How omniscient is God?

[Charlemagne_III]

This question has been plaguing me for some time. I may be losing my mind. But here goes.

Exactly how omniscient is God?

In particular, we believe that God knows everything that has happened, that is happening, and that will happen. But that knowledge concerns only the real world of events.

Is it possible that God also knows all the potential world of events; that is, those events that could happen but don’t happen? For example, if a person dies in childhood, would God also know all the events that would have happened in that person’s life had the person lived to old age?

Please don’t ask why I am obsessing over this question.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Yes, God knows absolutely everything. In Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine it says:

God is omniscient, i.e., all-knowing. He knows all in reality, i.e., He knows the past, the present, and the future, “even”, says the first Vatican Council, “those things which will take place through the free action of creatures.” … God knows all that is possible. He knows not only what man has done, but what man might have done in different circumstances.

So, He would know how a man would live his life had he not died as a child.

 

[Bradski]

It’s an assumption. You have to believe it on faith. Likewise omnipotence.

 

[FractalFire]

It’s an assumption. You have to believe it on faith. Likewise omnipotence.

Sidenote:

Actually, philosophers have argued that a maximal being (the proposed God) would be both omniscient and omnipotent by its nature (whatever the foundation of reality is, it by definition has the source of all power and if it is a person, it should have all knowledge). Since these are conclusions derived by logic, they are not at all assumptions – they are more akin to reasonable extrapolations (or perhaps mathematical proofs) that have been studied and tested by many learned philosophers throughout history. You may disagree with the premises (which like in all logical arguments, *are *assumptions), but it would be incorrect to label the conclusions of an argument “assumptions” as if we have no more support for them than that.

To answer the asker’s question, as I understand it, omnipotence is defined as the ability to know all that it is logically possible to know. Any information is possessed except “information” which is logically incoherent (i.e. what a square circle looks like). Therefore, if it is logically knowable, God knows it. If you cannot find any *logical * contradiction with God knowing the information in question, then we can assume he knows it. I can’t think of any possible contradictions. Can you?

William Lane Craig has some interesting articles on subjects similar to this. I suggest looking him up.

 

[Anony_Mous]

…Exactly how omniscient is God?..

IMHO
Knowing everything that is true. For Truth is the only reality.
Knowing everything that is not only in time, but everything without time.
Knowing everything that is not only in our realm of perception, but everything other than that limitation.
Knowing everything that humans can comprehend and everything beyond that.

It is pointless to compare our (worldly) intellect with Truth, for Truth comes from the divine, from God, and not from this limited realm we call our world/universe.

 

[e_c]

It’s an assumption. You have to believe it on faith. Likewise omnipotence.

No, it comes directly from reason. All the Divine Attributes are deducible from reason: existence (the preamble to the attributes), simplicity, unity (which is distinct from simplicity), eternity, omniscience (flowing from an operation, viz. knowing), omnipotence (also from an operation, viz. willing), omnipresence, goodness, perfection (which is distinct from goodness), infinity, and immutability…

God knows all real things, past, present, future, and eternal. God knows all possible things (which would, in a sense, be included in either the future real things or eternal things).

God knows “future contingents” (what would have happened) in the way that they can be known, which is different from how real things are known.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

O.K. Now I’m getting the sense that my question was not really a stupid one, but even within the realm of the plausible so to speak. Thanks for your thoughts.

God bless.

Taking this a step further, does this mean that when a child dies even before the age of reason, the child will be judged not in that condition but in the condition he would have presented himself to Christ before his death in later life?

 

[eazyduzit]

O.K. Now I’m getting the sense that my question was not really a stupid one, but even within the realm of the plausible so to speak. Thanks for your thoughts.

God bless.

Taking this a step further, does this mean that when a child dies even before the age of reason, the child will be judged not in that condition but in the condition he would have presented himself to Christ before his death in later life?

No God does not judge on what we didn’t do. God knows exactly when someone reaches the age of reason and responsibility. All who die before this are accepted in heaven where they will grow and mature.

 

[Rhubarb]

It seems to me that if we are willing to accept a being that is omniscient in the first place, it isn’t a leap at all to say this means such a being does know everything - every what-if and conditional fact, the entire set of actual facts, all possible facts, possible-conditional facts, etc.

If I posed to God the question “What would I have gotten on my 6th birthday from my great-grandfather if he lived AND we all lived in Switzerland AND I was a girl AND I had a nut allergy AND my family knew that I hate ponies.” (A great many of those conditions aren’t true), God would be able to answer correctly.

 

[Bradski]

Actually, philosophers have argued that a maximal being (the proposed God) would be both omniscient and omnipotent by its nature…

Hey, hang on. There’s the assumption. ‘A maximal being’. By that very definition that being would have to be omniscient and omnipotent. They mean the same thing. You are saying that God is omniscient because you have assumed Him to be the maximal being. Who says? It’s assumed.

It leads to the smallest radius circular argument in existence: ‘God is omnipotent because he is the maximal being we can conceive’. Why is He the maximal being we can conceive? ‘Why, because that’s the definition of God’.

No, it comes directly from reason. All the Divine Attributes are deducible from reason: existence (the preamble to the attributes), simplicity, unity (which is distinct from simplicity), eternity, omniscience (flowing from an operation, viz. knowing), omnipotence (also from an operation, viz. willing), omnipresence, goodness, perfection (which is distinct from goodness), infinity, and immutability…

You’ve only got one that makes sense. Existence. If you suggest a god exists, then if it does it must have existence. But that’s it. There is no more you can say. Everything else, without exception, is assumption. To say that He is omniscient is to declare, without any evidence whatsoever, that he is the maximal being that can be imagined.

As a I asked above…who says?

There is nothing to prevent anyone suggesting that God is not omniscient, but knows more than we can imagine. That He is not omnipotent but is the most powerful entity about which we know. Neither of those statements are illogical. And wouldn’t detract from us accepting God as the maximal being we can conceive. But that is 't necessarily THE maximal being.

Unless we revert to the old schoolyard arguments: ‘My God is bigger than yours’.

 

[littlestsouls2]

O.K. Now I’m getting the sense that my question was not really a stupid one, but even within the realm of the plausible so to speak. Thanks for your thoughts.

God bless.

Taking this a step further, does this mean that when a child dies even before the age of reason, the child will be judged not in that condition but in the condition he would have presented himself to Christ before his death in later life?

No. God judges us as He finds us, so to speak.

Example: St. Rita of Cascia was concerned for the salvation of her sons, so she asked God to prevent them from committing mortal sin, even if it meant bringing them to Himself early. Her children died shortly thereafter, so it seems that God heard her prayer and saved them.

 

[Bradski]

No. God judges us as He finds us, so to speak.

Example: St. Rita of Cascia was concerned for the salvation of her sons, so she asked God to prevent them from committing mortal sin, even if it meant bringing them to Himself early. Her children died shortly thereafter, so it seems that God heard her prayer and saved them.

So much for free will.

 

[Nixbits]

e_c:

All the Divine Attributes are deducible from reason: existence (the preamble to the attributes), simplicity, unity (which is distinct from simplicity), eternity, omniscience (flowing from an operation, viz. knowing), omnipotence (also from an operation, viz. willing), omnipresence, goodness, perfection (which is distinct from goodness), infinity, and immutability.

There are logical problems with being omniscient and omnipotent, and with being omnipotent and omnipresent at the same time. It’s only possible to know what future events will happen if you don’t have the power to change what will happen. It’s only possible to be omnipresent if you don’t have the power to not be in a certain place. Arguments that I’ve heard about God existing simultaneously at all times past, present and future are equivalent to not having a clue about the nature of time or God. I have yet to hear any sensible argument for what it even means for an immaterial Being to be present at all places in a physical universe.

But this is a bit off-topic because it doesn’t affect the claim about God being maximally omniscient.

 

[littlestsouls2]

So much for free will.

‘… the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it hath pleased the Lord so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord.’ (Job 1:21)

 

[o_mlly]

Exactly how omniscient is God?
…

Is it possible that God also knows all the potential world of events; that is, those events that could happen but don’t happen? For example, if a person dies in childhood, would God also know all the events that would have happened in that person’s life had the person lived to old age?

Reality is singular.
In God, there are no contingencies.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No God does not judge on what we didn’t do. God knows exactly when someone reaches the age of reason and responsibility. All who die before this are accepted in heaven where they will grow and mature.

Can you cite where it says this in the Catechism?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You’ve only got one that makes sense. Existence. If you suggest a god exists, then if it does it must have existence. But that’s it. There is no more you can say. Everything else, without exception, is assumption. To say that He is omniscient is to declare, without any evidence whatsoever, that he is the maximal being that can be imagined.

Very good. Likewise then, if you say there is no God, that too must be an assumption since there is no evidence whatsoever.

 

[e_c]

Sheesh, here’s the mas rapido version of Catholic (also perennial/peripatetic/western) philosophy of God:

Things change, this is due to causes, there must be some First Cause or else there is no explanation for any change at all. The First Cause we call God.

God can’t have parts, because He is First. If He had parts He would not be First, because He would have had to be “put together” by some other cause.

Creation is everything other than God, God caused all of it, therefore has perfect power over all of it and due to this perfect power has perfect presence to everything.

Because God is simple and immaterial (no parts, remember,) and because one’s rational capacity is dependent on his immateriality (skipping a lot here… read De Anima) God also has perfect knowledge (but just think - God is knowing, God has perfect presence, there ya go).

Since God is perfectly simple, He can’t be changed. He is First Cause, so He is Pure Act, contradistinguished from pure potency (prime matter), and therefore has no potential, which is the characteristic of being able to be changed… An admixture of act and potency is a kind of composition (viz., not “simple”).

Since God can’t be changed and is “outside” creation (since creation is everything He isn’t) He is also eternal, viz. non-temporal.

Since God contains all perfections and goodness (since all those come from Him), and because the cause is always greater than the effect, God is the measure of goodness and perfection.

God is infinite because He is perfectly simple and therefore lacks any kind of composition or potency that would limit Him in any way.

There’s a crash course. Some of them assume an understanding of the vocabulary and concepts (like act and potency). We can pick apart each thing and write books back and forth, but there ya have it.

 

[e_c]

Just as well, I was very careful to say that God’s existence is the preamble to the attributes… Existence is NOT an attribute. Things don’t “have existence” the way they “have color.” This is a debate historically in metaphysics… but the clear winner has been the anti-attribute side. For crying out loud, Aristotle and Kant agree!

Additionally, God’s Essence is the same as His Existence, which are both the same as God Himself. He’s the only one that has that relationship of terms in Him.

Nixbits - You seem to be reshaping the classic “omnipotence problem” (which usually involves a paradoxically large rock). The answer is that no, God can’t do things that violate the principle of non-contradiction, because those things/activities can’t possibly exist due to an inner contradiction of terms (for instance, an “infinitely large” rock can’t exist because “infinite” means no limits and “large” means limited in some way by a quantity). Make sense?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I have yet to hear any sensible argument for what it even means for an immaterial Being to be present at all places in a physical universe.

You will not even hear any sensible arguments offered for that proposition.

The immaterial Being knows every place without being present in every place, just as I know every part of my house without being present in every part of it at the same moment.