About omniscience

[Vera_Ljuba]

The assumptions to build upon:

1. God is outside of time, in some frozen, unchanging “eternal now”.
2. God is sovereign, meaning that God is not contingent upon anything “outside” God.
3. God is omniscient, which means that God knows the past, present and future.
4. The word “knows” means that God has information about something.

Facts:
5) We exist inside of time.
6) We have free will, which means that our decisions are not preordained and not predetermined.

Questions:
7) How can God know about something that has never happened, does not happen and will never happen?
8) How can God prove that he is omniscient?

These are not easy questions. Think them over before attempting to answer. Have fun!
(P.S: Please spare me of the nonsense: “Why would God submit to such questions?”. If you don’t want to answer, then don’t.)

 

[Vonsalza]

(P.S: Please spare me of the nonsense: “Why would God submit to such questions?”. If you don’t want to answer, then don’t.)

I’ll translate:

“You must accept my premises as valid and sound, even if they’re not proven to be. As such, you must also submit to my paradigm when answering.”

This will be difficult for the many Christians that don’t espouse your views on statement #6.

So no thanks. I’ve never been a fan of pigeon-holing as a proper form of rhetoric, despite it being invoked quite frequently by you on this and multitudes of past posts.

 

[STT]

The assumptions to build upon:

1. God is outside of time, in some frozen, unchanging “eternal now”.
2. God is sovereign, meaning that God is not contingent upon anything “outside” God.
3. God is omniscient, which means that God knows the past, present and future.
4. The word “knows” means that God has information about something.

Facts:
5) We exist inside of time.
6) We have free will, which means that our decisions are not preordained and not predetermined.

Questions:
7) How can God know about something that has never happened, does not happen and will never happen?
8) How can God prove that he is omniscient?

These are not easy questions. Think them over before attempting to answer. Have fun!
(P.S: Please spare me of the nonsense: “Why would God submit to such questions?”. If you don’t want to answer, then don’t.)

Answers:

1. Something that doesn’t happen is not knowable.
2. God cannot prove that He is omniscient. He can read your mind but He cannot tell what you are going to do since you can do always the opposite of what your are told you are going to do.

 

[Wesrock]

Wow, these questions have never been formally responded to by theists ever! It’s a good thing we live in the 21st century, because thousands of years ago people never even thought about these types of things and did not ever devote any intellectual thought to the matter, and just accepted things blindly and irrationally! Oh woe is me that these questions are now posed! Woe, my faith crumbles behind me as Vera Luba’s superior intellect is uplifting my own! Woe that these unanswerable questions have been posed to theists for the first time ever!

(Didn’t originally intend to go on that long, but it swept me away.)

For a Thomist’s thoughts on the matter, you can review Summa Contra Ventiles, Bool I, Chapters 45 through 72 (short blurbs, really, but I might highlifht chapters 48, 49, 50, 63, 64, 66 and 67).

dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm

There’s also the Summa Theologica, written as an introductory text book. See Prima Pars question 14.

newadvent.org/summa/1014.htm

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Wow, these questions have never been formally responded to by theists ever!

I am sure they have. But unfortunately they all come up short. Not even the much simpler problem of evil has ever been defended successfully. As for your PM, please don’t worry. Thank you for your kind words. I have a very thick skin, otherwise I would not attempt to poke the “hornet’s nest” with a pole.

Please read the post in reply to SST directly below. It explains my thoughts, at least some of them.

---

1. Something that doesn’t happen is not knowable.

I agree with you, but the dogmas of the church say otherwise. It is fun to explore them. A few lines from theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm :

27.God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence.
28.God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future.
29.By the knowledge of vision, God also foresees the future free acts of rational creatures with infallible certainty.

There are lots of problems with these propositions. There are no “real things” in the future. The phrase “foresees” implicitly accepts that the future does not exist yet. So how could God know something that does not exist? But let’s suppose that he can (only for the sake of the discussion.)

The most important point is the source of God’s knowledge. How does God know what he knows? God is supposed to be infinitely “simple”, meaning that God has no parts. Therefore God’s knowledge is not separate from God’s essence itself. But God’s knowledge reflects the actuality of the world, so it is logically contingent upon the reality. So God’s knowledge is contingent. But God is also assumed to be sovereign, which means that God absolute and no contingent in any way.

This is a clear cut contradiction. Of course I never met an apologist who would admit that. They like to say that it is a “mystery”.

1. God cannot prove that He is omniscient. He can read your mind but He cannot tell what you are going to do since you can do always the opposite of what your are told you are going to do.

Indeed. So God is not omnipotent either.

 

[tonyrey]

I agree with you, but the dogmas of the church say otherwise. It is fun to explore them. A few lines from theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm :

27.God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence.
28.God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future.
29.By the knowledge of vision, God also foresees the future free acts of rational creatures with infallible certainty.

There are lots of problems with these propositions. There are no “real things” in the future. The phrase “foresees” implicitly accepts that the future does not exist yet. So how could God know something that does not exist? But let’s suppose that he can (only for the sake of the discussion.

It is nonsensical to think God exists in time and space. The Creator transcends time and space because otherwise they wouldn’t exist.

The most important point is the source of God’s knowledge.

This is a clear cut contradiction. Of course I never met an apologist who would admit that. They like to say that it is a “mystery”.

A false dilemma. The Creator is the Source of everything.

God cannot prove that He is omniscient. He can read your mind but He cannot tell what you are going to do since you can do always the opposite of what your are told you are going to do.

Indeed. So God is not omnipotent either.

Non sequitur. The Source of our power obviously knows what we are going to do. To think otherwise is not only presumptuous, it also violates the principle of adequate explanation.

 

[tonyrey]

I’ll translate:

“You must accept my premises as valid and sound, even if they’re not proven to be. As such, you must also submit to my paradigm when answering.”

This will be difficult for the many Christians that don’t espouse your views on statement #6.

So no thanks. I’ve never been a fan of pigeon-holing as a proper form of rhetoric, despite it being invoked quite frequently by you on this and multitudes of past posts.

1. We have free will, which means that our decisions are not preordained and not predetermined.

Non sequitur. Our power to decide is preordained and predetermined!

 

[tonyrey]

The assumptions to build upon:

1. God is outside of time, in some frozen, unchanging “eternal now”.

False. The Creator is dynamic not static.

1. God is sovereign, meaning that God is not contingent upon anything “outside” God.
2. God is omniscient, which means that God knows the past, present and future.
3. The word “knows” means that God has information about something.

Divine knowledge is not comparable to “information about something” because everything is created by God.

 

[Mort_Alz]

I am sure they have. But unfortunately they all come up short. Not even the much simpler problem of evil has ever been defended successfully.

It might be more productive, then, to start with someone like Aquinas and the Summa and then offer a reason why their explanations are not adequate, since they convince many people who are alive today. In other words, it’s not obvious or common knowledge that his arguments “come up short.” Perhaps people who are convinced by them are seeing something you are not?

Regarding the problem of evil, most people who do not accept popular solutions to it, only do so because they disagree with the apologists over what makes something good, bad, and/or evil rather than demonstrating how the defense does not resolve the apparent contradiction.

 

[Gorgias]

27.God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence.
28.God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future.
29.By the knowledge of vision, God also foresees the future free acts of rational creatures with infallible certainty.

Notice that none of these three address the issue that you claim is the problem:

How can God know about something that has never happened, does not happen and will never happen?

#28 addresses the “never happened” issue: since God is outside of time, the things that are in ‘the future’ for us are not ‘future’ for Him. So, He sees them. Simple enough.

Things that “do not happen” or “will never happen” are a different story, however. Read up on the history of the debate between Molinists and their critics, especially in the area of middle knowledge / counterfactuals.

It is not the position of the Catholic Church that God must know those things which never happen (although Molina argued for precisely that position).

There are lots of problems with these propositions. There are no “real things” in the future. The phrase “foresees” implicitly accepts that the future does not exist yet.

Both of your statements hold … but only from the perspective of a being who exists within the framework of spacetime. We use the term ‘future’ to mean something that has real meaning for us. However, there is no ‘future’ in this spacetime, relative to God; He perceives all of creation immediately (we, on the other hand, experience it through the mediation of the temporal framework).

In other words, for us, there is the notion of “foreseeing”; for God, it’s just simple knowledge.

So how could God know something that does not exist? But let’s suppose that he can (only for the sake of the discussion.)

To God, it exists. To us, it does not. It’s a matter of perspective.

But God’s knowledge reflects the actuality of the world, so it is logically contingent upon the reality.

You’ve got it backward – “reality” / “the actuality of the world” is logically contingent upon God.

Nevertheless, the future is ‘real’, even if we do not have access to it. You’re attempting to apply our constraints upon God. That doesn’t hold up.

This is a clear cut contradiction. Of course I never met an apologist who would admit that. They like to say that it is a “mystery”.

Nah… no mystery here. Just a mis-characterization on your part.

Vera_Ljuba:

STT:

1. God cannot prove that He is omniscient. He can read your mind but He cannot tell what you are going to do since you can do always the opposite of what your are told you are going to do.

Indeed. So God is not omnipotent either.

That tired old canard? Puh-leeze…

It fails to convince, since it orders things improperly: it attempts to limit God’s knowledge temporally, and by doing so, assigns a counter-factual to God’s simple knowledge.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It might be more productive, then, to start with someone like Aquinas and the Summa and then offer a reason why their explanations are not adequate, since they convince many people who are alive today. In other words, it’s not obvious or common knowledge that his arguments “come up short.” Perhaps people who are convinced by them are seeing something you are not?

Maybe so, and I would like to learn how those arguments “work”. But I am not interested in going on a wild-goose chase. If someone wishes to address the issue, they can use their own words, and maybe refer to those philosophers, citing specific paragraphs from specific volumes.

Regarding the problem of evil, most people who do not accept popular solutions to it, only do so because they disagree with the apologists over what makes something good, bad, and/or evil rather than demonstrating how the defense does not resolve the apparent contradiction.

And here you pointed out a fundamental problem. Words like “good”, “bad” and “evil” have very well defined meanings when they refer to reality, and the apologists use some off-wall definitions when they refer to God. Not that I am interested in the going into such a side-track, but defining “evil” as the “privation of good” is simply nonsensical. But the fact is that no one has ever been able to resolve the PoE, unless they start with the “axiom” that God is “good” and everything he does OR allows is also good by definition. Or they say that it is a mystery.

---

Now, going back to the topic of the thread. The premise is that God knows “everything”, past, present and future. For the time being I will leave out the idea that God can “know” the future, because it presents another set of problems. The question is: “what is the causative relationship between the events of the world and God’s knowledge”?

Since you are a mathematician, you can easily see that there are four possible relationships: Let’s use “A” for our actions, “K” for God’s knowledge and “->” for the causative relationship. If there is no causative relationship, let’s use the symbol of “<>”.

1. Our free actions are primary, and God knows them, because we perform those actions. (A → K)
2. God has some a-priori knowledge and we perform the corresponding acts. (K → A)
3. There is some external causative agent, which causes our actions and God’s knowledge. (X → A and X → K)
4. Our actions are freely performed and God’s knowledge corresponds to them without any causative relationship. (A <> K)

The first one is quite plausible, we perform some actions and God obtains information about them. But it is contradicted by the idea that God is sovereign, which means that God is not contingent on anything. And since God is simple, meaning that God’s essence cannot be independent from God’s knowledge, it follows that God’s essence is contingent upon our actions.
The second one is strange, since it would mean that God’s knowledge “causes” what we do. That would be contrary to the concept that our actions are free.
No one seriously proposes the third one, since it would mean that both our actions and God’s knowledge are “caused” by some external causative agent. I just mentioned it for the sake of completeness.
The fourth one would present an incredible coincidence. Our actions and God’s knowledge are independent from each other, but somehow there is a one-to-one correspondence. And that would be a coincidence on a colossal scale - considering that there are millions and billons and zillions of free actions.

By the way, if I would just present the first option, everyone would simply accept it (I tried it several times before). We perform the free action, God observes them and thus he obtains knowledge. Simple and obvious… until one considers the ramifications.

So my conclusion is that the theologians and philosophers (all fallible, of course) had no idea what they were talking about. As far as I know none of them were mathematicians or logicians.

 

[vz71]

Why would a causal relationship be implied for God to simply know us and what our decisions will be?

Surely you have been in a position where you know what someone will do before they do it. You didn’t cause anything, you simply had knowledge beforehand.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Why would a causal relationship be implied for God to simply know us and what our decisions will be?

Surely you have been in a position where you know what someone will do before they do it. You didn’t cause anything, you simply had knowledge beforehand.

First, that is just a “good guess” and not knowledge. Second, you observe the person, and make inductive guess about what she will do. Third, true foreknowledge is possible but only in a deterministic scenario.

If you observe two cars traveling toward each other on a one-lane road and neither can see the other due to a sharp curve, then you can “foreknow” that they will crash if their distance is too short for breaking. But if the road is straight and the cars are sufficiently far away from each other, then they can break in time, so your guess about the crash will be incorrect.

The problem is foreknowledge vs. freedom (or free will). If we are trains on a track, then foreknowledge is possible. If we are free to make our own choices then the future is just a collection of possibilities.

 

[vz71]

I do not believe you addressed how a causal relationship is made by simply knowing what someone will decide.

Having knowledge beforehand does not imply a control of the events.

I am human, and as such am prone to error. I could look at your car example and be incorrect based on my limited knowledge.
God however has perfect knowledge. He has seen the crash, is seeing the crash, and sees a crash about to take place.
This does not mean God has caused any of it, just that God knows it.
It is the free will of those behind the wheels of the cars that are the cause.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It is the free will of those behind the wheels of the cars that are the cause.

Fine. God knows the result, because God observes the event. As such God’s knowledge is contingent upon the free action of the humans.

 

[STT]

Fine. God knows the result, because God observes the event. As such God’s knowledge is contingent upon the free action of the humans.

That is only true if future does not exist. Your argument fails if we are living in a block universe.

 

[Mort_Alz]

And here you pointed out a fundamental problem. Words like “good”, “bad” and “evil” have very well defined meanings when they refer to reality, and the apologists use some off-wall definitions when they refer to God. Not that I am interested in the going into such a side-track, but defining “evil” as the “privation of good” is simply nonsensical. But the fact is that no one has ever been able to resolve the PoE, unless they start with the “axiom” that God is “good” and everything he does OR allows is also good by definition. Or they say that it is a mystery.

I disagree. I don’t think the defense is really that arbitrary or axiomatic. It’s basically one principle stretched out to a cosmic scale; namely, that some good is not possible unless some evil exists, too. And, God is more interested in magnifying good than in preventing evil. Whether we are conscious of it or not, humans tend to think similarly. Generally speaking, we would rather have the good with the bad than no good at all. It’s why we prefer novels that include a struggle or a villain that is overcome. Almost no one writes novels or movies where nothing bad happens. Some good requires evil because some good is the conquering of evil. Courage, stalwartness, and even mercy are good things that cannot exist without evil. It is at this point where objectors usually tap out. One gets the feeling that they don’t think those goods are worth the suffering required in order for them to exist. I don’t think they are following that thought to its conclusion, though. A universe without the possibility of voluntary virtue is a universe with no virtue at all. We value love that is voluntary more than “love” that is self-interested.

(Notice that I use the term “voluntary virtue” instead of “free will.” One’s choices can be predetermined without losing the voluntary nature of their act.)

 

[Mort_Alz]

Now, going back to the topic of the thread. The premise is that God knows “everything”, past, present and future. For the time being I will leave out the idea that God can “know” the future, because it presents another set of problems. The question is: “what is the causative relationship between the events of the world and God’s knowledge”?

Since you are a mathematician, you can easily see that there are four possible relationships: Let’s use “A” for our actions, “K” for God’s knowledge and “->” for the causative relationship. If there is no causative relationship, let’s use the symbol of “<>”.

1. Our free actions are primary, and God knows them, because we perform those actions. (A → K)
2. God has some a-priori knowledge and we perform the corresponding acts. (K → A)
3. There is some external causative agent, which causes our actions and God’s knowledge. (X → A and X → K)
4. Our actions are freely performed and God’s knowledge corresponds to them without any causative relationship. (A <> K)

The first one is quite plausible, we perform some actions and God obtains information about them. But it is contradicted by the idea that God is sovereign, which means that God is not contingent on anything. And since God is simple, meaning that God’s essence cannot be independent from God’s knowledge, it follows that God’s essence is contingent upon our actions.
The second one is strange, since it would mean that God’s knowledge “causes” what we do. That would be contrary to the concept that our actions are free.
No one seriously proposes the third one, since it would mean that both our actions and God’s knowledge are “caused” by some external causative agent. I just mentioned it for the sake of completeness.
The fourth one would present an incredible coincidence. Our actions and God’s knowledge are independent from each other, but somehow there is a one-to-one correspondence. And that would be a coincidence on a colossal scale - considering that there are millions and billons and zillions of free actions.

By the way, if I would just present the first option, everyone would simply accept it (I tried it several times before). We perform the free action, God observes them and thus he obtains knowledge. Simple and obvious… until one considers the ramifications.

So my conclusion is that the theologians and philosophers (all fallible, of course) had no idea what they were talking about. As far as I know none of them were mathematicians or logicians.

As others have pointed out, we are hardly the first people in history to notice these potential problems. Since we exist a certain amount of time after a certain amount of work has been done on these questions already, I propose we start with with an article that might bring us up to speed with the development of Catholic thought on the subject (specifically Catholic because this is a Catholic forum) and go from there.

Here is a link to an article from newadvent.org

You, of course, may read the whole article, but courtesy would point out that the relevant portions are from “Free will and the Christian religion” through “Thomist and Molinist theories.” It won’t take long to read. That will give you a general, but not exhaustive idea of the history of Catholic thought in this matter. You might even be able to adjust the material in the article to the mathematical expressions you’ve crafted around the question. Then, we can address any questions which were not addressed by the article and we can especially address any which you feel were inadequately addressed. It will be helpful, in the latter, if you specify why you don’t think an answer was satisfactory, so that we can move forward from common ground.

newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm#chr

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I disagree. I don’t think the defense is really that arbitrary or axiomatic. It’s basically one principle stretched out to a cosmic scale; namely, that some good is not possible unless some evil exists, too. And, God is more interested in magnifying good than in preventing evil. Whether we are conscious of it or not, humans tend to think similarly. Generally speaking, we would rather have the good with the bad than no good at all. It’s why we prefer novels that include a struggle or a villain that is overcome. Almost no one writes novels or movies where nothing bad happens. Some good requires evil because some good is the conquering of evil. Courage, stalwartness, and even mercy are good things that cannot exist without evil. It is at this point where objectors usually tap out. One gets the feeling that they don’t think those goods are worth the suffering required in order for them to exist. I don’t think they are following that thought to its conclusion, though. A universe without the possibility of voluntary virtue is a universe with no virtue at all. We value love that is voluntary more than “love” that is self-interested.

(Notice that I use the term “voluntary virtue” instead of “free will.” One’s choices can be predetermined without losing the voluntary nature of their act.)

Let me quickly present a few actual examples which would mirror the theoretical reasoning you presented. It is always helpful to look at the actual examples.

1. It is better to be sick and to recover than to be healthy all the time.
2. It is better to starve and then having a meal than to be normally fed satisfyingly all the time.
3. It is better to beaten within a hair width to death than to be left alone.
4. It is better to suffer needlessly and then have the suffering end than not to suffer at all.
5. It is better to lose a child to some random cause than not to lose it at all.
6. It is better to have a heart attack and almost die than not to have a heart attack at all.
7. It is better to have tooth decay and a good denture than to have a healthy dentition.

The examples are endless.

Obviously there is “some” good in the cessation of pain and suffering, the question is: “is it worth it”? And that question cannot be answered objectively for someone else. Everyone must answer the question for herself. Moreover, the ones who advocate the “bad or evil” as a “good, necessary, acceptable” precursor for the cessation of the suffering are usually NOT the ones who suffer themselves. It is very easy to endure someone else’s suffering.

Or let’s posit is a tad differently: “is the relative good of the cessation of suffering better than the absolute good of not suffering at all?”

It is strange to see that someone might choose the “relative” good and not the “absolute” one. I can only offer my personal opinion. I don’t care about the possible virtue if it comes too expensively. What is “too” expensive is decided by the sufferer herself. No one is qualified to make that decision for someone else.

As for the last sentence of yours: “the possible choices can be predetermined, but the actual choice cannot be if we wish to maintain the freedom of the act”.

(I will reflect on your other post in a bit.)

 

[Gorgias]

Maybe so, and I would like to learn how those arguments “work”. But I am not interested in going on a wild-goose chase.

Learning the basics of philosophical and theological thought on questions you’re clearly interested in is not “a wild-goose chase.” Rather, attempting to re-invent the wheel and come up with all that theory on your own is a wild-goose chase, and causes you to end up running in circles. But, we’ve already seen that that’s the case here…

If someone wishes to address the issue, they can use their own words, and maybe refer to those philosophers, citing specific paragraphs from specific volumes.

Check out Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, especially I.14.1 through I.14.16 (on God’s knowledge). His treatment of God’s omnipresence is helpful, too, in establishing the rationale for the rejection of some of your claims (in particular, see his answers in I.8.2 and I.8.3, which might help you understand why your claims about causation / observation don’t hold up). Finally, with respect to your skepticism regarding free will vis-a-vis God’s will, you might consider looking at Aquinas’ argument in I.83.1’s Objection 3 and its Response.

No wild goose chases… I promise.

Since you are a mathematician, you can easily see that there are four possible relationships

If you were a philosopher, perhaps you would recognize that there are other possible relationships.

Let’s use “A” for our actions, “K” for God’s knowledge and “->” for the causative relationship. If there is no causative relationship, let’s use the symbol of “<>”.

1. Our free actions are primary, and God knows them, because we perform those actions. (A → K)

By ‘primary’, do you mean that they are independent of God, and as a consequence, unknown to Him?

If so, then you’re making the claim that God is constrained by time in the way humans are. That’s a logical error.

1. God has some a-priori knowledge and we perform the corresponding acts. (K → A)

Again, by framing up God’s knowledge as “a priori,” you’re placing God within the temporal framework in which we live. Same logical error as in your first relationship.

1. There is some external causative agent, which causes our actions and God’s knowledge. (X → A and X → K)

This one requires God to not have the quality of omniscience and omnipotence. In other words, in order to hold to this one, you have to ignore the definition of who God is. So… no luck here, either.

1. Our actions are freely performed and God’s knowledge corresponds to them without any causative relationship. (A <> K)

Read up on Aquinas’ discussion of “primary” and “secondary” causes. There is causation, but not the simplistic causation you posit here.

The first one is quite plausible, we perform some actions and God obtains information about them. But it is contradicted by the idea that God is sovereign, which means that God is not contingent on anything.

It’s not plausible, since it presumes that God “learns” our actions in a temporal sequence analogous to ours (i.e., within the constraints of time). Again, you’re trying to make claims about God that are in conflict with the definition of God; and therefore, your claims fail. If your limited definition of God was reasonable, then your claim against God’s sovereignty might itself be reasonable.

However, with God being outside the dimension of time in creation, He can both know our actions and not need to learn them in temporal sequence.

So, it would seem that there is at least one additional possible relationship. However, it seems that you would benefit first from a greater familiarity with the concepts you’re attempting to debate. Perhaps you might like to ask a few questions to help us help you get a bit more conversant with these concepts?

By the way, if I would just present the first option, everyone would simply accept it (I tried it several times before). We perform the free action, God observes them and thus he obtains knowledge.

Nope, and for precisely the reason you seem to be unaware of: God’s knowledge is simple; He does not learn.

So my conclusion is that the theologians and philosophers (all fallible, of course) had no idea what they were talking about.

Read up on them a bit, then. You’ll find that their arguments are far more solid than your caricatures of them are.

As far as I know none of them were mathematicians or logicians.

Then perhaps you might consider reading up on them a bit more carefully.