If God is Omniscient, Isn't Everything Determined?

[Willamena]

Does a rock exist if the rock doesn't know it? Do humans have to be aware of the center of the universe for it to exist? Do people really have to exist for all the rest of the things to exist? Is this one of those tree falling sound riddles?

The rock doesn't exist until and unless you or any one else knows it's there. Until then, we cannot say, "There is a rock there," with any degree of honesty.

To extrapolate the rock's existence from that point into an imagined past is all fine and optional. Only the present exists.

 

[idav]

The rock doesn't exist until and unless you or any one else knows it's there. Until then, we cannot say, "There is a rock there," with any degree of honesty.

To extrapolate the rock's existence from that point into an imagined past is all fine and optional. Only the present exists.

Sure that applies to us cause we have to think of it to carry a conversation. Doesn't apply to omniscience or the first entity in existence. All knowing would occur the first split second of existence. God would know the next million years without having had to live it yet.

 

[Willamena]

Sure that applies to us cause we have to think of it to carry a conversation. Doesn't apply to omniscience or the first entity in existence. All knowing would occur the first split second of existence. God would know the next million years without having had to live it yet.

In what way doesn't it apply? Omniscience (knowing all), omnipresence (being present of all), and omnipotence (creating all) are three sides of the same cosmic consciousness.

The "first entity" is "in existence" everywhere and everywhen. All knowing would occur in every moment of existence --every moment is "now".



"Big Brother is watching."

 

[idav]

In what way doesn't it apply? Omniscience (knowing all), omnipresence (being present of all), and omnipotence (creating all) are three sides of the same cosmic consciousness.

The "first entity" is "in existence" everywhere and everywhen. All knowing would occur in every moment of existence --every moment is "now".



"Big Brother is watching."

I don't exactly agree and I reject omnipotence without rejecting the other two omni's. It's more logical that way. I agree with the people who say those omni's are incompatible.

 

[ONE HUNDRED]

determinism and free will can both co-exist. Free will entails who determines it, not if it is determined.

My future might be set in stone - this is fine - but I believe that I am the one who sets it in stone, my choices, my actions, the nature of my spirit which controls who I was, who I am, and who I will be - this all comes from within me, determined by me, so I have free will (not just the illusion of free will)

Your future decisions are part of your future, so if your future is set in stone, then so are your decisions.

 

[Tonymai]

If God is infinite volitional, nothing is determined.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

knowing something and causing it are two different things. (I can know what will be on TV tonight, but I did not cause it)

God did not create any evil - He is cleaning up a mess He did not create...
see old thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/87669-god-did-not-create-anything.html

How about the beehive reference? I agree with your television reference, but you did not create the television.

 

[Shades-o-Blue]

Let's see. I'm the atheist who subscribes to humanist principles. You are the Christian who believes that all humans are natural-born sinners in need of redemption.

Too biased. How about this, instead: You are the atheist who actively opposes any viewpoint that tests your conscience. I am the Christian who offers an alternative to perpetual self involvement.

And, while I do not worship trees, I have a lot of appreciation for living organisms that take in so much CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. If I had to worship anything, I would prefer worshiping trees to your god, and you wouldn't have to work very hard at all to convince me that trees exist.

But proof of God isn't the real issue, Copernicus, is it? Something tells me that all you want is to do whatever you want, when you want.

Shades, you weren't paying attention.

You mean I wasn't paying attention to your dodge. Remember, I am the one who took that phrase at its positive value, and you responded with this:

That phrase was uttered by a hypocrite in Shakespeare's play,

What in the world does this comment have to do with the positive value of that phrase? How is your observation relevant to this debate?

 

[atanu]

Universal consciousness is about as far as I will take transcendence.

But do you assume that Universal consciousness is qualitatively same as human ego consciousness?

 

[SPACKlick]

I may have missed it while scrolling through the thread, but i assume the point has been argued that if the future is indeterminate (ie we have free will, there is more than one possible future) then an omniscient beings foreknowledge is necessarily probablistic at best?

 

[atanu]

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

It is not possible to be omniscient when you are localised and different from all other things that you are suppossed to know. This type of knowing is constrained by speed of light and is not instantaneous.

But for the all pervading it is possible to exist in two states: one as a single indivisible entity in direct touch with instant knowledge and also as repository of knowledge; and second as awareness of all individual beings and objects. As single transcendent entity, the knowledge is not particular and entails no sense of good or bad. This single entity as a Seer is just a Seer and inactive. But this single entity as a doer and enjoyer becomes divided entitities. But when in discrete locations as discrete conscious units, the realm is different and that same conscious omniscient being now suffers pain and enjoys gladness as awareness of particulate beings.

Consciousness can be experienced to be indivisible and not discretely many. But the magic of consciousness is that it can remain as such, and simultaneously it can assume infinte names-forms -- at different hierachial levels.

 

[atanu]

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.

There is no way this can happen if you are also not the awareness of the mother, child, and the bees. It cannot happen if effectively you are not those beings also. Omniscience is not separable from omnipresence. Separate knowers know by a rule -- through mind, and do not have instantaneous knowledge. One single awareness, OTOH has no time lapse - since time is uncreated in singular awareness and has no spatial separation as space is uncreated yet.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I don't exactly agree and I reject omnipotence without rejecting the other two omni's. It's more logical that way. I agree with the people who say those omni's are incompatible.

In what fashion is omnipotence incompatible with omnipresence and omniscience?

If I define Omnipotence as being able to accomplish anything within the confines of reality, and omnipresence as being everywhere within reality, and omniscience as knowing everything that is possible to know within the confines of reality, then I see no possible source of contradiction. In point of fact omniscience and omnipresence seem to follow as a consequence of being omnipotent. I am capable of doing anything as my power is maximum. I want to be everywhere at once. Ok I am all there.

In that sense omnipotence would be the only thing that could possibly "restrict" the other two. Not that such a being needs to be convinced that doing so would be in any way desirable or worthwhile to do; just needs to be possible.


Once you start asserting actual infinities is when you start getting into logical problems; such as those illustrated on the "What is omniscience" thread. These are only relevant inasmuch as they apply to real objects/constructs/beings. Anything which exceeds the scope of Reality need not care about something as "trivial" as contradiction.

That said I don't like omnipotence for a purely aesthetic reason. Omnipotence in a non-maximal sense; as in whatever this thing is is capable of doing anything in an unqualified manner, defines and breaks Reality. An omnipotent being that comes into contact with Reality causes all sorts of problems that I am woefully unprepared to deal with: vis-a-vis "What happens when Reality is not equal to itself?" "What happens when omnipotence decides to make all value untrue?"

Now if an omnipotent being does not interact with Reality in the slightest; that is to say that beyond the "non-creation of existence Ex nihilo" this being does not do anything to Reality, then I don't actually have any problems with it beyond the fact that it is wholly inconceivable to me in its nature (omnipotence in an absolute sense I am convinced must belong wholesale to Consummate Perfection and Consummate Perfection only).

MTF

 

[The Sum of Awe]

There is no way this can happen if you are also not the awareness of the mother, child, and the bees. It cannot happen if effectively you are not those beings also. Omniscience is not separable from omnipresence. Separate knowers know by a rule -- through mind, and do not have instantaneous knowledge. One single awareness, OTOH has no time lapse - since time is uncreated in singular awareness and has no spatial separation as space is uncreated yet.

If I am omniscient I would know how they feel exactly, although I do not need to feel it effectively to know that it hurts them.

 

[atanu]

If I am omniscient I would know how they feel exactly, although I do not need to feel it effectively to know that it hurts them.

Omniscience and feeling/knowing pain as individual are two different levels. It is omniscient that is the base of individual awareness also.

 

[idav]

In what fashion is omnipotence incompatible with omnipresence and omniscience?

In either being able to have power over the choices you make in the future you would have to not know what the answer is. At best omnipotence would give someone the ability to actually experience every possible choice but at the same time omniscience should give what the final answer is even with all the interventions considered. In short you can't know your future and expect to have any control over it, one of the omnis needs to go.

 

[Acim]

It's weird that we think the future actually exists. And think it has anything to do with knowledge or all-knowing. Can you point to the future? Provide evidence for it? Perhaps it is "future" that needs to go when realizing how omni would actually work, rather than allegedly work.

 

[idav]

It's weird that we think the future actually exists. And think it has anything to do with knowledge or all-knowing. Can you point to the future? Provide evidence for it? Perhaps it is "future" that needs to go when realizing how omni would actually work, rather than allegedly work.

Depends on determinism. If a being is all knowing that being would or could know the chain reaction based on simple or complex cause and effect. An all knowing being would also know how the chain of events would change if something different were chosen at any point in time. Kinda like someone who actually knows what they are doing when they play billiards vs. someone who is guessing at best.

 

[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?

A more relevant and classic question that comes up in the analysis of an Omniscient , Non-Omnipotent God(s) is : If God(s) know what is the going to happen in future , do we have a "free will" or not? In other words , if "free will" exists , how can apparently contradicting attributes of "free will" and "predetermination" exist in the same object and at the same time?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

A more relevant and classic question that comes up in the analysis of an Omniscient , Non-Omnipotent God(s) is : If God(s) know what is the going to happen in future , do we have a "free will" or not? In other words , if "free will" exists , how can apparently contradicting attributes of "free will" and "predetermination" exist in the same object and at the same time?

Gifting creation to be free moral agents, then God has refrained from knowing creation's choices.
Except for those connected to the coming of the Messiah did God let us know some outcomes.

If Adam and Eve had no choice there would be no need for the A&E scenario to have taken place.

Why wait until one is dead to pass judgment if judgment is already known ?