Is God Completely Omniscient?

[JDaniel]

Yes, I agree that God does not cause our intentions. So we agree God does not cause everything.

Spockrates:

Well . . . you got me there. But, to what avail? The OP question is: “Is God completely Omniscient?” I still answer in the affirmative. The fact that He doesn’t cause sin is a bit different. “Intent” is a necessary property of “freedom.” But, “intent” is action-less. It may be the impetus of some action, but it is null until then. Nevertheless, as God is not subject to the before and after of time, He knows what will happen - in our vernacular.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I agree with (1), but don’t know why it’s illogical. Not sure I agree with (2). Please tell me why you believe it’s true.

Spockrates:

Because, I know (a priori) that no creator, or cause, creates or causes anything that it does not have within itself, to the same degree, that which it creates or causes. Therefore, it must be greater than its creature, or effect.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I forgot to thank you for your replies, JD.

Likewise!

My wife once told me having a kidney stone hurt worse than giving birth to our two sons. I wouldn’t know. For I’ve never had either experience. How would Jesus know, since he also has never had either experience?

You see, I’m defining pain as that which can only be truly known by experiencing it. If God can know my wife’s pain (not just know of it, but know how it feels) then he must somehow know the experience of it, I think. Are you thinking differently? If so, please let me ask you this: If my definition of pain is wrong, then what is pain?

I have no problem with your definition of pain. But, I believe, as we are told in Scripture, that God is (in some way) within all things (not pantheistically, of course). I think God is the continuous (and Infinite) Space that is in all things and is conterminous with all of the building blocks of physical things, including sentient things. If He is, as I suspect, and as is confirmed in various locations in Scripture, then He experiences it in some manner.

What is ‘pain?’ The firing of certain neurons in the brain? Is ‘pain’ what we feel it to be, or is it what God implants it to be? Does God not cause the firing of those neurons? Does God not cause the relay of those impulses through the associated nerves? Can we answer any of these questions with anything more than a shoulder shrug and raised eyebrows?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

http://www.footballlocks.com/NFLPowerRankings_files/spock_fascinating.jpg

If God is not infinitely evil, then how can he be infinite in ALL ways?

Because ‘evil’ is the antithesis and precise contradiction of ‘good’, and, therefore, is good’s absence. If God is Infinite Goodness, then infinite evil must exist - but not within God. In the same way, a proton is not both positive and negative in and of itself. The negative exists, but outside of the proton. And that is how it can be known.

Interestingly, a piece of steel can contain both charges within the same piece of steel, but at opposite ends.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Thank you for the reply, Marc. Yes, I think I see what you mean. What I see, hear, smell, taste, touch (or otherwise feel) is what I percieve with my senses. Would you agree that these sensual experiences are unknowable, or can they be known? If they can be known, then how do you and I know them, except through experience?

An example: When my firstborn son was just an infant, my wife fed him brussell sprouts from a baby food jar. He was excited with anticipation of tasting something good, until it touched his tongue. He then made the most adorable look of displeasure that made my wife and I laugh. I’m thinking there was no way my son could know the taste of brussell sprouts until he had the experience of tasting them. What are you thinking?

This experience reminds me of the scripture:

Taste and see that the Lord is good;
blessed is the man who takes refuge in him.

(Psalm 34:8)

The analogy seems to me to be this: Just as one cannot know something tastes good without first tasting it, so too one cannot fully know how good God is without first experiencing him. Don’t you agree that things like these can only be fully known through experience?

Spocrates:

(You are certainly testing our brains! )

I’m pretty sure the Church would concur that God’s knowledge is a singular act of comprehension; human knowledge is a series of incremental acts of learning. We learn from more and more experiences - with the stuff of the world. God does not undergo a learning process. All that is and is possible is present to Him in that singular act of understanding. Infinite immensity requires it.

Consider an infinite immensity. What would be its prior or posterior? What would be its before or after? To us, Time exists only successively but never with all of its parts simultaneously present. A line, on the other hand, has its parts simultaneously present. Time for us must be successive. Time for an Infinite Being is like a line in that it must have all of its parts simultaneously present. Learning presumes succession. But, there is no succession in God. Hence, all things are known by God in a singular act of comprehension - including all successionary things.

God bless,
jd

 

[davidv]

David, I appreciate the reply, but I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying perception is not knowledge? That is, what I see, hear, smell, taste and touch (or otherwise feel) is not what I know?

That is exactly what I am saying. Many do not experience the difference however, as our intellect very quickly processes the sensations to generate knowledge from them.

 

[spockrates]

I am not davidv, but it seems apparent that the act of perception is different than the object of perception. You are equivocating the two. Once acts of perception and objects of perception are distinguished, your apparent argument disappears.

Sorry for getting your name wrong, Shike. I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying the act of perception is knowledge, but the thing perceived is not? If so, I completely agree. For example, let us say we’ve met before. Today I walk into the forum and, seeing your face, I recognize who you are. My remembering what your face looks like (the act of perception) is certainly not the same as your face (the object of perception). So yes, I agree, but please explain why this causes my ideas to vanish like the talking white rabbit who went down the hole to Alice’s wonderland.

 

[JDaniel]

You might be right, but I’d like to think this through with you. If experience is not knowledge, then please tell me: What is it?

Spocrates:

An experience is a factical that results in knowledge. We have this tendency to call that knowledge ‘experience’, but. it it is not one and the same. An experience we get from going to a football game is a sensory factical. A pain is a sensory factical. We could measure the firings of certain neurons in our brains to know, at least, that something is taking place.

But “knowledge” is "[SUP]1[/SUP]facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. . .

[SUP]2[/SUP]awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation." - Oxford English Dictionary online

This makes ‘experience’ quite different from ‘knowledge’ as knowledge, don’t you think?

God bless,
jd

 

[Viewscreen]

I’m thinking there are things that can be known, which God does not know, but I’d like to know what others think.

I can think of things that can be known, but are hardly worth knowing. How many molecules comprise the intestinal tract of some badger in British Columbia? Why would an all-powerful God pay attention to such meaningless things? Guess it’s all part of the plan…

 

[Shike]

Sorry for getting your name wrong, Shike. I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying the act of perception is knowledge, but the thing perceived is not? If so, I completely agree. For example, let us say we’ve met before. Today I walk into the forum and, seeing your face, I recognize who you are. My remembering what your face looks like (the act of perception) is certainly not the same as your face (the object of perception). So yes, I agree, but please explain why this causes my ideas to vanish like the talking white rabbit who went down the hole to Alice’s wonderland.

It’s okay, you didn’t get my name wrong. I was just butting into a comment that you directed towards another poster.

No, the act of perception is not knowledge in the proper sense. Neither is the object of perception knowledge in the proper sense. I apologize; it is no longer apparent to me that, in principle, understanding the distinction between act and object will immediately solve your problem. But it does seem necessary to grasp on the way to solving your problem. I will try to provide an example:

Say that I have an apple. I see its redness, I taste its flavor, and I feel its texture. The acts of seeing its redness, tasting its flavor, and touching its texture are acts of perception. Now, in this scenario all of the acts of perception have a common object of perception–namely, the apple.

With this in mind, it is quite simple to show that neither the acts of perception or the object of the perceptions is knowledge in the proper sense. Knowledge in the proper sense requires understanding. And as you very well know, I could have experiences or experience something without understanding it.

You may very well redefine knowledge if you like. But if you wanted to dialogue with the definition of omniscience and contend with classical theism like the OP, then you’ll have to first accept the proper definition that includes the understanding.

Take care,
Michael

 

[JDaniel]

I can think of things that can be known, but are hardly worth knowing. How many molecules comprise the intestinal tract of some badger in British Columbia? Why would an all-powerful God pay attention to such meaningless things? Guess it’s all part of the plan…

Viewscreen:

If God operates the cosmos algorithmically (as I suspect), by the incrementation of s-points that are immersed in space, then, obviously, that is very important information.

God bless,
jd

 

[spockrates]

Although I am not Marc…
Strictly speaking, experiences are knowable insofar as the object of perception is known. Also, if experience (the act of perception) is knowledge then it doesn’t fit the rational definition of knowledge that classical theism is concerned with. So if it is still insisted that experience is knowledge, a new thread should be made as it is talking past the OP.

Yes, you are correct that there do seem to be some things that we can only know through experience. But the ways of God are different than the ways of man. There is no reason to bind God to the same limitations of that as man, especially when there is no logical contradiction.

I hear what you are saying, but I’m thinking that something that can be known IS knowledge, so some knowledge can (as you said) only be known by you and me through experience.

I also hear what you are saying about God, but it seems to me the spirit of God does not have eyes, yet scripture and the Church tells us he sees. The spirit of God also does not have ears, yet scripture and the Church tells us he hears our prayers. The spirit of God also does not have a nose to smell, a tongue to taste and fingers to touch. But (and here is the important question) do the scriptures, or the Church tell us he smells my body odor, tastes the saltiness of my sweat, and feels the warmth of my skin when I exercise at the gym? If the Church does not tell us this, then why should we believe it?

 

[Shike]

I hear what you are saying, but I’m thinking that something that can be known IS knowledge, so some knowledge can (as you said) only be known by you and me through experience.

So an apple, which can be known, is knowledge?

That is a very strange position indeed.

If this isn’t your position, then it very well may be that you are confusing the object of perception with knowledge. I hope it is this rather than having another Berkeley on our hands.

 

[Shike]

But (and here is the important question) do the scriptures, or the Church tell us he smells my body odor, tastes the saltiness of my sweat, and feels the warmth of my skin when I exercise at the gym? If the Church does not tell us this, then why should we believe it?

No they don’t, because an act of perception is not knowledge and therefore not part of what makes up omniscience.

Tell me, how would you do it. I mean, how would you talk meaningfully about a Being Who is Pure Act (in the Scholastic sense)? Or, if you were God, how would you love your creatures and teach them without forcing your perfect goodness down their throats?

 

[spockrates]

Spocrates:

An experience is a factical that results in knowledge. We have this tendency to call that knowledge ‘experience’, but. it it is not one and the same. An experience we get from going to a football game is a sensory factical. A pain is a sensory factical. We could measure the firings of certain neurons in our brains to know, at least, that something is taking place.

But “knowledge” is "[SUP]1[/SUP]facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. . .

[SUP]2[/SUP]awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation." - Oxford English Dictionary online

This makes ‘experience’ quite different from ‘knowledge’ as knowledge, don’t you think?

God bless,
jd

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...03x403/533241_335354379887953_951400597_n.jpg

Sorry for not having time to reply till now. Yes, what you say makes sense, but does it resolve the issue? The question is whether God has total omniscience and so knows everything–without any exception–that is possible to know. The definitions of knowledge you provided appear to indicate there are some things that can be known only through experience. I suppose we might call these things experiencial knowledge.

So do you think there is no experience God has not had? Or are you thinking that experiencial knowledge can be gained apart from having the experience?

I’m thinking that the only way God could know what the lillies of the valley mentioned in the sermon on the mount smell like was to take on human flesh and breath in their scent, as Jesus likely did. I’m thinking the only way God could know what it is to be extremely thirsty would be for God to experience this, as Jesus did when he said on the cross, “I thirst.” The only way God could know what gaul tastes like would be to have it touch his tounge, as it did before he refused it during crucifixion. The only way for God to experience the pain of the wounds in his hands, feet and on his back as he struggled to pull himself up to take another breath was to actually experience crucifixion in all its bloody reality.

I mean, I can see that God would know such experiences would be pleasurable–the scent of the flowers–or painful–the crucifixion. I can see that he would know why the bodies he made experienced them as pleasure, or pain. But I don’t yet see how the experiencial knowledge could be gained by God in any other way apart from taking on human flesh, which can smell, taste and feel pain. Do you?

 

[spockrates]

I agree that they can only be known by us, with our little, limited human minds, through experience. God, though-that’s a different matter.

Thanks again for replying, Marc. Yes, perhaps there is a way to know what something smells, tastes and feels like even if one has no nose, tongue, or fingers. But is this something we should assume, without having any reason to believe it? Or is it a teaching of the Church, or scripture that God can smell, taste and feel?

 

[spockrates]

Spockrates:

Well . . . you got me there. But, to what avail? The OP question is: “Is God completely Omniscient?” I still answer in the affirmative. The fact that He doesn’t cause sin is a bit different. “Intent” is a necessary property of “freedom.” But, “intent” is action-less. It may be the impetus of some action, but it is null until then. Nevertheless, as God is not subject to the before and after of time, He knows what will happen - in our vernacular.

God bless,
jd

Yes, I just wondered.

 

[spockrates]

Spockrates:

Well . . . you got me there. But, to what avail? The OP question is: “Is God completely Omniscient?” I still answer in the affirmative. The fact that He doesn’t cause sin is a bit different. “Intent” is a necessary property of “freedom.” But, “intent” is action-less. It may be the impetus of some action, but it is null until then. Nevertheless, as God is not subject to the before and after of time, He knows what will happen - in our vernacular.

God bless,
jd

Not sure I’m following you. Are you saying God must have the sense of smell, because he could not create the sense of smell if he did not already have it? Excuse the pun, but something smells fishy about that premise!

http://www.odt.co.nz/files/slidesho..._fishy_it_is_not_fresh_fresh_f_8185159494.JPG

 

[spockrates]

Likewise!

I have no problem with your definition of pain. But, I believe, as we are told in Scripture, that God is (in some way) within all things (not pantheistically, of course). I think God is the continuous (and Infinite) Space that is in all things and is conterminous with all of the building blocks of physical things, including sentient things. If He is, as I suspect, and as is confirmed in various locations in Scripture, then He experiences it in some manner.

But is God also infinite in his attributes? Consider omnipotence: God might have the capacity for infinite power, but scripture and the Church seem to teach us that he does not use every power he has to its fullest extent. For example, God has the power to save everyone from hell, yet he chooses to allow some to experience hell. An atheist might argue that this means God is not omnipotent. Not all are saved from hell, so God does not have the power to save all. Should we agree with her? If not, why not?

What is ‘pain?’ The firing of certain neurons in the brain? Is ‘pain’ what we feel it to be, or is it what God implants it to be? Does God not cause the firing of those neurons? Does God not cause the relay of those impulses through the associated nerves? Can we answer any of these questions with anything more than a shoulder shrug and raised eyebrows?

God bless,
jd

Does God have neurons that fire as ours do, and so knows what our pain feels like?

 

[spockrates]

Because ‘evil’ is the antithesis and precise contradiction of ‘good’, and, therefore, is good’s absence. If God is Infinite Goodness, then infinite evil must exist - but not within God. In the same way, a proton is not both positive and negative in and of itself. The negative exists, but outside of the proton. And that is how it can be known.

Interestingly, a piece of steel can contain both charges within the same piece of steel, but at opposite ends.

God bless,
jd

Is a complete absence of something, nothing, or is a complete absence of something, something? Is evil something, or nothing?