Omniscience - is it a problem for God?

[Beleth]

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.

Not necessarily. Free will and omniscience can coexist, but at a hefty price. I'll explain.

Imagine that some being (doesn't have to be God) has developed both time travel and the ultimate recording system, capable of recording every inch and every second of the existence of the universe. He sets about doing just that - recording every inch and every second of the existence of the universe, and then he watches it, like a movie, over and over until he has it memorized.

He is now, for all intents and purposes, omniscient. He knows that you will pick your nose at 10:22 AM, etc. He knows everything. He has memorized the universe. Think of the movie "Groundhog Day" only on a universal scale.

The hefty price? He has now become the opposite of omnipotent. He knows what will happen but he is absolutely powerless to change anything. What he has recorded and memorized is the one-shot history of the universe. If he changed anything in his travels through time, it would show up on the recording he made, after all.

Omniscience and free will (in others) combine to make impotence on the part of the omniscient one.

 

[SixSixSix]

I think I understand what you're saying here, but I'm not entirely sure I agree with it.

Essentially - is the future predetermined, or do my choices have the power to alter it? In a universe where the former is true, it would seem that I can have only the illusion of free will at best. In the latter, it would seem impossible for anyone to be omniscient (through whatever means).

 

[John de Combe]

There is a theory that says we are all sentient beings simulated in some kind of "SimEarth" program - God is the name of the bloke running it on his PC. God was around alot in the Iron Age when Moses was around, went off to the WC, came back when Jesus was around (and was hence in a better mood and didn't need to wipe people out with floods and suchlike) and is now absent because he's eating his supper.

Of course, this doesn't answer a thing about creation - we would still who created God or his PC and who programmed it - as it hasn't crashed yet it probably isn't running on Windows ME

 

[Camillus]

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".

But isn't the "Problem of Good" much easier to solve than the "Problem of Evil"?

A malevolent diety could allow good things to happen in order to increase the amount of suffering in the World.

Human suffering arises from a conflict between what we want or need and what we actually have. By creating a world in which wants and needs always outstrip what can actually be had and by ensuring that there is always the chance that what we do have can be taken away from us doesn't the diety create suffering?

To make the suffering more acute the diety can give certain people things that should make them happy (i.e. good things happen to them) while at the same time ensuring that there are other aspects of their life that remain bad.

From the outside I look at these people and want what they have and suffer because I cannot have it. While from the inside they continue to suffer because the happiness they derived from the "good" thing is transient or because they fear losing it.

So despite "good" things happening the net effect is "bad".

This is, I think, the Buddhist argument about the nature of the world (although that has no necessity for a malign entity).

 

[stamenflicker]

Camillus,

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.

Suffering is not only a pre-requisite, but a logical necessity for omni-benevolence. It really is that simple.

Flick

 

[Tricky]

Suffering is not only a pre-requisite, but a logical necessity for omni-benevolence. It really is that simple.

I agree that your statement is simple.

Explaining it might be more difficult. Care to try?

 

[Alkatran]

The argument that bad things need to happen for good things to happen is just wrong. You're telling me an OMNIPOTENT God can't make good happen without evil? In fact, if God is OMNIPOTENT, we would haveno concept of good or evil, because we would always be at 'maximum good'.

 

[gnome]

Camillus,

Suffering is not only a pre-requisite, but a logical necessity for omni-benevolence. It really is that simple.

Flick

So concepts like suffering, good, evil, and logic, exist outside of God's will?

 

[Jon.]

Not necessarily. Free will and omniscience can coexist, but at a hefty price. I'll explain.

Imagine that some being (doesn't have to be God) has developed both time travel and the ultimate recording system, capable of recording every inch and every second of the existence of the universe. He sets about doing just that - recording every inch and every second of the existence of the universe, and then he watches it, like a movie, over and over until he has it memorized.

He is now, for all intents and purposes, omniscient. He knows that you will pick your nose at 10:22 AM, etc. He knows everything. He has memorized the universe. Think of the movie "Groundhog Day" only on a universal scale.

The hefty price? He has now become the opposite of omnipotent. He knows what will happen but he is absolutely powerless to change anything. What he has recorded and memorized is the one-shot history of the universe. If he changed anything in his travels through time, it would show up on the recording he made, after all.

Omniscience and free will (in others) combine to make impotence on the part of the omniscient one.

There would still not be free will in this context. Every action would be the only possible action. Your analogy of Groundhog Day is apt only in that your hypothetical god would be watching a movie, in which he is powerless to make any changes (unlike the Bill Murray character in GHD, who can cause different paths) and we would have no more free will than the characters we see in a movie or read about in a book.

 

[jmercer]

This post by Doctor X from the Skeptics Society Forum provides a slightly different slant on the problems with an "empowered" God:

Doctor X
This is a proof I put together over time and posted a few [Too many.--Ed.] times on boards when this situation arises.

The rest of you may wish to skip a bit. . . .

The Good[(Sic)--Ed.] Doctor's Prodigiously Pretentiously Pomposely Pespicaciously Pedagogical Pediatric Pontine Tumor Proof

Science involves the explanation of observations certainly. A theory produces predictions that must hold else the theory proves incorrect or incomplete. Thus, if a rock is dropped from a building aimed at John Kerry's head but stops 13.27 inches above it, a physicist would have to explain this in light of the current theory of gravity. Perchance all of the hot air eminating [Stop that!--Ed.].

Right. Nothing like a real observation. So here is a real observation that requires explanation. Children and adolescents develop a rather nasty tumor of the brain stem. It is infiltrative and not emenable to surgery, radiation or chemotherapy. The latter two merely prolong the decline.

The decline? As with real estate, the watchword for the central nervous system is "location!" The tumor destroys the descending voluntary pathways and centers for the cranial nerves [Enervate facial musculature.--Ed.] whilst preserving the sensory pathways. The child progressively losses control of her body up to her eye muscles--which allows some rudimentary communication. Since the "trigger" for consciousness is located "higher up" she remains conscious throughout the months of decline.

Of course, she can FEEL every ulcer, every pain. She remains completely aware of her condition and deterioration.

Eventually, on a tracheostomy, she will succumb to an infection.

Now, this is not only a real case, it is all too frequent.

This is a case of Unjustified Suffering unless you or anyone else can find some manner in which to justify it. Notice that I do not attack the death--people die. Perhaps she was destined to be the next Celine Dion. . . . It is the Extent and Severity of the suffering that renders it Unjustified Suffering.

If die she must, far quicker and less-severe methods do end a tyke's existence. Forced listening of country-western music, for example.

Since No Alleviation of her suffering occured, we can choose from one of the Five Possible Choices [All Rights Reserved.--Ed.]:


1. No Deity Exists
2. A Deity Exists and He is Evil
3. A Deity Exists and He is Incompetent
4. A Deity Exists and He is Irrelevant
5. A Deity Exists and He is Some Combination of 2-4


you are, of course, free to choose from any one of the Five.

Comments - especially on the last part?

 

[Ossai]

Beleth

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.

Wrong, you don’t know HOW to do it. Being omniscient you would know how to go about doing it. The only way for omniscience not to lead to omnipotence would be if the omniscient entity could not interact at any way with the physical universe and was being prevented from doing so.

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.”

Irrelevant. Your children grow up and mature so that they can understand why you let a doctor shove a sharp object into their arm. At no point do people expect to understand “God works in mysterious ways.”

Ossai

 

[Alkatran]

If you were omniscient you would know how to start interacting with the universe.

The only possible explanation for the suffering is that it makes them more likely to enter heaven.

But wait! God controls who enters heaven, why not just relax the requirements and brainwash people as they enter?

 

[Beerina]

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".

Technically, yes, but we are unconcerned with a partially bad god, or an omnimalevolent one. The claim is that 1. God exists, and 2. You should worship him because he is good and it is right to do so.

If god is partially malevolent (much less omnimalevolent) then the ethical imperative to woship him evaporates (it's a touch enough sell that an omnibenevolent god is even deserving of worship.)

 

[Beleth]

There would still not be free will in this context. Every action would be the only possible action.

Hold that thought.

Your analogy of Groundhog Day is apt only in that your hypothetical god would be watching a movie, in which he is powerless to make any changes

Yes! That is exactly my point.

Free will and omniscience can coexist, at the cost of the omniscient being's ability to do anything.

(unlike the Bill Murray character in GHD, who can cause different paths) and we would have no more free will than the characters we see in a movie or read about in a book.

But as soon as Bill did anything, he ceased to be omniscient. Take the diner scene for instance - the one where he's showing Andie McDowell's character that he's omniscient. All he can do is tell her that the waitress is going to drop the plates, that the cameraman is going to come in the door, etc. As soon as he actually does something that makes a difference, he loses his omniscience.


Okay, back to that held thought.
There is still free will because the people are exercising their free will at the time of the recording. Just because someone has now watched a recording doesn't make the free will go away, even if the watcher goes back in time to before the free will was exercised.

This leads to a deeper discussion of the nature of free will than I think is warranted here. I just wanted to point out that it is possible, although nonintuitive and somewhat artificial-feeling, to have both free will and omniscience coexist.


Oh! I also want to make something clear.
I do not think that it is the case that one entity can have both omniscience and free will. In other words, it's not God that is both omniscient and has free will; it is a God that is omniscient coupled with humanity that has free will.

 

[Jon.]

There is still free will because the people are exercising their free will at the time of the recording. Just because someone has now watched a recording doesn't make the free will go away, even if the watcher goes back in time to before the free will was exercised.

That would imply that this hypothetical god is not omniscient now but will be in the future (as seen from our point of view, and assuming it's the god's "first time through").

Oh! I also want to make something clear.
I do not think that it is the case that one entity can have both omniscience and free will. In other words, it's not God that is both omniscient and has free will; it is a God that is omniscient coupled with humanity that has free will.

Not only would the god not have free will, it not be able to interact with the universe at all. Anything it did (speaking to humans, telling them rules, turning water into wine, etc.) would have repercussions on the "time line" and cause the god to lose omniscience. Again, your* god is in the position of someone watching a movie - they may be able to watch it over and over again until they know every single line and action, but they can't change a thing. We are in the same position but we only get to watch it once.

I don't think many theists would be happy with such a definition of omniscience, because it denies so many other attributes they want their gods to have, like mercy (can't be merciful if you can't interfere) and justice (same), let alone omnipotence. More like omni-impotence!

*I mean here, of course, the god you posit. I make no pretensions to knowledge of what you see believe about god.

 

[Beleth]

That would imply that this hypothetical god is not omniscient now but will be in the future (as seen from our point of view, and assuming it's the god's "first time through").

As seen from our time-bound point of view, this hypothetical god has always been omniscient, since he has memorized what happens in the universe.

It's only from his point of view that there's a "first time through", where he is not omniscient and we have free will. (He's not even necessarily existant the first time through! He might have just been born right near the end, and his mother, who died in childbirth, left him the time machine and the recording devices.) But since he becomes omniscient through memorizing the universe, and since the other times through replay exactly the same as the first time through, we have free will because the universe really only runs through once.

Not only would the god not have free will, it not be able to interact with the universe at all. Anything it did (speaking to humans, telling them rules, turning water into wine, etc.) would have repercussions on the "time line" and cause the god to lose omniscience.

By George I think you've got it! This is the logical price of combining God's omniscience with the free will of others.

We are in the same position but we only get to watch it once.

Actually, we don't get to watch it at all. We are the players, not the audience. We have no idea what will happen in the future, and this is a necessary part of having free will.

I don't think many theists would be happy with such a definition of omniscience, because it denies so many other attributes they want their gods to have, like mercy (can't be merciful if you can't interfere) and justice (same), let alone omnipotence. More like omni-impotence!

I'm not in the business of making theists happy. If they wish to find the flaw in my argument they are more than welcome to do so. I'm in the business of coming to logical conclusions about the nature of omniscience, omnipotence, and free will. And my conclusion can best be stated this way:

1. God is omniscient.
2. God is omnipotent.
3. Humans have free will.[/list=1]Pick at most two.

 

[Jon.]

Beleth,

For the most part, I agree that what you have to say makes sense. I would quibble on two points, though.

First of all, I still don't think you can have omnipotence without omniscience. You've still got that big blind spot otherwise. Leaving anything unknown means leaving out options for action, and leaving out options for action is inconsistent with omnipotence.

Second, I don't think that the "movie-watching" god (to coin a phrase) is a god at all, if it cannot interact with the universe. It seems to me that a part of the fundamental definition of a god is that it can intervene and have an effect on the world.

I suppose if you took the deist position that god set the universe in motion and then left it alone, and can now travel back and forth through time and space to "see" everything happen as it happens, what's the point in its obtaining all that knowledge? Seems like a waste of time, when the god could be getting on with creating its next reality.

 

[Beleth]

First of all, I still don't think you can have omnipotence without omniscience. You've still got that big blind spot otherwise. Leaving anything unknown means leaving out options for action, and leaving out options for action is inconsistent with omnipotence.

Not knowing you can do something doesn't mean you can't do it, though. I don't know that I can stand on one foot for fifteen minutes straight, but that doesn't mean that I am unable to do so.

Think of Baby Superman just after he landed on Earth. (I know, I know, just bear with me for a minute.) He didn't know yet that he could fly, or have X-ray eyes, or bend train tracks with his bare hands. But that doesn't mean that he couldn't do all those things.

I guess I don't equate the option for action with the potential for action the way you do.

Second, I don't think that the "movie-watching" god (to coin a phrase) is a god at all, if it cannot interact with the universe. It seems to me that a part of the fundamental definition of a god is that it can intervene and have an effect on the world.

I was actually tying to not make the universe-recording entity look like a god. All he had was omniscience, nothing more.

What I was trying to address was the dichotomy between omniscience and free will. I can imagine a scenario where both can coexist, but as I have shown, it comes at a heavy and unpalatable price. I have not yet been able to imagine any other scenarios where omniscience and free will do not conflict with each other.


While I'm here, I want to combine the two topics above. It's interesting that your conclusion (no omnipotence without omniscience) and my conclusion (no omnipotence with omniscience and free will) look like they conflict but they don't. They don't lead to comfortable conclusions, but they don't contradict each other.

I suppose if you took the deist position that god set the universe in motion and then left it alone, and can now travel back and forth through time and space to "see" everything happen as it happens, what's the point in its obtaining all that knowledge? Seems like a waste of time, when the god could be getting on with creating its next reality.

Have you ever written a software program and run it in "test mode" to see if it will do what you think it will do?

 

[Jon.]

Not knowing you can do something doesn't mean you can't do it, though. I don't know that I can stand on one foot for fifteen minutes straight, but that doesn't mean that I am unable to do so.

Think of Baby Superman just after he landed on Earth. (I know, I know, just bear with me for a minute.) He didn't know yet that he could fly, or have X-ray eyes, or bend train tracks with his bare hands. But that doesn't mean that he couldn't do all those things.

I guess I don't equate the option for action with the potential for action the way you do.

I think there is more than a quantitative difference between being able to do a particular thing and being omnipotent. To me, being omnipotent means more than being able to do whatever one puts one's mind to, it means being able to do absolutely anything. If the being doesn't know it can do a thing, it can't do that thing.

I was actually tying to not make the universe-recording entity look like a god. All he had was omniscience, nothing more.

Ah. That explains a lot, thanks.

I thought we were talking about the omniscience of a god.

What I was trying to address was the dichotomy between omniscience and free will. I can imagine a scenario where both can coexist, but as I have shown, it comes at a heavy and unpalatable price. I have not yet been able to imagine any other scenarios where omniscience and free will do not conflict with each other.

Fair enough. However, your scenario involves time travel, which I would see as impossible. Also, your being is not omniscient at all times during its (subjective) existence. I see that this doesn't create a problem within your scenario, but it would if you wanted to extend it to a god.

While I'm here, I want to combine the two topics above. It's interesting that your conclusion (no omnipotence without omniscience) and my conclusion (no omnipotence with omniscience and free will) look like they conflict but they don't. They don't lead to comfortable conclusions, but they don't contradict each other.

No, they don't contradict each other at all. I have always argued that if you posit an omnipotent and omniscient god, free will is impossible.

Have you ever written a software program and run it in "test mode" to see if it will do what you think it will do?

Nope, I'm a lawyer, not a computer guy. The closest I've come is running a sports game in season-long automanage, autoplay mode. And that was a long time ago.

 

[c4ts]

Most theologans put limits on "omniscience" and "omnipotence" because it prevents discussions from entering the realm of the illogical and becoming nonsense. Ironically, most theological discussions are nonsense to begin with.

Omniscience, omnipotence... they are the product of an opinion demanding the same philosophical backbone that actual knowledge provides for itself.