If God is Omniscient, Isn't Everything Determined?

[Copernicus]

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.

First of all, we do not have "zero evidence about the structure or faculties that reality itself has". Everything we experience is evidence of physical reality. We observe that events in physical reality have beginnings, but it is quite another thing to assume that physical reality itself must have had a beginning. The assumption becomes absurd when you start attributing the beginning of physical reality to a being like us that thinks and plans things. After all, we also have "beginnings", so why should something like us have been necessary to bring physical reality into existence? There are less absurd possibilities.

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.

Your position seems to boil down to an argument from ignorance. You do not have to consider every possibility as equally plausible. One reasonable possibility is that physical reality just always existed and did not need an external agency to bring it into existence. To assume otherwise is to invite an infinite regression of external agencies until you arbitrarily decide that one of them is the ground level--"turtles all the way down".

 

[idav]

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

How much time would a being spend in the moment of knowing everything before even moving a muscle. Would the being go on for few hundred years before plotting out another million years? Reminds me of that movie minority report when one of the precogs was asking if this is now, a pretty paradoxal question.

 

[atanu]

How much time would a being spend in the moment of knowing everything before even moving a muscle. Would the being go on for few hundred years before plotting out another million years? Reminds me of that movie minority report when one of the precogs was asking if this is now, a pretty paradoxal question.

Muscle?

 

[Copernicus]

Muscle?

He was talking about a spirit muscle--one that moves the spirit body.

 

[idav]

Muscle?

I'm just talking about being. Omniscience would give the ability to be even before actually being.

 

[religion99]

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

Very good point.

Proposition that "Universe is uncreated and self-maintaining" resolves this issue. Also , an "Uncreated Universe" admits the possibility of multiple Omniscients and potentiality of us becoming Omniscients.

 

[TashaN]

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

Sorry, but i don't see a point in hypothetically taking a human as omniscient because human beings are different from God. God is the creator, and human beings are nothing but mere creatures.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

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

...which some people call God, correct? The first cause? Timeless too.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I just wonder if this God gives us "free will" would he have done so at the expense of his omniscience and omnipotence; because he would no longer be omnipotent if he let go the reigns of controlling our lives and let us control it.

 

[TashaN]

I just wonder if this God gives us "free will" would he have done so at the expense of his omniscience and omnipotence; because he would no longer be omnipotent if he let go the reigns of controlling our lives and let us control it.

God created us and allowed us to have free will to act as we want. He allowed us to have it. It's not that he is not in control anymore or anything.

 

[idav]

I just wonder if this God gives us "free will" would he have done so at the expense of his omniscience and omnipotence; because he would no longer be omnipotent if he let go the reigns of controlling our lives and let us control it.

Maybe the things we do are too insignificant to mess up his will. Unless I was dealing with someone whose plan was important like trying to save his son from crucifixion to thwart his will.

 

[atanu]

He was talking about a spirit muscle--one that moves the spirit body.

I'm just talking about being. Omniscience would give the ability to be even before actually being.

Ha ha. I have fallen in love with you two. Now do not get me wrong. There is no muscle involved here. It is just a good feeling.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

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.

Meaningful to us... Yes. That is rather the point beyond my assertion that it must be transcendentally perfect. It must exceed the scope of what it means to be real.

This by definition means it must be meaningless to us. So can I explain it? No. Can you understand it? No.

But since we can't actually rule this possibility out via any method I am aware of, we must not rule it out.


Am I willing to grant that for any normal discussion that the property of existence must be conserved and that only logically determinate structures can be discussed? Absolutely. Identity is inviolate. Creation ex nihilo is impossible... So long as you are talking about things that are real.


And that is sort of the crux of the issue. If reality was created you need something which exceeds the scope of what it means to be real. Do I like this? No. But liking or fairness has nothing to do with the nature of reality itself.

MTF

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Maybe the things we do are too insignificant to mess up his will. Unless I was dealing with someone whose plan was important like trying to save his son from crucifixion to thwart his will.

If God was truly omnipotent and omniscient there should be nothing that is too insignificant, even a single flutter of a butterfly's wing or a quantum jump of an electron. If he was truly omniscient he should know the position of every subatomic particle in the universe, even the ones in everyone’s brain.

 

[idav]

If God was truly omnipotent and omniscient there should be nothing that is too insignificant, even a single flutter of a butterfly's wing or a quantum jump of an electron. If he was truly omniscient he should know the position of every subatomic particle in the universe, even the ones in everyone’s brain.

I'm not saying he wouldn't know but if the way some butterfly is fluttering messes up his day then he has bigger issues. Since god already set it in place it should be just business as usual but the experience vs. the knowing are too different things.

 

[atanu]

How much time would a being spend in the moment of knowing everything before even moving a muscle. Would the being go on for few hundred years before plotting out another million years? Reminds me of that movie minority report when one of the precogs was asking if this is now, a pretty paradoxal question.

I think Pantheist misses this.

There are particulars and underlying the particulars is the General. In a staircase, stairs are different, lower and higher, stacked upon one another, but the concrete is the same. In an ocean, the particular waves are many and everchanging, but the water is the same. Knowledge can be of particular and in case of changing objects wrt to time. But, in the most general GENERAL, the time is not and change is not. There is no plotting but all events are stored as a film roll is stored in a can. The General can view any roll. It just is concerned with location of attention of the Being -- it can be on the particulars or it can remain distinct from the particulars in the General (Brahman).

 

[idav]

I think Pantheist misses this.

There are particulars and underlying the particulars is the General. In a staircase, stairs are different, lower and higher, stacked upon one another, but the concrete is the same. In an ocean, the particular waves are many and everchanging, but the water is the same. Knowledge can be of particular and in case of changing objects wrt to time. But, in the most general GENERAL, the time is not and change is not. There is no plotting but all events are stored as a film roll is stored in a can. The General can view any roll. It just is concerned with location of attention of the Being -- it can be on the particulars or it can remain distinct from the particulars in the General (Brahman).

My statement still does hold the knower outside of what is happening. The knower would know how things would happen with or without intervention, therefore the knower would have power to cirumvent anything necessary to realize any desired objective. Knowledge is power and it is almost as if omniscience would give rise to a sort of omnipotence but up to how far the power wants to be taken.

 

[atanu]

My statement still does hold the knower outside of what is happening. The knower would know how things would happen with or without intervention, therefore the knower would have power to cirumvent anything necessary to realize any desired objective. Knowledge is power and it is almost as if omniscience would give rise to a sort of omnipotence but up to how far the power wants to be taken.

Earlier you said: How much time would a being spend in the moment of knowing everything before even moving a muscle.

And now you say that: My statement still does hold the knower outside of what is happening.
...............

And that is why I commented Pantheist does not get it. The unfolding of waves and continual change does nothing to water. Only the surface shapes change.

There is hardly any question of 'muscle moving' and 'eyes blinking' etc. And that is since the knower and knowing process are distinct from the happening.

 

[idav]

Earlier you said: How much time would a being spend in the moment of knowing everything before even moving a muscle.

And now you say that: My statement still does hold the knower outside of what is happening.
...............

To me those statements are saying the same thing. When I stated moving a muscle I mean an action as in something that is occurring verses something that is known to happen.

And that is why I commented Pantheist does not get it. The unfolding of waves and continual change does nothing to water. Only the surface shapes change.

There is hardly any question of 'muscle moving' and 'eyes blinking' etc. And that is since the knower and knowing process are distinct from the happening.

I understand the distincition which is something I agree with but I disagree in something having to be transcendent for it to occur. If a being is omniscient they will know when moving a muscle or blinking an eye are necessary. My main point was to say that an omniscient is still a being that will eventually be, after the knowing would presumably happen.

I'll give another example. Say a human is all knowing from birth. That baby would know every step it took from day one even before even taking the first step. Once the all knowing baby took the first step it would be doing something already experienced.

 

[atanu]

I understand the distincition which is something I agree with but I disagree in something having to be transcendent for it to occur.

What you understand by the word transcendent?