What if God wasn't omniscient?

[HelenaMT]

First off, this is not a thread to debate whether the existence of an omniscient God is logical, or whether or not it is logical to believe in a Creator at all. It’s aimed at believers, like myself, who have trouble understanding why all of the philosophical concepts advanced by the Catholic Church should be believed.

Since we can’t know beyond all doubt that God is truly the being we make Him out to be, what if God were *not *omniscient, or omnipotent, but was still the Creator of our universe, and the same being that sent us Jesus and inspired the books of the Bible?

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

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Then i suppose He would not know everything. Though He’d likely have forgotten more than i’ll ever know!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

First off, this is not a thread to debate whether the existence of an omniscient God is logical, or whether or not it is logical to believe in a Creator at all. It’s aimed at believers, like myself, who have trouble understanding why all of the philosophical concepts advanced by the Catholic Church should be believed.

Since we can’t know beyond all doubt that God is truly the being we make Him out to be, what if God were *not *omniscient, or omnipotent, but was still the Creator of our universe, and the same being that sent us Jesus and inspired the books of the Bible?

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

Maybe you should ask a holder of “Open Theism” ​

 

[Oreoracle]

Suppose that I knew everything but, due to a genetic fault, followed the maxim that all life should be exterminated. Would you say that my omniscience has ethical merit then?

 

[HelenaMT]

Maybe you should ask a holder of “Open Theism” ​

I know about Open Theism, and Process Theism as well, but I was interested in the thoughts of normal Catholics and believers. I want to know why the concept of omniscience and omnipotence makes more logical sense to some Christians(and I guess Jews and Muslims, too). To me, it is much harder to accept, but I am interested in understanding why others feel it is easier.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Suppose that I knew everything but, due to a genetic fault, followed the maxim that all life should be exterminated. Would you say that my omniscience has ethical merit then?

I would not, no. I cannot speak for anyone else, though.

 

[Oreoracle]

I would not, no. I cannot speak for anyone else, though.

That’s what I thought. As for the OP, I don’t see why anyone would value God’s word merely because of his omni- qualities, as they miss the mark if his values differ from ours.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

That’s what I thought. As for the OP, I don’t see why anyone would value God’s word merely because of his omni- qualities, as they miss the mark if his values differ from ours.

Differ in what way?

 

[Shike]

First off, this is not a thread to debate whether the existence of an omniscient God is logical, or whether or not it is logical to believe in a Creator at all. It’s aimed at believers, like myself, who have trouble understanding why all of the philosophical concepts advanced by the Catholic Church should be believed.

That last part is simple. You should believe “all of the philosophical concepts advanced by the Catholic Church” primarily because they are true.

Since we can’t know beyond all doubt that God is truly the being we make Him out to be,

Correct, human knowledge isn’t infallible. But I take issue that it is us who are making Him out to be anything; it implies that we just made Him out of thin air instead of revelation and natural philosophy within the Holy Spirit guided Church.

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

Based only on the words “believe” and “accept” I would say no. Because those seem entirely human operations. But bringing revelation into things it would seem that we actually need God’s grace to accept and believe. But God’s grace doesn’t define itself as all-knowing so it would seem like omniscience is a separatable (at least in idea to humans).

But this is all hypothetical mumbo because it has to be the case that He is all-knowing.

 

[HelenaMT]

Correct, human knowledge isn’t infallible. But I take issue that it is us who are making Him out to be anything; it implies that we just made Him out of thin air instead of revelation and natural philosophy within the Holy Spirit guided Church.

I am just trying to understand what the logical value is of believing in an all-knowing, all-powerful, and unchanging God as opposed to believing that He may not be. 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.

For example, it is much easier to make sense out of the problem of evil in the world if we don’t think God knew it all from the start, or set it up that way. It also seems that God changed course when He became incarnate, changing the whole way He related to us. Does believing that He didn’t have it all completely worked out beforehand make it any less relevant, or make less sense?

I began this thread for a purely selfish reason. I am in the process of questioning aspects of my faith(not for the first time) and am looking at everything that gives me difficulty in the hope that I will resolve some of them.

But this is all hypothetical mumbo because it has to be the case that He is all-knowing.

And the reason He has to be is…?

 

[Squishy]

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.

 

[Shike]

I am just trying to understand what the logical value is of believing in an all-knowing, all-powerful, and unchanging God as opposed to believing that He may not be.

The only reason you should believe something is because it’s true. Don’t assume God is this black box that we can’t know anything about and that therefore we can pick and choose what to attribute to Him. Not saying you are doing this, just saying.

Since we can all agree that no one truly KNOWS everything about God beyond a shadow of a doubt (hence, the need for faith),

Right, no one truly knows everything about God… but it doesn’t follow that someone doesn’t truly know something about God. I would say that faith shouldn’t be used as a hole filler as much as a bridge extender; the difference between blind faith and faith & reason.

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.

Yeah, definitely… right on. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church can also help you on your way.

For example, it is much easier to make sense out of the problem of evil in the world if we don’t think God knew it all from the start, or set it up that way.

Perhaps yes… I just take issue that the problem is always set up like this. God is “I am” as revealed in Scripture; it’s more accurate to say that God sees everything happening as present then saying God knows what the future will be. Natural philosophy tells us that God is also causally outside of time.

It also seems that God changed course when He became incarnate, changing the whole way He related to us.

To some degree yes. This theology question is a good one. If you’re looking for Bible answers, however, it seems that God is very consistent when dealing with his teachings. paraphrase, ‘I have not come to abolish the law but fufill it’.

Does believing that He didn’t have it all completely worked out beforehand make it any less relevant, or make less sense?

I don’t know in the sense that maybe it could have been possible… but no in the sense that it is true. I don’t want to be lame and refer you to just read the Summa Thologica by Aquinas (a lot of good stuff in there), but maybe it might be for you if you’re really really serious about wrestling with this to the bloody end, .

But a quick insufficient answer might be that God is outside of time, in that He doesn’t apprehend things like we do in sequence but all at once. If He’s omnipotent He can surely do that. But what’s apprehending all things at once other than omniscience?

It’s hard to think about God because the way we think uses images from the imagination, images culled from sensory experience. But how can you correctly image something that is outside of sensory experience? Therefore, it’s all too easy to make God something He is not… I think many times we think of Him as this giant spirit blob floating in space.

I began this thread for a purely selfish reason. I am in the process of questioning aspects of my faith(not for the first time) and am looking at everything that gives me difficulty in the hope that I will resolve some of them.

I hope you resolve them also. Your goal isn’t selfish however, it’s human nature thirsting for truth. ‘Test everything and retain what is good’!

peace,
Michael

 

[Oreoracle]

Differ in what way?

In the Bible, God often asserts absolute rules (that seem to come from nowhere) that would disinterest or hinder most people. Say that he dictates that I should not gamble. Say also that I enjoy gambling, the people I am gambling with enjoy gambling, and none of us lose enough money or enough time to make a significant difference in our lives. Would you say that we should value God’s word in this case, simply because he is God?

 

[Shike]

Would you say that we should value God’s word in this case, simply because he is God?

I’ll butt in and say, of course we should value His word in this case. Because He is God, not only does He love us, but He probably has some really good reasons that us humans missed in the assessment of the situation.

Does this have to do with the Divine Command Theory? If it does it was answered a long, long time ago. Something is good because it follows from God’s nature.

peace,
Michael

 

[Oreoracle]

I’ll butt in and say, of course we should value His word in this case. Because He is God, not only does He love us

That’s a good reason to value his character, but not his actions.

but He probably has some really good reasons that us humans missed in the assessment of the situation.

Probably? I don’t feel safe with those odds. Do you?

 

[HelenaMT]

The only reason you should believe something is because it’s true.

I partially agree…sometimes you come to believe something because you trust the sources and have no way of personally verifying.

Don’t assume God is this black box that we can’t know anything about and that therefore we can pick and choose what to attribute to Him.

But we do pick and choose, according to our own understanding and what evidence we personally accept. We don’t know, but we believe according to how we weigh the evidence we are given. That’s one reason why there are so many different denominations and faiths.

I haven’t found any convincing evidence that God is truly all-knowing and* all*-powerful, just perhaps the most knowing and the most powerful being possible. That is enough for me, but I wonder why some believe He is omniscient and omnipotent when this(to me) sacrifices the idea of His benevolence. I know this has been talked to death, but it has never made sense to believe that a truly benevolent God would set up a world where
A. some people are bound for hell, some for Heaven and He knows which right from the outset
B.our free will seems free to us but is irrelevant to God since He already knew (indeed, created) the situations we would face and how we would react
C.truly innocent people are brought unimaginable suffering with no intervention on God’s part-or we are supposed to accept that He does intervene but only occasionally and arbitrarily
I would find His benevolence more plausible if He wasn’t able to see it all or do it all. I would find His omnipotence/omniscience more plausible if He were not omni-benevolent.

… God is outside of time, in that He doesn’t apprehend things like we do in sequence but all at once. If He’s omnipotent He can surely do that. But what’s apprehending all things at once other than omniscience?

If He is aware of every moment at once, yet still allows the incredible tragedies He does, then the same problem of benevolence presents itself. If you knew your child would grow up to be a junkie who sells herself for a fix and eventually has an abortion, wouldn’t you do whatever you could to put her on a different path? Or would you just shrug and say, well, it’s her choice?

If God does the former, than it acknowledges that He didn’t know the outcome(or else why would He bother giving her signs to try to follow, which we all believe He does?)

If He does the latter, it seems to indicate He is either
A.not all-good, or
B.not even interested, since He already knew she was a screw up from the start

It’s hard to think about God because the way we think uses images from the imagination, images culled from sensory experience. But how can you correctly image something that is outside of sensory experience? .

But He is not really outside of our sensory experience if we believe that He acts on us while we live. Many people do have experiences that they feel are from God ,and I assume we believe that some of these are possible (since we have saints).
We may not be able to form a visual image but we can infer certain characteristics from what we observe and what we believe from sources we find credible .

… it’s all too easy to make God something He is not… I think many times we think of Him as this giant spirit blob floating in space.

Yes, and this is what the concept of omniscience and omnipotence does for me. Saying He can do anything and everything, and doesn’t exist in time makes it imposible to infer anything about God at all. Yet we are supposed to believe that such an alien and uncomprehensible being is also intimately interested and involved in our personal lives.

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.

 

[HelenaMT]

Right, no one truly knows everything about God… but it doesn’t follow that someone doesn’t truly know something about God. I would say that faith shouldn’t be used as a hole filler as much as a bridge extender; the difference between blind faith and faith & reason.

If we acknowledge Him to have some human characteristics (the ability to love, to forgive, to show mercy) it doesn’t seem to make sense that we don’t use those characteristics to understand Him when we look at other things, such as pointless suffering. If He actually *can’t *always direct things, those characteristics seem to become more logically consistent.

 

[davidv]

I partially agree…sometimes you come to believe something because you trust the sources and have no way of personally verifying.

But we do pick and choose, according to our own understanding and what evidence we personally accept. We don’t know, but we believe according to how we weigh the evidence we are given. That’s one reason why there are so many different denominations and faiths.

I haven’t found any convincing evidence that God is truly all-knowing and* all*-powerful, just perhaps the most knowing and the most powerful being possible. That is enough for me, but I wonder why some believe He is omniscient and omnipotent when this(to me) sacrifices the idea of His benevolence. I know this has been talked to death, but it has never made sense to believe that a truly benevolent God would set up a world where
A. some people are bound for hell, some for Heaven and He knows which right from the outset
B.our free will seems free to us but is irrelevant to God since He already knew (indeed, created) the situations we would face and how we would react
C.truly innocent people are brought unimaginable suffering with no intervention on God’s part-or we are supposed to accept that He does intervene but only occasionally and arbitrarily
I would find His benevolence more plausible if He wasn’t able to see it all or do it all. I would find His omnipotence/omniscience more plausible if He were not omni-benevolent.

If He is aware of every moment at once, yet still allows the incredible tragedies He does, then the same problem of benevolence presents itself. If you knew your child would grow up to be a junkie who sells herself for a fix and eventually has an abortion, wouldn’t you do whatever you could to put her on a different path? Or would you just shrug and say, well, it’s her choice?

If God does the former, than it acknowledges that He didn’t know the outcome(or else why would He bother giving her signs to try to follow, which we all believe He does?)

If He does the latter, it seems to indicate He is either
A.not all-good, or
B.not even interested, since He already knew she was a screw up from the start

But He is not really outside of our sensory experience if we believe that He acts on us while we live. Many people do have experiences that they feel are from God ,and I assume we believe that some of these are possible (since we have saints).
We may not be able to form a visual image but we can infer certain characteristics from what we observe and what we believe from sources we find credible .

Yes, and this is what the concept of omniscience and omnipotence does for me. Saying He can do anything and everything, and doesn’t exist in time makes it imposible to infer anything about God at all. Yet we are supposed to believe that such an alien and uncomprehensible being is also intimately interested and involved in our personal lives.

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.

So why are Aquinas’s proof’s insufficient? If the old explanation works, why do you need a new one?

 

[HelenaMT]

So why are Aquinas’s proof’s insufficient? If the old explanation works, why do you need a new one?

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.

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.

I was looking to see why the belief in divine omnscience made *more *sense to some than the concept of a God that was in some way subject to time, and therefore able to have new experiences, and not able to know all outcomes before they happen. I don’t really understand the rationale behind why we must see God as completely apart from reality to have formed it. 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)?

This is the basis of process theism, which I am sympathetic to. I wanted to hear from people who might have arguments for why this makes* less* sense, so I don’t have to become a heretic

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

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.

 

[Shike]

This is a bit long, but hey… I’ll go for it anyways. I hope you get at least something out of it.

I partially agree…sometimes you come to believe something because you trust the sources and have no way of personally verifying.

But that is missing the point. It doesn’t necessarily matter how you come to believe something… the point was that the reason you believe that something is because you believe it to be true. Truth is the underlying reason for believing anything. Anything less is being dishonest and robbing yourself. Of course, this is all up in the air generalization, I am not implying anything to your situation.

But we do pick and choose, according to our own understanding and what evidence we personally accept. We don’t know, but we believe according to how we weigh the evidence we are given. That’s one reason why there are so many different denominations and faiths.

But we don’t arbitrarily “pick and choose”. That’s what I was arguing against.

Through my experience, if I found a Church that was a truth telling thing in faith and morals, I would say I know “such-and-such” a doctrine because not only do I have a bunch of logical reasons (because I do), but I have another logical reason… that of trusting a Person. The Church is the body of Christ with Christ at the head. The reason we have so many denominations today is because for some reason people tried to separate the head from the body. Go figure.

I haven’t found any convincing evidence that God is truly all-knowing and all-powerful

What type of evidence are you looking for? Philosophical? This is the philosophy sub-forum. Revelation? The Bible will tell you as much. Do you not believe in the Bible?

but I wonder why some believe He is omniscient and omnipotent when this(to me) sacrifices the idea of His benevolence.

The standard answer as to why some believe He is such-and-such is because they think it to be true. Why do they think it to be true… many reasons. Some through faith in the Church and the Bible, some through reason alone. I don’t think there’s a problem with the “problem of suffering”. That argument shouldn’t conclude that there 1) is no God, nor should it conclude 2) that God is not omnipotent, omniscient, all-good. Hold on a sec, I’ll get back to this.

I know this has been talked to death, but it has never made sense to believe that a truly benevolent God would set up a world where
A. some people are bound for hell, some for Heaven and He knows which right from the outset
B.our free will seems free to us but is irrelevant to God since He already knew (indeed, created) the situations we would face and how we would react

Well if you look at things from the perspective that everything is present in a way to God, this isn’t a problem. Don’t you believe we have free-will? The claim of free-will should be chanting inside of you, letting you know that something is wrong with reasoning that denies our free-will.

C.truly innocent people

How do you know someone is truly innocent? Even in the case of a child, who’s to say the guilt of the parent’s didn’t in at least some way transfer. Just how united is humanity?

I would find His benevolence more plausible if He wasn’t able to see it all or do it all. I would find His omnipotence/omniscience more plausible if He were not omni-benevolent.

Would you find Him more plausible if He didn’t send Jesus Christ to die for you on a cross?

But He is not really outside of our sensory experience if we believe that He acts on us while we live.

Sensory experience is usually defined as the five senses, taste, touch, smell, see, hear. You will not directly experience God through these… indirectly perhaps, but not the essence of God directly.

We may not be able to form a visual image but we can infer certain characteristics from what we observe and what we believe from sources we find credible .

Right, that’s one way to put it.

Continued…