What if God wasn't omniscient?

[Shike]

…continuation

If we acknowledge Him to have some human characteristics (the ability to love, to forgive, to show mercy)

It is the other way around. We have little reflections of God’s love, mercy, etc through our being and actions.

it doesn’t seem to make sense that we don’t use those characteristics to understand Him when we look at other things

Oh we do use those reflections… it’s just that we have to be extremely careful not to go overboard.

, such as pointless suffering.

Prove any human suffering, or any suffering for that matter, is pointless. And here is one reason why the problem of suffering fails to bring about conclusion 2 (from above).

As far as I know, Aquinas isn’t held to be infallible, so just because he worked out that omniscience was a necessary characteristic of God doesn’t mean we can’t question it.

Infallibility isn’t the point. The point is what specific problems do you have with Aquinas’ arguments. I’m sure people here would love to help you out. If you haven’t read them, then you’re in for a great experience (perseverance granted of course).

If I was convinced by how Aquinas reconciled omniscience/omnipotence with benevolence, or any of the other human traits we apply to God, then I wouldn’t have started this thread.

Okay… what specifically do you take issue with in regards to Aquinas’ arguments, maybe we could help you out.

I don’t really understand the rationale behind why we must see God as completely apart from reality to have formed it.

By the word reality, do you mean the universe specifically? This goes into the whole actuality and potentiality side of things… we can go there if you want.

Does our belief in God depend on Him being completely beyond time and space, and containing the beginning to the end of reality in His mind all at once? Or can the belief in a changing God coexist with Catholicism(or even Christianity in general)?

It cannot coexist because it isn’t a true belief. Whether or not it is possible in another possible world… I suspect it still wouldn’t be true, but I don’t know.

I am not an atheist, but many of their arguments for the impossibility of divine omniscience make sense to me.

I have yet to find one without problems.

Rather than deny my own personal experiences with prayer and my faith in Christ, I look to see if there are ways to reach a different understanding of God, one that will make more rational and emotional sense to me.

Good, keep searching.

Some people have not studied Aquinas deeply or had the benefit of graduate level philosophy classes(and never will),yet still might have seriously thought about this issue. I guess I was hoping to hear from some of them.

Okay, but don’t discount their answers either. If the truth is truth, then you’ll want to take into account what they say as well.

peace,
Michael

 

[greylorn]

What I am looking for , I guess, is for a new or different argument for why God’s omni-qualities are more logical or easier to justify in the context of human history and what we now know about the universe than the concept of God as being in some ways limited.

A non-omniscient God Who decided to create life on planet earth would not initially have known how to go about doing so. He would have needed to experiment with various processes over a period of time. If such a God created life, its development would look similar to, for example, the “evolution” of automobiles and other methods of powered transportation engineered by humans.

There would be evidence of change, but no (or few) transitional forms. (Our intermediate designs appear in drawings and blueprints and occasional one-of-a-kind models. Most of these were scrapped, and the rest will be. God’s intermediate critters were quickly eaten.)

Put simply, if God is not omniscient, life forms will appear to have been engineered rather than created in a cosmic finger-snap.

If you really intend to answer your questions, check out a copy of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species.” It is well written, the best possible source material on this subject.

 

[Shike]

A non-omniscient God Who decided to create life on planet earth would not initially have known how to go about doing so.

Perhaps. But it isn’t a necessary outcome. It could be that this “non-omniscient God” knows everything about life, but only lacks knowledge of some particular other unrelated thing.

There would be evidence of change, but no (or few) transitional forms. (Our intermediate designs appear in drawings and blueprints and occasional one-of-a-kind models. Most of these were scrapped, and the rest will be. God’s intermediate critters were quickly eaten.)

Or more likely the intermediate critters never existed. Due to mutations and natural selection, evolution makes somewhat punctuated jumps. Depends on what your threshold is, too.

Put simply, if God is not omniscient, life forms will appear to have been engineered rather than created in a cosmic finger-snap.

Again, there is no necessary connection here. It could be God knows all about life and lacks knowledge in some unrelated area. Really, omniscience or non-omniscience doesn’t tell us much. But, as you might guess, I don’t think it’s possible for a non-omniscient god to exist… at least if it was the only one and there was no God who is omniscient.

Looking at evolution and created nature will more probably lead to a notion of design and point to a rationality behind things, something with intention and will.

If you really intend to answer your questions, check out a copy of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species.” It is well written, the best possible source material on this subject.

Well, maybe you might get something out of it. But I fail to see how it is the best possible source material on “this subject”. If by subject you mean evolution, no!!! Darwin didn’t know about DNA and mutations, he was wrong about the myriad of small changes. If by subject you mean God’s omniscience, as pointed out above, it really can’t tell you much.

It’s hard to square non-omniscience with God if He is the creator of everything. And if He isn’t the creator of everything, it just seems to push things further back untill we come to God who is the creator of everything (and therefore rendering the first instance not God, presumably).

Happy hunting.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Is that God a possibility, or does He have to be omniscient and omnipotent for us to believe in Him and accept Jesus?

I would disagree with the assertion that God is omniscient. If he were, then our lives would be predetermined and we would, therefore, not have free will.

 

[Iamnotafraid]

Sorry to jump into this thread i know it was aimed at believes, which i am not. However i would like to say. That i certainly find the idea of a creator God far more plausable and likely if he is not omniscient or omnipitent.

I really do feel that those qualities where forced into our perceptions of what a supreme being should be capable of. Rather than what we should logicaly expect.

I agree, an omniscient and at the same time, benevolent God, opens up a Pandora’s box of problems for believers.

In my experience, most believers ignore the problems that are caused by a Deity with omniscience and have only a rudimentary understanding of what real omniscience entails.

So, for the average believer, there isn’t a problem, because the issue is really not thorougly explored.

Back to the OP, if I were a religious man, I would find a belief in supernatural God more plausible if that God were not omniscient, or omnipotent or benevolent.

 

[HelenaMT]

I would disagree with the assertion that God is omniscient. If he were, then our lives would be predetermined and we would, therefore, not have free will.

Yes, this is one problem. If we have free will that is real, then God can’t know what we will do ahead of time, unless it means he knows all our possible choices and simply always can predict what that choice will be. But the concept of “predicting” or “knowing ahead of time” ties God to our idea of time, which he is supposed to exist "outside of’.

If He knows our choices because He has already seen them, then He has allowed billions to be damned from the start. In effect, He wrote a movie where some characters are just extras with little individual value to the overall story, living and dying tragically with only momentary recognition when the credits roll. I have never been able to reconcile this one thing with the concept of benevolence.

If some people never have a chance at salvation, and they are damned by circumstances, how can a benevolent god know all this from the start ?

Further, even if we say He created it all, beginning to end, right from the point of creation, it doesn’t explain why God created time for us in the first place, unless it was a creative experiment of some sort, which again, leads to God being able to experiment, meaning non-omniscience again.

Why would God want to make the universe appear to us to take billions of years to evolve if it had not been necessary? And if it was necessary for God to take billions of years, then doesn’t that make Him somehow engaged with time just as we are?

 

[Shike]

Yes, this is one problem. If we have free will that is real, then God can’t know what we will do ahead of time, unless it means he knows all our possible choices and simply always can predict what that choice will be. But the concept of “predicting” or “knowing ahead of time” ties God to our idea of time, which he is supposed to exist "outside of’.

Yes, that last sentence of your is very important in all of this.

Why would God want to make the universe appear to us to take billions of years to evolve if it had not been necessary? And if it was necessary for God to take billions of years, then doesn’t that make Him somehow engaged with time just as we are?

Why would God want to make me? I don’t think I’m necessary in that I have to had existed. This is just as important of a question and along the same lines… and perhaps an answer to this provides a glimpse into the answer of your question.

If it was necessary for God to take billions of years, it doesn’t make Him intrinsically a part of time. In one sense, no matter how you slice it, God is “engaged” with time in that He is the cause.

peace,
Michael

 

[Iamnotafraid]

Yes, this is one problem. If we have free will that is real, then God can’t know what we will do ahead of time, unless it means he knows all our possible choices and simply always can predict what that choice will be. But the concept of “predicting” or “knowing ahead of time” ties God to our idea of time, which he is supposed to exist "outside of’.

If He knows our choices because He has already seen them, then He has allowed billions to be damned from the start. In effect, He wrote a movie where some characters are just extras with little individual value to the overall story, living and dying tragically with only momentary recognition when the credits roll. I have never been able to reconcile this one thing with the concept of benevolence.

If some people never have a chance at salvation, and they are damned by circumstances, how can a benevolent god know all this from the start ?

Further, even if we say He created it all, beginning to end, right from the point of creation, it doesn’t explain why God created time for us in the first place, unless it was a creative experiment of some sort, which again, leads to God being able to experiment, meaning non-omniscience again.

Why would God want to make the universe appear to us to take billions of years to evolve if it had not been necessary? And if it was necessary for God to take billions of years, then doesn’t that make Him somehow engaged with time just as we are?

It’s refreshing to see a religious person actually thinking about real problems of theology, regarding God being both omniscient and benevolent.

In my life, I’ve come across many religious people, who simply close their minds and bleat ’ free will’ and refuse to think any further beyond those two words.

Intellectually, you are well beyond the minds of those people that I have come across.

 

[HelenaMT]

It’s refreshing to see a religious person actually thinking about real problems of theology, regarding God being both omniscient and benevolent.

In my life, I’ve come across many religious people, who simply close their minds and bleat ’ free will’ and refuse to think any further beyond those two words.

Intellectually, you are well beyond the minds of those people that I have come across.

Well, no, I just had the benefit of coming to God and Christ after being raised in an anti-religious household. That’s probably why certain accepted beliefs never came naturally for me, even after 20+ years as a Christian. When you are raised one way, and surrounded by a particular culture, it is incredibly hard to come to think another way, to sort of de-program yourself. It almost never happens without a serious event that jolts you into a different operating mode.

I still question my faith from time to time, but not really my belief in God, just the sorts of things that make up religious dogma about Him. I don’t like when I find major holes in my belief system, so I try to see if it is my own lack of knowledge at fault, or if I truly can’t reconcile it to myself. When it truly makes no sense to me, I can’t really hold on to it.

 

[HelenaMT]

Why would God want to make me? I don’t think I’m necessary in that I have to had existed. This is just as important of a question and along the same lines… and perhaps an answer to this provides a glimpse into the answer of your question.

If we are all part of the one creation of God that is already complete to Him, then your existence is/was necessary, because God put you in for a reason. He could have *not *created you, but He did, and unless there is another reality out there where you don’t exist, you were necessary for this reality to be exactly as it is. Without you, reality would have been slightly different.

The problem with this is, why do some get to play big important roles and some barely any? Why do some good people suffer and die, and some bad people get to live easy and long lives (look at Hugh Hefner!)? If it’s because he makes it all right in the end by damning the bad ones and sending the good sufferers to Heaven, then fine, but what’s the point of life on earth then, when He knew it all along? What could God or humans gain from that ?

If God has a mind, that is a sentient mind able to understand and feel, then how do we make sense of this?

If there is a way for me to believe in God’s omniscience without sacrificing the concept of benevolence, or the belief that life on earth has a greater purpose, then I hope to find it, since it is comforting to think God has it all worked out for the best somehow. So far though, my mind hasn’t been able to accept it, and I can’t force myself to believe it.

If it was necessary for God to take billions of years, it doesn’t make Him intrinsically a part of time. In one sense, no matter how you slice it, God is “engaged” with time in that He is the cause.

peace,
Michael

If He needed to take time, then time was as necessary for Him in creating the universe as it is for us in building a bridge. If He didn’t need to take time, then there has to be a reason why He made it look that way.

It just makes more intuitive sense for me to believe that somehow, God is bound in some way by time, whether he created it or not. Then again, intuition is not the best way to arrive at a logical conclusion, so I keep looking.

 

[Shike]

If we are all part of the one creation of God that is already complete to Him, then your existence is/was necessary, because God put you in for a reason.

Just because I have a reason/explanation to exist doesn’t mean it is necessary that I exist. We are talking about two different levels of necessary it seems. The one I am talking about is much larger in scope: regardless of the case now, God didn’t have to create me.

He could have *not *created you, but He did, and unless there is another reality out there where you don’t exist, you were necessary for this reality to be exactly as it is.

Right, this helps clarify that we are talking about different necessaries.

The problem with this is, why do some get to play big important roles and some barely any?

The problem with making a claim like this is it presumes you know what the final product exactly is, where you can objectively judge who played a larger or better role than the other.

I think it is more important to shift the focus to God. If we see that it’s all about Him and the role He plays in our daily lives, judging our own lives in and of themselves (without God so to speak) seems less important, perhaps trivial.

Why do some good people suffer and die, and some bad people get to live easy and long lives (look at Hugh Hefner!)?

This is a good question. But it is important to remember that this doesn’t logically exclude God’s omniscience. Some important things to keep in mind about this particular question:

• What is good, and is my standard of good the same as God’s? (Perhaps see Bible)
• It seems like suffering is implicitly looked upon as pointless. Can God bring good out of suffering? Since you don’t have a problem with omnipotence, it would seem “yes”.
• Is an easy life the same as a good life? It seems like these are implicitly being connected in some way.
• Is your definition of bad correct, and if so, can you confidently apply it to another person, who living in time is subject to change and has mental states that you don’t have access to?

If it’s because he makes it all right in the end by damning the bad ones and sending the good sufferers to Heaven, then fine, but what’s the point of life on earth then, when He knew it all along? What could God or humans gain from that ?

You not too long ago recognized the value of God being not subject to time as we are. You are now going against that insight by saying He “knew”. This is an insufficient analogy, but it might help: picture an unrolled movie film reel… you can see all the events happening at once at one instant. So when we say God knows what you are going to do, it is more accurate (but still insufficient) to say that He actually sees you doing it as if it were present. So perhaps the totality of creation could be viewed as one single present and creative act, in a sense.

Time is a tricky thing… but it in no way logically leads to God being less than loving, there are just way too many other possibilities.

If God has a mind, that is a sentient mind able to understand and feel, then how do we make sense of this?

I’m confused, is God made in your image or are you made in His? We as creatures are corporeal and have feelings… God would not have feelings as far as I know. Remember, feelings aren’t necessary for perfect love.

If there is a way for me to believe in God’s omniscience without sacrificing the concept of benevolence, or the belief that life on earth has a greater purpose, then I hope to find it, since it is comforting to think God has it all worked out for the best somehow. So far though, my mind hasn’t been able to accept it, and I can’t force myself to believe it.

Welp so far, I can’t find any logically necessary reasons for why God would be non-omniscient in your reasoning–should we celebrate? That doesn’t negate the fact that you put forward some good questions, good in the sense that they could lead you closer to God. But we have to be careful to what extent we assume our human qualities reflect God’s.

The “problem of suffering” is not so much a logical problem per se as a dark area in our understanding. Just a big enough gap for the beautiful thing called trust and faith to illuminate. I suggest primarily attacking this problem with prayer in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

…continued

 

[Shike]

…continuation

If He needed to take time, then time was as necessary for Him in creating the universe as it is for us in building a bridge.

That does not follow. The difference is that for us, we are subject to time when creating a bridge, God is not subject to time while creating the universe… even if in the off-chance a huge amount of time would be necessary for the creation of the universe; it does not change God’s relation to time and how He “experiences” it. Here’s an insufficient analogy that might help: I am in front of a magic vending machine that sells universes and I see that there are many different choices, but all the choices have one thing in common, that the universes take place over billions of years. It is a necessary quality, that is IF I were to buy a universe. If I were to pay $1.50 and press the button I would get some created universe that takes place over billions of years. I would still experience taking the universe from the vending bin as just the present (IE. I wouldn’t have to experience the billion of years as the people in the universe). Anyways, my opinion is that not all of the vending machine choices do not have a universe that takes billions of years (even though ours did). And since I assume you have no problem with omnipotence, you would probably agree.

Remember, God is the creator of time and isn’t subject to it.

If He didn’t need to take time, then there has to be a reason why He made it look that way.

He didn’t need to take time nor did he need to not take time. Time is a category that doesn’t apply to God, He is outside that category.

It just makes more intuitive sense for me to believe that somehow, God is bound in some way by time, whether he created it or not. Then again, intuition is not the best way to arrive at a logical conclusion, so I keep looking.

Smart, smart correction. Intuition can lead us astray.
If God is bound in some way by time, it would make Him the creature rather than the creator. If I’m not mistaken, it also appears that time is bound up intricately with matter. Is God made up of matter?

 

[noroifinesse]

Since we can all agree that no one truly KNOWS everything about God beyond a shadow of a doubt (hence, the need for faith), we can still try to work out what makes logical sense when we look at the Bible, the words of Jesus, and the history of the world.Bolivar Belicosos Finos

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Helena

**If there is a way for me to believe in God’s omniscience without sacrificing the concept of benevolence, or the belief that life on earth has a greater purpose, then I hope to find it, since it is comforting to think God has it all worked out for the best somehow. So far though, my mind hasn’t been able to accept it, and I can’t force myself to believe it. **

Maybe that’s because you really don’t want to believe. In that case, no amount of meditation on this subject is going to move you to a conclusion that your will resists. If you want to know the mind of God, and make that a condition of accepting God, then maybe you don’t even believe in God to begin with.

I think it takes a certain amount of humility to rest our faith in God.

Is that something you have or something you lack?

No need to answer.

 

[wcknight]

What if it were some combination of being able to be omnicient and His just choosing not to be when He feels like it.

For example He has all His angels around to let Him know when something or someone needs His help or has some interesting thing that He may want to know about. That way He can ignore all the minute details of the mundane every day events and pick and choose what He wants to get involved with.

Since God is an infinite being He can be at trillions of places and do trillions of things at the same time… BUT does He really wan tto get into the little dtails of anything and everything??? I think not… IF I were in that situation, I’d just let my helpers let me know when I was needed or when something cool was about to take place.

God can know and predict the future, BUT does He really want to. That would take the fun out of getting surprises and letting things run its course. A little tweak here and there would help when He thinks its needed. BUt again IF I were in His shoes, I would NOT want to control everything and anything ALL of the time. That would be incredibly boring. I doubt God would want to be bored to death.

I think He could, but I think He chooses not to. It just like answering prayers, He could answer every prayer with a yes, BUT most times, I think He choose not to. And just think about IF God answered yes to every single prayer, what chaos there would be. What happens when one prayer contradicts someone elses, and all the prayers that could lead to something terrible happening down the road. How many times have you wished for something and found out later that it would have been a bad thing if you had gotten your wish.

SO, yes when God wills something It will happen, or when He predicts something It will occur… BUT I think He lets the future happen on its own n most cases, but when He says that Time is up or your time is up, well that will be the end of it (or you).

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I don’t think “omniscient” is a meaningful term to God.

“Omniscient,” dualistically implies there is a “not Omniscient” to the human mind of “logic” and “reasoning.” So whatever the term encompasses, can it be said that God consciousness can be well described by a term that uses a reduced universe?

For example, humans think about conscious v subconscious. We tend to think of “omniscient” as being able to bring any fact into focus? If that’s what we say, then we as humans lose nearly all the intelligence we have because whatever we’re focused and conscious of, isn’t even a reasonable fraction of what we’re not. And any fact is subject to forgetting.