How omniscient is God?

[FractalFire]

Hey, hang on. There’s the assumption. ‘A maximal being’. By that very definition that being would have to be omniscient and omnipotent.

To the contrary, theologians and philosophers have argued about the qualities a maximally great being would have for centuries – Muslim philosophers, notably, do not agree with the concept that the maximal being would be omnibenevolent.

Secondly, that’s just a false statement. It is proven logically as e_c laid out for you, not pre-defined. Yes, the conclusions are by definition true based upon the original premise (assuming no logical errors have been made), but that’s how logic works. You start with something you know and reason out what that entails (the same is true in math).

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’.

Sarcasm mode activate.

You are saying 16 is divisible by 2 because you have assumed 16 to be even. Who says so? It’s assumed in the definition of 16. It leads to a circular argument: “16 is divisible by two because 16 is even.” Why is 16 even? “Why because that’s the definition of 16.”

Therefore, arguments for the divisibility of 16 by two are circular and hence faulty. How shall we ever do math?

End Sarcasm mode

 

[e_c]

The “maximal being” schtick is a mess. It’s sort of true but sort of not. Anselm’s classic ontological argument is destroyed by Thomas… but very reverently and gently, as usual (except when he repeatedly slams “De Anima et Spiritu,” which is always fun to read).

God is not “a being.” God is “esse ipsum subsistens,” Being Itself subsisting. Being is not “a being.” It has no genus or real category, you can really only say what it is not. We can’t say what Being is, because we only know it through beings. Starting to see the issue?

Enter revelation…

 

[Bradski]

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

There is no evidence for God? Well, OK. If you say so.

 

[e_c]

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.

God is omnipresent because He is omnipotent. You can only have power over something through a presence to it in some way. Of course, God is not omni-omnipresent - present to everything in every way He can be present. God is present in Scripture in a different way than He is present in the Eucharist, which is a different way than He is present in the poor, which is a different way He is present in His inner life to Himself, etc.

God brought something from nothing, which is the perfect display of power. Whence the thought that He would lose control of that which He had brought from nothing? So if He has power over everything He has created, He is present to it through that power (and we could further distinguish that into power per se, presence through Providence, and essence through causation).

 

[Bradski]

To the contrary, theologians and philosophers have argued about the qualities a maximally great being would have for centuries

16 is divisible by two because 16 is even." Why is 16 even? “Why because that’s the definition of 16.”

What’s to argue about? A maximally great being is Omni-everything. By definition. It cannot be otherwise. How could you argue against it? But…the fact that God is a maximally great being is assumed. Why? Well, because He wouldn’t be God if He wasn’t.

Quite a tight little circle, isn’t it.

And sixteen isn’t divisible by 2 simply because it’s even. You can divide any number into any other. The definition of an even number is that it is divisible by 2. That is NOT an assumption.

 

[Bradski]

God brought something from nothing, which is the perfect display of power. Whence the thought that He would lose control of that which He had brought from nothing?

It is assumed that He has power over everything. It isn’t a necessary condition. Unless you want to define God by what you assume.

 

[Solmyr]

I would suggest to slow down - considerably. What does the word “knowledge” MEAN when applied to God? For us to have knowledge about something means that we have information about that object or action. Also that our internal model of the object or action corresponds to reality.

As such it would be incorrect to say that we “know” what the weather will be two years hence in the future. The “weather” two years from now does not exist YET, so we cannot have information about it. We can, of course speculate about it. But speculation does not equal knowledge. We cannot say what the title of the third book will be penned by someone, if the author has not even been born yet. Cannot even speculate about it. So, for us, the word knowledge is very well defined.

Now there is the assumption that for God there is no past, present and future, that everything is a “frozen” present. If that assumption would be correct, then God would know the title of the third book which has not been written yet (from our perspective). But that is not the whole picture.

Unfortunately (for them!) the apologists wanted even more. They insist that God “knows” even those objects and events, which not only have not happened YET, but will never happen either. And that assumption makes the apologist irrational and illogical. The word “knowledge” when applied to God is a meaningless utterance. How could one have “knowledge” about something that does not exist, never existed, and will never exist either? If the apologist insist that God nevertheless has “knowledge” about that object or event, then the apologist belongs to a loony bin. Or, perhaps he would be a shallow thinker, who just spits words out of his mouth without even thinking about what he says…

So, before any intelligent conversation could take place about “omniscience”, it is absolutely necessary to give a proper definition of “knowledge”. What does it mean, how can one obtain it.

Might as well start the whole thread afresh.

 

[e_c]

Knowledge - having the thing in the mind.

Reception is according to the mode of the receiver. But also, what is received is received according to its own character… We know the future in the way it can be known. How’s that for tautology? But we should point out the obvious sometimes. The entire thomistic worldview is basically the systematization of common sense.

It is assumed that He has power over everything. It isn’t a necessary condition. Unless you want to define God by what you assume.

I proved it. Check my “mas rapido” post. Or, I at least claim I proved it. Make an argument if you want to contradict the conclusion.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There is no evidence for God? Well, OK. If you say so.

Where was the sarcasm stickie?

What I meant, of course, is that there is no evidence for God that would satisfy you, an atheist.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is assumed that He has power over everything. It isn’t a necessary condition. Unless you want to define God by what you assume.

Assumptions may be legitimate if they are reasonable.

But it is not a reasonable assumption that there is no God.

It is far more reasonable to assume that there is a God, since there are scads of arguments for God and hardly any reasonable proof offered that He does not exist.

Assuming that He does not exist is not a proof.

 

[Bradski]

Where was the sarcasm stickie?

What I meant, of course, is that there is no evidence for God that would satisfy you, an atheist.

Ah, was that a sarcasm stickie? I don’t use them so tend to ignore them. My bad (and I guess you can ignore the question based on my misunderstanding in the other thread).

 

[Bradski]

Assumptions may be legitimate if they are reasonable.

At least we are agreed that it IS an assumption. Whether it is reasonable is another matter.

The assumption is: ‘God is maximally great’. But when we ask why that is assumed, we get this: ‘Well, if we didn’t assume it then He wouldn’t be God’.

Now please tell me you recognize that as a circular argument par excellence. Possibly the best example of such faulty reasoning as one could imagine. It’s a zinger. Solid gold, diamond encrusted, one-of-a-kind classic. Iam absolutely 100% certain that you also recognize it as such.

Whether you will admit that is also another matter.

 

[Nixbits]

e_c:

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?

I’m fine with the principle of non-contradiction. But my objection was not about inner contradictions. What I questioned was about being omnipotent and omniscient at the same time. It’s logically possible to be omnipotent (within the limits of the principle of non-contradiction). And it’s logically possible to be omniscient (I think). But I don’t think it’s logically possible to be both.

If this is not possible due to an external contradiction (i.e. not possible due to conflict between two powers, rather than within a single power), then in cases such as the ones I mentioned, which power will work? Will God’s omnipotence impose limits on His omniscience, or vice versa?

I also objected to the possibility of being both omnipotent and omnipresent. But I notice that you claim God “has perfect presence to everything.” I don’t know what that means. It seems to be different to my understanding of omnipresence defined as ‘being everywhere at the same time’.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The assumption is: ‘God is maximally great’. But when we ask why that is assumed, we get this: ‘Well, if we didn’t assume it then He wouldn’t be God’.

Now please tell me you recognize that as a circular argument par excellence.

I do not assume God is maximally great. I assert it by way of definition. We have to be clear what we are talking about before we talk about it. Not a circular argument at all.

A circular argument would be with Anselm. Aquinas saw that clearly, as you no doubt see it clearly.

Maximally Great Being is just another way of saying Necessary Being, as Aquinas does in his third proof.

 

[e_c]

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.

Step by step:

1. It’s only possible to know what future events will happen if you don’t have the power to change what will happen.

No, it’s not, if your will is perfectly powerful and your intellect is perfectly knowing… which means you know what you are going to do actively or allow to come to pass, as God does. And even on a human level that’s silly to say, unless you are cramming knowledge into a Humean corner that rules out induction entirely.

1. It’s only possible to be omnipresent if you don’t have the power to not be in a certain place.

No, it’s not, on its face. Supposing omnipresence was the kind of thing you seem to think it is, all God has to do is will to be in all places. But this is not the kind of thing omnipresence is… here’s where there’s an “inner contradiction,” because there simply can’t be something that exists that God is not present to, since God is the necessary condition of everything’s existence. The mode of His presence is through power, providence, and essence, as I explained above.

1. 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 don’t understand the claim.

1. 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.

God is not an ether. Thomas’ example is that we sometimes speak of kings being in all places in their kingdom - God’s presence perfects this notion due to the perfection of His power.

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

It’s right on topic because the three “omnis” are bound up together. But I don’t know what “maximally omniscient” means… Do you mean knowing all things in all ways they can be known? Nobody has made that claim. It would be false.

 

[Bradski]

Maximally Great Being is just another way of saying Necessary Being, as Aquinas does in his third proof.

The one does not necessarily follow the other.

 

[Solmyr]

The one does not necessarily follow the other.

The concept of a “maximally great being” is just as nonsensical as the “maximally great dinner”, or “maximally great vacation”… The adjective “great” is an undefined and totally subjective concept. And, of course there is no “necessary being” either. Very easy to prove, too.

 

[Bradski]

The concept of a “maximally great being” is just as nonsensical as the “maximally great dinner”, or “maximally great vacation”… The adjective “great” is an undefined and totally subjective concept. And, of course there is no “necessary being” either. Very easy to prove, too.

When these arguments were first proposed, anything that appeared to be illogical was deemed impossible. That was the way the world worked. Something couldn’t be in two places at one time, light couldn’t recede from an observer, nothing could be in two different states at the same time etc. So, hey, all this couldn’t have just appeared out of nothing all by itself – just give me one example! Just one! (skipping over the fact that nobody suggests it in any case, except as a strawman argument). Bur something from nothing? That’s illogical!

So, let me see…I really can’t imagine how it can have happened unless something caused it to happen. And that something must have been God (you know, the one we already believe in), because God is the greatest thing I can personally imagine and if you can imagine something greater, then THAT would be God.

So you start with a belief in God, assume without any reason whatsoever that He is maximally great and then obviously ascribe the creation of everything to Him. Because, well, any other answer appears to be illogical.

We then tack on omnipotence, because if He can create everything then He must be able to DO anything (yes, we know it’s not a logical necessity, but that’s the argument and we’re sticking with it). And then throw in omniscience as well. Because…well, that’s one of the attributes we have proscribed for Him. It is written.

Dead easy.

 

[e_c]

I will try this once.

Bradski - look at my long post, #18. It doesn’t look a thing like you just described. Did you even read it? Did you not get it? What do you have an issue with? Can you make an actual argument or will there just be more rhetoric?

God is not “a being,” so He can’t be “a maximally great being” or “a necessary being,” though God is in a sense maximally great and is absolutely necessary.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The one does not necessarily follow the other.

Since all beings in the universe have at one time or another been only possible beings (that includes the universe itself according to the Big Bang) there must be a Necessary Being that made all these possible beings possible. If there is no Necessary Being, then we are confronted with the ultimate unanswerable question, why is there something rather than nothing?

If you don’t think descriptive “maximally great” applies to that Necessary Being, it’s fine with me. We will just agree to disagree. You are an atheist and I am a theist.

But you haven’t disproven the necessity of a Necessary Being that sets all the possible beings in motion. .