Is God Completely Omniscient?

[spockrates]

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.

Reminds me of something Socrates said: A book is much like a painting. Know what I mean?

 

[spockrates]

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.

Yes, I see and agree. As C.S. Lewis said, God’s omnipotence does not make him able to do the absurd. It is absurd to think of God making a perfectly round square, or making himself guilty of committing some sin. As the writer of Hebrews puts it, we know “it is impossible for God to lie…” (Hebrews 6:18).

So we know God limits his omnipotence, I think. His omnipotence Now what about God’s omnibenevolence? Does he limit his love? Does he have the capacity to love all in every way, but choose not to love the damned by forgiving the consequences of their sins?

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.

Then I’d have to say we truly have followed Jimi Hendrix down the rabbit hole! Still, I’d have an easier time accepting this idea if somewhere in scripture we would read God being quoted as saying, “Have you ever been experienced? Well, I have!”

http://static.dangerousminds.net/uploads/images/HendrixInWonderland18x24800_thumb.jpg

 

[davidv]

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?

How does the non-use of a capability diminish that capability?

I know a bit about the use of statistics. I did not use this knowledge in responding to your post. Did I suddenly lose that knowledge?

 

[spockrates]

How does the non-use of a capability diminish that capability?

I know a bit about the use of statistics. I did not use this knowledge in responding to your post. Did I suddenly lose that knowledge?

Hey David. In the case of omnipotence, I’d say the non-use of power diminishes the quantity of things God can do. There are, afterall things you, I and the devil can do, which God cannot. As Saint Paul the apostle writes, “God…cannot lie” (Titus 1:2).

Yet this diminished quantity certainly enhances the overall quality of what God does. Don’t you agree?

 

[ManRay]

It says in the bible which is supposedly the inspired word or even actual word of god that it cannot lie, and yet god seems to in fact lie or at least send prophets/spirits to lie in the bible which is once again the inspired word/word of god. Troublesome. God also actually deluded humans so that they in fact would believe a lie. Whoooa!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

It says in the bible which is supposedly the inspired word or even actual word of god that it cannot lie, and yet god seems to in fact lie or at least send prophets/spirits to lie in the bible which is once again the inspired word/word of god. Troublesome. God also actually deluded humans so that they in fact would believe a lie. Whoooa!

How is this connected to the OP’s question in the thread?

If this topic interests you start a new thread.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Spocrates:

I didn’t say that he does not “practice total omnipotence.” Think it through: if He does “everything” simultaneously, and within an Eternal Now, then there is no task left for another time. All tasks are done and completed. How could it be any other way? Unless you make him finite and place Him within time.

Furthermore, there is no potential in God. (By “potential,” is meant, “possible.”) God’s Providence is the mechanism that rolls out creation for finite viewing. But, nothing is “rolled out” to God.

Consider the meaning of “infinite.” He is infinite. His eyes are not over here, while his hands are over there. His Mind is not prone to discursive thinking: orderly or disorderly.
His Mind perceives Everything in one, massive, simultaneous act of understanding. We have to stop thinking that God thinks as we do.

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?

No.

For example, the damned do not receive the kind of love we might call forgiveness

The reprobate is not a party to “forgiveness.” “Forgiveness” is for the sinful elect. The reprobate solidly makes his decision and does not alter it. And God knows that immediately upon the reprobate’s creation. (Read some of the post that you have yet to read in these forums. You will see that, as closely as we become attached to some of the posters, sadly, they’re probably never going to change their minds.)

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?

No. Repentance keeps the elect from spending too much time in Purgatory. The reprobate makes the solid decision to remain separated from God. God will not drag him to Him, once he is dead, kicking and screaming.

God bless,
jd

 

[ManRay]

How is this connected to the OP’s question in the thread?

If this topic interests you start a new thread.

I should have quoted - sorry

Hey David. In the case of omnipotence, I’d say the non-use of power diminishes the quantity of things God can do. There are, afterall things you, I and the devil can do, which God cannot. As Saint Paul the apostle writes, “God…cannot lie” (Titus 1:2).

 

[jsaldar]

Yes:thumbsup:

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Spockrates:

“Pure Act” is NOT equivalent to, “omnipotence.” “Pure Act” means, literally, that there is no “potency” in God. That is, there is nothing missing or lacking in God. All that is possible to be in Him, is in Him. Unlike us, God is not a being. God does not have things, such as, love. The Church states that God IS Love, not that God has, or exhibits, Love.

Please let me ask a different question: When you say, “God cannot be potentially anything,” do you mean God is actually everything?

I would.

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?

This is a question that is impossible for a human being to answer. The Church has never said that anyone is in Hell. The Church says there is Hell, and its purpose is such and such. We can imagine Hitler being in Hell, but, we don’t know that he is. Hitler was born Catholic and therefore he was baptized. If, before he passed on, he asked God for forgiveness, or that he was terribly sorry for what he had done, he would be “punished,” but it is not for us to state with assurance that Hitler is in Hell.

God bless,
jd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Please note. To absolutely accurate, when we say that God is pure actuality, we mean, after St. Thomas, that there is no ontological composition in God. He is not composed of Essence and Existence, His Essence is His Existence, He is the Substant First Being Who just Exists - “… I am, tell the Israelites that He Who is, sends you…” And of course all God’s perfections are contained in and identified with this pure act of existence, Simplicity, Oneness, Personhood, Goodness, Truth, Wisdom, Justice, Mercy, Providence, Omnipotence, Omniscience, etc. St. Thomas makes all this clear and this is what the Church teaches.

 

[spockrates]

It says in the bible which is supposedly the inspired word or even actual word of god that it cannot lie, and yet god seems to in fact lie or at least send prophets/spirits to lie in the bible which is once again the inspired word/word of god. Troublesome. God also actually deluded humans so that they in fact would believe a lie. Whoooa!

Welcome to the forum, ManRay!



I don’t mind taking a sidetrip down a rabbit trail. We’ve already followed the talking rabbit deep into wonderland. Please do tell what lie God did tell.

 

[spockrates]

Spocrates:

I didn’t say that he does not “practice total omnipotence.” Think it through: if He does “everything” simultaneously, and within an Eternal Now, then there is no task left for another time. All tasks are done and completed. How could it be any other way? Unless you make him finite and place Him within time.

Furthermore, there is no potential in God. (By “potential,” is meant, “possible.”) God’s Providence is the mechanism that rolls out creation for finite viewing. But, nothing is “rolled out” to God.

Consider the meaning of “infinite.” He is infinite. His eyes are not over here, while his hands are over there. His Mind is not prone to discursive thinking: orderly or disorderly.
His Mind perceives Everything in one, massive, simultaneous act of understanding. We have to stop thinking that God thinks as we do.

But JD, don’t you see that what you are saying now contradicts what you said in the previous reply? You said:

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.

So you agreed God has the potential to use all his power, but he does not. You also said:

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

So you agree God has potential to do any unloving thing, yet he allows his omnibenevolence to limit what he does to that which is loving. Please tell me what to believe: Does God limit what he actually does, and so some of what he is able to do is merely potential, rather than actual? Or is there no limit to what God does, and so everything he potentially can do, he actually does?

 

[davidv]

Hey David. In the case of omnipotence, I’d say the non-use of power diminishes the quantity of things God can do. There are, afterall things you, I and the devil can do, which God cannot. As Saint Paul the apostle writes, “God…cannot lie” (Titus 1:2).

Yet this diminished quantity certainly enhances the overall quality of what God does. Don’t you agree?

No, I don’t agree. How does this loss happen? What power does God lose by not using it?

 

[davidv]

Please note. To absolutely accurate, when we say that God is pure actuality, we mean, after St. Thomas, that there is no ontological composition in God. He is not composed of Essence and Existence, His Essence is His Existence, He is the Substant First Being Who just Exists - “… I am, tell the Israelites that He Who is, sends you…” And of course all God’s perfections are contained in and identified with this pure act of existence, Simplicity, Oneness, Personhood, Goodness, Truth, Wisdom, Justice, Mercy, Providence, Omnipotence, Omniscience, etc. St. Thomas makes all this clear and this is what the Church teaches.

Thanks for expanding my understanding.

 

[JDaniel]

But JD, don’t you see that what you are saying now contradicts what you said in the previous reply? You said:

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.

Spockrates:

Please re-read my posts. There’s no contradiction that I can see. If you think there is, please favor me by pointing it out.

So you agreed God has the potential to use all his power, but he does not. You also said:

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

I don’t believe this contradicts what I wrote in my earlier post. The problems we are having are in the always problematic use of language when it comes to trying to make God intelligible to our minds.

So you agree God has potential to do any unloving thing, yet he allows his omnibenevolence to limit what he does to that which is loving.

No: I think that would be an abject contradiction, which everyone agrees God does not do - at least He does not expose it at the explicate level. I can’t give you a direct opinion as to whether or not He can do it, only that, as far as we can discern, He obviously doesn’t. I think God is (Logical) Order, not contradiction. Contradiction is, like ‘evil’, the absence of logical order. If God is Logical Order, then He cannot be (logical) disorder at the same time and in the same respect.

Please tell me what to believe: Does God limit what he actually does, and so some of what he is able to do is merely potential, rather than actual?

There’s no way we would know that. What happens present to our views is not necessarily what is present to God’s view. I believe God operates at the implicate level and that we (and science) experience it at the explicate level. What God does at His level of operation is, by necessity, I believe, unintelligible to us.

Or is there no limit to what God does, and so everything he potentially can do, he actually does?

I believe this is correct. But, as I said, our limited minds can only opine.

God bless,
jd

 

[JohnAlexander]

It seems to me that people have a very small idea of what God is.

The entire universe and everything in it exists inside the mind of God. The only reason we exist is because God knows us. Every quark, boson, electron, atom, etc. exists because God knows it. Every arrangement of atoms into molecules, molecules into minerals, minerals into materials is known by God. Every thought, feeling and emotion we experience is known by God.

 

[JDaniel]

It seems to me that people have a very small idea of what God is.

The entire universe and everything in it exists inside the mind of God. The only reason we exist is because God knows us. Every quark, boson, electron, atom, etc. exists because God knows it. Every arrangement of atoms into molecules, molecules into minerals, minerals into materials is known by God. Every thought, feeling and emotion we experience is known by God.

Exactly.

God bless,
jd

 

[spockrates]

No, I don’t agree. How does this loss happen? What power does God lose by not using it?

David:

No loss of potential power. Just a limit on what God can, or will do. Do you still disagree?

 

[spockrates]

Spockrates:

Please re-read my posts. There’s no contradiction that I can see. If you think there is, please favor me by pointing it out.

Yes, please accept my apology. I was walking one of my dogs while composing that post and wrote something obviously contradictory!



What I should have said was that this statement,

Furthermore, there is no potential in God. (By “potential,” is meant, “possible.”) God’s Providence is the mechanism that rolls out creation for finite viewing. But, nothing is “rolled out” to God.

appears to contradict this one,

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

The first statement makes the assertion that there are no potential actions God might take. The second statement makes the assertion that there are potential actions God might take but chooses not to take.

I’m liking the second statement, rather than the first. For God has the potential power to damn everyone to hell, but he chooses to forgive many, instead. Again, sorry for my being inattentive and illogical.