If God is Omniscient, Isn't Everything Determined?

[Skwim]

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

An omniscient god would not be "necessarily completely impotent , inactive." He would be doing whatever he foresaw himself doing.

 

[Copernicus]

An omniscient god would not be "necessarily completely impotent , inactive." He would be doing whatever he foresaw himself doing.

The interesting question that follows from that is what determines God's behavior, since he is preprogrammed to do what he foresees. Perhaps there is a turtles-all-the-way-down solution to this problem.

 

[Penumbra]

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.

If you had a flawless understanding of nuclear fission or fusion, down to the detail, then yes, it means you should know exactly what's going to happen.

And then if you take away the assumption that god is bound by linear time (which imo makes for a really awkward assumption anyway), then it reduces that example even further.

 

[Penumbra]

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.

I agree that it does not make sense in detail, however, in hypotheticals, I'm willing to consider things that don't immediately make sense. More specifically, if I find something that makes less sense than something else, I'll stick with the latter. For example, I find the concept that a creator god would be bound by linear time to make even less sense than the concept that some creator god would somehow understand time in a non-linear way, seeing as how my understanding of spacetime is that linear time in this universe is not some eternal thing. That is, if a god has the property of aseity, being retroactively bound by its own creation (such as spacetime) doesn't make sense, and indeed, even the concept of "retroactive" doesn't make sense.

I'd labor to produce an example, but I recall an example from a thread I participated in by an atheist, which he put forth in a way having nothing to do with gods (or if anything, to argue against their necessity or relevance). It can help describe what I'm saying.
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...8-universe-exists-because-i-can-describe.html

To relate that concept to a deity, what I'm saying is, a god should conceivably view time differently. Similar to how a programmer may view that clump of data of a supposedly bouncing ball, a god may view all of existence in that way. That is, all "frames" are known simultaneously.

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

I didn't reference a Brahma or Bhrama. I specifically referenced Brahman (and to clarify, I was referencing it in a Hindu context). I'm aware of the difference between the creator god Brahma and an impersonal divine ground of being Brahman, and referenced the latter.

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.

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

I'm not particularly interested in defending theist claims. Many of them certainly make claims past their realms of knowledge. Rather, I'm addressing the opposite view, that claims can be made about a god from atheist perspectives as well that are out of the scope of present knowledge.

I'm of the position that an assumption of god is an unjustified assumption, but that if for the sake of discussing godly traits a god is granted, then certain traits make more sense than others.

 

[idav]

The interesting question that follows from that is what determines God's behavior, since he is preprogrammed to do what he foresees. Perhaps there is a turtles-all-the-way-down solution to this problem.

At that level you would be able to "do" every single decision all at once. You'd be doing your favorite maybe? Knowing the possibilities might be worth exploring.

 

[Skwim]

The interesting question that follows from that is what determines God's behavior, since he is preprogrammed to do what he foresees. Perhaps there is a turtles-all-the-way-down solution to this problem.

And it appears there may be, although it would be far from satisfactory. Just like humans and all other organisms, what god does must have a cause, unless what he does is wholly and utterly random.

 

[Copernicus]

To relate that concept to a deity, what I'm saying is, a god should conceivably view time differently. Similar to how a programmer may view that clump of data of a supposedly bouncing ball, a god may view all of existence in that way. That is, all "frames" are known simultaneously.

If you go down that road, then I think you'll be addressing what it means to say that anything can be "understood", and that will also produce more cognitive dissonance with our conception of deities. That is, understanding something necessarily appeals to our experiences, and gods would not be capable of understanding anything at all unless their minds, like ours, were somehow "embodied".

I didn't reference a Brahma or Bhrama. I specifically referenced Brahman (and to clarify, I was referencing it in a Hindu context). I'm aware of the difference between the creator god Brahma and an impersonal divine ground of being Brahman, and referenced the latter.

Thanks for catching my typo. I went back and corrected it. I think that the confusion in English may not be the same for Hindus, because the name "Brahma" can be a translation of slightly different Sanskrit words, if I remember correctly. In any case, the English word is used ambiguously even in the Hindu frame of reference.

I'm not particularly interested in defending theist claims. Many of them certainly make claims past their realms of knowledge. Rather, I'm addressing the opposite view, that claims can be made about a god from atheist perspectives as well that are out of the scope of present knowledge.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "out of scope of present knowledge". I don't think that one can make reasonable claims about anything unless they are within one's scope of knowledge.

I'm of the position that an assumption of god is an unjustified assumption, but that if for the sake of discussing godly traits a god is granted, then certain traits make more sense than others.

Fair enough. I would prefer to stand well away from that pool of quicksand.

 

[Penumbra]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "out of scope of present knowledge". I don't think that one can make reasonable claims about anything unless they are within one's scope of knowledge.

Exactly- which is why I try to address such claims if I see them.

 

[religion99]

At that level you would be able to "do" every single decision all at once. You'd be doing your favorite maybe? Knowing the possibilities might be worth exploring.

Isn't knowing one kind of doing?

 

[religion99]

The interesting question that follows from that is what determines God's behavior, since he is preprogrammed to do what he foresees. Perhaps there is a turtles-all-the-way-down solution to this problem.

Since Omniscients are passionless and willless , only thing they do is know.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

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.

Perfection transcends all things including human comprehension. A single infinity is enough of an issue to cause our best minds to reel, and I am not convinced we are even capable of understanding just one infinity. Multiple infinities in contention... not happening. So I am not saying don't ask me to explain it because I don't want to but because it is impossible for humans to do so.

And as far as pointless goes, if reality itself was created, then something which transcends reality is needed. Just because I can deduce the possible existence of something doesn't mean I can explain how it works.

MTF

 

[religion99]

An omniscient god would not be "necessarily completely impotent , inactive." He would be doing whatever he foresaw himself doing.

But he would not be interfering into the working of the Universe.
Because :

1. There is no evidence of it.
2. If there are multiple Omniscients , they will step on each other's toes if they try to interfere.

 

[Skwim]

Perfection transcends all things including human comprehension.

How do you know it transcends all things? And, perhaps it just transcends your comprehension.

A single infinity is enough of an issue to cause our best minds to reel, and I am not convinced we are even capable of understanding just one infinity. Multiple infinities in contention... not happening. So I am not saying don't ask me to explain it because I don't want to but because it is impossible for humans to do so.

I realize that.

And as far as pointless goes, if reality itself was created, then something which transcends reality is needed.

Why? Perhaps reality encompasses its creation--of course we'd have to know exactly what you have in mind by the term "reality."

Just because I can deduce the possible existence of something doesn't mean I can explain how it works.

I understand. Kind of like deducing flying brick buildings. But what's the point?

 

[idav]

Isn't knowing one kind of doing?

I'm not sure i that's at the core or if the basic component is cause and effect sort of like reaction to stimuli. Knowing seems to be a byproduct of cause and effect.

 

[religion99]

I'm not sure i that's at the core or if the basic component is cause and effect sort of like reaction to stimuli. Knowing seems to be a byproduct of cause and effect.

If by "doing" , you mean "move from one place to another" or "vibrate or rotate at the same place" , then knowing is obviously not "doing". But , by "doing" , you mean performing your intrinsic task whatever it may be , then "knowing" is "doing" . According to Jain Attributes of Omniscients , An Omniscient does both kind of "doing"s while they are "human beings" . Once they leave their human body , never to acquire again , they do only second kind of "doing".

 

[Shades-o-Blue]

So I am also not responsible for the bees?

I know you're going to hate to hear this, but God is not subject to man's reasoning. We can deem something unfair, when God deems it necessary, and for our own good. Some of His decisions are difficult to bear, but we have to realize that if we remain faithful to Him in all things, that we will gain exaltation. And that, my friend, is infinitely greater than anything anyone here on earth can offer.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I know you're going to hate to hear this, but God is not subject to man's reasoning. We can deem something unfair, when God deems it necessary, and for our own good. Some of His decisions are difficult to bear, but we have to realize that if we remain faithful to Him in all things, that we will gain exaltation. And that, my friend, is infinitely greater than anything anyone here on earth can offer.

Okay, so if I were God it would be okay, but not if I am a human?

 

[Copernicus]

I know you're going to hate to hear this, but God is not subject to man's reasoning. We can deem something unfair, when God deems it necessary, and for our own good. Some of His decisions are difficult to bear, but we have to realize that if we remain faithful to Him in all things, that we will gain exaltation. And that, my friend, is infinitely greater than anything anyone here on earth can offer.

I know that you're going to hate to hear this even more, but, if God is not subject to man's reasoning, then you can have nothing reasonable to say about him, and there is no point in worshiping him.

 

[Shades-o-Blue]

I know that you're going to hate to hear this even more, but, if God is not subject to man's reasoning, then you can have nothing reasonable to say about him, and there is no point in worshiping him.

You argue as if the Universe revolves around you. I know you're going to hate this above all else, but it doesn't.

The point is, God put us here to see if we can keep His commandments. I've chosen the former, and couldn't be happier.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

How do you know it transcends all things? And, perhaps it just transcends your comprehension.

I realize that.

Why? Perhaps reality encompasses its creation--of course we'd have to know exactly what you have in mind by the term "reality."

I understand. Kind of like deducing flying brick buildings. But what's the point?

Um... Perfection by definition transcends all things. The question is whether or not something which is absolutely perfect is truth, not whether or not I or anything else can comprehend it. Though if you actually wish to debate that we can take it to another thread.

Reality includes all of that which is real. It might simply be the universe, but I highly doubt that. But that isn't entirely what I mean. When I say Reality I am talking about the framework of existence that allows for things to be real in the first place.

If reality was created, then there needs to be something which transcends reality, and thus by definition must be able to transcend all that is real. We have no knowledge of whether or not reality was created. Ergo, it could have been created. If this is the case, then we need Perfection to explain the bare fact that anything exists at all.

MTF