Would you believe that I am omniscient?

[Sparkythedog]

Stuff that! What are next week’s winning lotto numbers? Keep them coming and I will give you whatever little title you want. It won’t mean a thing to me as long as you don’t expect me to bow down and adore you.

In return for lotto numbers I expect burnt offerings as a sacrifice. The lotto don’t come cheap…

Thanks for all the great responses. G’night all!

 

[JRKH]

The question utilizes a scientific approach to proving omniscience. But we do not say that God is omniscient based on asking him everything, but through philosophical proof, by knowing what God is.

I think of God’s omniscience like dots on a piece of paper. Say God is the paper, and every marking on the paper is every thing that exists, everything that there is to have knowledge about. The dots are dependent on the paper to exist, and the paper “knows” everything that is on it, simply because it is there.

As some posters have said above: God gives existence to all things, and is present to them as cause and agent, therefore He knows about them.

I like this paper and dots example. I think it is the best description of omniscience I’ve heard so far.

I’m interested in hearing a philosophical proof for God’s omniscience. Several other posts brought this up as well. I’m hoping that someone will elaborate on it.

I agree…the dots and paper example is a great one.

Peace
James

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Omniscient - not omnipotent.

I remember a financial adviser who claimed he had a friend like that - a high court judge in NSW if I remember rightly, an absolute wizard with law, but an absolute klutz in everything else. He couldn’t hammer a nail in straight, according to the financial adviser.

Legally omniscient, and not a shred of omnipotence.

 

[smichhertz]

I think this is a reasonable assumption. Do you personally believe that something can have omniscience? If yes, do you think there is a way to verify it other than asking questions?

Verify? Perhaps not. I don’t think we can use observation to prove omniscience unless we were omniscient ourselves.

However, we can use a little logical thinking and conclude certain things. For instance, if we assume there was a Creator that created everything (I know, a giant if, but bare with me) than omniscience would seem to be a logical conclusion. Since this Creator would have created everything from nothing, it would have to know everything about the creation…which would be everything. Hence, omniscience. This is probably why theist and athiest philosophers spend much more time debating the existence of God rather than the possibility of omniscience. Since it seems like once one becomes convinced of the existence of God, then the omniscience naturally comes along with it.

 

[Thorns]

Yes, in this thought experiment I can tell you exactly how many hairs are on your head, what you are thinking and what you or anyone else will do in the future.

Hehe, well for me in this thought experiment where you know absolutely everything, the answer would simply be yes.

 

[seagal]

Yes, in this thought experiment I can tell you exactly how many hairs are on your head, what you are thinking and what you or anyone else will do in the future.

Hehe, well for me in this thought experiment where you know absolutely everything, the answer would simply be yes.

I’ll agree with Thorns and say that if you could do that then you would be omniscient. What does that prove exactly in this “thought experiment”?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Well, who is this guy? He said in his posts that he had answered other folk’s questions and now you tell me he is no longer answering any more questions. What a racket and this sure won’t help Henry any either!

I agree. What happened to our omniscient OP?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Someone else brought this [philosophical proof of omniscience] up earlier and I find it interesting. Can you walk me through this line of reasoning that leads to God’s omniscience?

From the Summa, Qustion 14 (newadvent.org/summa/1014.htm):

I answer that, God necessarily knows things other than Himself. For it is manifest that He perfectly understands Himself; otherwise His existence would not be perfect, since His existence is His act of understanding. Now if anything is perfectly known, it follows of necessity that its power is perfectly known. But the power of anything can be perfectly known only by knowing to what its power extends. Since therefore the divine power extends to other things by the very fact that it is the first effective cause of all things, as is clear from the aforesaid (2, 3), God must necessarily know things other than Himself. And this appears still more plainly if we add that the every existence of the first effective cause–viz. God–is His own act of understanding. Hence whatever effects pre-exist in God, as in the first cause, must be in His act of understanding, and all things must be in Him according to an intelligible mode: for everything which is in another, is in it according to the mode of that in which it is.

And the rest of that question as well. Short version is that God perfectly knows Himself (also in the summa) and so perfectly knows His power, and so perfectly knows what His power can and does do, which is everything.

I actually think about it in a similar vein to the paper analogy, though: I tend to say that the relationship between God and reality is not so much as that between a potter and a pot - someone who made something and then could somehow wander off and watch it - but is more (though not entirely) similar to the relationship between a dreamer and a dream. Not in the sense of reality somehow being unreal, or that reality is somehow part of God (or worse, that God is part of it), but in the sense that reality gets its continual existence from God. Maintaining reality and allowing things to be how they are is an actual thing that God does, and if He didn’t do it (if the dreamer stopped dreaming) they would cease to be. So then if all of reality, every aspect of it, exists because God holds it in His mind that it does so, as it were, and since what God holds in His mind is exactly what God knows, then God must know all about reality.

If we strip away the analogy, we are left with the very short form answer: because what is true and what God knows are identical. A thing is true insofar as God knows it. Reality is exactly what God thinks it is, no more and no less.

That last statement is, I think, at the core of nearly every discussion about God, and all the “omnis” are just different aspects of what that means. God’s essence is His existence, He’s just there. Everything else that exists does so through Him, as He is the first cause. Omnipotence? Since reality is what God decides, and since God can decide freely, He can make reality whatever He desires. Omniscience? To be true is to be known by God. Omnipresence? Not only is God everywhere (though in a different sense than we are in a place) but He is in fact everywhere holding everything up, and if He weren’t it wouldn’t be there.

 

[VincentChristop]

Last year, I started a thread regarding omniscience. The thread focused on whether or not we are justified in believing that god is omniscient. It was a great conversation that I feel ended too early, so I’d like to revisit omniscience with a thought experiment.

In this thought experiment, I have claimed to be omniscient. I invited anyone to ask me any question about any topic and answered all questions to everyone’s satisfaction. Science and math questions, unsolved murders, hidden items, the location of lost keys, etc - I answer everyone and no one can find any error in any of the information that I have provided.

Are people justified in saying that I am omniscient? Would you believe that I am omniscient? Why or why not?

Looking forward to your responses.

We have a magician in the house. Hope your using the skills you attained for the greater good rather than pure folly as of this.

If you were omniscient you would not feel the need to be on this earth still therefore you have ounces of desire in you.

desire is what limits and makes man finite. Therefore I do not believe you have reached that level of enlightenment.

But at the same time maybe you our omniscient and this is what you must do on this earth to guide people. Post a thread about this.

So I will not assume. I will just say from my finite perspective. I do not see you as omniscient.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Don’t forget that God is all knowing and all powerful, but also all loving and all merciful.

 

[Thorns]

I’ll agree with Thorns and say that if you could do that then you would be omniscient. What does that prove exactly in this “thought experiment”?

Yes, Im not sure what this was about really and it didnt require much thinking.

This is black and white. If you know all, then yes. If not, then no. End of thread

 

[JRKH]

I’ll agree with Thorns and say that if you could do that then you would be omniscient. What does that prove exactly in this “thought experiment”?

Yes, Im not sure what this was about really and it didnt require much thinking.

This is black and white. If you know all, then yes. If not, then no. End of thread

I certainly can’t speak for the OP…but I know that as I pondered the question and the early replies, I thought about how difficult it is to put “faith” in someone’s claims - even when substantiated by “facts”.
This led me to considering how easy it would be for people in Judea to either not believe in Jesus or turn away over some perceived problem…or because he didn’t fit with their understanding of the faith of their fathers - founded on God’s continuing covenant.

Just some thoughts…

Peace
James

 

[Thorns]

I certainly can’t speak for the OP…but I know that as I pondered the question and the early replies, I thought about how difficult it is to put “faith” in someone’s claims - even when substantiated by “facts”.
This led me to considering how easy it would be for people in Judea to either not believe in Jesus or turn away over some perceived problem…or because he didn’t fit with their understanding of the faith of their fathers - founded on God’s continuing covenant.

Just some thoughts…

Peace
James

Jesus had nothing to do with the OPs question.

The question was simply, “If I can do x, will you believe that Im y?” And if they can, then yes, for that would be the very epitome of z.

Remember, the people who didnt follow Jesus were people who were set in their ways and who were not willing to give up their wants. Its not because they werent convinced of His miracles… They were convinced, they werent willing to take up the Cross.

 

[JRKH]

Jesus had nothing to do with the OPs question.

The question was simply, “If I can do x, will you believe that I’m y?” And if they can, then yes, for that would be the very epitome of z.

Yes - - yet here I sit with my thoughts…

Remember, the people who didn’t follow Jesus were people who were set in their ways and who were not willing to give up their wants.

OK - - So in other words they were just like people (even lifelong Christians) are today.

Its not because they weren’t convinced of His miracles.

They may have been convinced that he could do miracles…but did that convince them that He was truly the Son of God?

They were convinced, they weren’t willing to take up the Cross.

Nice sounding statement but not really much meat here.
It does not allow for the person who honestly and sincerely either does not know - or cannot accept because Jesus did not fit what he had been led to believe the Messiah would be.

Again - I am not speaking for the OP…or looking to be contrary…I am just offering my thoughts on the matter…where my thoughts wandered as I watched the thread.

Peace
James