If God is Omniscient, Isn't Everything Determined?

[Copernicus]

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

Hmmm. I didn't know the universe was revolving, so I'm not sure what I did to give you that impression. It is true that I do not believe in the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing superbeing that created the entire universe and is concerned enough about my beliefs and behavior to reward me with everlasting blissful life if I spread the word. If I wasn't so obsessed with myself and were more humble like you, I would doubtless see that. :sarcastic

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.

And why wouldn't you be? You are going to end up with an eternal afterlife in heaven. That thought would make me happy, too, if I could somehow fool myself into believing it.

 

[Shades-o-Blue]

Hmmm. I didn't know the universe was revolving, so I'm not sure what I did to give you that impression. It is true that I do not believe in the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing superbeing that created the entire universe and is concerned enough about my beliefs and behavior to reward me with everlasting blissful life if I spread the word. If I wasn't so obsessed with myself and were more humble like you, I would doubtless see that. :sarcastic

You know, I could certainly understand the sarcasm if you were actually being sarcastic, but I think you and I both know that you believe absolute truth revolves around you.

And why wouldn't you be? You are going to end up with an eternal afterlife in heaven. That thought would make me happy, too, if I could somehow fool myself into believing it.

I haven't fooled myself, so why must you try? Wasn't it Shakespeare who said "To thine own self be true."?

 

[Orias]

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?

God knows nothing to its fullest extent, for nothing is a creation of God and all that follows.

He knows and acts with all, according to those who invoke Him.

Basically...omniscient does not lead to everything being predetermined, just subject to determined awareness.

 

[Copernicus]

You know, I could certainly understand the sarcasm if you were actually being sarcastic, but I think you and I both know that you believe absolute truth revolves around you.

Shades, I really was being sarcastic, believe it or not. Sorry. That really wasn't very nice of me, but you appear to be a conservative Christian, and Christianity held, not so long ago, that we were the center of the universe and the reason for God's creation. So your attempts to claim that I am being self-centered for not believing in your god really do come off as ironic. Most religions take human narcissism to its utmost extreme, and Christianity is no exception.

I haven't fooled myself, so why must you try? Wasn't it Shakespeare who said "To thine own self be true."?

Well, it was Polonius advising his son Laertes in Hamlet, but the fact is that Polonius was being something of a hypocrite when he spoke those words. And Laertes was rather anxious to be away from his pompous speeches. Shakespeare was going for irony there, which strikes me as doubly ironic in the context of your reply to me. If you truly feel that you have not fooled yourself, then that explains why you are so happy. You can identify with Polonius, the spy who sought to deceive others.

 

[TashaN]

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.

I mentioned myself. When it comes to God, of course he is causing 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?

If i was human yes, if God, nope.

 

[Tonymai]

God is Infinite Volition, and each personal being is also volitional. This makes "everything is determined" absolutely impossible. However nothing manifests from potentiality to actuality will be a surprise to God because He is the First Source and Center of whatever is potential and actual. He is not alone in manipulating the manifestation from potential to actual, but He creates, controls and upholds All.

 

[Koldo]

If i was human yes, if God, nope.

Are you applying a double standard or did you get to this conclusion by some other mean?

 

[Copernicus]

I mentioned myself. When it comes to God, of course he is causing the sun to rise.

If i was human yes, if God, nope.

If you make God exempt from the judgment of being bad, then you also ought to make him exempt from the judgment of being good. No more claims of "Allahu akbar!" At least, make an attempt to be consistent.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

Not really. God gave angels and humans freedom of choice.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Not really. God gave angels and humans freedom of choice.

But God knows their decision, has plotted it out.

 

[Skwim]

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..

per·fec·tion (p

r-f

k

sh

n)n.

1. The quality or condition of being perfect.
2. The act or process of perfecting: Perfection of the invention took years.
3. A person or thing considered to be perfect.
4. An instance of excellence.

Source: thefreedictionary.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition of PERFECTION

1: the quality or state of being perfect: as

a : freedom from fault or defect : flawlessness
b : maturity
c : the quality or state of being saintly
​

2 a : an exemplification of supreme excellence

b : an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence
​

3: the act or process of perfecting


Source: Merriam Webster


​

Nothing about transcending anything much less all things.

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

Okay, now I see where you're coming from; the first cause issue. The first cause must necessarily be larger than what it wrought. However I see no reason to ascribe perfection, whatever that implies, to it.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

per·fec·tion (p

r-f

k

sh

n)n.

1. The quality or condition of being perfect.
2. The act or process of perfecting: Perfection of the invention took years.
3. A person or thing considered to be perfect.
4. An instance of excellence.

Source: thefreedictionary.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition of PERFECTION

1: the quality or state of being perfect: as

a : freedom from fault or defect : flawlessness
b : maturity
c : the quality or state of being saintly
​

2 a : an exemplification of supreme excellence

b : an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence
​

3: the act or process of perfecting


Source: Merriam Webster


​

Nothing about transcending anything much less all things.


Okay, now I see where you're coming from; the first cause issue. The first cause must necessarily be larger than what it wrought. However I see no reason to ascribe perfection, whatever that implies, to it.

I am not talking about bare or simple perfection. If you read back I dropped the qualifier consummate because you did. I assumed (incorrectly) that you understood the complete or wholly or consummate was implied when I capitalized the "P" in Perfection.


And you don't see how Perfection is needed when attempting to create Reality itself? In order to create something which allows things to be real, that something must necessarily be able to be Not Real and YET still be able to do something. The only way to do this is to be completely indeterminate. And the only way to be able to encompass the properties of every possible thing while simultaneously not being of those self same properties is to transcend them. Infinity is not a number, but it can be used like a number. Consummate Perfection is not anything, but it can act like anything.

MTF

 

[Koldo]

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

To be honest, i don't see how reality itself, as in a objective concept, could be 'created'. It seems an impossible idea to me, could you please give a more extensive explanation on this?

 

[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?

If there is/are omniscient(s) , then world is predetermined. But , he/they will not be responsible for the sufferings if he/they have neither ability nor willingness to change the future. In other words, indifferent God(s) admit sufferings without responsibility. It is mere nature of nature to instantiate one actuality out of infinite potentialities at every instance for each of the beings.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

To be honest, i don't see how reality itself, as in a objective concept, could be 'created'. It seems an impossible idea to me, could you please give a more extensive explanation on this?

Why does it seem impossible? We have zero evidence about the structure or faculties that Reality itself has. We know nothing about whether or not it had a beginning. If it had a beginning, then by necessity it must have been created in some way. Whether that is self-generation or creation via some divine protocol that exceeds the grasp of mere mortal beings is ultimately irrelevant.

Reality, as in the framework of existence; that which supplies the capability for things to be real, is not able to be created in the sense that you, I, and just about any other human is familiar with. This is not the recombination of materials, qualities, or ideas in order to form something that does not more than resemble its constituent parts (it is something "new"). This requires creation ex nihilo. Creation ex nihilo is something I am prepared to assert is impossible within the confines of reality.

But logic states very clearly that systems do not necessarily have the qualities that elements of that system (even if all the elements have the same quality). So a timeless reality creates itself. This notion for a linear thinking human (we evolved with linear time thinking as a feature) is quite frankly nonsensical. Or a thing which is wholly indeterminate and thus immune to the dictates of logic, and thus beyond the faculty of existence and non-existence asserts reality.

Does this sound arcane and wholly beyond belief? Well, since I am working from a position of almost infinite ignorance and the "Real" might well be infinite I am not prepared to discount possibilities simply because they seem to defy my capability to understand properly.

MTF

 

[TashaN]

Are you applying a double standard or did you get to this conclusion by some other mean?

God and human beings already have two different standards.

If you make God exempt from the judgment of being bad, then you also ought to make him exempt from the judgment of being good. No more claims of "Allahu akbar!" At least, make an attempt to be consistent.

Define goodness and badness please first before answering your question.

Thank you.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

If there is/are omniscient(s) , then world is predetermined. But , he/they will not be responsible for the sufferings if he/they have neither ability nor willingness to change the future. In other words, indifferent God(s) admit sufferings without responsibility. It is mere nature of nature to instantiate one actuality out of infinite potentialities at every instance for each of the beings.

Although if he knew the direction it would lead to, the universe he made would be like a chain reaction, thus purpose?

 

[Koldo]

Why does it seem impossible? We have zero evidence about the structure or faculties that Reality itself has. We know nothing about whether or not it had a beginning. If it had a beginning, then by necessity it must have been created in some way. Whether that is self-generation or creation via some divine protocol that exceeds the grasp of mere mortal beings is ultimately irrelevant.

Reality, as in the framework of existence; that which supplies the capability for things to be real, is not able to be created in the sense that you, I, and just about any other human is familiar with. This is not the recombination of materials, qualities, or ideas in order to form something that does not more than resemble its constituent parts (it is something "new"). This requires creation ex nihilo. Creation ex nihilo is something I am prepared to assert is impossible within the confines of reality.

But logic states very clearly that systems do not necessarily have the qualities that elements of that system (even if all the elements have the same quality). So a timeless reality creates itself. This notion for a linear thinking human (we evolved with linear time thinking as a feature) is quite frankly nonsensical. Or a thing which is wholly indeterminate and thus immune to the dictates of logic, and thus beyond the faculty of existence and non-existence asserts reality.

Does this sound arcane and wholly beyond belief? Well, since I am working from a position of almost infinite ignorance and the "Real" might well be infinite I am not prepared to discount possibilities simply because they seem to defy my capability to understand properly.

MTF

It sounds as such an oddity to me for the reality to be created.
As i see it, 'to be real' is an inherent attribute to everything that exists, it isn't a thing in itself that could possibly be separated from others and still remain meaningful.

 

[Koldo]

God and human beings already have two different standards.

We are talking about the (hypothetical) omniscient humans, not the average humans.
Why are you applying different standards to them in this particular case?

 

[Willamena]

But God knows their decision, has plotted it out.

There is no "plotting" possible when everything is known. (That implies a "time" before everything. A thing before everything.)