The Paradox of Omniscience

[Sha'irullah]

Omniscience is a hard concept to tackle and when it is tackled(rationally) and brought to the ground it is a total wreck.

Omniscience like omnipotence creates the most absurd paradox in history next to infinities.

If a being(god) was omniscient it would have the ability to know ALL things which is what omni means. Nothing can be excluded, it cannot just perceive and be aware of the choices of all things, it must actually know which choice is going to be made. If omniscience is anything but this it is not omniscience but omni-perception.

To complete this, omniscience must include awareness of the past, future and present. All three modes of existence(or past existence) must become fully aware to the entity. The issue though of course is that it must also be able to know which events will occur and no exceptions can be made. A single exception denies the entity of omniscience.

This odd part about this is that the being MUST know it's own past, present and future choices. Everything this entity does must be known including actions that have not even entered the present.

If this entities entire life and choices are predetermined it cannot maintain free will or the ability to chose. This would also bring into question the moral nature of such a being for when it does make actions and claims to be omniscient.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Omniscience is a hard concept to tackle and when it is tackled(rationally) and brought to the ground it is a total wreck.

Omniscience like omnipotence creates the most absurd paradox in history next to infinities.

If a being(god) was omniscient it would have the ability to know ALL things which is what omni means. Nothing can be excluded, it cannot just perceive and be aware of the choices of all things, it must actually know which choice is going to be made. If omniscience is anything but this it is not omniscience but omni-perception.

To complete this, omniscience must include awareness of the past, future and present. All three modes of existence(or past existence) must become fully aware to the entity. The issue though of course is that it must also be able to know which events will occur and no exceptions can be made. A single exception denies the entity of omniscience.

This odd part about this is that the being MUST know it's own past, present and future choices. Everything this entity does must be known including actions that have not even entered the present.

If this entities entire life and choices are predetermined it cannot maintain free will or the ability to chose. This would also bring into question the moral nature of such a being for when it does make actions and claims to be omniscient.

This is not a paradox of omniscience, rather a paradox of omniscience and freewill. Belief in omniscience does not require belief in freewill. What about the moral nature of such a being does it bring to question?

Not to mention, freewill and omniscience isn't a paradox. The solution to this paradox resides in the belief of "infinite timelines", God knows all of the possible outcomes, and we choose which possible outcomes are taken.

 

[Willamena]

Omniscience is a hard concept to tackle and when it is tackled(rationally) and brought to the ground it is a total wreck.

Omniscience like omnipotence creates the most absurd paradox in history next to infinities.

If a being(god) was omniscient it would have the ability to know ALL things which is what omni means. Nothing can be excluded, it cannot just perceive and be aware of the choices of all things, it must actually know which choice is going to be made. If omniscience is anything but this it is not omniscience but omni-perception.

To complete this, omniscience must include awareness of the past, future and present. All three modes of existence(or past existence) must become fully aware to the entity. The issue though of course is that it must also be able to know which events will occur and no exceptions can be made. A single exception denies the entity of omniscience.

This odd part about this is that the being MUST know it's own past, present and future choices. Everything this entity does must be known including actions that have not even entered the present.

If this entities entire life and choices are predetermined it cannot maintain free will or the ability to chose. This would also bring into question the moral nature of such a being for when it does make actions and claims to be omniscient.

I'm a bit confused about the difference between omniscience and omni-perception. Can you explain?

It can know all past, present and future because it is omnipresent. Presence in the past, present and future means that it has no decisions to make--all of creation is already owned.

Note, it's not an image of the so-called "Abrahamic" god.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Does omnipresence mean God is in hell?

 

[Willamena]

Does omnipresence mean God is in hell?

Only if creation is subjectively rendered as 'hell'...

 

[Sha'irullah]

This is not a paradox of omniscience, rather a paradox of omniscience and freewill. Belief in omniscience does not require belief in freewill. What about the moral nature of such a being does it bring to question?

Not to mention, freewill and omniscience isn't a paradox. The solution to this paradox resides in the belief of "infinite timelines", God knows all of the possible outcomes, and we choose which possible outcomes are taken.

Sorry I wrote this up really quick to respond to the typical Abrahamic assertions of omniscience and usually this is done with the presumption of free will in intact. A god with no free will is useless to a lot of religions.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Does omnipresence mean God is in hell?

It would indeed and I was going to mention this on a thread. I think you are getting too ahead of yourself buddy

 

[Thruve]

Epiphany! Wouldn't Omnipresence support the idea of God being a collective conscious then?

 

[Skwim]

Does omnipresence mean God is in hell?

Absolutely. To defend anything less will take some fancy tap dancin'.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Wouldn't Omnipresence support Cynthia's idea of God being a collective conscious?

There is a word for that and it ain't god. It is "collective consciousness" and if you want to be fancy you could argue Panpsychism

 

[Thruve]

There is a word for that and it ain't god. It is "collective consciousness" and if you want to be fancy you could argue Panpsychism

Alright. Ill still call it God, though. lol.

 

[Willamena]

Epiphany! Wouldn't Omnipresence support the idea of God being a collective conscious then?

A universal consciousness, yes.

The metaphysic does not differ from our own consciousness: awareness<->presence<->ability = being.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Alright. Ill still call it God, though. lol.

I forgot the fallacy for this but none the less it is a fallacy. Changing a word means nothing.
For example:

• God is mankind, thus all people believe in god.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Sorry I wrote this up really quick to respond to the typical Abrahamic assertions of omniscience and usually this is done with the presumption of free will in intact. A god with no free will is useless to a lot of religions.

I can see it being that way, but it doesn't make sense why it would be, God in general is useless when more success for individual goals has been shown to come out of humanism rather than faith, but that is entirely dependent on what the goals are. Not to claim to understand God's mind, but I always like to imagine God's mind to work like a computer scanning through data; all the information is there and always present and there is not exactly a thoughtline. It's just a fun way to view it.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I forgot the fallacy for this but none the less it is a fallacy. Changing a word means nothing.
For example:

• God is mankind, thus all people believe in god.

It's not exactly changing a word if it was never truly defined to begin with. God is anything divine, and divine is anything relating to God, a circular definition. God is a nametag that fits on anything.

 

[Sha'irullah]

It's not exactly changing a word if it was never truly defined to begin with. God is anything divine, and divine is anything relating to God, a circular definition. God is a nametag that fits on anything.

Thus making it a useless name tag

 

[Aupmanyav]

I retain Gods and Goddesses only culturally, therefore, I do not face any 'omni' problem; and replaced it with physical energy which constitutes the universe and all things in it, living or non-living.

 

[ametist]

Omniscience is a hard concept to tackle and when it is tackled(rationally) and brought to the ground it is a total wreck.

Omniscience like omnipotence creates the most absurd paradox in history next to infinities.

If a being(god) was omniscient it would have the ability to know ALL things which is what omni means. Nothing can be excluded, it cannot just perceive and be aware of the choices of all things, it must actually know which choice is going to be made. If omniscience is anything but this it is not omniscience but omni-perception.

To complete this, omniscience must include awareness of the past, future and present. All three modes of existence(or past existence) must become fully aware to the entity. The issue though of course is that it must also be able to know which events will occur and no exceptions can be made. A single exception denies the entity of omniscience.

This odd part about this is that the being MUST know it's own past, present and future choices. Everything this entity does must be known including actions that have not even entered the present.

If this entities entire life and choices are predetermined it cannot maintain free will or the ability to chose. This would also bring into question the moral nature of such a being for when it does make actions and claims to be omniscient.

Given that god is omniscient;
Given that you have free will;
God knows the outcome of what will become of you in a situtation called a,
If you chose x
If you chose y
If you chose z
...
..
.
.
.
.
So you have freewill to chose among all those outcomes of you and god is omniscient to know ALL the outcomes even if you chose them or not and knows which one you are inclining towards.
But god has a moral concern to give you the time to make that choice because when you are told you have chosen x which didnt cause you to end up very nice, you cant go out and object, 'no i wouldnt do it. You are a one big tricky god'. Because you are your own witness in this case chosing option x among all the other options given to you.
If you lack the mental capability to the degree of recognizing your options, i.e you are mentally challanged, you are exempt from religion.
All of this can be validated through quran.

 

[raw_thought]

"In the famous game of chicken, two drivers hurtle their cars toward each other, and the one who turns away at the last minute loses. Or they collide, and both lose even bigger, or they both swerve and have reciprocal embarrassment. Before you play this game, you might make a matrix of your actions (stay the course vs. swerve) against the opponent's actions (same two choices), and see what happens with the four different possible outcomes. But then imagine that your opponent is omniscient. He knows just what you are going to do. Surprisingly, this restricts the results of the game in unexpected ways so that you cannot lose. If your opponent is omniscient, all you have to do is to stay the course. He will know that you are not going to swerve, and (assuming that he does not want a collision), he will have to be the one to do the swerving himself. You win whenever you play chicken with an omniscient being!"
FROM
The Paradox of God and the Science of Omniscience: Amazon.es: Clifford A. Pickover: Libros en idiomas extranjeros


The Paradox of God and the Science of Omniscience

 

[ametist]

"In the famous game of chicken, two drivers hurtle their cars toward each other, and the one who turns away at the last minute loses. Or they collide, and both lose even bigger, or they both swerve and have reciprocal embarrassment. Before you play this game, you might make a matrix of your actions (stay the course vs. swerve) against the opponent's actions (same two choices), and see what happens with the four different possible outcomes. But then imagine that your opponent is omniscient. He knows just what you are going to do. Surprisingly, this restricts the results of the game in unexpected ways so that you cannot lose. If your opponent is omniscient, all you have to do is to stay the course. He will know that you are not going to swerve, and (assuming that he does not want a collision), he will have to be the one to do the swerving himself. You win whenever you play chicken with an omniscient being!"
FROM
The Paradox of God and the Science of Omniscience: Amazon.es: Clifford A. Pickover: Libros en idiomas extranjeros


The Paradox of God and the Science of Omniscience

is this to suggest god may be afraid of colliding with you?