How does God know that he's all knowing?

[polytropos]

Let me try to explain my question about omniscience in a different way. When I asked “How do we know it’s raining?” I was wanted to get to the processess of how we know.

…

That’s not exactly what I’m asking. If God is omniscient, then what knowledge does he have to know this?

We need processes because we are not omniscient. Something that is omniscient could not rely on processes for its knowledge.

If God is omniscient then he certainly knows everything (and yes, that statement is a tautology).

Not saying it isn’t a tautology. I’m saying that the fact that it’s a tautology does not really change the point. God’s being omniscient requires that He knows that He is omniscient. That those two things are logically equivalent is not problematic.

But there would be a line of reasoning leading up to “I am omniscient.”

This is where you err. God knows without going through the line of reasoning (as you note later). There is no process to his knowledge…

And being omniscient, God would know what that line of reasoning is. God doesn’t need to think about the reasons, they are already laid out because God sees the entirety of the puzzle, pieces and all.

My question is, “What is the line of reasoning that I can use in my simulation of Gods understanding?”

… and so it cannot be simulated by anything that relies on processes.

Are you familiar Kurt Gödel’s theorem which states that there are propositions in axiomatic systems which are true but cannot be deduced? This is a similar circumstance. God, by omniscience, knows all propositions which would evaluate to True (for instance, “I am omniscient”), but there is not necessarily a logical sequence to deduce every proposition.

 

[Sparkythedog]

:twocents:

How do you know you exist? It would be something similar, i.e. obvious.

If it’s that obvious then it should be easy to explain.

 

[Aloysium]

If it’s that obvious then it should be easy to explain.

As easy as explaining existence; and the answer is . . . YHWH.

 

[univac]

I’ve heard christians say that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

I’m curious about omniscience. How would God know that he knew everything? How would he know that there wasn’t something outside of his knowledge?

Also, if he is all knowing, how could God demonstrate that to us?

Any thoughts?

The Answer is God created everything by His word from invisible to the visible how?
By the reasoning of intent that cause the purpose into existence. If you want me to elaborate more on intent of purpose let me know and i will.

In Jesus name

 

[Sparkythedog]

We need processes because we are not omniscient. Something that is omniscient could not rely on processes for its knowledge.

(Yikes, just re-read my earlier post and it’s full of typos! Sorry about that, I was in a rush. Yeesh, probably gonna make some more typos on this one too!)

Anyways… I thought the room analogy would help explain my line of thinking, but maybe my use of language is getting in the way. I’m not saying that God uses processes. In fact, I was trying to say the opposite. I’m conceding that God knows everything instantaneously. And with the room analogy I was trying to show that God’s knowledge is part of his essential nature. We, on the other hand, use different processes to arrive at our knowledge of the world.

God’s knowledge is like a jigsaw puzzle that is complete. Ours is missing many pieces. We need reasoning to fill in the gaps. God does not. For God, there are no gaps.

This is where you err. God knows without going through the line of reasoning (as you note later). There is no process to his knowledge… …and so it cannot be simulated by anything that relies on processes.

Are you familiar Kurt Gödel’s theorem which states that there are propositions in axiomatic systems which are true but cannot be deduced? This is a similar circumstance. God, by omniscience, knows all propositions which would evaluate to True (for instance, “I am omniscient”), but there is not necessarily a logical sequence to deduce every proposition.

I am, unfortunately, allergic to mathematics. I had a bad reaction to calculus 13 years ago, so I try to steer clear of it. Cough…cough…is this thing on…

Seriously though, I’m not familiar with Gödel or his theorems. I am familiar with axiomatic propositions that are self evidently true, but, as I understand it, those are theoretical concepts.

Regardless, I am not sure how the statement “I am omniscient” would evaluate to True. I just don’t see how that could be self evident.

 

[polytropos]

Anyways… I thought the room analogy would help explain my line of thinking, but maybe my use of language is getting in the way. I’m not saying that God uses processes. In fact, I was trying to say the opposite. I’m conceding that God knows everything instantaneously. And with the room analogy I was trying to show that God’s knowledge is part of his essential nature. We, on the other hand, use different processes to arrive at our knowledge of the world.

God’s knowledge is like a jigsaw puzzle that is complete. Ours is missing many pieces. We need reasoning to fill in the gaps. God does not. For God, there are no gaps.

I know what you mean. Your conception is mostly right, but God does not just bypass the processes but does not rely on the processes at all. His knowledge cannot necessarily be emulated by those who do rely on processes. Anyone who begins without knowing something cannot know whether or not they know everything, because they would never be able to be certain that there is not something else that they don’t know. An omniscient God knows its own properties, including that it is omniscient.

Seriously though, I’m not familiar with Gödel or his theorems. I am familiar with axiomatic propositions that are self evidently true, but, as I understand it, those are theoretical concepts.

Regardless, I am not sure how the statement “I am omniscient” would evaluate to True. I just don’t see how that could be self evident.

I’m not saying that “I am omniscient” is axiomatic or self-evident. Axiomatic systems (systems in which propositions can be deduced from axioms - but none of those axioms are “I am omniscient”) cannot be proven to be internally consistent. They contain true propositions that cannot be deduced (but also are not axioms - in an axiomatic system the axioms are tautologically true because they are assumed). God knows all that is true whether or not there is a chain of reasoning associated with it.

 

[punkforchrist]

I’m a little late to this discussion, but let’s take the argument from De Ente et Essentia (“On Being and Essence”) to help answer the question.

Thomas distinguishes between being (a thing’s existence or actuality) and essence (a thing’s nature). We can describe a unicorn’s essence as roughly a magical horse with a horn, but that doesn’t commit us to the belief that a unicorn exists. What would make a unicorn real would be the addition of esse (being). The argument is simple:

1. Something exists. (Premise)
2. Necessary, something exists if and only if being exists. (Premise)
3. Therefore, being exists. (From 1 and 2)

Now, God’s being and essence are identical, so it makes sense to infer the divine attributes concerning pure being, or pure actuality. First, pure actuality must be immutable, since it exemplifies no potentiality to change. Secondly, pure actuality must be eternal, indestructible, and omnipresent. For there is no time or place where actuality does not exist. Next, pure actuality must be unique (one). For, if there were more than one actuality, then there would be distinctions between them. Yet, to be distinct from actuality is to be non-actuality, in which case the latter does not exist anyway.

Diverse entities participate in pure actuality’s being, but are distinct insofar as their essences are distinct from their being. Finally, pure actuality must be very powerful in order to sustain all actualizations of potentialities. So, we have an argument for the existence of a purely actual, immutable, eternal, indestructible, omnipresent, unique, and very powerful entity. If this is not God, it’s certainly very much like God.

Now, as for the maximally excellent attributes, I think a good case can be made that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. For, to lack any of these qualities entails limitations, and limitations entail potentialities. Since pure actuality does not exhibit any potentiality, it follows that pure actuality is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. God’s knowledge of himself as pure actuality allows him to know that he is omniscient.