Omniscience - is it a problem for God?

[Camillus]

Riddle me this.

Although I’m an atheist I’ve always had a fascination with the Christian idea of God as an omniscient, omnipotent and loving being. Part of my interest in this is from looking at how Christians deal with the concept of evil and bad things happening to good people (I’ve received answers ranging from “Burn the unbeliever” to ramblings about free will and God as a first cause and non-interfering observer).

I was pondering the nature of God’s omniscience the other day and the common Christian point-of-view that God exists outside time and is thus not bound by its constraints. It then occurred to me that this view must lead to someone severe logical problems for Christians. To whit: God’s omniscience is such that He is contemporaneous with and fully knowledgable of all points in the past, present and future. God must then have been aware of Adam’s sin, its consequences for humanity, the need to send Jesus to atone for it and the Day of Judgement ending in the consignment of the majority of mankind to eternal hellfire before he created the Universe.

This throws up a number of interesting positions regarding the nature of God and why He would go ahead and create a universe that would result in so much suffering for the majority of those that would inhabit it.

Off the top of my head I can think of (and I'm sure that there are lots more):

1. God is not omniscient and did not know what would happen after He created the World. If we accept this then we must also acknowledge that God cannot be omnipotent since He is unable to control or influence at least one part of the Universe, time.
2. God was not omniscient at the time of the Creation but has become so since.
3. God is omniscient but considers humanity unimportant and created the Universe for some other reason. This, of course, does not mean that God does not love us; it just means that He regards humanity as a sideshow.
4. God is omniscient but was compelled by some other force to create the Universe as it is.
5. God is in fact evil and created the World in order to enjoy the suffering of the beings that inhabit it.

Any comments? Does my initial argument hold together or is there a fatal flaw? If it holds together what about the positions that arise from it – are they valid given the original premise?

Finally does anyone know if this question ever been addressed by theologians? If it has how did they deal with it?

 

[Tricky]

The problem I have with any such question lies in the concept that God or any entity can exist "outside of time". This simply leads to temporal paradoxes which are logically irresolvable.

The only concept of omnescience that makes any sense at all (and it doesn't make a lot of sense) is that God could be omnescient as to everything that has happened or is happening now, but uncertain about future events. But due to His great knowledge and predictave abilities, He has a pretty good idea, and can tweak things if He sees our free will leading us off in a direction against His plan.

This model allows for free will, but still gives God control over the big picture.

But as to total (past-present-future omnescience), it is completely incompatible with free will, a problem that various sects of Christianity have wrestled with for many years.

 

[John de Combe]

Off the top of my head I can think of (and I'm sure that there are lots more):

God is mad and does not act in a rational way?

 

[Ossai]

Camillus

Finally does anyone know if this question ever been addressed by theologians? If it has how did they deal with it?

Yes.
It’s Epicure’s riddle a.k.a.

The Problem of Evil

The following three statements cannot all be true:

1. God is all-loving
2. God is omnipotent
3. Evil Exists

The argument is as follows:

• If god can prevent evil, but doesn't,
then he is not all-loving.

• If god intends to prevent evil, but cannot,
then he is not omnipotent.

• If god both intends to prevent evil and is
capable of doing so, then how can evil exist?


As to being addressed, hundreds of philosophers and theologians down through the ages have addressed it in a variety of ways. The most popular answer is that freewill trumps god.

Ossai

 

[Alkatran]

Think about this:

If God was omniscient but not all powerful, he would know how to easily make himself all powerful, and could therefore be all powerful.

If God was all powerful but not omniscient he could make himself omniscient, and could therefore be omniscient.

Can't have one without the other it seems...

 

[Jon.]

Think about this:

If God was omniscient but not all powerful, he would know how to easily make himself all powerful, and could therefore be all powerful.

If God was all powerful but not omniscient he could make himself omniscient, and could therefore be omniscient.

Can't have one without the other it seems...

I think you can take it even further than that.

If he were not omniscient, he would not be omnipotent, because there would be things outside his knowledge, thereby restricting his powers.

If he were omniscient, he would know how to do anything, which would (by definition) make him omnipotent.

ETA: Unless, of course, there were things that were impossible for him to do - he'd know that, but couldn't necessarily get around it.

 

[LizardPeople]

If God was omniscient but not all powerful, he would know how to easily make himself all powerful, and could therefore be all powerful.

Unless it is impossible to be all powerful, no matter how omniscient the big guy is.

 

[Beleth]

If he were not omniscient, he would not be omnipotent, because there would be things outside his knowledge, thereby restricting his powers.

I disagree. Just because one doesn't know how to do something doesn't mean one is unable to do something. If you can (i.e. "have the ability to") walk on water, you can walk on water even if you live in the desert and have never seen a body of water to walk on.

If he were omniscient, he would know how to do anything, which would (by definition) make him omnipotent.

Again, I disagree. For instance, I know how to make a star - just gather enough hydrogen together in one place - but I can't do it.

Omnipotence and omniscience are not linked in that way.

 

[Jon.]

I disagree. Just because one doesn't know how to do something doesn't mean one is unable to do something. If you can (i.e. "have the ability to") walk on water, you can walk on water even if you live in the desert and have never seen a body of water to walk on.

I don't think your metaphor really applies. We're not talking about knowing how to do something, we're talking about being able to do anything. If one doesn't have 100% knowledge, then one cannot be omnipotent because there will be "blind spots" from which something could interfere with what one is trying to do.

Again, I disagree. For instance, I know how to make a star - just gather enough hydrogen together in one place - but I can't do it.

I agree, and resile from my earlier position.

Omnipotence requires omniscience, but not vice-versa.

 

[Beerina]

I don't think your metaphor really applies. We're not talking about knowing how to do something, we're talking about being able to do anything. If one doesn't have 100% knowledge, then one cannot be omnipotent because there will be "blind spots" from which something could interfere with what one is trying to do.

Supposedly Jesus-the-man could walk on water. Does that mean he knew the physical mechanism by which it happened? A low gravitational field formed? Minute force fields? Little gremlins?

You can do things without knowing how to do them, so to speak. Would that power apply, say, to turning someone into a pig, with no knowledge of how the molecules and atoms would be rearranged?

To go from omnipotence to omniscience, one would have to have the power to gain omniscience, even though you didn't know how it worked. Pedantically, I suppose you would. And with omnipotence, you could make yourself know everything, even if you didn't know how to make yourself know everything (prior to gaining omniscience, of course.

And the other way is definitely not necessarily true. With omniscience, you can only gain omnipotence if 1. there is a way at all, and 2. if there is some path within your capacity to get there.

The example given, knowing how to make a sun, is good. It is theoretically possible for humanity, even at current tech levels, to go out into interstellar space and construct one, however insanely difficult.

But a person locked inside a cell, even with omniscience, might think about it and realize there was no way to get out of the cell. (A bad example, perhaps. Even disallowing any physical escape methods, there are surely many ways to convince the guard to let you out, from feigning something, to befriending them, to perhaps even acting strangely and reprogramming their brain in ways we don't understand.)

Gaining omnipotence from mere omniscience might be easy, insanely hard, or even theoretically impossible. But from our current level of knowledge, and having no adequate knowledge of the level of power a theoretical omniscient-but-not-quite-omnipotent god to start from, we can't judge this whatsoever.

 

[Alkatran]

So, are we saying that, if we asked the question to God: "How I could make myself omnipotent?" he would answer "I don't know."?

Doesn't that seem a tad non-omniscient?

 

[Ryokan]

Read Job. Crap happens to good people because God sends Satan to test them.

Oh, and if your wife and kids die, don't worry. If you please god, he will give you some new ones.

 

[Mojo]

Well, I can't speak for God, but frankly, if I was omniscient, I'd be able to avoid a lot of trouble.

 

[gnome]

Camillus

Yes.
It’s Epicure’s riddle a.k.a.

The Problem of Evil

The following three statements cannot all be true:

1. God is all-loving
2. God is omnipotent
3. Evil Exists

The argument is as follows:

• If god can prevent evil, but doesn't,
then he is not all-loving.

• If god intends to prevent evil, but cannot,
then he is not omnipotent.

• If god both intends to prevent evil and is
capable of doing so, then how can evil exist?


As to being addressed, hundreds of philosophers and theologians down through the ages have addressed it in a variety of ways. The most popular answer is that freewill trumps god.

Ossai

I agree with you on this point, but I can respond to the argument "If got can prevent evil but doesn't, he is not all-loving."

The response is, that in some way that is not for us to understand, the existence of evil serves His task of loving us.

My response to that response, is that it is a rather one-sided "love" if only God is allowed to understand it. If we are incapable of understanding this "love" why are we expected to recognize it as love?

 

[MapMack]

When my children were toddlers they thought it was pretty evil when I let the doctor inflict suffering upon them, in the form of shoving a sharp objects into their arm. Evil could easily just be things a god would do to us for our own good, but which we haven’t the capacity to understand. I think this is what they must mean by “God works in mysterious ways.”

 

[SixSixSix]

The whole, "Free Will Trumps God" is itself problematic, is it not?

First of all - if anything can trump god's will, then god would not seem to be able to claim omnipotence. (And there's no wiggle room here. You can't say, "Well, he deliberately limited himself to allow that to happen" because the act of so limiting himself means that it is, in fact, his will that whatever happens happens).

Secondly, if god knows everything that I will do, then I do not in fact really have free will. If the big dude knows that I will pick my nose at exactly 10:22 am, receiving for my efforts a well-dug in piece of mucus 2.5 mm in length, then come 10:22 am there's nothing I can possibly do to keep my finger out of my nostril. If I chose not to, then god's vision would be wrong - and it cannot be wrong if he is truly omniscient.

However, the conclusion that god is evil and created the world for suffering doesn't really work either. Good things do happen, after all; were we in a world where the dominant religion portrayed an omnipotent, omniscient, and yet omnimalevolent god, we would have to explain "the problem of good" rather than "the problem of evil".

Now, if you remove just the omnibenevolent factor and suppose a god who is omnipotent and omniscient (creating the universe, making sure Pavlova gets invented in time for SixSixSix to enjoy it, whatever) and yet omni-apathetic - he doesn't give a monkey's about the world that he's created - then the logical fallacies mostly disappear. The free will issue still exists, but it's no longer a problem - we don't necessarily have to have free will (and I believe that the general trend of scientific evidence suggests we merely have a convincing illusion thereof), and evil or good can clearly happen if the god in charge doesn't have an opinion on the matter. This is the position of the Deists, I believe.

To me that's a pretty silly sort of belief, as it has all the baggage of any supernatural phenomenon but none of the advantages - even if the Deist position is right, it doesn't provide any afterlife, answered prayers, and the like - but hey, JREF is officially not an atheist organisation.

 

[SixSixSix]

When my children were toddlers they thought it was pretty evil when I let the doctor inflict suffering upon them, in the form of shoving a sharp objects into their arm. Evil could easily just be things a god would do to us for our own good, but which we haven’t the capacity to understand. I think this is what they must mean by “God works in mysterious ways.”

Ah, but presumably you're not omnipotent. If you were, you could simply will away any diseases that your children caught or otherwise painlessly arrange for them to be immunised.

Of course you can argue that they learn something from this experience which outweighs the pain involved, but again - to an omnipotent being, it should be possible to arrange for the learning to occur without the associated pain.

We are mortal, constrained to make choices between the lesser of two evils ("having a needle stuck in my arm" and "possibly catching some fatal and horrific disease"). Omnipotent beings, by definition, have no such constraints; they can choose options that contain an "evil quotient" of zero if they choose - and an omnibenevolent being with this power would so choose.

 

[Kiless]

The free will issue still exists, but it's no longer a problem - we don't necessarily have to have free will (and I believe that the general trend of scientific evidence suggests we merely have a convincing illusion thereof), and evil or good can clearly happen if the god in charge doesn't have an opinion on the matter. This is the position of the Deists, I believe.

You been into my copy of Understanding Behaviorism? I've taken it to work, you might like to borrow it or check out the JREF thread about Free Will (done by GM) via 'search'.

What about the Enlightenment concept of God winding it all up like a clockwork toy and then removing himself from everything?

 

[SixSixSix]

What about the Enlightenment concept of God winding it all up like a clockwork toy and then removing himself from everything? [/B]

Not fundamentally different from the Deist view I characterised above, really. Except that I suppose it does not in fact require omnipotence or omniscience - clearly some level of power and understanding is required, but not necessarily infinite.

 

[MapMack]

Ah, but presumably you're not omnipotent. If you were, you could simply will away any diseases that your children caught or otherwise painlessly arrange for them to be immunised.

Good response. I have to admit playing devil's advocate a bit here.

I am not up on the philosophy of omnipotence, by following this logic it seems clear that the original post has merit. By giving God omnipotence, is the logical conclusion is that God likes inflicting suffering or doesn't exist? What other possible reason could there be for it since omnipotence would enable him/her/it to accomplish any other goal without using suffering as a tool. This is unless of course, there are two or more omnipotent beings. Then it starts sounding a bit like Greek/Roman mythology.

Thanks for enlightening me.