Is God Completely Omniscient?

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Hi spockrates

This post that I made in a thread about predestination may be relevant to your discussion:

William C;9776872:

I’m not sure I understand. By the Catholic doctrine of predestination to salvation you believe that it is God who predestines to salvation, but you also believe that it’s the creature’s will that attains that which God predestines? Is that right? Or what?

Help me from your own words.

How you describe the Catholic doctrine of predestination is correct, and how exactly this is is a mystery. As G.K. Chesterton said,

[The ordinary man’s] spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. (Orthodoxy)

In between the lines of the definition I had given before, one can speculate on how predestination works as long as he/she does not overstep and contradict the Church’s teachings. The explanation I like best is what the old Catholic Encyclopedia terms as “The theory of predestination post prævisa merita” (which translates to predestination “after foreseen merits”).

This theory states that, by virtue of His Omniscience, God knows, before time, the response of each and every man to grace. Therefore, to those He knows will respond favorably to His grace, He gives them the graces they need in order to cooperate with His Will and thus in the end reach Heaven. To those He knows will NOT respond favorably to His grace, He will still give (arguably even more) graces that they need to get to Heaven, but He knows they will reject those graces and thus they will make themselves go to hell.

What I like about this theory is that it gives the Lord the power to predestine people to go to Heaven by how He gives them grace, but never predestines the others to go to hell. It also shows how just and merciful God is, too.

 

[spockrates]

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

Glad you’re back, David. Are you saying God does not have omnipotence, but instead is omnipotence?

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Glad you’re back, David. Are you saying God does not have omnipotence, but instead is omnipotence?

I guess that’s why God’s Name is “I AM”, right?

 

[spockrates]

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.

Well, it’s hard to brush up on something one has never learned. But please don’t think I believe God is not omnipotent. I’m just wondering what omnipotence is.

Now Socrates said, “A wise man is not likely to talk nonsense. So let us consider what he has to say.” (Theaetetus 152). In this case, I think it wise to consider what the Aquinas has to say. Please tell me: What does the wise saint tell us omniscience is?

 

[harinanga101]

Hello,

I’ve read the discussions and I just wanted to give my opinion. I think that God’s omnipotence means that He has indeed knowledge of everything, both particular and general, and that He also has knowledge of sense experience. I admit that I’m not sure about all this but I think that God’s “lack” of a body and of the five senses doesn’t preclude Him from knowing what it’s like to have sensations. I think that if God knew sensations only in a speculative/abstract kind of way then His knowledge would be imperfect. Also, as Aquinas says, God’s knowledge extends as far as His causality therefore everything He causes to exist, He knows; in fact it is by knowing them that He causes things to exist. Obviously our sensations finds its primary cause in God, therefore I don’t think it would be far to say that God also knows sensations perfectly.

I think another way to look at this omnipotence issue is the idea of subject-object distinction. That distinction will always exist for us in this world since we will never achieve complete union with the things that we know. We (subject) will always be to some extent separate from what we know (object). However, I don’t think things are that simple for God. I think God transcends the subject-object distinction (it is not eliminated though). God is never really separated from what He knows. Thus when God “looks” at us, I don’t think He simply sees us from a “third-person” view but also from a first person view. Because ultimately He also exists within us, not as an essence, but as the cause of our existence. In other words, I think God sees the world through our eyes as well and, please correct me if I’m wrong, I think He also experiences what we experience. I know that there’s a problem with this when it comes to suffering since God cannot suffer. But I think the incarnation plays a crucial role in this because in so far as Christ is also human then He too suffers. Okay, that’s enough. Like I said, I don’t know the exact details about all this, and hopefully some of you could enlighten me

 

[spockrates]

+JMJ+

Hi spockrates

This post that I made in a thread about predestination may be relevant to your discussion:

Thanks, Nun. It sounds like you agree that God does not cause everyone to accept him, even though he has the power to do so.

 

[spockrates]

+JMJ+

I guess that’s why God’s Name is “I AM”, right?

As in he is self existent? Yes, but I don’t think that is all God is. For Saint John the Apostle wrote: “God is love,” (1 John 4:8), and Saint Paul the Apostle wrote, “Christ [is] the power and wisdom of God,” (1 Corinthians 1:24).

Perhaps comparing the love that God is with the power that God is will help me understand the wisdom that God is. Let us consider love, first. By saying God is love, do we mean that the love everyone receives from God is the same? Or do you think some receive more of his love than others? Saints, for example: Do they receive a greater benefit from God’s love than the damned?

 

[spockrates]

Hello,

I’ve read the discussions and I just wanted to give my opinion. I think that God’s omnipotence means that He has indeed knowledge of everything, both particular and general, and that He also has knowledge of sense experience. I admit that I’m not sure about all this but I think that God’s “lack” of a body and of the five senses doesn’t preclude Him from knowing what it’s like to have sensations. I think that if God knew sensations only in a speculative/abstract kind of way then His knowledge would be imperfect. Also, as Aquinas says, God’s knowledge extends as far as His causality therefore everything He causes to exist, He knows; in fact it is by knowing them that He causes things to exist. Obviously our sensations finds its primary cause in God, therefore I don’t think it would be far to say that God also knows sensations perfectly.

Thank you, harinanga101 for making Aquinas a little clearer to me. Would you say Aquinas would agree that God does not cause that which he does not want to cause even though he has the power to cause the unwanted effects? Or do you think the wise saint believed God powerless to cause such unwanted effects?

I think another way to look at this omnipotence issue is the idea of subject-object distinction. That distinction will always exist for us in this world since we will never achieve complete union with the things that we know. We (subject) will always be to some extent separate from what we know (object). However, I don’t think things are that simple for God. I think God transcends the subject-object distinction (it is not eliminated though). God is never really separated from what He knows. Thus when God “looks” at us, I don’t think He simply sees us from a “third-person” view but also from a first person view. Because ultimately He also exists within us, not as an essence, but as the cause of our existence. In other words, I think God sees the world through our eyes as well and, please correct me if I’m wrong, I think He also experiences what we experience. I know that there’s a problem with this when it comes to suffering since God cannot suffer. But I think the incarnation plays a crucial role in this because in so far as Christ is also human then He too suffers. Okay, that’s enough. Like I said, I don’t know the exact details about all this, and hopefully some of you could enlighten me

Perhaps you are right that God sees the world through our eyes. Are you thinking he also smells the world through our noses?

 

[spockrates]

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.

Yes, Marc. Thanks for correcting my understanding. We do agree that experience is not knowledge. Now we have to come to an agreement about experiential knowledge in general and sensual knowledge in particular. Do you agree that experiential knowledge is knowledge of experiences, which is gained only though experiences? Do you also agree sensual knowledge is knowledge of sensual experiences, which is gained only through sensual experiences? Or do you think God can have the exact same knowledge you and I have of our sensual experiences without having the experiences, or the senses of smell, taste and touch?

I mean isn’t it possible God’s knowledge of our sensual experiences is infinitely superior to our own, yet still different from our own? Isn’t it even probable God understands our experiences infinitely better than we do (since he knows how our senses work better than we do, for example) but he still does not experience what our senses experience?

An analogy: The engineer who designs a robot might understand the robot better than the robot understands itself–for the robot might not be fully self-aware. The engineer would not have to experience the world the way the robot does to have a superior understanding of how the robot experiences the world the way it does. In fact, the engineer would not have to experience the world the exact same way the robot does to have a superior understanding of the world than the robot has.

 

[spockrates]

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

Yes, and if I program a computer to experience the world, I would not have to experience the world the exact same way he does to have an understanding of the world that is superior to its own. Would I? I’m thinking that God’s way of knowing the world is superior to our own–superior, yet different. So he would not have to experience the world in our inferior way to understand what we experience. He might not have the sensual experience of smelling a skunk, for example, but he would better understand than we do why we dislike the smell.

If we say omniscience pertains to a particular kind of knowledge, perhaps wisdom, or understanding, rather than all knowledge–do you think we would be far from the truth? Wisdom is far superior to mere knowledge of sensual experience, and God would not have to personally know such experiences to better understand them, I think. What about you?

11For wisdom is more precious than rubies,
and nothing you desire can compare with her.
…
7Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom.
Though it cost all you have, get understanding.
8Esteem her, and she will exalt you;
embrace her, and she will honor you.
9She will set a garland of grace on your head
and present you with a crown of splendor.”

(Proverbs 3, 4)

 

[spockrates]

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.

Yes. the reprobates.

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.

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

So then, in the case of omnipotence, we agree God does not do everything he is capable of doing. His omnipotence is not total, for he does not do all he might do. It is instead potential, for he does only what he chooses to do. Is it fair, then to say God’s wisdom and love control his power? Someone once said, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” but we might reply that God’s omniscience and omnibenevolence are in perfect ballance with his omnipotence. His omnipotence is not corrupt, for it is tempered by love and wisdom.

Does this sound reasonable to you?

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, and if I program a computer to experience the world, I would not have to experience the world the exact same way he does to have an understanding of the world that is superior to its own. Would I? I’m thinking that God’s way of knowing the world is superior to our own–superior, yet different. So he would not have to experience the world in our inferior way to understand what we experience. He might not have the sensual experience of smelling a skunk, for example, but he would better understand than we do why we dislike the smell.

If we say omniscience pertains to a particular kind of knowledge, perhaps wisdom, or understanding, rather than all knowledge–do you think we would be far from the truth? Wisdom is far superior to mere knowledge of sensual experience, and God would not have to personally know such experiences to better understand them, I think. What about you?

11For wisdom is more precious than rubies,
and nothing you desire can compare with her.
…
7Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom.
Though it cost all you have, get understanding.
8Esteem her, and she will exalt you;
embrace her, and she will honor you.
9She will set a garland of grace on your head
and present you with a crown of splendor.”

(Proverbs 3, 4)

Spockrates:

God has both wisdom and knowledge. The following is from St. Thomas, Part I, q 14, A 5:
“I answer that, In the divine knowledge there is no discursion; the proof of which is as follows. In our knowledge there is a twofold discursion: one is according to succession only, as when we have actually understood anything, we turn ourselves to understand something else; while the other mode of discursion is according to causality, as when through principles we arrive at the knowledge of conclusions. The first kind of discursion cannot belong to God. For many things, which we understand in succession if each is considered in itself, we understand simultaneously if we see them in some one thing; if, for instance, we understand the parts in the whole, or see different things in a mirror. Now God sees all things in one (thing), which is Himself. Therefore God sees all things together, and not successively. Likewise the second mode of discursion cannot be applied to God. First, because this second mode of discursion presupposes the first mode; for whosoever proceeds from principles to conclusions does not consider both at once; secondly, because to discourse thus is to proceed from the known to the unknown. Hence it is manifest that when the first is known, the second is still unknown; and thus the second is known not in the first, but from the first. Now the term discursive reasoning is attained when the second is seen in the first, by resolving the effects into their causes; and then the discursion ceases. Hence as God sees His effects in Himself as their cause, His knowledge is not discursive.”

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

So then, in the case of omnipotence, we agree God does not do everything he is capable of doing. His omnipotence is not total, for he does not do all he might do. It is instead potential, for he does only what he chooses to do. Is it fair, then to say God’s wisdom and love control his power? Someone once said, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” but we might reply that God’s omniscience and omnibenevolence are in perfect balance with his omnipotence. His omnipotence is not corrupt, for it is tempered by love and wisdom.

Does this sound reasonable to you?

Spockrates:

I think we need to think this through. We humans tug on the power cord of a lawn mower, and in so doing concentrate all of our strength and intent on that singular task. God is continuously using His Omnipotence to simultaneously do everything in the universe and beyond, whatever that may be. There is no point at which God would use all of His force and strength to accomplish one, singular thing. In the origination of the Universe, the church contends that God did concentrate His power to its accomplishment. But, when we think about the universe, we would be stupid to think of it as one and singular event. It is a myriad and multiple event. Plus, He continued to keep the multitude of angels and Heaven sustained, and hold Satan and his group at bay. God need Omnipotence for all the He does, not just one task. Also, remember, He does all of these things simultaneously, in an eternal Now. That which is not omnipotent would be incapable of all this.

I agree that He tempers Omnipotence with Omni-benevolence. This is just another thing that He does as He is sustaining all of creation.

God bless,
jd

 

[spockrates]

Spockrates:

I think we need to think this through. We humans tug on the power cord of a lawn mower, and in so doing concentrate all of our strength and intent on that singular task. God is continuously using His Omnipotence to simultaneously do everything in the universe and beyond, whatever that may be. There is no point at which God would use all of His force and strength to accomplish one, singular thing. In the origination of the Universe, the church contends that God did concentrate His power to its accomplishment. But, when we think about the universe, we would be stupid to think of it as one and singular event. It is a myriad and multiple event. Plus, He continued to keep the multitude of angels and Heaven sustained, and hold Satan and his group at bay. God need Omnipotence for all the He does, not just one task. Also, remember, He does all of these things simultaneously, in an eternal Now. That which is not omnipotent would be incapable of all this.

I agree that He tempers Omnipotence with Omni-benevolence. This is just another thing that He does as He is sustaining all of creation.

God bless,
jd

http://wastedtreasure.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/B002_SoulinHell2.jpg

Yes, so we might explain this by saying God has the potential to do anything–potential omnipotence–but does not do everything–does not practice total omnipotence. Should we believe the same of God’s omnibenevolence? Should we say God does not love everyone in every way, but instead loves everyone to the extent each person allows him to love himself, or herself?

For example, the damned do not receive the kind of love we might call forgiveness, for they might be said to have refused his forgiveness in the life before death. Should we say God’s love is tempered by his wisdom, since it is not wise to allow those who refuse to repent into heaven?

 

[davidv]

Glad you’re back, David. Are you saying God does not have omnipotence, but instead is omnipotence?

No I am not saying that. It also unclear how you inferred that from what I wrote.

 

[spockrates]

No I am not saying that. It also unclear how you inferred that from what I wrote.

My apologies. When you said, “I am thinking the God cannot be potentially anything. God has been described and pure act. This necessitates no potentiality.” I thought you meant God is pure act, that is omnipotence.

Please let me ask a different question: When you say, “God cannot be potentially anything,” do you mean God is actually everything? For example, is God actually the savior of all, or is he the savior of some, but only potentially the savior of others? Those now forever in hell, for instance–was God actually, or only potentially the savior of them?

 

[davidv]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4051/4285354721_120e98f992.jpg

My apologies. When you said, “I am thinking the God cannot be potentially anything. God has been described and pure act. This necessitates no potentiality.” I thought you meant God is pure act, that is omnipotence.

Please let me ask a different question: When you say, “God cannot be potentially anything,” do you mean God is actually everything? For example, is God actually the savior of all, or is he the savior of some, but only potentially the savior of others? Those now forever in hell, for instance–was God actually, or only potentially the savior of them?

No, that is not what I meant. In the classical Thomistic sense, pure act means that there is no potential for God to be different that He is. He cannot change because to suggest so suggests some current limitation. If there is some limitation then the being being discussed cannot be God.

Your savior questions suggest to me that you are using potential in much different way than when it is use with regard to the pure act nature of God. Not only that it seems to be far afield of the omnipotence question of the thread.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

As you asked, Here’s St. Thomas Aquinas on omniscience (he doesn’t term it omniscience and is speaking merely of the extent of God’s knowledge, but that’s one and the same in this instance):

newadvent.org/summa/1014.htm

I think this entire section should go a long way towards answering your questions.

 

[harinanga101]

QUOTE=spockrates;9779087]Thank you, harinanga101 for making Aquinas a little clearer to me. Would you say Aquinas would agree that God does not cause that which he does not want to cause even though he has the power to cause the unwanted effects? Or do you think the wise saint believed God powerless to cause such unwanted effects?

Perhaps you are right that God sees the world through our eyes. Are you thinking he also smells the world through our noses?

Hello Spockrates, thanks for your appreciation. You have to forgive me though since I am not expert of Thomas Aquinas though I make myself sound like one. As to your first couple of questions, well yes it is possible for God not to cause something He does not want but can cause. Does that mean He’s not omnipotent? Well it actually depends on one’s definition of omnipotence. Aquinas defines the omnipotence of God as His capability to do all things that are possible absolutely. That means that God can make/do all things that are not in themselves a contradiction in terms (like a round square, a being that is non-being etc). So there are things that God “cannot” do but this does not compromise His omnipotence since these things are impossible absolutely anyway. Also God cannot sin, but since sin/evil is a “falling short of perfection” as Aquinas puts it, the inability to sin does not impinge God’s omnipotence but it is precisely because of God’s omnipotence that He cannot sin.

As for your question as to whether God smells through our noses, well I’m not really sure, I was already speculating on that part where you commented haha. Although I kind of tend to think He does. I think though that you have a point that God “knows” our experiences but in a much different, more advanced way. So we could say that God doesn’t experience things exactly as we do, but He does so with a greater profundity. But again this is just speculation. I know there’s an answer out there somewhere.

 

[spockrates]

No, that is not what I meant. In the classical Thomistic sense, pure act means that there is no potential for God to be different that He is. He cannot change because to suggest so suggests some current limitation. If there is some limitation then the being being discussed cannot be God.

Your savior questions suggest to me that you are using potential in much different way than when it is use with regard to the pure act nature of God. Not only that it seems to be far afield of the omnipotence question of the thread.

Yes, David. I suppose it’s likely I am using the words potential and actual in a different way than the revered saint. Perhaps you will overlook this, since I’ve never read anything he wrote?

When I ask whether God’s omnipotence is potential, rather than total, I’m wondering if God has the capacity to do anything, yet does not do everything he is capable of doing. Allowing every soul into heaven, or damning every soul to hell are two capacities God has, yet he chooses to not take either extreme action. I suppose Thomas would say this is because it is impossible for God to do anything so foolish, because then he would no longer be what he is–the wise God?