If God is Omniscient, Isn't Everything Determined?

[Cha'im]

No, despite possible malicious intent on your part. The child will not be pumped with deadly bee venom because it's a wasp. As for God? If God is the cause for existence, that includes evil with all the rest. How else would we know good without evil?

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?

 

[Skwim]

No, despite possible malicious intent on your part. The child will not be pumped with deadly bee venom because it's a wasp.

Obviously The Sum of Awe misspoke when he said " being allergic to beestings," instead of " being allergic to wasp stings." However, it makes no difference because wasp stings can also be lethal

As for God? If God is the cause for existence, that includes evil with all the rest. How else would we know good without evil?

So you can't categorize without extremes? Does absolute darkness have to exist to tell the difference between two lights of different luminosities? How about sound? Is absolute silence needed to tell the difference between 12 sounds of different decibels and designate one of them as loudest? So we could very easily ascribe goodness to something that is better than something less good, but still far from being bad. And even if , in some strange world, evil was needed to "know good," but, in fact, didn't exist, then "good" would be a meaningless term and lack any value. Yet I would bet we would still rank items according to their desirability, probably using some other scale and terms. So this world would still be considered in terms desirability. Heck, even animals, who have no concept of evil, recognize the difference between good, decent, and so-so, food.

After all, didn't god initially intend our world to operate quite well without evil?

 

[Cha'im]

I couldn't hazard a guess for the initial intention of existence. Honestly, I don't really know why evil exists. I'll stand by my earlier statement. Try explaining color to someone born blind, or music to someone born deaf. I agree that in a strange world where evil did not exist than good would be a meaningless word, but you and I live in this strange world where people have been committing acts of both good and evil for as long as our recorded history goes.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

You don't have to suspend logic for it to work. An all powerful being has the power to use it or not. If he is allowing us freedom then he would be holding back his own power. I'd argue that isn't all powerful anymore but since it would be a choice it's debatable. Not like he couldn't just take it back just as easy.

If you allow for self-limitation without obviation of capability (something I am not sure applies to something with perfect/infinite will regardless), then there isn't any contradiction between omniscience and omnipotence. Omnipotence self-restricts and allows omniscience unfettered. Or omniscience self-restricts and allows omnipotence do whatever it is that it can do.

MTF

 

[Copernicus]

If you allow for self-limitation without obviation of capability (something I am not sure applies to something with perfect/infinite will regardless), then there isn't any contradiction between omniscience and omnipotence. Omnipotence self-restricts and allows omniscience unfettered. Or omniscience self-restricts and allows omnipotence do whatever it is that it can do.

The problem with your idea is that omnipotence is inherently unlimited. That is part of the meaning of the word. So it is contradictory to say that it can be voluntarily limited. The moment potency is limited, it is no longer omnipotence.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

The problem with your idea is that omnipotence is inherently unlimited. That is part of the meaning of the word. So it is contradictory to say that it can be voluntarily limited. The moment potency is limited, it is no longer omnipotence.

That is exactly what I meant when I said that I don't think this applies with a perfect will (i.e. it would never self-restrict). I already stated that I don't think it is possible to even have omnipotence without absurdity (at least omnipotence in the absolute sense). In point of fact, I agree with you that any limitation (including self-limitation) obviates a claim to omnipotence. I think that the only way an omnipotent being could be restricted is a self-restriction, but that would still mean that less than "full power" was being exercised.


That being said I don't think it makes sense to speak about "limitations" as they apply to omniscience or omnipotence. If I know everything, then I can do anything. And if I can do anything, then I can make myself know anything. I don't believe there is any kind of meaningful distinction between the two terms.

MTF

 

[idav]

I don't believe there is any kind of meaningful distinction between the two terms.

MTF

There is a difference because a being could be all knowing but it could also mean being aware of limitations and possible workarounds. You could know how to become all powerful but it wouldn't just be a given depending on limitations.

Now being all powerful might lend to giving yourself the ability to know everything which I think would already be a given with omnipresence. It just falls apart once the being uses will to assert what one knows will happen. Because knowing the end means that the being would have no other way of asserting it's will other than how it knows it will. A being can't have the power of changing things that are set in stone. Now we could go more absurd and say that the all powerful being could live millions of scenarios all at once at which point he could do anything and anything is possible. Reality could change as fast as the thought came to him. I think omnipotence just becomes too absurd when no limitations are inherent which is probably one of the main reasons I can't take omnipotence too seriously.

 

[9Westy9]

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?

If you are aware of what is going to happen then yes. Unless you only have the option of throwing away the pop bottle

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 have a theory about this. I'll start a new thread about it though. I personally think he is evil aswell as good

 

[ManTimeForgot]

There is a difference because a being could be all knowing but it could also mean being aware of limitations and possible workarounds. You could know how to become all powerful but it wouldn't just be a given depending on limitations.

Now being all powerful might lend to giving yourself the ability to know everything which I think would already be a given with omnipresence. It just falls apart once the being uses will to assert what one knows will happen. Because knowing the end means that the being would have no other way of asserting it's will other than how it knows it will. A being can't have the power of changing things that are set in stone. Now we could go more absurd and say that the all powerful being could live millions of scenarios all at once at which point he could do anything and anything is possible. Reality could change as fast as the thought came to him. I think omnipotence just becomes too absurd when no limitations are inherent which is probably one of the main reasons I can't take omnipotence too seriously.

You are only willing/able to debate a limited form of both omnipotence and omniscience (when both are beholden unto the principles of reality), and that is fine with me. As I told you before in order to actually appreciate what they represent in an absolute sense you have to be willing to make them absurd.

But with that said if you actually want the terms to be useful (have a practical value), then there is only one use inasmuch as I am aware of at this time. They are "part" of what allows something which is Above Reality to create reality. Such a being "needs" to be able to do anything including nothing and not nothing simultaneously.


A Pantheistic "God" might very well be omniscient (it is everything after all) and omnipotent (it already does everything since everything is itself), but those are just linguistic placeholders. They don't convey anything meaningful that we can't already infer from the mere property of being everything.


MTF

 

[cablescavenger]

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.

I am with you brother -

Here is a tale from Genesis:

God was walking in the Garden of Eden, he had just 2 people to watch, and couldn't manage it.

How do we suppose he can manage the prayers of several billion people, dish out judgments, speak to the chosen few, and manage the affairs of 1-200 billion galaxies each containing 2-400 billion stars, with each star potentially having a solar system?

Let us suppose he chose to visit earth out of all the endless possibilities, and the garden of eden story is true.

He lied to the Adam and Eve and told them the day they ate of the tree of knowledge they would die, because he knew if they ate from that tree, they would gain his knowledge.

It turned out the snake was more honest than God, as it told them they would gain Gods knowledge, and also live to tell the tale, two claims that turned out to be true.

So here are the facts of the story in short:

• The tree contained Gods Knowledge
• God would prefer people to remain without knowledge
• God cannot be trusted, as he is prepared to lie in order to achieve his goals
• God will did not prevail so he is not omnipotent
• God did not have a clue what they were up to so he is not omniscient
• Adam and Eve gained God's knowledge

That last point "Adam and Eve gained God's knowledge" which we are told in the story is true because their world view changed after eating of the tree.


but it tells us more than this:

• Adam and Eve would have passed on their knowledge through their children, and their chidrens children. That was the way of the era, where knowledge was handed down.
• This knowledge would have become known as the knowledge of God, or word of God, or however they would have phrased it.
• This knowledge would have made it into scripture through Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses etc. all direct descendents of Adam and Eve
• It was never passed into scripture.
• therefore Adam and Eve did not know how old the earth was
• therefore God didn't know
• therefore God did not create the earth, the animals or the universe.

And there you have it. The word of God - "It wasn't me!" :clap

 

[idav]

You are only willing/able to debate a limited form of both omnipotence and omniscience (when both are beholden unto the principles of reality), and that is fine with me. As I told you before in order to actually appreciate what they represent in an absolute sense you have to be willing to make them absurd.

But with that said if you actually want the terms to be useful (have a practical value), then there is only one use inasmuch as I am aware of at this time. They are "part" of what allows something which is Above Reality to create reality. Such a being "needs" to be able to do anything including nothing and not nothing simultaneously.


A Pantheistic "God" might very well be omniscient (it is everything after all) and omnipotent (it already does everything since everything is itself), but those are just linguistic placeholders. They don't convey anything meaningful that we can't already infer from the mere property of being everything.


MTF

Being everything doesn't mean you can do everything cause everything has limitations. You have to be outside the system to get away from the limitations and a god that is beyond limits isn't pantheistic IMO.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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?

Ok, let's say He's responsible. Now what?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Ok, let's say He's responsible. Now what?

He's a real arsehole?

 

[cablescavenger]

That is exactly what I meant when I said that I don't think this applies with a perfect will (i.e. it would never self-restrict). I already stated that I don't think it is possible to even have omnipotence without absurdity (at least omnipotence in the absolute sense). In point of fact, I agree with you that any limitation (including self-limitation) obviates a claim to omnipotence. I think that the only way an omnipotent being could be restricted is a self-restriction, but that would still mean that less than "full power" was being exercised.


That being said I don't think it makes sense to speak about "limitations" as they apply to omniscience or omnipotence. If I know everything, then I can do anything. And if I can do anything, then I can make myself know anything. I don't believe there is any kind of meaningful distinction between the two terms.

MTF

Could an ominpotent being create a rock big enough that it could not lift it?
Perhaps being a little pedantic with that one, but you can see the dilemma, nothing can be all powerful.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

He's a real arsehole?

That's pretty judgemental.