

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.

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.

 

[religion99]

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.

Why it is so ironic? In fact , it is the only logical possibility , as you yourself has demonstrated. Jain Gods have omniscience and zero omnipotence and we never feel that it to be ironic. Trying to be "potent" towards the things with which we have no capability or ability whatsoever is the root cause of misery and principal reason for non-attainment of Omniscience by Human beings. Jain Gods are fully powerful with respect to themselves and have zero power towards anything else. That is the true nature of the things in the Universe , but we , because of the delusion , believe otherwise and try to CHANGE or INFLUENCE other things and people , robbing ourselves from omniscience and eternal peace in the process.

 

[Skwim]

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.

So what is this " proper construction of the pay-off matrix for the decision," and why does it "vindicate the one-box choice"? Better yet, what is the significance of the "one-box choice"?

 

[Shades-o-Blue]

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 would say that he is not responsible. We each are accountable for our own decisions.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I would say that he is not responsible. We each are accountable for our own decisions.

So I am also not responsible for the bees?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

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?

Answer: No.

A being which is both omniscient and omnipotent may choose to "exert" greater power from its omnipotence to trump its omniscience and thereby make itself not know something.

Do I want to even attempt to explain how this works? Not a chance. Competing infinities is beyond my understanding, and quite likely beyond human understanding.

MTF

 

[Copernicus]

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.

Don't be silly. If God knew about the sandwich before Matthew took his first bite, and he decided to create the universe in which that bite would take place, he had control over it. However, if he knew that he would choose to create that universe, then he really had no control over any of it, because he could not choose to do other than to create that universe and Matthew's lunch to boot.

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.

Come on, Tarasan, think it through. If God knew he would choose to make the universe in which Matthew had an 11 o'clock sandwich and not a 12 o'clock bagel, then he could not logically choose to go with the 12 o'clock bagel. The Big Guy has no choice in the matter. How could he? Omniscience doesn't leave him that option.

...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?

Absolutely not. Such a being could not possibly be omniscient and have free will at the same time. Free will implies choice, and omniscience implies no choices, exactly as the OP stated.

If a being has knowledge of something that can prevent truly negative outcomes (without some greater good that could not be brought about in a better way), and does not share this knowledge in order to prevent the negative outcome, then that's an issue of poor ethics. A quick example would be Dr. Manhattan from the watchmen, where he has instances where he can help but choose not to simply due to feeling detached about all of it.

But an omniscient god cannot choose any future other than the one he knows. If he could, then he wouldn't be omniscient. God is not Cassandra for the very simple reason that Cassandra did not create the outcomes that she foresaw. Once you define god as an omniscient creator, he becomes a captive of his foreknowledge. We ignorant mortals have the illusion of power to change the future only because we do not know what it will turn out to be.

On the other hand, if a being has perfect knowledge of something that is a truly negative outcome, and caused that thing (like, for example, being able to create the universe in a number of ways, with knowledge of how they would all turn out, and choosing one that is not optimal), then responsibility is in the hands of that being. Free will is an undefined and probably undefinable concept in my view, and therefore nonexistent whether there exists a god or not.

I am not saying that God is responsible for what he did. His omniscience robs him of his freedom to change the future at the same time that it absolves him of guilt. How can you blame a being that had no choice but to create the messes we find ourselves in? We have the luxury of not knowing the future. God is impoverished in that respect.

This seems to operate under the assumption that a god would have a mind that is kind of like a human's; limited in spacetime. Like some sort of monotheistic god. But any conception of god I've seriously considered must conceive time differently, or it is bound externally by the very laws of physics that it has created or expressed. That is, all times are like the present to such a god; all spacetime is understood simultaneously, instantly, and eternally, and there is no such concept as "deciding to change", or "the future", since all choices or expressions have occurred at once, and infinitely and eternally.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all. If everything happens in an instance--there are no changes of state--then there can be no such thing as "choice", which logically presupposes a sequence of events. And all descriptions of gods have always depicted them as beings that have minds "kind of like a human's". I know that believers are fond of denying that and claiming that God is somehow beyond human understanding, but that is between long stretches of imputing very human-like mentality and behavior to him. In any case, to the extent that God is unfathomable, there is nothing worth discussing about him.

I don't believe in such a god, primarily because there isn't any evidence of any sort of a mechanism or process for how a mind can exist outside of spacetime, but if we're going to consider hypotheticals, I find it odd that a god would be assumed to exist within spacetime, rather than transcendent.

Evidence is irrelevant if the concept is self-contradictory. The omnimax god cannot possibly exist, because its properties contradict each other.

Why it is so ironic? In fact , it is the only logical possibility , as you yourself has demonstrated. Jain Gods have omniscience and zero omnipotence and we never feel that it to be ironic. Trying to be "potent" towards the things with which we have no capability or ability whatsoever is the root cause of misery and principal reason for non-attainment of Omniscience by Human beings. Jain Gods are fully powerful with respect to themselves and have zero power towards anything else. That is the true nature of the things in the Universe , but we , because of the delusion , believe otherwise and try to CHANGE or INFLUENCE other things and people , robbing ourselves from omniscience and eternal peace in the process.

I may be delusional, but that is the reality I live in every day. I believe that I can change and influence other things and people. I remember having done that in the past, and I wake up every day with that belief. That does not mean that I can change and influence everything or every person, but so what? I'm not omnipotent. That is a fact I have come to live with as well. I see no reason to treat reality as a delusion because I am vulnerable and mortal.

 

[idav]

A being which is both omniscient and omnipotent may choose to "exert" greater power from its omnipotence to trump its omniscience and thereby make itself not know something.

I agree with this but this being would essentially be limiting it's own omniscience or omnipotence in order to accomplish that trick. Therefore it would lose at least one of it's omni's.

 

[Skwim]

A being which is both omniscient and omnipotent may choose to "exert" greater power from its omnipotence to trump its omniscience and thereby make itself not know something.
Do I want to even attempt to explain how this works? Not a chance. Competing infinities is beyond my understanding, and quite likely beyond human understanding.

Then why construct them? It's like saying "An omnipotent god can create a rock to heavy even he cant lift it, but don't ask me to explain it. Asserting contradictions and then running from them is a silly enterprise.

 

[Mister Emu]

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 presumes an omniscient being who is limited by space-time. A being who is outside of time or one who exists in all times simultaneously is not hampered by its omniscience.

 

[Copernicus]

That presumes an omniscient being who is limited by space-time. A being who is outside of time or one who exists in all times simultaneously is not hampered by its omniscience.

To the extent that such a being undergoes changes or makes decisions, it must exist in a temporal framework. To the extent that it interacts with us, it operates within our temporal framework. You cannot have a being that both makes choices and possesses omniscience, because such a being by definition could never have any question to decide.

 

[TashaN]

Just because i know the sun will rise tomorrow, that doesn't mean i caused the sun to rise!

Make sense?

 

[ratikala]

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.

dear religion 99

I like this reasoning

it would be like my seeing the outcome of a persons actions , and therefore alerting them to the impending result , if my warning is heard and acted upon that is good prehaps a mistake may be averted , however if they do not hear or understand , I can do no more to assist as I canot stop their action , none theless I have made the correct effort .

the lord in his omnicience knows the outcome of every thing , he has given his guidance for our benifit , it is our choice to heed his word or go against it , yes things are ultimately determined , but I beleive we have been given the free will to come to him in our own time , were we not to come to a true realisation through our own efforts then there would be nothing gained by our acheiving god by his arrangement .

 

[Penumbra]

But an omniscient god cannot choose any future other than the one he knows. If he could, then he wouldn't be omniscient. God is not Cassandra for the very simple reason that Cassandra did not create the outcomes that she foresaw. Once you define god as an omniscient creator, he becomes a captive of his foreknowledge. We ignorant mortals have the illusion of power to change the future only because we do not know what it will turn out to be.

I am not saying that God is responsible for what he did. His omniscience robs him of his freedom to change the future at the same time that it absolves him of guilt. How can you blame a being that had no choice but to create the messes we find ourselves in? We have the luxury of not knowing the future. God is impoverished in that respect.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all. If everything happens in an instance--there are no changes of state--then there can be no such thing as "choice", which logically presupposes a sequence of events. And all descriptions of gods have always depicted them as beings that have minds "kind of like a human's". I know that believers are fond of denying that and claiming that God is somehow beyond human understanding, but that is between long stretches of imputing very human-like mentality and behavior to him. In any case, to the extent that God is unfathomable, there is nothing worth discussing about him.

Evidence is irrelevant if the concept is self-contradictory. The omnimax god cannot possibly exist, because its properties contradict each other.

Most of these arguments are re-statements of the ones I already argued were assumptions about a being whose mind would be bound by time, so I'm not going to address those parts again.

I'll just respond to a few of the newer statements.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all. If everything happens in an instance--there are no changes of state--then there can be no such thing as "choice", which logically presupposes a sequence of events.

Speaking of self-contradictory, any notion of a creator god that exists within space or a linear time stream doesn't make sense, because spacetime itself is what expanded during the Big Bang.

And all descriptions of gods have always depicted them as beings that have minds "kind of like a human's".

Most Abrahamic conceptions do, as well as some of the avatars in Eastern religions, but something like Brahman is not usually described as kind of like a human, unless a story is trying to make a point.

In any case, to the extent that God is unfathomable, there is nothing worth discussing about him.

Except that one can discuss where the limits of knowledge lie, at least at the current time, and not make claims past that point.

Anyway, that's why I'm an atheist anyway. Most descriptions of god I encounter are either simplistic, falsifiable, and falsified, or vague, unfalsifiable, and possibly nonsensical claims.

 

[Penumbra]

Just because i know the sun will rise tomorrow, that doesn't mean i caused the sun to rise!

Make sense?

That makes sense, but that's not directly the issue. There are two ways to adapt that to the thread.

1) The thread is about the omniscience of god, specifically. If you know the sun will rise tomorrow, and also crafted the very laws of physics, then yes, that means you caused the sun to rise.

2) Suppose you're omniscient, but not necessarily omnipotent, but you do at least have the power to act. You're sitting in your home, and your omniscience knows that the house next to you is going to explode in a gas leak, resulting in the agonizing death of two parents, four children, and a pet dog. If you then do nothing about this situation, then wouldn't you say you are partly responsible?

 

[Willamena]

To the extent that such a being undergoes changes or makes decisions, it must exist in a temporal framework. To the extent that it interacts with us, it operates within our temporal framework. You cannot have a being that both makes choices and possesses omniscience, because such a being by definition could never have any question to decide.

That it undergoes change or makes decisions is special pleading for this scenario, though. Omniscience is the only thing being examined.

 

[religion99]

That makes sense, but that's not directly the issue. There are two ways to adapt that to the thread.

1) The thread is about the omniscience of god, specifically. If you know the sun will rise tomorrow, and also crafted the very laws of physics, then yes, that means you caused the sun to rise.

2) Suppose you're omniscient, but not necessarily omnipotent, but you do at least have the power to act. You're sitting in your home, and your omniscience knows that the house next to you is going to explode in a gas leak, resulting in the agonizing death of two parents, four children, and a pet dog. If you then do nothing about this situation, then wouldn't you say you are partly responsible?

An Omniscient God is necessarily completely impotent , inactive and passionless with regards to everything in the Universe.

 

[idav]

That makes sense, but that's not directly the issue. There are two ways to adapt that to the thread.

1) The thread is about the omniscience of god, specifically. If you know the sun will rise tomorrow, and also crafted the very laws of physics, then yes, that means you caused the sun to rise.

If you created the elements and started a nuclear reaction it doesn't mean you can control them even if you were able to somehow know everything that is happening within the reaction.

 

[Copernicus]

Speaking of self-contradictory, any notion of a creator god that exists within space or a linear time stream doesn't make sense, because spacetime itself is what expanded during the Big Bang.

My point was not that it is impossible to conceive of a being that exists in a different referential framework, but that the properties we attribute to such a being necessarily ground it in some temporal framework, even if not our own. You cannot make decisions atemporally, because the concept of decision-making entails a temporal ordering of states. Minimally, it requires there to be a state of mental indecision followed by a state of mental decision. Furthermore, you cannot describe that being as existing outside our own time stream and then claim that it is somehow active in that time stream. What is going on here is that some believers are trying to cobble together some very incompatible ideas and sell them as if they made sense. I'm not buying it, and I feel no obligation to pretend that such ideas make sense. I suspect that you are not that far out of agreement with me on that point.

Most Abrahamic conceptions do, as well as some of the avatars in Eastern religions, but something like Brahman is not usually described as kind of like a human, unless a story is trying to make a point.

Be careful about references to "Brahma", which can have quite distinct meanings for Hindus and Buddhists. Also, there is an actual god "Brahma" that is part of the Trimurti, but the English word is often used to refer to the "life force" sense of "Brahma", as well.

Except that one can discuss where the limits of knowledge lie, at least at the current time, and not make claims past that point.

I don't really agree with your thinking here. It seems never to be the case that people stop making claims past that point. They just don't want to be held responsible for the incompatibilities between claims made up to that point and past it, as well. When you are talking about "God", it only confuses matters to allow people to get away with that kind of "sleight of tongue" behavior. If you say that God is unchanging on the one hand, and then go on to describe his changes on the other, you really shouldn't be given a pass when the logic buzzer goes off.

Anyway, that's why I'm an atheist anyway. Most descriptions of god I encounter are either simplistic, falsifiable, and falsified, or vague, unfalsifiable, and possibly nonsensical claims.

We are on the same page here. I'm just more of a curmudgeon about it than you are.

That it undergoes change or makes decisions is special pleading for this scenario, though. Omniscience is the only thing being examined.

No, this isn't a case of special pleading. It is more a case of you trying to isolate the point from being contaminated by logical analysis.

If you created the elements and started a nuclear reaction it doesn't mean you can control them even if you were able to somehow know everything that is happening within the reaction.

Your point of control is at creation. If you know all of the events that will occur subsequent to creation, you can choose not to create or to create a different nuclear reaction that has different consequences. But the creator who knows what his own future actions will be has no choice in the matter anyway, since he can only do what he knows he will do. Otherwise, he wouldn't know what he was going to do, would he?