Is God Completely Omniscient?

[spockrates]

Spocrates:

(You are certainly testing our brains! )

And I’m trusting that the test will make both our faith’s stronger!

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.

Yes, and so I’m asking: “Is it possible for God to smell, taste and touch all that the human race has smelled, tasted and felt?”

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

Why do you say all? Is it because you believe knowing all that can be known is what omniscience is? Or is it for some other reason?

 

[spockrates]

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.

OK, David. I think I understand, but I’m not sure this solves the issue. Would you say that the knowledge generated from sensations is what we might call experiential knowledge? If so, do you agree that much of this knowledge can only be known through the senses of smell, taste, touch, sight and hearing?

 

[spockrates]

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…

I suppose God would want to know this if he was designing a British badger and wanted to make sure the intestinal track worked correctly!

 

[spockrates]

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

http://www.humphriesorthodontics.com/biting apple.png

Yes, and being an apple lover, as you were describing the act of tasting the apple, I had a faint recognition of what an apple tastes like. In fact, I was remembering the taste of my favorite variety of apple–the Macintosh. It has a sweet and sour taste unlike any other apple I’ve tasted. Now, if I had never tasted an apple before, I’d have no such remembrance of the experience, of course. Would you agree, then that experiential knowledge can be remembering the sensations of the experience?

 

[spockrates]

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.

Yes, sorry for being unclear. The remembrance of the experience of tasting the apple can be know. If Jesus never tasted a Macintosh apple, does he know what it tastes like?

 

[spockrates]

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

So my remembering what an apple tastes like is not something I know? I don’t understand why this is the case. If memories are not knowledge, then what are they?

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?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8ui8Ic222rI/SpajKuDHjwI/AAAAAAAAAFs/-gKTBjZ4AoA/s320/eve_apple.jpg

I’d tell them not to eat the fruit and yet give them the power to freely decide for themselves. But why do you ask?

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Spockrates:

True. But do you really, really think we are absolutely separate beings from God, and that we originate and accomplish all of our own private acts? As configurations of space and s-points (analogically, if nothing else) which are immersed in God, do you not think God is, has been, and will be the absolute cause of every single experience there ever was, is, or could be? Think it through. We can only originate “sin.”

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 think God is the unremiss author of all experience, whether existential or possible, is what I think.

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.

But how would we know whether God’s Scent of them is not far greater than ours, from even before their origination?

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.

On the Cross, Christ was allowed to participate in everything human that was present. It’s not that it was different, or new, it’s that the Son was allowed to participate fully as a human being. If you take note of the subtleties of Christ’s vocalizations, He basically samples them, suppresses them, and moves on to the next. I can’t imagine that our Gospel writers thought that through to such a perfect degree, without the help of the Holy Spirit.

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?

Pain is pain. Odors are odors. Tastes are tastes. Sounds are sounds. Somatics are somatics. A dog walks outside and sniffs the air. We are told that the dog smells a million separate odors in that sniff. Almost as though it can render smells universally. Now, we can’t do that. But, do you think that God can’t. As a man, He could not. but, as God, He must be able to simultaneously smell every scent there is. And, even more, to tell them apart!

God is NOT a slightly more sophisticated human being. (But, I know you know this.)

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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?

Spockrates:

Yes I am: in each and every “creator” exists, to some lesser extent, at least ontologically, the determinant he wishes to impart to his creature. That’s what Aristotle said and what Aquinas reiterated. Think about that. If I program a computer, it will not be identical to one that you program. Lots of stuff will cross-over, but some will not.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Spockrates:

I think we should thank him for this, too! As Greylorn points out, if God were to put his full power against a proton, he would instantly accelerate it to light speed. I happen to think that Greylorn is being very conservative (as he usually is wont to be). God is infinite. A dimensionless proton would travel, in God, if it could, at a speed infinitely faster than mere light speed.

For example, God has the power to save everyone from hell, yet he chooses to allow some to experience hell.

Yes. the reprobates.

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?

Here again we are speaking precisely to freedom, i.e., the freedoms He gives mankind. With freedoms - in anything - come responsibilities. We must not let our passions control us, instead we must control them. We must not let our selfishness control us, we must control it. How else are we to observe the Commandments, especially the most important two, i.e., “Love God and love your neighbor?” Either we have freedom or we are like everything else in existence, dumb terminals.

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

I couldn’t possibly know that. Maybe. Or, maybe he has some sort of nervous system that is infinitely superior. That’s a question that I will ask Him when I see Him - which I hope to do at some point. (After considerable time in Purgatory. )

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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

Spockrates:

The antithesis of something (which is what absence would mean here) is its contrary. The perfect contrary for being is not being. The perfect contrary of “good” is its contrary, which we call “evil.”

God bless,
jd

 

[Marc_Anthony]

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?

Well, the teaching is that God is omniscient. Since knowledge is, as we’ve hopefully established, separate from experience, there’s no reason to believe God doesn’t have that knowledge.

 

[JDaniel]

And I’m trusting that the test will make both our faith’s stronger!



Yes, and so I’m asking: “Is it possible for God to smell, taste and touch all that the human race has smelled, tasted and felt?”

Spockrates:

I believe I responded to this question a few posts ago. If not, I’ll come back to it.

Why do you say all? Is it because you believe knowing all that can be known is what omniscience is? Or is it for some other reason?

I say “all” because the successionary parts of time can only aggregate to a finite sequence. Since they are finite, they can easily “fit” into an infinity, in a manner of speaking. Obviously, the primary attribute of a finite aggregation is that it can never be infinite, nor can it aggregate with other finite structures into an infinity. It will forever remain finite. So, “all” is easy.

God bless,
jd

 

[Shike]

Well, the teaching is that God is omniscient. Since knowledge is, as we’ve hopefully established, separate from experience, there’s no reason to believe God doesn’t have that knowledge.

Goodness, I would hope so. But Spockrates is still trying to smuggle the confusion through the back door.

 

[Shike]

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?

Again, this was not directed towards me, but…
What a convenient term to call such knowledge. It makes your last sentence sound like it is getting at a contradiction.

Do we yet agree that knowledge and experience are two very different things?

 

[spockrates]

Spockrates:

True. But do you really, really think we are absolutely separate beings from God, and that we originate and accomplish all of our own private acts?

Yes, I do. When I privately act in some sinful way, I’d say I am the originator and accomplisher of this act of sin.

When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.

(James 1:13)

As configurations of space and s-points (analogically, if nothing else) which are immersed in God, do you not think God is, has been, and will be the absolute cause of every single experience there ever was, is, or could be? Think it through. We can only originate “sin.”

No, I don’t think God is the cause of any sinful experience in which I have engaged.

I think God is the unremiss author of all experience, whether existential or possible, is what I think.

So do you think God is the unremiss author of all of these experiences mentioned by Paul?

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

(1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

But how would we know whether God’s Scent of them is not far greater than ours, from even before their origination?

Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God and Savior of Israel.

(Isaiah 45:15)

I’m thinking we don’t know what God knows unless God reveals what he knows to us through scripture, or through the Church, or through some other means.

On the Cross, Christ was allowed to participate in everything human that was present. It’s not that it was different, or new, it’s that the Son was allowed to participate fully as a human being. If you take note of the subtleties of Christ’s vocalizations, He basically samples them, suppresses them, and moves on to the next. I can’t imagine that our Gospel writers thought that through to such a perfect degree, without the help of the Holy Spirit.

Pain is pain. Odors are odors. Tastes are tastes. Sounds are sounds. Somatics are somatics. A dog walks outside and sniffs the air. We are told that the dog smells a million separate odors in that sniff. Almost as though it can render smells universally. Now, we can’t do that. But, do you think that God can’t. As a man, He could not. but, as God, He must be able to simultaneously smell every scent there is. And, even more, to tell them apart!

God is NOT a slightly more sophisticated human being. (But, I know you know this.)

God bless,
jd

How can I know God* must *be able to smell every smell, taste every taste, and feel every pleasure and pain? I know what you believe, but I still don’t grasp why you believe. Will you try again to briefly explain in a sentence, or two?

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, I do. When I privately act in some sinful way, I’d say I am the originator and accomplisher of this act of sin.

Spockrates:

Sorry. I almost arrogantly assumed you’d been reading my other posts in other threads. I contend that man is the originator of nothing EXCEPT “sin,” and that sin is completely in his intentions. So, we view it pretty much the same.

When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.

Correct.

No, I don’t think God is the cause of any sinful experience in which I have engaged.

Again, we’re on the same page. But, think: if I intend to rape, that is a sin of some consequence. But then, if I carry it off, the sin increases in consequence, but the “act” itself is NOT the sin. The act is merely a physical act that happens a million times a day. In each case, it causes no proximate harm. An “act” is only sinful when coupled with an intent that is un-Godly. It is intention that makes neutral physical acts good or bad.

So do you think God is the unremiss author of all of these experiences mentioned by Paul?

I’ll take a look and get back to you.

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?

Of course I know they will not.

Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

These are neutral physical acts brought about precisely because of sinful intentions.

I’m thinking we don’t know what God knows unless God reveals what he knows to us through scripture, or through the Church, or through some other means.

I think you are correct.

How can I know God* must *be able to smell every smell, taste every taste, and feel every pleasure and pain? I know what you believe, but I still don’t grasp why you believe. Will you try again to briefly explain in a sentence, or two?

You know what “particular” means. And, you know what “universal” means. Why must we limit God to thinking primarily in the particular? Why would an Infinite Entity, NOT a being, but Being itself, not think in the universal? If a mere dog can smell a million particular smells in one breath, why can’t God smell every smell He has ever created in one God-breath? Why must He be limited? Isn’t that limitation really a human imposition?

God bless,
jd

 

[spockrates]

Spockrates:

Sorry. I almost arrogantly assumed you’d been reading my other posts in other threads. I contend that man is the originator of nothing EXCEPT “sin,” and that sin is completely in his intentions. So, we view it pretty much the same.

Correct.

Again, we’re on the same page. But, think: if I intend to rape, that is a sin of some consequence. But then, if I carry it off, the sin increases in consequence, but the “act” itself is NOT the sin. The act is merely a physical act that happens a million times a day. In each case, it causes no proximate harm. An “act” is only sinful when coupled with an intent that is un-Godly. It is intention that makes neutral physical acts good or bad.

I’ll take a look and get back to you.

Of course I know they will not.

These are neutral physical acts brought about precisely because of sinful intentions.

I think you are correct.

You know what “particular” means. And, you know what “universal” means. Why must we limit God to thinking primarily in the particular? Why would an Infinite Entity, NOT a being, but Being itself, not think in the universal? If a mere dog can smell a million particular smells in one breath, why can’t God smell every smell He has ever created in one God-breath? Why must He be limited? Isn’t that limitation really a human imposition?

God bless,
jd

Yes, I think we do agree that God does not cause every decision everyone makes. Then do we agree that God is not the Universal Cause? That is, he is limited in what he causes–not because he is necessarily unable to cause evil, but perhaps only because he chooses to not be the cause of every act? I’m thinking God limits his power out of choice. What do you think?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Oh, well if your question is WHY we believe God is omniscient then this question is far too limited. You’ll have to brush up on your Thomistic philosophy in that case.

 

[spockrates]

JD:

That is, I’m thinking that regarding God’s omnipotence, he is potentially omnipotent, since he chooses not to be actually omnipotent. For he chooses not to be the cause of every act–good and evil. What are you thinking?

 

[davidv]

JD:

That is, I’m thinking that regarding God’s omnipotence, he is potentially omnipotent, since he chooses not to be actually omnipotent. For he chooses not to be the cause of every act–good and evil. What are you thinking?

I am thinking the God cannot be potentially anything. God has been described and pure act. This necessitates no potentiality.