Omniscience - is it a problem for God?

[SixSixSix]

This is my conclusion as well, it's logical. Now which one?

"If he exists at all...". I vote for "doesn't exist at all". It is the simplest explanation.

No, because this world has existed, I think we'll know the difference, particularly with regards to genuine suffering. Had "god" created (or promised to create) only one reality, say the afterlife "heaven" then sure, I'd stand by your reasoning.

I've never been to the Moon. (Really!) Yet I know several of its physical characteristics. Never been burned to death either, but I know it's a fairly unpleasant experience.

If humans can teach each other things without being forced to endure them, how much easier for an omnipotent (and omnibenevolent) being to do so?

And the same myth has Jesus "tempted" to make bread out of stones. Is that such a "bad" thing...? He could have fed the world forever, but creating bread might lead people to worship the wrong kind of life, at least from the story's perspective, thus he refused.

To reiterate: three possibilities. Either he was unable to feed the world forever without bad consequence, he was unable to forsee the consequence and feared it would be bad, or he was unwilling to feed the world forever without bad consequence. He was therefore "missing an omni".

Now, perhaps (as you concede may be possible) god is indeed omniscient and omnibenevolent, but not omnipotent. He foresaw that suffering would occur with the initial conditions he set up, but this was the best he could do - couldn't manage to reduce things to zero, only to a certain level.

For what it's worth, there's a fair bit of support for this. If Jacob can arm wrestle the guy, or if iron chariots are enough to overcome his favour, then the big dude seems to be seriously lacking in the raw power department. Unfortunately there are similar passages that demonstrate lack of omniscience (I don't recall exactly where, but there's a bit where someone leaves an area and god can't tell where he went) or omnibenevolence (slaughtering children, stoning to death non-virgins, slaying those who work on the sabbath). So going down that route leaves us with basically a 2000 year old desert death cult of no particular significance compared to its contempories save for enduring popularity.

No, in fact in the myth we find ourselves discussing, it was "subjected to futility" in order that it might be liberated. In other passages, it is suggested that this "free will" was instituted solely for those who would respond compassionately.... as for the others? I don't have an answer.

I still don't think the existence of omniscience is compatible with free will, but then again I don't really believe we have free will anyway. We have a convincing illusion thereof - that's enough for day to day life.

I have often thought this very thought. I would compare it with setting a loaded gun on the table and then getting pissed at my four year old for shooting his sister.

Apt analogy, yes. Especially if you knew that leaving that gun there would inevitably result in this tragedy.

But Christian theolgy is not about being subject... "I no longer call you servants, but friends" says Jesus in the gospel of John.

"Thou shalt have no other god before me".

You don't worship your mates.

It would appear that the assumed god prefers relationship over servitude.

Depends on which page you're on, really. I think if my best friend told me to sacrifice my son, I'll tell him to bugger off. Likewise I wouldn't be too impressed with his suggestion that I stone to death a young gay couple that live down the street, or that a raped woman should marry her rapist.

In some ways Jesus is a "kindler, gentler" variant (as someone pointed out, apparently god mellowed once we butchered his kid), but not in all cases. There are definitely examples of the "my way or the highway" attitude in the New Testament as well.

Because without a world such as this one, we'd have no concept of suffering at all.

As above - you need not experience something to learn about it. That's only one way.

Trivially - humanity could be the only race that didn't suffer; we could learn about it by the reactions of primates who weren't so blessed.

It's like the rich kid who has everything he ever wanted never knowing how good he has it... sure that's a fine life, but have you ever met one of these kids? There isn't much endearing about them.

And yet there are some such rich kids that are genuinely nice people, caring about the community, and donating generously to charity. Granted, they are a minority, but how much of that is nature and how much nurture? A child of someone possessed of genes for ruthless business success may be similarly ruthless - but he's got both the DNA and the environment for it, so which is the major factor?

In any case - we're not talking about working within the established parameters; we're talking about a being who can set those parameters as he saw fit. The seed of empathy so that humans would never cause suffering to other humans was left out of the grand design of a supposedly omnibenevolent god.

What about childbirth? You can live a perfectly sin free life, get knocked up by your husband by following the big dude's command to go forth and multiply, and still suffer terribly while giving birth. Why would an all loving god saddle people with that?

There are other examples (natural disasters, etc). The issue is the whole "omni" thing. A well-meaning deity might have simply misaimed hurricanes, earthquakes, and so forth - maybe he was playing hooky the day that they taught elementary geo disaster theory in god school. But that's not the guy that the Christians claim is the creator of the universe.

 

[gnome]

If I were God, omni-everything... (omni-omni?)... if I felt that suffering was necessary for good to exist...

I would at least make sure that suffering only resulted from wickedness. Everyone has temptations and does wrong sometimes... so I would choose those times to cause them to suffer, in proportion to their wickedness. I'm sure there would be plenty of suffering to balance out the good, and then at least it would be fair.

What I wouldn't do would be to cause someone else innocent to suffer so that another person could appreciate goodness...

 

[stamenflicker]

Six,

As above - you need not experience something to learn about it. That's only one way.

Experience is the best way... and again, its not about teaching and learning, those were side points to the argument altogether. Making it about teaching and learning makes the discussion about humankind, and its not about us nor our perspective. Its about omni-benevolence and suffering as a logical necessity for it to exist.

Even so, in your portion I would only reply that being of the male gender, I've never, nor do I ever expect to be able to, carry a child for nine months and give birth it. I can know a great deal about child birth, but I'll never really know it. Suffering is one of those things that you just can't read a book about-- in fact, people who try to tell me, "I know how you feel..." when they've not had the same experience as me, make me angry.

As to the rest of your post, I think you've drawn a lot of wrong conclusions, but I don't much have the time to debate them for the um'teenth time when neither of us is likely to change our viewpoint.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

Gnome,

I would at least make sure that suffering only resulted from wickedness. Everyone has temptations and does wrong sometimes... so I would choose those times to cause them to suffer, in proportion to their wickedness. I'm sure there would be plenty of suffering to balance out the good, and then at least it would be fair.

I personally am glad that the system doesn't work this way. Punitive suffering would only lead people into a false since of morality, i.e. "We don't do this because we'll get hurt..." vs. "We don't do this because it's not a good thing."

One reason why I don't care much for the HELL concept-- punitive suffering seems pointless in obtaining any real relational objective. But who knows, maybe HELL makes sense to god.

Flick

 

[SixSixSix]

Experience is the best way...

It is perhaps the surest way, but not always the best. It is not "best" to learn that "burning to death is bad, m'kay?" by setting yourself on fire.

and again, its not about teaching and learning, those were side points to the argument altogether. Making it about teaching and learning makes the discussion about humankind, and its not about us nor our perspective. Its about omni-benevolence and suffering as a logical necessity for it to exist.

Well, yes, but you've essentially already destroyed your previous argument with your assertion that heaven is a place without suffering. That means that such a place can be created by an omnibenevolent being, which leads us to why Earth needed suffering. You suggested this was so we would understand the concept of suffering, which makes it entirely about teaching and learning - if the only purpose of Earth is to teach us what suffering is, one can reasonably ask whether this is the only/best way for us to learn this lesson.

Even so, in your portion I would only reply that being of the male gender, I've never, nor do I ever expect to be able to, carry a child for nine months and give birth it. I can know a great deal about child birth, but I'll never really know it. Suffering is one of those things that you just can't read a book about-- in fact, people who try to tell me, "I know how you feel..." when they've not had the same experience as me, make me angry.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that only women who have given birth are allowed to enter heaven, since the rest of us don't know what suffering is? Perhaps you're suggesting more generally that unless we suffer terribly we haven't learned the lesson?

I don't think you can really mean that. So perhaps it is OK for me personally not to suffer terribly; I can still learn the lesson if I suffer just a little bit and I can see someone else suffer a lot more. But that begs the question as to how much suffering is really necessary.

As to the rest of your post, I think you've drawn a lot of wrong conclusions, but I don't much have the time to debate them for the um'teenth time when neither of us is likely to change our viewpoint.

As you wish. I clearly have the opposite opinion.

 

[stamenflicker]

Six,

You suggested this was so we would understand the concept of suffering, which makes it entirely about teaching and learning - if the only purpose of Earth is to teach us what suffering is, one can reasonably ask whether this is the only/best way for us to learn this lesson.

No we got sidetracked... the purpose of the Earth, or more specifically suffering on the Earth is that suffering is a logical necessity for omni-benevolence. As to teaching and learning, that's basically us trying to make sense of the logical necessity from our perspectives which may or may not be possible. They were just ideas around the question of why is it this particular suffering, as opposed to some other set of suffering variables.

Flick

 

[gnome]

Gnome,



I personally am glad that the system doesn't work this way. Punitive suffering would only lead people into a false since of morality, i.e. "We don't do this because we'll get hurt..." vs. "We don't do this because it's not a good thing."

One reason why I don't care much for the HELL concept-- punitive suffering seems pointless in obtaining any real relational objective. But who knows, maybe HELL makes sense to god.

Flick

But... if it's to be arbitrary, instead of tied into some kind of judgement... whence the need for any kind of direction at all? Then all God has to do is play the Deist, set things in motion, and sit back and watch. I can envision that as a possibility, but it's not compatible with omni-benevolence... that's neutrality. It also doesn't help with the omnipotence, because who can say if God is all powerful if there's no intervention? It also sort of kills the omniscience for the same reason--how can God's all knowing wisdom be demonstrated if God never expresses it?

To go down this road is to envision a God that is completely irrelevant.

 

[ernon]

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

Or possibly they are only human concepts. Actions simply exist, good or evil are labels humans use once a particular point of view is established and the actions are judged from that viewpoint.
Good or bad for whom and from what perspective? Aside from the extreme examples are there any universally accepted definitions of those words?

Who can define God's point of view, without first afixing a human dogma as their starting point?

 

[stamenflicker]

Gnome,

Then all God has to do is play the Deist, set things in motion, and sit back and watch. I can envision that as a possibility, but it's not compatible with omni-benevolence... that's neutrality.

It's not neutral if the assumed god is active in motion, or put differently: rather than turning an ambivelent top and walking away, he/she effused himself/herself into the item spinning. That's the panentheist position, and mine by default.

The concept of idealism, or "Logos" in Christian mythology expresses some of this idea... there is a "complete" or a "finished" thing (teleos), but we aren't it, at least not yet. Hence when it/we are complete on either/both sides of time, well I can't even speak reasonably about what that will be...

Maybe the assumed god cannot even say, after all his definition is "I AM that I AM" or better translated: "I will be what I be..."

Flick

 

[SixSixSix]

On a slightly different note: is omnibenevolence even compatible with omnipotence?

Omnibenevolence means "all loving". But what does it mean to be "loving"? Well, let's get a working definition here: an all-loving being does only Good, and not Evil.

This doesn't really help us though. What does "Good" mean? We can't say that it's "what an omnibenevolent being does", since that definition is circular; it must be that Good as a concept exists outside of the all-loving being; there is an external reference point that such a being can compare its actions to. However, that means we have now limited our entity; he now must only perform actions that are compatible with what an external reference frame defines as "Good". Or more generally he cannot perform actions in contravention of this reference - he cannot do "Evil" - and if there is something he cannot do... well, he's not omnipotent.

Hmm, I think the above could be phrased better, but hopefully the meaning is clear enough (if not necessarily correct).

 

[Christian Dude]

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?

Here is a link to a web site that lists some verses from scripture that show God’s Omniscience.
http://www.biblestudyguide.org/topical/god-omniscience.htm

So this layman’s interpretation on how it all works is: Yes, the Almighty God knew everything that would happen in history before he spoke creation into existence. He created human kind in his image; he gave us all the communicable attributes that can be imparted to us that is possible. But, since we are creatures, not gods, we can not be given all the attributes of God. Mainly his sinless, holy, perfect nature.

He also desires us to love him out of our own choice so he gave us the free will to return his love toward us or reject him. He knew what he would do all along, it was always his plan to die in substitution for us and pay the debt required of sin, and offer a way of reconciliation back to him.

He also knew Lucifer would sin before he created the angels. Angels and man kind were created because the Lord, who reveals him self to us in three persons, wants to have a loving, personal and eternal relationship with his beloved creatures. But, he give us, both angels and man kind, the choice if we want to have that relationship. The sad fact is that one third of the angels rejected him, and most humans reject him. But we can infer from scripture that he gets to be with millions, or billions, of angels and humans that do love him for eternity. All the suffering he knew he was going to suffer was worth it to him because of that.

 

[gnome]

Or possibly they are only human concepts. Actions simply exist, good or evil are labels humans use once a particular point of view is established and the actions are judged from that viewpoint.
Good or bad for whom and from what perspective? Aside from the extreme examples are there any universally accepted definitions of those words?

Who can define God's point of view, without first afixing a human dogma as their starting point?

If good is a human concept that doesn't apply to God, then omnibenevolence isn't an issue. The contradiction here is to CLAIM that God is omnibenevolent, and then try to play around with the meaning of "good". Here, you are effectively retreating from the idea of omnibenevolence. That's fine with me if it's clear that's what's being said.

 

[gnome]

Gnome,

It's not neutral if the assumed god is active in motion, or put differently: rather than turning an ambivelent top and walking away, he/she effused himself/herself into the item spinning. That's the panentheist position, and mine by default.

The concept of idealism, or "Logos" in Christian mythology expresses some of this idea... there is a "complete" or a "finished" thing (teleos), but we aren't it, at least not yet. Hence when it/we are complete on either/both sides of time, well I can't even speak reasonably about what that will be...

Maybe the assumed god cannot even say, after all his definition is "I AM that I AM" or better translated: "I will be what I be..."

Flick

How is the pantheist position not neutral with respect to good and evil, if any intervention is arbitrary (rather than judging)?

 

[Ossai]

stamenflicker

You are correct, good is more than the absence of evil-- it is the reduction and/or elimination of evil as well. Which is exactly why a world like ours must exist for omni-benevolence to exist.... as to a master builder and infinity, those are different arguments altogether, as is omnipotence. One which I'd be happy to discuss, however logically my only point has been that suffering is a logical necessity for omni-benevolence. As to what other worlds the assumed god has or has not made, one cannot even logically speculate.

You addressed me but were replying to SixSixSix. So I’ll reply anyway.

If good requires not only the absence of evil but the active reduction of it then god had to create all the evil before he got around to creating the good. Now if god is omni-benevolent then he must also be omni-abhorrent or there must be an equal entity that is omni-abhorrent.

I personally am glad that the system doesn't work this way. Punitive suffering would only lead people into a false since of morality, i.e. "We don't do this because we'll get hurt..." vs. "We don't do this because it's not a good thing."

Is there something wrong with using punitive suffering? Or to put it another way, “you only pee on an electric fence once!”

Christian Dude

But, since we are creatures, not gods, we can not be given all the attributes of God. Mainly his sinless, holy, perfect nature.

1. God isn’t omnipotent since there was something he could not do.
2. There was no original sin to corrupt humanity since humans were never perfect to begin with.

He also desires us to love him out of our own choice so he gave us the free will to return his love toward us or reject him.

You just removed omnipotence again.

He knew what he would do all along, it was always his plan to die in substitution for us and pay the debt required of sin, and offer a way of reconciliation back to him.

God deliberately created people flawed with the plan of paying off the debt that god created so people could be reconciled back to god even though they had never been in god’s presence before he created them. Yep that’s logical.
This goes beyond circular logic, it’s Spiral Logic!

Ossai

 

[Jon.]

Here is a link to a web site that lists some verses from scripture that show God’s Omniscience.
http://www.biblestudyguide.org/topical/god-omniscience.htm

So this layman’s interpretation on how it all works is: Yes, the Almighty God knew everything that would happen in history before he spoke creation into existence. He created human kind in his image; he gave us all the communicable attributes that can be imparted to us that is possible. But, since we are creatures, not gods, we can not be given all the attributes of God. Mainly his sinless, holy, perfect nature.

He also desires us to love him out of our own choice so he gave us the free will to return his love toward us or reject him. He knew what he would do all along, it was always his plan to die in substitution for us and pay the debt required of sin, and offer a way of reconciliation back to him.

He also knew Lucifer would sin before he created the angels. Angels and man kind were created because the Lord, who reveals him self to us in three persons, wants to have a loving, personal and eternal relationship with his beloved creatures. But, he give us, both angels and man kind, the choice if we want to have that relationship. The sad fact is that one third of the angels rejected him, and most humans reject him. But we can infer from scripture that he gets to be with millions, or billions, of angels and humans that do love him for eternity. All the suffering he knew he was going to suffer was worth it to him because of that.

For any being that is omnipotent and omniscient , words like "desire" and "want" are meaningless. If that being wants or desires something, it will happen. Period. If your view of god is correct, everything that happens, has ever happened or will ever happen is exactly what that god wanted to happen when he/she/it set the whole of creation in motion. There are no choices, there are no options, there are no other paths.

If your god wanted me to love or worship him, I would be doing so.

If your god wanted people to live forever without suffering, they would be doing so.

If your god wanted anything, it would be so.

 

[stamenflicker]

Os,

If good requires not only the absence of evil but the active reduction of it then god had to create all the evil before he got around to creating the good.

That's like saying I would have to create a senario in which I will be robbed before I could forgive the robber, when in reality all I chose to do was live in a world with unlocked doors.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

Six,

How is the pantheist position not neutral with respect to good and evil, if any intervention is arbitrary (rather than judging)?

Well the panthesist position is neutral... the pan-en-thesist position believes that the assumed god is both in all things (which is pantheist) and above all things (maybe idealist?) Being above all things means [[at least to me ]]existing at both the beginning of our timeline and the end of it, in which case it is only faith that assumes the being knows what he or she is doing.

Flick

 

[gnome]

Six,



Well the panthesist position is neutral... the pan-en-thesist position believes that the assumed god is both in all things (which is pantheist) and above all things (maybe idealist?) Being above all things means [[at least to me ]]existing at both the beginning of our timeline and the end of it, in which case it is only faith that assumes the being knows what he or she is doing.

Flick

If the faith-concept of good overrides the human experience and definition of goodness... in a sense it's not even really the same thing. Should it even be the same word?

In other words, you can't have it both ways.

 

[stamenflicker]

Gnome,

If the faith-concept of good overrides the human experience and definition of goodness... in a sense it's not even really the same thing. Should it even be the same word?

I don't think the human experience of good is over-ridden, instead I would say it is completed by faith. This is in many ways this is the idealist position. I would liken it to going out and building yourself a house... you'd be right to still call it your house at pretty much any stage of the construction. You'd be even more likely to use the word "house" after the walls went up and it began to at least somewhat resemble a house, but I suppose technically it is never a house until it becomes liveable, and certainly not a "home," which has a sense of the word "house" but in a more personal and completed form.

So I don't think the two concepts of good are all that different, but I do see your point and I think it is a great question to ask... still, thinking of a way to address your question.

Flick

 

[ernon]

If good is a human concept that doesn't apply to God, then omnibenevolence isn't an issue. The contradiction here is to CLAIM that God is omnibenevolent, and then try to play around with the meaning of "good". Here, you are effectively retreating from the idea of omnibenevolence. That's fine with me if it's clear that's what's being said.

I believe that omnibenevolence is an artifact of the attempt to anthropomorphize God. I can envision several scenarios where what is "good" for our local universe would be disasterously "evil" for humans. (If I may label exterminating all life from earth "evil".)

Example, a supernovae occuring within 200 light years of earth. It would seed our Galaxy with valuable elements and touch off rounds of star and planet formation, which is a good thing from the Galaxy's perspective, except it would wipe out all life on earth, argueably a bad thing from the human viewpoint. From a neutral point of view, was the supernovae good or evil? Actually it's neither, it just is.

To me it is the ultimate conceit to envision that an Omnipresent, Eternal Being would follow the human concepts of good and evil. To counter that it is us following God's concepts is fruitless. Faced with the lack of actual proof, there is no neutral base from which to judge the "correctness" of our versions of the concepts of good and evil or to ensure they stem from God.

The belief in Omnibenevolence probably stems from the earthcentric philosophy of the OT writers being transformed into Church dogma by the early church; addressing a need for the laity to be assured that God loves them, but only if they do what the Church tells them.

Scott