God's omniscience

[TJ_2582]

I was just wanting to get some opinions on this. I recently read the book “Letters From a Skeptic.” It’s a series of letters between a man who is a christian apologist and his dad who grew up Catholic, but now is an agnostic, and comtemplating returning to God. One of the dad’s letters is “Does God know the future?”

The son says that of course God knows the future, but just not to the extent that most christians believe he does. I’ll put in a couple excerpts from the book.

“In the christian view God knows all of reality-everything there is to know. But to assume he knows ahead of time how every person is going to freely act assumes that each person’s free activity is already there to know-even before freely he does it. But it’s not. If we have been given freedom, we create the reality of our decisions by making them.”

“If there are aspects of the future which are already determined, either by present circumstances or by God’s own will, these he would know, for they are presently there to know. Future free actions, however, aren’t. Now as to whether this view is biblical: it is my conviction that it is. I find the God of scripture to be interacting with people in a way that assumes he faces the future with a certain degree of openness. For example, he asks questions of people in the bible and occasionally even changes his mind in light of new circumstances(see Ex 31:14, 1 Sam 15:11, Jer 18:7-10, 26:19). This would, of course, be impossible, if he had a fixed blueprint of all events ahead of time.”

This isn’t all of it. I just tried to get the gist of his explanation. I’ve always been of the belief that God knows EVERYTHING, but actually found myself a little intrigued by this answer. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[nicragland]

My understanding is that God exists outside of time. As a result, using time dependent phrases like “knowing ahead of time” can lead one in the wrong direction. I think C.S. Lewis talks a good bit about this in Mere Christianity. Since God knows everything there is to know and exists outside of time, our past, present, and future are always his present. I don’t think it is possible for God to have a “fixed blueprint of all events ahead of time” because God is not within time. At this point my head starts hurting.

However, I’ve never read the book. Also, I will leave someone more qualified to reply to the Scripture references.

God bless

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What are your thoughts on this?

G-d is Omnipresent, meaning that he is present at every single point that can be said to exist. From G-ds view point every moment is experienced simultaneously or “now”. From our viewpoint every moment not yet experienced is the “future”. So we say that G-d knows the future because of His knowledge of moments that we have not yet experienced. Its an easier pill to swallow if we understand that time is really just a convenient way for us to measure change in our environment. There really is no state of affairs known as “time”. All the properties that we associate with time are really a function of our perception and not applicable to other states of awareness. The skeptic assumes that our state of awareness and G-ds is substantially similar. Nothing could be further from the truth. He is anthropomorphizing G-d and expecting you to play along.

 

[Katholish]

Saying that there is something that God does not know is a contradiction to Christianity, and indeed true monotheism.

 

[Keeler]

Saying that there is something that God does not know is a contradiction to Christianity, and indeed true monotheism.

So, God knows the contents of a book, which was never written, because the author was never born (though he could have been born, if his possible parents would have met and would have fallen in love… etc…). Or God knows the colors and the subject of a painting which will never be painted, because the artist will never be born, because the zygote will never get implanted into the uteus wall.

And you guys insists that your belief is rational. Sheesh!

 

[tonyrey]

So, God knows the contents of a book, which was never written, because the author was never born (though he could have been born, if his possible parents would have met and would have fallen in love… etc…). Or God knows the colors and the subject of a painting which will never be painted, because the artist will never be born, because the zygote will never get implanted into the uteus wall.

And you guys insists that your belief is rational.

God knows everything that is knowable… It is irrational to believe knowledge has emerged from things which lack knowledge.

 

[Keeler]

God knows everything that is knowable…

Your simplistic adjective of “knowable” carries no meaning unless you can separate the “knowable” from the “unknowable”. Are those examples knowable? According to Katholish God knows everything, no exceptions. According to the Molinist “middle knowledge” God knows things that could exist. So, if that is the case, then God can know the contents of a nonexistent book, or the never-painted picture - which is lunacy. Knowledge is information about something. If something does not exist, then it cannot be known - by definition.

The usual attempted cop-out that God exists outside of time does not help, it actually introduces more nonsense. Something either exists or not. To say that something exists from one observer’s standpoint, but does not exist from another observer’s standpoint is a logical contradiction. Not to mention that existence outside of time is total stasis, contradicting any and all actions. Any action is change, which introduces a “before” and “after” - which is time.

 

[nicragland]

So, if that is the case, then God can know the contents of a nonexistent book, or the never-painted picture - which is lunacy. Knowledge is information about something. If something does not exist, then it cannot be known - by definition.

If something does not exist, then it is not a thing. It is nothing. Nothing is unknown to God.

 

[Keeler]

If something does not exist, then it is not a thing. It is nothing. Nothing is unknown to God.

I agree with you, but the Molinists don’t. Of course you realize that a book which has not been written yet also does not exist. There is no difference between a book which has not been written yet and one which will not be written at all. This shows that the whole concept of “omniscience” is not sensibly formulated.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…There is no difference between a book which has not been written yet and one which will not be written at all…

To G-d the book that is yet to be written, actually exists. G-d is omnipresent, equally present at every point that can be said to exist. All those points at which the book to yet be written can be said to exist, are equally real to G-d. So G-d has knowledge off events that we have yet to experience. What we call the future to Him is part of an eternal “now”

 

[tonyrey]

Your simplistic adjective of “knowable” carries no meaning unless you can separate the “knowable” from the “unknowable”.

You might as well describe knowledge as simplistic! The whole point is that with our finite intelligence we cannot know what is knowable and what it isn’t.

Are those examples knowable? According to Katholish God knows everything, no exceptions. According to the Molinist “middle knowledge” God knows things that could exist. So, if that is the case, then God can know the contents of a nonexistent book, or the never-painted picture - which is lunacy. Knowledge is information about something. If something does not exist, then it cannot be known - by definition.

Molinism is not Catholicism…

The usual attempted cop-out that God exists outside of time does not help, it actually introduces more nonsense. Something either exists or not.

It is a cop-out to assume that God doesn’t exist or that everything must exist in time. Where do you obtain your information?

To say that something exists from one observer’s standpoint, but does not exist from another observer’s standpoint is a logical contradiction. Not to mention that existence outside of time is total stasis, contradicting any and all actions. Any action is change, which introduces a “before” and “after” - which is time.

Have you had experience of existence “outside of time”?

 

[Keeler]

To G-d the book that is yet to be written, actually exists. G-d is omnipresent, equally present at every point that can be said to exist. All those points at which the book to yet be written can be said to exist, are equally real to G-d. So G-d has knowledge off events that we have yet to experience. What we call the future to Him is part of an eternal “now”

All you have to do is come up with another nonsense - and call it omnipresence. By the way, is God present in hell? If God is omnipresent, then God is present in hell. But hell is a separation from God! Therefore God is not present in hell. So God is both present and absent from hell. What a beautiful contradiction!

There is one event, two observers. You say that the event has already happened for observer A, but has not happened yet for observer B. The bullet has already been fired and the victim is already dead, says observer A. No, says observer B, it has not been fired yet, and if the gunman has a freedom of action, he may even change his mind. Better yet, I will jump in, and take the gun from him so he cannot fire it. The bullet is both fired and not fired at the same time. The victim is both dead and alive at the same time. But hey, it is just another contradiction! And there are so many of them. One more does not make a lot of difference.

 

[Keeler]

You might as well describe knowledge as simplistic!

Nope, only your definition of it.

The whole point is that with our finite intelligence we cannot know what is knowable and what it isn’t.

Aha. So omniscience is to know what can be known. But for us it is impossible to know what can be known. So the definition: “God can know everything that can be known” - is totally meaningless. Yup. You probably surpassed your your usual standard of nonsense, which is rather impressive.

Molinism is not Catholicism…

Yes, that is true. Since Catholicism has no “official” philosophy, you did not say anything surprising here. Come to think of it, Catholicism does not say a lot “officially”. And it does not say officially, what is official. How conveeenient!

It is a cop-out to assume that God doesn’t exist or that everything must exist in time. Where do you obtain your information?

If there is change, there is time. If there is action, there is change. Even you could understand that simple syllogism. Or have I overestimated your powers of perception? Maybe I did.

Have you had experience of existence “outside of time”?

Sure. For the same amount of time than you did.

 

[shoe]

All you have to do is come up with another nonsense - and call it omnipresence. By the way, is God present in hell? If God is omnipresent, then God is present in hell. But hell is a separation from God! Therefore God is not present in hell. So God is both present and absent from hell. What a beautiful contradiction!

Although the people who reject God are separated spiritually from Him in hell, God’s presence is nevertheless known or felt there in some sense. King David writes, “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy face? If I ascend into heaven, thou art there: if I descend into hell, thou art present” (139:7-8). Those who inhabit hell are unable to escape the omnipresence of God, in spite of the great gulf that separates hell from heaven.

 

[Keeler]

Although the people who reject God are separated spiritually from Him in hell, God’s presence is nevertheless known or felt there in some sense.

Spiritually separated? Physically not separated? Or is there a third realm, not “spiritual” but not physical either? Come on.

King David writes, “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy face? If I ascend into heaven, thou art there: if I descend into hell, thou art present” (139:7-8). Those who inhabit hell are unable to escape the omnipresence of God, in spite of the great gulf that separates hell from heaven.

If so then people in hell are both separated from God and not separated from God. Just another boring contradiction. How many contradictions can you guys pile up in a short thread? I love it, when you speak with such authority about the circumstances in hell. Have you been there? Or seen a video? Is there still an everlasting flame and the worm eating the flesh of the sinners? Or is that now a politically incorrect way of representing hell?

As far as we go, we are totally separated from God in this existence. Is this hell? If so, it aint too shabby.

But let’s get back to the topic of omniscience…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…If God is omnipresent, then God is present in hell. But hell is a separation from God! Therefore God is not present in hell. So God is both present and absent from hell. What a beautiful contradiction!

Yes, G-d is present in Sheol as the Psalms say. The separation that I think you refer too is in the sense of free will association.

There is one event, two observers. You say that the event has already happened for observer A, but has not happened yet for observer B…

Being omnipresent means that there is no “already happened” for observer A. Observers A and B have entirely different frames of reference.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… If so then people in hell are both separated from God and not separated from God. Just another boring contradiction.

There is no contradiction, people say things like “my wife and I live in the same house but we are separated” or that "the jail downtown keeps people separate from society with out contradiction.

 

[nicragland]

Regarding omnipresence, from Frank Sheed:

“Where” means “in what place,” which means “in what location in space.” But God is a spirit, and a spirit does not occupy space; only bodies need space. Yet we do say that God is everywhere. How can he be everywhere if he is not in space at all?

Follow closely. Everywhere means where everything is. The phrase “God is everywhere” means that God is in everything. Clearly a spiritual being is not in a material being as water is in a cup. We must look for a different meaning for the word “in.” A spiritual being is said to be where it operates, in the things that receive the effects of its power. My soul, for instance, is in every part of my body, not by being spread out so that every bodily part has a little bit of soul to itself, but because the soul’s life-giving energies pour into every part of the body. Everything whatsoever receives the energy of God, bringing it into existence and keeping it there; that is the sense in which God is omnipresent, is everywhere, in everything.

 

[tonyrey]

The whole point is that with our finite intelligence we cannot know what is knowable and what it isn’t.

False deduction! If you wish it to be spelled out in simple terms: with our finite intelligence we cannot know **the full extent of what is knowable - and therefore the full extent **of what is unknowable…

If there is change, there is time. If there is action, there is change. Even you could understand that simple syllogism.

You are assuming **all **action is physical and subject to physical laws.

Have you had experience of existence “outside of time”?

Sure. For the same amount of time than you did.

Therefore you have no rational basis for your conclusion.

BTW I am deleting all your irrelevant insults which infringe Forum conduct rule 1 - with the exception of the following which is a more serious breach of conduct rule 5:

Since Catholicism has no “official” philosophy, you did not say anything surprising here. Come to think of it, Catholicism does not say a lot “officially”. And it does not say officially, what is official. How conveeenient!

 

[Katholish]

Your simplistic adjective of “knowable” carries no meaning unless you can separate the “knowable” from the “unknowable”. Are those examples knowable? According to Katholish God knows everything, no exceptions. According to the Molinist “middle knowledge” God knows things that could exist. So, if that is the case, then God can know the contents of a nonexistent book, or the never-painted picture - which is lunacy. Knowledge is information about something. If something does not exist, then it cannot be known - by definition.

Yes, I said that God knows everything. Are things that could exist, but do not actually exist something? You seem to think not, but I think you over look the distinction between act and potency. You, like the pre-Socratics, seem to be saying that “being is, non-being is not.” Which in the history of philosophy at first seemed obvious, but then Aristotle came around and introduced the notion of potency. Just because something does not exist, does not mean that there is no potency for it to exist, and in a sense the thing can have an accidental form even if it lacks a substantial one.

Take a unicorn for instance. Do you know what a unicorn is? Sure you do. Does it exist in reality? Nope, but that doesn’t mean that the idea of unicorn does not exist, because a unicorn is simply a combination of two natural forms, that of horse and horn. So, you are correct in saying that knowledge is knowledge of something, but you are incorrect in asserting that just because something does not exist in substantial form that it is nothing.

The usual attempted cop-out that God exists outside of time does not help, it actually introduces more nonsense. Something either exists or not. To say that something exists from one observer’s standpoint, but does not exist from another observer’s standpoint is a logical contradiction. Not to mention that existence outside of time is total stasis, contradicting any and all actions. Any action is change, which introduces a “before” and “after” - which is time.

Again with the “being is, non-being is not” fallacy. Something can exist in potency. There is no logical contradiction in asserting existence or non-existence based on view point. I can offer a practical example. President Nixon had a dog named Checkers. From his perspective in 1976, that dog exists. From my perspective in 2011, it does not. The difference in perspective is one of time, and since things can come into existence or fall out of existence in time, it is possible to have different vantage points on a things existence.

Existence outside of time is total statis or lack of change. On this we agree. God is immutable, He does not change. We do not agree, however, that any action is change. I think you have a slight equivocation on the term action and act. A change is a move from potency to act, but you can have a state of act without a prior potency. Right now, I am in act in regard to existing, yet I never changed in regard to existence. I was never in potency to existence and then actually existing (because prior to my existing, there was no subject with which to be in potency to. This is why Creation is not a change of any kind, either in God or in the thing created.) Anyway, the point is that you are introducing a false premise by trying to equate change with act.