Is it possible for you to do anything that God did not already know you would do?

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, if you're referring to my own theology, God knows everything there is to know. Sounds like omniscience to me.

A theistic/ deistic God could be omniscient in the same sense that my God is, which doesn't include absolute knowledge of the future.

This doesn't sound like omniscient to me. Infinite/total knowledge includes everything past, present, and future. So are you saying that your god is omniscient, except about the future?

Follow up question: assuming said God is supernatural, why do you assume logic applies?

That would be like asking, assuming god is supernatural, does math apply? Can this god make 1 + 1 = 3? I don't see how omnipotence would imply being able to perform logical impossibilities, i.e., not be bound by logic.

It falls under the category of asking whether an omnipotent god could make a rock so big he couldn't lift it. It's not really a question about the nature of god's omnipotence, but rather a trick of semantics.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Not necessarily, I could theoretically know everything that is going to happen and not be outside of time.

For all intents and purposes, you would be. Concurrently knowing, with absolute certainty, every event that would take place for all eternity would render any particular point in time meaningless.

My point is that if time is not linear, if all times concurrently exist, then it is possible for choices to be made in the future from our perspective, that an atemporal being is able to know, without free will being impunged.

Regardless of how many possible choices there are, whether you say they are on other "time lines" or not, if an omniscient entity knows which one you will choose, then no other choice ever had any actual chance of ever being made. Bringing alternative time lines into the equation doesn't change that fact.

If I had a time machine, and went in the past to watch an event, my knowledge of what is going to happen doesn't change that they made their choices freely...

Right, but it's more like simply reading about an event in the past. You know what choice they made, and they have no option to choose anything else. The choice has already been made. For an omniscient being, this is how every event for all eternity is. Every event past, present, future - is the same as being remembered as already happening, as absolute knowledge of what choices are made is known.

 

[Storm]

This doesn't sound like omniscient to me. Infinite/total knowledge includes everything past, present, and future. So are you saying that your god is omniscient, except about the future?

Yes, with the caveat that the future doesn't exist yet. My concept of God is not "outside of time," and I view time as fairly linear.

That would be like asking, assuming god is supernatural, does math apply? Can this god make 1 + 1 = 3?

I suppose it could, but I don't see the two as equivalent. Logic is a system of thought, while mathematics is an interpretation of natural law. Since I understand "supernatural" as "unbound by or in defiance of natural law," the rules we know can't be assumed to be applicable.

I don't see how omnipotence would imply being able to perform logical impossibilities, i.e., not be bound by logic.

It falls under the category of asking whether an omnipotent god could make a rock so big he couldn't lift it. It's not really a question about the nature of god's omnipotence, but rather a trick of semantics.

I agree on with your conclusion on that example, though my reasoning is different. However, I'm more interested in the fact that you seem to have unwittingly demonstrated my point on omniscience. You can conceive of a task that omnipotence cannot acheive, but recognize that it is not a reasonable demand. At the same time, you conceive of a form of knowledge omniscience might not include, and insist that it disproves omniscience.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

At the same time, you conceive of a form of knowledge omniscience might not include, and insist that it disproves omniscience.

Where did I do this?

 

[Storm]

Where did I do this?

When you said that (paraphrasing) my God is not omniscient because it does not posess knowledge which does not yet exist.

I don't begrudge you your understanding of the word, but I do wonder why your standards of omnipotence are more relaxed.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

When you said that (paraphrasing) my God is not omniscient because it does not posess knowledge which does not yet exist.

I don't begrudge you your understanding of the word, but I do wonder why your standards of omnipotence are more relaxed.

I think you're confused. That was an attempt to clarify what you meant by omniscient. I haven't changed my definition of the word.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

When you said that (paraphrasing) my God is not omniscient because it does not posess knowledge which does not yet exist.

I don't begrudge you your understanding of the word, but I do wonder why your standards of omnipotence are more relaxed.

Oh, I see. I don't see how it is more relaxed. It's simply saying that omnipotence doesn't allow for performing logical impossibilities. You're comparing apples to watches.

 

[Storm]

I think you're confused. That was an attempt to clarify what you meant by omniscient. I haven't changed my definition of the word.

I'm thinking your right. So, straight up: do you agree that, given the strictures of my theology (God being bound by time, time being linear), my God could fairly be described as "omniscient?"

If not:

Oh, I see. I don't see how it is more relaxed. It's simply saying that omnipotence doesn't allow for performing logical impossibilities. You're comparing apples to watches.

How does, "an omniscient God should have access to knowledge that does not yet exist" not qualify as a logical impossibility?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm thinking your right. So, straight up: do you agree that, given the strictures of my theology (God being bound by time, time being linear), my God could fairly be described as "omniscient?"

If not:

How does, "an omniscient God should have access to knowledge that does not yet exist" not qualify as a logical impossibility?

Ah. Where we got off course here is that I'm arguing about the concept of an omniscient god as defined by most religions, including christianity, which says that god knows everything that is going to happen.

I have no problem with the idea of a god who knows everything that has already happened, but doesn't have knowledge of the future. Any concept of god is equally as plausible to me, I just need it clearly defined up front so I know what I'm discussing.

In your case, obviously free will would exist, since no one knows with absolute knowledge what is going to happen in the future.

 

[Willamena]

I, and others making similar arguments, are using the definition of omniscience as absolute knowledge about everything. If you limit omniscience in some way, then it is no longer absolute knowledge, and the door is opened up for many options. Omniscience is complete and absolute, or it isn't omniscience.

Question: does that include "uncertainty" as one of the "everything"? Does God "absolutely know" uncertainty?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Question: does that include "uncertainty" as one of the "everything"? Does God "absolutely know" uncertainty?

Please rephrase this so it makes some kind of sense. Thanks.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Because in almost any given situation you always have more than one option to choose from. Unless God purposely limits you to only one option, then its called free will.

But you have admited that, in any given situation, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to do something God did not foreknow. Since he knows which ONE action you will take, it is impossible for you to take any other action. In other words, you have no other options.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Beau, maybe you can help me with this. I do. not. get. your argument that omniscience restricts our choices. I can see it as a possibility, but no more than that. Why is it so ironclad for you?

Here is how it plays out.

It is either possible, or impossible for you to do something God did not foreknow. If it IS possible, then God cannot be omniscient. If God is omniscient, then it is NOT possible for you to do something God did not foreknow. So, in any given situation, it is impossible for you to do anything other than what God foreknew. Since he knows the ONE thing you will do, any other action is impossible. If only one action is possible, then there cannot be a choice.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Wrong. You always have more than one option. Just because God knows what option you pick does not take away the fact that you had more than one to choose from. That is just common sense.

Enoch, you have already admited that it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to do anything else. If God is omniscient, then in any given situation, there is ONLY ONE thing that it is possible for you to do: that which he already knew you would do.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I just don't use logic, as the only principle in my life like you do. I hardly expect someone so closed minded as you to understand. Its ok. Jesus still loves you.

Sure you do. You have already admited that it is impossible for you to have free will. You have stated that in any given situation it is impossible for you to do anything other than that which God knows you will do. Don't go against yourself here.

 

[Beaudreaux]

It's not that I don't understand the argument so much as why you think that's the only way it could be.

If it is impossible for you to do something that God did not foreknow, how can it be any different?

 

[Beaudreaux]

No, one's consciousness has already decided to perform all actions we will, from our current perspective, perform...

I do not take a linear view of time...

But you live in a time-linear world, do you not?

 

[Beaudreaux]

An atemporal being...

That only works if WE are atemporal beings.

 

[Beaudreaux]

First of all, great exchange between you and Stranger! Good reading.

Follow up question: assuming said God is supernatural, why do you assume logic applies?

If logic does not apply to God then there is no use trying to understand Him at all. This forum would be pointless and filled with statements that would start with "How do you know" and that would completely unanswerable.

 

[Beaudreaux]

My point is that if time is not linear, if all times concurrently exist, then it is possible for choices to be made in the future from our perspective, that an atemporal being is able to know, without free will being impunged.

Choice is a conscious decision and therefore consciousness is the key here. I cannot have made a choice without being conscious of it. Because I am a human being and AM timebound, I cannot make a choice until an event comes into the present. At that moment, an omniscient God already knows what action I will take. I can take no other and choice is obviated.

If I had a time machine, and went in the past to watch an event, my knowledge of what is going to happen doesn't change that they made their choices freely...

I think that example is backwards. If you could go into the FUTURE to watch an event, your knowledge of that future (provided what you saw is not changeable) obviates choice.