Omniscience?

[1holycatholic]

An analogy: when you watch a movie, you are outside the time of the movie. You are not constrained by the time in the movie. Yet, you cannot have information about the end of the movie until it actually happens within the movie.

…

But that does not follow. The spectator of the movie does not become part of the movie, is not constrained by the movie - just because his knowledge of the movie is constrained by the time-line inside the movie.

…

Based upon the movie analogy, God does not have to be part of our universe, nor be constrained by the laws of our universe.

The movie analogy is problematic. Let’s say the movie is 60 minutes long and was shot over a six month period in 1940 and released that same year. Let us also assume that a film critic was born in 1950.

The film was created and exists in time. The film critic was created and exists in time. The knowledge that the critic has of the film is constrained by the time required to view the film.

If the film critic were atemporal and omniscient, the critic would have all knowledge of the film without being subject to the limits on the acquisition of knowledge imposed by viewing the film in the temporal realm.

 

[ateista]

The movie analogy is problematic. Let’s say the movie is 60 minutes long and was shot over a six month period in 1940 and released that same year. Let us also assume that a film critic was born in 1950.

The film was created and exists in time. The film critic was created and exists in time. The knowledge that the critic has of the film is constrained by the time required to view the film.

If the film critic were atemporal and omniscient, the critic would have all knowledge of the film without being subject to the limits on the acquisition of knowledge imposed by viewing the film in the temporal realm.

It is true that any analogy is somewhat deficient, and this one is no exception. It was only supposed to demonstrate that the spectator not being constrained by the time-line of the movie still cannot know the part which is in the movie’s future.

Of course any movie is a predefined script, and the actors don’t have “free will”. That is another reason why the analogy is deficient.

Now, let’s contemplate another, more complex scenario. There are movies which have many variants shot of the scenes. When the movie is shown, at certain places the audience can “vote” and decide “how” should an actor “make a decision”. This is again a crude approximation of the working of “free will”, but a bit more realistic.

In these performances the spectators will emulate the free will of the actors. As such, the spectators cannot know in advance how the movie is being played out, even though they are still not constrained by the time-line of the movie.

What they can know is all the possible endings for the movie, but they cannot know the actual ending which will eventually be instantiated.

This is not a perfect analogy either. But it shows the point of the “free will”, which disallows knowing the future, even though the outside audience is not limited by the events and the time-line of the movie.

 

[HelenaMT]

Now, let’s contemplate another, more complex scenario. There are movies which have many variants shot of the scenes. When the movie is shown, at certain places the audience can “vote” and decide “how” should an actor “make a decision”. This is again a crude approximation of the working of “free will”, but a bit more realistic.

In these performances the spectators will emulate the free will of the actors. As such, the spectators cannot know in advance how the movie is being played out, even though they are still not constrained by the time-line of the movie.

What they can know is all the possible endings for the movie, but they cannot know the actual ending which will eventually be instantiated.

This is not a perfect analogy either. But it shows the point of the “free will”, which disallows knowing the future, even though the outside audience is not limited by the events and the time-line of the movie.

So here are you saying that God (the spectator) knows several or maybe all outcomes that can come to pass, having written many versions of His script, but lets the producers of the movie (humans) pick the final cut?

 

[Camron]

I highlighted the crucial part: “all futures”. If there are “all possible futures” then the proposition: “God knows all possible futures” is akin to “God can imagine all possible futures” - and that cannot be called “knowledge”.

Sure it can. One could even say that “God’s imagination” is more real than “our reality”. Technically, I think imagination is a poor word to describe this, but I think you understand. Perhaps “vision” is a better word.

I’m really not sure where you’re getting this since I even displayed a passage in the Bible where events like this did occur. In fact, any time the Lord grants a vision of what “could” happen if people don’t “change”, He is revealing true knowledge that exists from His perspective but not from ours.

The knowledge exists from God’s perspective because it is potentially real to Him even if it is not physically real to us.

Even without omniscience I “know” that tossing a die will result in getting a number from one to six, or maybe none, if someone snatches the die in mid-fall (when the result is undefined). But that is not “knowledge” of the actual outcome.

Yes it is. It is “knowledge” of “all actual outcomes” that could happen. He simultaneously knows all the variables that can exist at the very same time-- and He knows which outcome will be real to “us”.

You seem to be trying to lock God within time-space in order to force the conclusion that something about God’s nature is absurd. I think it’s absurd to think that God is in anyway limited by time-space.

As long as the die is in mid-fall, there is no result that can be known. There is no actual outcome. It is impossible to evade “time-words”.

In your own words (and “prior to” is exactly the same as “before”) there is “some kind of a time” (maybe totally dissimilar to ours) in which God “dwells”. Any phrase pertaining to “activity” presupposes a “before” and an “after”. Of course one can make the proposition that “God eternally willed” the creation (and everything else), but that is a totally meaningless proposition.

Perhaps I do not understand your point. Why exactly is this considered a totally meaningless proposition?

God knows the outcome already and it’s going to really happen to us at some point in time. He is eternal and omniscient after all. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Romans 4:17 says that God gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

I’ve already pointed out an example of this with Hezekiah too. The story of Isaiah 38:8 is a great example of this pooling because Hezekiah was apparently allowed to see into the possible future to see an event (his own death) that never actually happened at “that time”.

I will continue to stress this: God knew something that did not actually happen– but it would have happened if Hezekiah did not change.

There are many examples like this in the Bible. The events may not be real to us. But God certainly is aware of their potential existence nonetheless, even though they do not “actually” exist to us.

 

[ateista]

So here are you saying that God (the spectator) knows several or maybe all outcomes that can come to pass, having written many versions of His script, but lets the producers of the movie (humans) pick the final cut?

Yes, that is the meaning of the analogy.

 

[C_Bautista]

If it is acceptable to state that God’s can only know what “can” be known, we must realize that our first idea of what “can be known” is likely wildly underestimated.

For example: if I roll a die and it lands on a 2 and I therefore win $100, does that mean that God wouldn’t know what would have happened if it landed on a 5? Even I, by powers of speculation and educated guessing, can deduce an accurate estimation of what would have happened. How can we say that God, in omnipotence and atemporal omnipresence, couldn’t “know” what would have happened just because it didn’t?

Similarly, just because I make a choice to do good or evil, my choice does not limit God’s ability to know precisely what would have happened if I made the opposite choice.

Extending this to all events in the universe - human events, cosmological events, subatomic events, etc. - it becomes apparent that God’s omniscience, too, extends beyond actuality and into the hypothetical.

So essentially this is a matter of semantics, as has been suggested previously. Everything that “can be known” far exceeds the realm of the actual. If you feel it necessary to say that God can only know what can be known, then the fact remains that the things that “can be known” by God Himself do not necessarily reside exclusively in actuality.

 

[1holycatholic]

You seem to be trying to lock God within time-space in order to force the conclusion that something about God’s nature is absurd.

That boils the thread down to one sentence.

 

[ateista]

If it is acceptable to state that God’s can only know what “can” be known, we must realize that our first idea of what “can be known” is likely wildly underestimated.

Why would it? To “know” something is to “have information” about something. That is as wide as it can be. It does not assume anything about the ways and means, how that information is gathered. This concept does not presume that God’s knowledge is the same as ours. On the contrary, it accepts that the the God’s knowledge is incommensurably larger than ours ever can be.

Answer this one please. What does “knowledge” mean in this proposition: “God knows the contents of the book that was never written by an author that was not born”. Does it mean anything? I don’t think so. It is a meaningless proposition.

Extending this to all events in the universe - human events, cosmological events, subatomic events, etc. - it becomes apparent that God’s omniscience, too, extends beyond actuality and into the hypothetical.

So essentially this is a matter of semantics, as has been suggested previously. Everything that “can be known” far exceeds the realm of the actual. If you feel it necessary to say that God can only know what can be known, then the fact remains that the things that “can be known” by God Himself do not necessarily reside exclusively in actuality.

Only at the expense of “butchering” the concept of “knowledge” into a bloody, meaningless pulp. (Pardon for the poetic language.)

As a matter of fact, the same problem arises every time one of God’s alleged attributes comes up for discussion. All those attributes are supposed to be meaningful.

But as soon as we “scratch” them, it turns out that they mean something totally different (if they mean anything at all) when we apply the same concept to humans and when we apply them to God. As such to use the same words in the two contexts is not permitted. It is called the fallacy of the stolen concept.

You cannot say “a human knows X” and “God knows X”, if the word “knows” means something completely, fundamentally different.

The same reply goes to Camron, with one additional remark. To quote the Bible in this context is useless. We are not talking about theology, but philosophy.

 

[C_Bautista]

Why would it? To “know” something is to “have information” about something. That is as wide as it can be. It does not assume anything about the ways and means, how that information is gathered. This concept does not presume that God’s knowledge is the same as ours. On the contrary, it accepts that the the God’s knowledge is incommensurably larger than ours ever can be.

Answer this one please. What does “knowledge” mean in this proposition: “God knows the contents of the book that was never written by an author that was not born”. Does it mean anything? I don’t think so. It is a meaningless proposition.

You say that having “knowledge” of something requires “information” about that thing. This is already a limitation you are placing on God. God is the totality of reality. That is, if something exists in any fashion, it is contingent upon His Being.

God’s “knowing” does not require external “information” about something because there IS NOTHING “external” to God. His knowledge is perfect knowledge of Himself, and so all possible things are known to Him without some requirement of external information.

If it is possible for us to conceive of that hypothetical book or even of a notion of its existence or nature, then all of the possible contents of that book are fully known to God. In fact, even if it is entirely beyond our ability to conceive of that book (or anything else) God can still know it intimately. Our entire construct of reality is contained in His self-knowledge, so anything of which we can potentially conceive is also within His full knowledge.

The question here is no so much of the nature of knowledge as the nature of existent / non-existent / imaginary objects.

 

[ateista]

You say that having “knowledge” of something requires “information” about that thing. This is already a limitation you are placing on God.

Even according to classical theism, there are lots of limitations on God.

God is the totality of reality. That is, if something exists in any fashion, it is contingent upon His Being.

This is a statement of theology.

God’s “knowing” does not require external “information” about something because there IS NOTHING “external” to God.

Catholicism says otherwise. The Universe is external to God. Hell is external to God.

If it is possible for us to conceive of that hypothetical book or even of a notion of its existence or nature, then all of the possible contents of that book are fully known to God. In fact, even if it is entirely beyond our ability to conceive of that book (or anything else) God can still know it intimately. Our entire construct of reality is contained in His self-knowledge, so anything of which we can potentially conceive is also within His full knowledge.

The word “knowledge” is meaningless in this context.

The question here is no so much of the nature of knowledge as the nature of existent / non-existent / imaginary objects.

Both are important, since they are interconnected.

 

[HelenaMT]

So here are you saying that God (the spectator) knows several or maybe all outcomes that can come to pass, having written many versions of His script, but lets the producers of the movie (humans) pick the final cut?

Yes, that is the meaning of the analogy.

To me this would fit the definition of omniscience. God knows all possible outcomes of all possible choices, yet we have the power to lock in the final outcome. This would make us sort of co-creators of our reality, but it doesn’t seem to limit God. To me this makes it easier to understand if I believe in a true free will.

He doesn’t “know” our choice in advance, but all the choices we can make.

It makes more sense if God has a mind a human can relate to to see it this way, I think. After all, if He knew everything from start to finish, everything just as is, it doesn’t seem to have much of a point, for Him anyway.

If our creation is more like a movie, where God has written and produced one script alone(the universe), there doesn’t seem to be any more He could get out of that than a satisfaction at a job well done. There’s no room for any further creativity or stimulation.

I guess it’s anthropomorphizing too much, but it seems that any mind wants to expand it’s knowledge, and God, whose mind is infinitely able to expand , might have this ability or desire.

If I understood the nature of how those who think otherwise understand time and how that relates to God and His omniscience, I might have a different outlook.

 

[ateista]

To me this would fit the definition of omniscience. God knows all possible outcomes of all possible choices, yet we have the power to lock in the final outcome. This would make us sort of co-creators of our reality, but it doesn’t seem to limit God. To me this makes it easier to understand if I believe in a true free will.

He doesn’t “know” our choice in advance, but all the choices we can make.

It makes more sense if God has a mind a human can relate to to see it this way, I think. After all, if He knew everything from start to finish, everything just as is, it doesn’t seem to have much of a point, for Him anyway.

If our creation is more like a movie, where God has written and produced one script alone(the universe), there doesn’t seem to be any more He could get out of that than a satisfaction at a job well done. There’s no room for any further creativity or stimulation.

I guess it’s anthropomorphizing too much, but it seems that any mind wants to expand it’s knowledge, and God, whose mind is infinitely able to expand , might have this ability or desire.

If I understood the nature of how those who think otherwise understand time and how that relates to God and His omniscience, I might have a different outlook.

I certainly agree with you!

 

[Camron]

Why would it? To “know” something is to “have information” about something. That is as wide as it can be. It does not assume anything about the ways and means, how that information is gathered. This concept does not presume that God’s knowledge is the same as ours. On the contrary, it accepts that the God’s knowledge is incommensurably larger than ours ever can be.

So then why are you trying to limit God’s knowledge? That’s how it appears to me anyway.

Answer this one please. What does “knowledge” mean in this proposition: “God knows the contents of the book that was never written by an author that was not born”. Does it mean anything? I don’t think so. It is a meaningless proposition.

It means that God knows the potential of what could have been if things had gone differently. This is not a complicated subject and it does apply to your argument whether you like it or not.

Only at the expense of “butchering” the concept of “knowledge” into a bloody, meaningless pulp. (Pardon for the poetic language.)

And suggesting that God doesn’t know what could have happened isn’t “butchering" the concept of “Omniscience” into a bloody, meaningless pulp?

As a matter of fact, the same problem arises every time one of God’s alleged attributes comes up for discussion. All those attributes are supposed to be meaningful.

I noticed you loaded the word “alleged” in here.

Why exactly is it considered meaningless for God to be aware of all things that could have happened?

And why exactly is it considered wrong to note that God can call things that are not as though they were?

The simple truth is that God can draw on things that do not even exist to us and make them as if they did exist to us. This is an attribute of God that cannot be overlooked simply because someone doesn’t “feel” God would work this way. The problem is that some classical definitions of God do imply this very thing is done by God.

But as soon as we “scratch” them, it turns out that they mean something totally different (if they mean anything at all) when we apply the same concept to humans and when we apply them to God. As such to use the same words in the two contexts is not permitted. It is called the fallacy of the stolen concept.

And yet classical definitions of God do this all the time. In fact, you yourself are guilty of this same thing when you propose the definitions you “feel” are more appropriate.

You cannot say “a human knows X” and “God knows X”, if the word “knows” means something completely, fundamentally different.

And yet both humans and God each know the color red for example. God’s knowledge of red is radically and infinitely deeper than humanity’s knowledge of red. But both God and humanity know the color red.

The same reply goes to Camron, with one additional remark. To quote the Bible in this context is useless. We are not talking about theology, but philosophy.

You are talking about God. And if you talk about God then you are talking about theology as well as philosophy. Theology is the study of the nature of God and religious truth; including a rational inquiry into religious questions.

In fact, your whole argument is a fundamentally “theological” argument in case you didn’t notice this ateista-- you are presenting a theodicy of God to explain the attributes that you “feel” are more in tune with your own concept of how God should act.

If you don’t feel like defending your “process theology”, that’s fine.

But don’t sit around and pretend that you’re not involved in a theological discussion. You definitely shouldn’t pretend that you’re not defending your own “theology” of God through the “philosophy” you are presenting either. It’s quite dishonest in my opinion.

If you are studying of the nature of God and religious truth (including a rational inquiry into religious questions), then you are discussing theology whether you want to admit it or not.

And if the qualities of God’s Omniscience are under discussion then you have better be prepared to note all the traditional qualities that are involved in God’s character that directly pertain to His Omniscience too.

Being Omniscient also means being able to know the potential of what could have happened (to us) if things had gone differently, being able to draw on things that do not even exist (to us) and make them as if they did exist (to us), and being able to merge all these different possibilities that already exist to God (but not to us) are all traditional qualities of God that you are simply ignoring because you have some intellectual preference for some other way that you feel God should act.**

 

[Camron]

To me this would fit the definition of omniscience. God knows all possible outcomes of all possible choices, yet we have the power to lock in the final outcome. This would make us sort of co-creators of our reality, but it doesn’t seem to limit God. To me this makes it easier to understand if I believe in a true free will.

I actually agree with this quite a bit. It’s about “creation” and not “free-will”.

He doesn’t “know” our choice in advance, but all the choices we can make.

I disagree. If He doesn’t “know” our choice in advance then He is not Omniscient.

It makes more sense if God has a mind a human can relate to see it this way, I think. After all, if He knew everything from start to finish, everything just as is, it doesn’t seem to have much of a point, for Him anyway.

So you’re saying that God doesn’t know our futures? If so, this is a process theology and really has nothing to do with classical definitions of God.

But if He’s allowing us to participate in His creation (making us sort of co-creators of our reality), then this wouldn’t necessarily mean that He is doing this to get satisfaction. He’s doing this out of love, sharing His love with us and allowing us to be co-heirs with Him.

It would be like a parent who already knows how to tie shoes being pleased with his child learning how to tie his own shoes. The satisfaction isn’t in the parent taking pride in how wonderful a teacher they are. The satisfaction is in the parent already knowing that they loved their child so much that they shared their knowledge with them.

If our creation is more like a movie, where God has written and produced one script alone(the universe), there doesn’t seem to be any more He could get out of that than a satisfaction at a job well done. There’s no room for any further creativity or stimulation.

But God is eternally good. There is no limit to the good things that He can share with us. If so, how can one say there’s no room for any further creativity or stimulation? His existence is forever.

I guess it’s anthropomorphizing too much, but it seems that any mind wants to expand it’s knowledge, and God, whose mind is infinitely able to expand , might have this ability or desire.

Or maybe He has a desire to share, out of love, His infinite knowledge with us so that we can be able to infinitely expand our hearts toward God.

If I understood the nature of how those who think otherwise understand time and how that relates to God and His omniscience, I might have a different outlook.

Perhaps you are looking at it too much from a limited human perspective and not enough from God’s infinite perspective. Personally, I think you are anthropomorphizing too much, I admit I could be wrong though. But that’s how I see your reasoning.

 

[HelenaMT]

I disagree. If He doesn’t “know” our choice in advance then He is not Omniscient.

I guess that depends on what is meant by omniscience. I was taking it to mean that He knows all possible outcomes, but allows us to determine the final one ourselves. Allows us to create our own reality rather than pre-determining it with His one act of creation. I don’t know how to understand free will any other way.

So you’re saying that God doesn’t know our futures? If so, this is a process theology and really has nothing to do with classical definitions of God.

Maybe that *is *process theology. I never heard of the term until your post, and just read up a little on it. Some aspects of it do make sense to me. Maybe that’s a bad thing as a Catholic ?

But if He’s allowing us to participate in His creation (making us sort of co-creators of our reality), then this wouldn’t necessarily mean that He is doing this to get satisfaction. He’s doing this out of love, sharing His love with us and allowing us to be co-heirs with Him.

The whole point of His allowing us to “co-create” could be because if all of our decisions were pre-determined at creation, we wouldn’t actually be coming to love Him freely, nor could He love us as individuals, since we would be more like movie characters. (I don’t necessarily believe this is true, but it is making more sense to me)

It would be like a parent who already knows how to tie shoes being pleased with his child learning how to tie his own shoes. The satisfaction isn’t in the parent taking pride in how wonderful a teacher they are. The satisfaction is in the parent already knowing that they loved their child so much that they shared their knowledge with them.

But parents also like to watch their children learn things and do things that are totally unique and unexpected. Maybe God wanted to build in that chance to the whole of creation.

But God is eternally good. There is no limit to the good things that He can share with us. If so, how can one say there’s no room for any further creativity or stimulation? His existence is forever.

I just meant that if God is eternal, can’t He expand eternally in knowledge,love, etc. ? Does omniscience necessarily mean that God has to know the entire future and past of every single part of creation at once, as well as all of His own actions and thoughts?

Or maybe He has a desire to share, out of love, His infinite knowledge with us so that we can be able to infinitely expand our hearts toward God.

I certainly hope so! I just don’t see how this makes sense if He already knows us from beginning to end. He would already know who was coming home to be with Him and who definitely wasn’t.

I realize I am not really familiar with classical definitions of God, but I am not a theologian,nor an academic, just someone with an interest in clarifying my own understanding and seeing how others think through these things.

Perhaps you are looking at it too much from a limited human perspective and not enough from God’s infinite perspective. Personally, I think you are anthropomorphizing too much, I admit I could be wrong though. But that’s how I see your reasoning.

I would love to understand more about the right way to approach God’s infinite perspective (or at least how others have come to understand it). I guess I’ll keep looking.

And I agree that I’m anthropomorphizing, but then again, we were made in the image of God, weren’t we? (I mean with reason and free will at least)

 

[Camron]

I guess that depends on what is meant by omniscience. I was taking it to mean that He knows all possible outcomes, but allows us to determine the final one ourselves.

With God I think it’s both, much like knowing the outcome of an event but also allowing people to make their decision too. Knowing what will happen in advance does not equal making someone do what they already know will happen.

Allows us to create our own reality rather than pre-determining it with His one act of creation. I don’t know how to understand free will any other way.

Well, in my opinion, the whole concept of free-will only goes so far. And, for the record, I do agree with others if they say that free-will is overrated. There really are many things that we have absolutely no control over. In fact, the things that we have no control over are, in my opinion, more important than the things that we have control over.

Maybe that *is *process theology. I never heard of the term until your post, and just read up a little on it. Some aspects of it do make sense to me. Maybe that’s a bad thing as a Catholic?

Some aspects of process theology are great in regards to God using contingent processes to accomplish His will. This is nothing new to theology and many Catholics have stressed that God can (and often does) work this way. I think theistic evolutionary arguments greatly benefit in this regard from process theology (or open theism)

But if the process theologian has gone one step further and insisted that even God Himself does not know how future events will work out then they have stepped well past the proper boundaries of contingent processes to claiming that God doesn’t really know something after all. More often than not, in my opinion, it is more of a prideful boast of humanity to make the claim that God doesn’t actually know what they will choose in the future and it’s a man centered philosophy selfishly put forward to preserve the integrity of our “free-will” at the cost of God’s Omniscience.

In other words, because they want to “think” that we are truly free to choose, because they want to “think” that their free-will is more important that God’s fore-knowledge, because they want to “think” that the events that happen to us are not “pre-determined”, they are willing to make the claim that God really doesn’t know the future after all.

And if this is true, then they are no longer talking about God in the traditional Catholic sense. They are talking about God in the post-modern sense which seems to try to put man’s will before God’s will when determining the course of events throughout history.

There is simply no denying that God knows the beginning from the end in the traditional Catholic sense. And if people feel that they are puppets on a string because of this, then they really don’t understand what the Catholic Church means when she says that God knows the beginning from the end and yet man is indeed totally responsible for their own actions too.

This is not a contradiction. It is a paradox revealed where the limits of our knowledge and all logical analysis ultimately ends.

The whole point of His allowing us to “co-create” could be because if all of our decisions were pre-determined at creation, we wouldn’t actually be coming to love Him freely, nor could He love us as individuals, since we would be more like movie characters. (I don’t necessarily believe this is true, but it is making more sense to me)

So let’s say you are sitting on a building from a certain vantage point. On one side of the building you see a car hearing for a green light. On the adjacent corner of the building you see another car heading for the same set of lights, but red from their perspective. You know that, based on the speed of the car heading for the red light that the car is going to run through the red light. In fact, you know in advance that these two cars will indeed crash.

Have you caused the cars to crash by knowing in advance what will happen?

Actually, let’s go one step further and say that you actually built the cars they are driving.

Have you caused the cars to crash by knowing in advance what will happen?

Actually, let’s go a couple steps further and say that you actually paved the roads they are driving on and built the set of lights that they are going to crash at.

Have you caused the cars to crash by knowing in advance what will happen?

Actually, let’s go several steps further and say that you actually created the land that the roads are on, the world that the land is on, the solar system that the world is in, the galaxy that the solar system is in, and indeed the entire universe (including the laws that the universe operates on) that the galaxy resides in.

Have you caused the cars to crash by knowing in advance what will happen?

The answer is plain and simply no in my opinion.

And just because God knows in advance what will happen at that exact moment at that set of lights does not imply that the people who were there did not have the free-will to be there either. They are there according to their own actions within the parameters of God’s creation which they cannot avoid nor escape no matter how hard they try.

But parents also like to watch their children learn things and do things that are totally unique and unexpected. Maybe God wanted to build in that chance to the whole of creation.

I think that God created chance.

I just meant that if God is eternal, can’t He expand eternally in knowledge,love, etc. ? Does omniscience necessarily mean that God has to know the entire future and past of every single part of creation at once, as well as all of His own actions and thoughts?

I don’t think that God can build a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it. God defines God and He cannot exceed Himself. But, because He is infinite, there is no limit to the knowledge He has.

I certainly hope so! I just don’t see how this makes sense if He already knows us from beginning to end. He would already know who was coming home to be with Him and who definitely wasn’t.

And what exactly is wrong with that?

 

[HelenaMT]

With God I think it’s both, much like knowing the outcome of an event but also allowing people to make their decision too. Knowing what will happen in advance does not equal making someone do what they already know will happen.

I realize that, in the sense that God is not there forcing people to do evil or good. But if He created everything at the same time, and knows it all in advance, it makes it very hard to understand why He would design evil into the system. (I know this has been covered on many other threads here)If He created the open-endedness at the beginning, it makes more sense. It doesn’t limit Him, because it would have been He who knew this was the best way.

Well, in my opinion, the whole concept of free-will only goes so far. And, for the record, I do agree with others if they say that free-will is overrated. There really are many things that we have absolutely no control over. In fact, the things that we have no control over are, in my opinion, more important than the things that we have control over.

I believe we are indeed limited in our free will, but I prefer to see it as limited by the bad choices of our parents and our societies, and by our own selfish choices, not as part of a pre ordained plan by God. What if God is the happiest when we override our bad human programming to actually do His will? Isn’t that what the prodigal son is all about?Or why Jesus said he came to save the sinners more than those who were already doing the right things?

But if the process theologian has gone one step further and insisted that even God Himself does not know how future events will work out then they have stepped well past the proper boundaries of contingent processes to claiming that God doesn’t really know something after all. More often than not, in my opinion, it is more of a prideful boast of humanity to make the claim that God doesn’t actually know what they will choose in the future and it’s a man centered philosophy selfishly put forward to preserve the integrity of our “free-will” at the cost of God’s Omniscience.

In other words, because they want to “think” that we are truly free to choose, because they want to “think” that their free-will is more important that God’s fore-knowledge, because they want to “think” that the events that happen to us are not “pre-determined”, they are willing to make the claim that God really doesn’t know the future after all.

We are limited by our choices and the choices of those we come in contact with, and by our own genetic makeup, and by environmental factors we have been born into(which also are usually products of the choices of others). I don’t look at it as human arrogance to say we are responsible for the bad decisions we make that have long reaching effects on people we might never even know personally.

Feeling true guilt is only possible when you acknowlege how much *your own evil *has impacted others. There is nothing more humbling than recognizing that you yourself, and not society/parents/genetics have gravely caused another harm.

And our free will is not more important than God’s omniscience if it’s what He wanted us to have in the first place.

I don’t think it is really a comfort to think we can screw up so badly that we can send ourselves to hell, though it is more comforting than thinking God created some people who He knows will be heading there before He even created them. Keep in mind, I’m sort of just playing devil’s advocate here. My opinions on these things are not really set in stone, that’s why I’m here discussing it.

There is simply no denying that God knows the beginning from the end in the traditional Catholic sense. And if people feel that they are puppets on a string because of this, then they really don’t understand what the Catholic Church means when she says that God knows the beginning from the end and yet man is indeed totally responsible for their own actions too.

This is not a contradiction. It is a paradox revealed where the limits of our knowledge and all logical analysis ultimately ends.

As for this and your example of the cars crashing, I get the point you are making,I just think that this understanding makes God less sympathetic. I’m perfectly fine with that if that’s how it is. I’m just not entirely convinced it’s the case (and I doubt we will resolve it here )

I think that God created chance.

That seems to be part of my point. But chance only seems a meaningful concept if it is actually able to change an outcome not first expected.

 

[ateista]

OK, time to clarify a few things. The word “knowledge” has several legitimate uses, but care should be taken not to donfuse them.

Meaning #1: To know something actual. Let’s call it “knowledge-A”. Obviously God can know everything that is actual. No problem here. No example necessary.

Meaning #2: To know all the possible, hypothetical outcomes of an action. Let’s call this “knowledge-H”. Obviously God can know everything that can happen, if certain actions are taken. No problem here either. An example would be: "tossing a die with 6 sides. We can “know” that the die will land on one of the sides or it will not land at all (someone snaches it in mid-air).

Meaning #3: To know the actual outcome of an action for which there are several (more than one) hypothetical outcomes. Let’s call this “knowledge-AH”. The problems start here.

It is possible to know the actual outcome of a future event for which there are several possible outcomes - in one and only one case - when the freedom to have a different outcome becomes impossible, when the outcome becomes determined, when the probability wave collapses (to use the jargon of QM).

One cannot say that it is possible to “know” the actual outcome when it has not happened yet, and when there is more than one possible outcome. It simply makes no sense.

As soon as the omniscient being can know the actual outcome of a future event, then the probability wave already collapsed, the event became determined, and as such the freedom to have a different outcome disappeared. Therefore if God can know the actual outcome of our future decisions, then our freedom to choose is a sham.

It is not God’s knowledge that will invalidate our freedom, rather the fact that knowledge becomes possible only when our freedom disappears.

 

[C_Bautista]

It is possible to know the actual outcome of a future event for which there are several possible outcomes - in one and only one case - when the freedom to have a different outcome becomes impossible, when the outcome becomes determined, when the probability wave collapses (to use the jargon of QM).

One cannot say that it is possible to “know” the actual outcome when it has not happened yet, and when there is more than one possible outcome. It simply makes no sense.

As soon as the omniscient being can know the actual outcome of a future event, then the probability wave already collapsed, the event became determined, and as such the freedom to have a different outcome disappeared. Therefore if God can know the actual outcome of our future decisions, then our freedom to choose is a sham.

It is not God’s knowledge that will invalidate our freedom, rather the fact that knowledge becomes possible only when our freedom disappears.

Sure. If we’re talking about the interdimensional mischief of Douglas Adam’s “Guide Mark II” and we need to think of probabilities as being collapsed at all. The reality is that talking about an omniscient God necessitates that Being existing in a way transcendent of time.

You continue to insist that knowledge is dependent upon a temporally linear process of obtaining information. If you want to talk about probability as a dimension, then how are you missing the fact that our perception of time is obviously limited, and that using our perception of time is a severely false limitation when defining an omniscient Being’s ability to “know” something? Just because we have not experienced an event yet does not mean that God does not know it and all of the possible outcomes, circumstances, etc.

Knowledge of an event for a being transcendent of time (i.e., God) is not dependent upon whether the event has apparently “happened” from the perspective of a being that is not transcendent of time (e.g., man).

When we make choices, we actualize potentiality. In the context of this discussion, THIS is our share in God’s creative process. God actualizes and maintains us, who would otherwise simply be potentiality; similarly, we actualize events in our world based on our choices but we, as temporal beings, have no facility for “knowing” (with certainty) the nature of the potential results, only the actual ones. God is beyond “potential” by logical definition, and so whether or not a thing is actualized in reality, God knows it simply by it’s potentiality.

 

[1holycatholic]

OK, time to clarify a few things. The word “knowledge” has several legitimate uses, but care should be taken not to donfuse them.

Meaning #1: To know something actual. Let’s call it “knowledge-A”. Obviously God can know everything that is actual. No problem here. No example necessary.

Meaning #2: To know all the possible, hypothetical outcomes of an action. Let’s call this “knowledge-H”. Obviously God can know everything that can happen, if certain actions are taken. No problem here either. An example would be: "tossing a die with 6 sides. We can “know” that the die will land on one of the sides or it will not land at all (someone snaches it in mid-air).

Meaning #3: To know the actual outcome of an action for which there are several (more than one) hypothetical outcomes. Let’s call this “knowledge-AH”. The problems start here.

It is possible to know the actual outcome of a future event for which there are several possible outcomes - in one and only one case - when the freedom to have a different outcome becomes impossible, when the outcome becomes determined, when the probability wave collapses (to use the jargon of QM).

One cannot say that it is possible to “know” the actual outcome when it has not happened yet, and when there is more than one possible outcome. It simply makes no sense.

As soon as the omniscient being can know the actual outcome of a future event, then the probability wave already collapsed, the event became determined, and as such the freedom to have a different outcome disappeared. Therefore if God can know the actual outcome of our future decisions, then our freedom to choose is a sham.

It is not God’s knowledge that will invalidate our freedom, rather the fact that knowledge becomes possible only when our freedom disappears.

Since God is atemporal and omniscient etc. you should be able to rewrite this without any reference to temporality.