Omniscience and Omnipotence are incompatible

[James R]

It is commonly claimed that God is both omniscient and omnipotent. I don't think that God can be both at the same time.

Omnipotence means that God is all-powerful, and is able to do anything he likes. Omniscience means that God knows everything.

Now, if God is omniscient, then He already knows at any given time what he will do in the future, because he can see the future. He's all-seeing, after all.

But if God already knows what he will do at every moment in the future, then God has no free will. He cannot choose to do something different from what he already knows he will do. And therefore, he is not all-powerful. In fact, it could be argued that He has no power at all.

Your thoughts?

 

[wynn]

Your thoughts?

Given that God runs the whole enterprise called "Life, the Universe and Everything," there is no problem.

Since He is in charge, He doesn't have to worry about doing things that He would take objection to.


In comparison, an ordinary fallible human knows he might and probably will, sooner or later, esp. under the influence of factors that he cannot control, engage in activities that he himself finds reprehensible (such as sleeping in, drinking too much alcohol, etc.).

God doesn't have to worry about catching Himself doing something He finds reprehensible; for ordinary humans, it is a default concern that they will catch themselves doing things they find reprehensible.


If you know that everything you have done, do, and will do, is good, then the fact that you can see into the future, or the past, or everything, doesn't bother you nor hinder you in any way.
Omniscience would only be a problem for an entity who would have reason to believe that its moral compass is corrupt, or that it is under the influence of negative factors it can not control.

 

[Cyperium]

It is commonly claimed that God is both omniscient and omnipotent. I don't think that God can be both at the same time.

Omnipotence means that God is all-powerful, and is able to do anything he likes. Omniscience means that God knows everything.

Now, if God is omniscient, then He already knows at any given time what he will do in the future, because he can see the future. He's all-seeing, after all.

But if God already knows what he will do at every moment in the future, then God has no free will. He cannot choose to do something different from what he already knows he will do. And therefore, he is not all-powerful. In fact, it could be argued that He has no power at all.

Your thoughts?

God is said to be outside of time, in some kind of eternity, so the effects that time has on free will and such might not apply at all to Him. Everything might follow His grand plan while still allowing us to change things and choose. Since He is all-powerful He could chose to end it all or to change it all at any time, but it is not necessary that He must do this in order to be all-powerful - who has He to prove himself to? Why would He change anything that He has already approved?

Could be that we are allowed to be co-creators (to some extent) that He left gaps for us to fill in which could truly define us. The World that God looks at might be the world where all of us have completed our lives and that is the creation fulfilled.

 

[wellwisher]

If God has omniscience, he knows all about science or how the universe is designed and works at both the macro and micro level. If God was omnipotent he has access to all the energy and force he needs to do anything in the universe. This would also imply energy and force that is outside of the universe as we know. This then extends his knowledge of all-science to even science outside our universe or space-time, where different laws might apply. He has the power to mix and match and the knowledge of how to get it done.

Free will is not just about acting contrary to sound judgement. The highest expression of free will is having the sound state of mind needed to make or free choses based on sound judgements.

For example, you can know every food available to humans and can choose to eat any of there. You then use will power and knowledge to choose only the finest in flavor and nutrition. Humans, on the other hand, are just learning free will and often express that baby will power via being contrary and unique. It is not about sound judgement but the subjectivities of vanity (ego-centricities).

Ego-centricity is baby free will, due to lack of omniscience beyond the ego, which would allow knowledge of all the possible options, and how these weigh out over time. We also lack of omnipotents which gives us the power to implement sound free choices so there is order and not random chaos.

 

[Balerion]

Given that God runs the whole enterprise called "Life, the Universe and Everything," there is no problem.

Since He is in charge, He doesn't have to worry about doing things that He would take objection to.

Why do you assume it's a he?

And what's with the non-sequitur? Nobody said anything about him doing things he would object to. James is talking about how if one has future-knowledge, then one cannot alter the future. If one cannot alter the future, then one cannot be omnipotent. Omniscience and omnipotence are therefore incompatible.

In comparison, an ordinary fallible human knows he might and probably will, sooner or later, esp. under the influence of factors that he cannot control, engage in activities that he himself finds reprehensible (such as sleeping in, drinking too much alcohol, etc.).

God doesn't have to worry about catching Himself doing something He finds reprehensible; for ordinary humans, it is a default concern that they will catch themselves doing things they find reprehensible.

Another non-sequitur. Omniscience is not thinking you know what's likely to happen, it is absolute foreknowledge. Second, the point isn't that god might do things he would object to (how did you even come to that?), it's that he couldn't have free will if he knows what's going to happen. If he sees that he's going to throw a stone, then decides at the time it's supposed to happen that he won't throw a stone, then his foreknowledge is fallible, and therefore is not omniscience. Understand?

If you know that everything you have done, do, and will do, is good, then the fact that you can see into the future, or the past, or everything, doesn't bother you nor hinder you in any way.
Omniscience would only be a problem for an entity who would have reason to believe that its moral compass is corrupt, or that it is under the influence of negative factors it can not control.

Nope, wrong again. If god is omniscient, then he cannot change the future, which means he is not omnipotent. If he can change the future, then he is not omniscient.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It is commonly claimed that God is both omniscient and omnipotent. I don't think that God can be both at the same time.

Omnipotence means that God is all-powerful, and is able to do anything he likes. Omniscience means that God knows everything.

Now, if God is omniscient, then He already knows at any given time what he will do in the future, because he can see the future. He's all-seeing, after all.

But if God already knows what he will do at every moment in the future, then God has no free will. He cannot choose to do something different from what he already knows he will do. And therefore, he is not all-powerful. In fact, it could be argued that He has no power at all.

Your thoughts?

Wow! Haven't seen this one in a while.

Okay, remind me why an omniscient being would want to change His mind again?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Wow! Haven't seen this one in a while.

Okay, remind me why an omniscient being would want to change His mind again?

jan.

It's not a matter of "want to" but of being able to.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It's not a matter of "want to" but of being able to.

If God genuinely has to change his mind, is He God?

If God is beyond time, and is not subject to past, present, and future, that means He is always in the now. What purpose does it serve to change His mind?

jan.

 

[Yazata]

It is commonly claimed that God is both omniscient and omnipotent. I don't think that God can be both at the same time.

I think that several logical problems arise from God's supposed divine qualities and from their various combinations. This is certainly one of them.

Omnipotence means that God is all-powerful, and is able to do anything he likes. Omniscience means that God knows everything.

Now, if God is omniscient, then He already knows at any given time what he will do in the future, because he can see the future. He's all-seeing, after all.

But if God already knows what he will do at every moment in the future, then God has no free will. He cannot choose to do something different from what he already knows he will do. And therefore, he is not all-powerful. In fact, it could be argued that He has no power at all.

Your thoughts?

I'm inclined to agree with you.

A theist who believes in these particular divine attributes might argue that while God eternally knows everything that God is going to do, that knowledge doesn't imply that God couldn't do something else instead, assuming he wanted to. It's just that he knows that he's never going to want to.

Cyperium has a good point about God supposedly being outside time entirely, in some kind of timeless state.

In fact, a great deal of traditional Christian (and Islamic, for that matter) theology imagines God as being totally unchanging. Of course that's an idea that seems to be derived more from late antique Neoplatonism than from the Bible or the Quran. It's hard to square that idea of God being the phenomenal universe's timeless transcendent Source with the idea of a personal God who acts in history and reacts and responds to what people do in time. In fact, a 'person' would seem to have to exist in time, almost by definition. Most of our psychological concepts are fundamentally temporal.

I guess that theology has taken many of the qualities that we find admirable in humans (knowledge, power, goodness) and then kind of 'omni-fied' them, imagining them expanded to an infinite degree. The motive for doing that was obviously piety, the desire to imagine their God as possessing all perfections. The problem is that it doesn't always make sense and it isn't always consistent. But the people who invented these ideas weren't philosophers, and by the time philosophical theology got to work trying to systematize everything, the divine attributes were well enshrined in tradition.

 

[quadraphonics]

It is commonly claimed that God is both omniscient and omnipotent. I don't think that God can be both at the same time.

Omnipotence means that God is all-powerful, and is able to do anything he likes. Omniscience means that God knows everything.

Now, if God is omniscient, then He already knows at any given time what he will do in the future, because he can see the future. He's all-seeing, after all.

But if God already knows what he will do at every moment in the future, then God has no free will. He cannot choose to do something different from what he already knows he will do. And therefore, he is not all-powerful. In fact, it could be argued that He has no power at all.

Your thoughts?

I'm not sure that one quite works - you're introducing an additional assumption of determinism with the assertion that God can see the future (or rather, with your interpretation of what it means to "see the future"). Once you've assumed determinism, then you've done away with free will for anyone (only difference is that God wouldn't even have the illusion of free will, whereas the rest of us presumably would).

If you assume that omniscience doesn't include seeing the future, or that seeing the future implies perception of the manifold timelines that stem from every possible choice in the present, then the problem disappears.

Meanwhile, it's been pointed out by certain prominent atheists that omnipotence implies omniscience. If you can do literally anything, then presumably that includes the ability to see everything, right?

Perhaps more to the point, omnipotence seems ill-defined, in the sense that you can pretty easily derive mutually-inconsistent conclusions from it. So if you take it to be true and try to use logic, you end up with an inconsistent system that can prove (or disprove) any statement you can dream up.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

It is commonly claimed that God is both omniscient and omnipotent. I don't think that God can be both at the same time.

Omnipotence means that God is all-powerful, and is able to do anything he likes. Omniscience means that God knows everything.

Now, if God is omniscient, then He already knows at any given time what he will do in the future, because he can see the future. He's all-seeing, after all.

But if God already knows what he will do at every moment in the future, then God has no free will. He cannot choose to do something different from what he already knows he will do. And therefore, he is not all-powerful. In fact, it could be argued that He has no power at all.

Your thoughts?

Good point James, but that brings up another question. If a powerful being were to show up and proclaim to be God. What's the minimum ability he/she/it would have to demonstrate in order to be accepted as God by all the people? I'm betting it wouldn't have to be close to omniscience or omnipotence to be very convincing.

 

[wynn]

If God is beyond time, and is not subject to past, present, and future, that means He is always in the now. What purpose does it serve to change His mind?

The atheists want to have a say in the matter too!

 

[Sarkus]

If God genuinely has to change his mind, is He God?

It's not a matter of having to, it's a matter of being able to.

If God is beyond time, and is not subject to past, present, and future, that means He is always in the now. What purpose does it serve to change His mind?

Purpose is not being discussed. Ability is being discussed.

 

[wynn]

I'm inclined to agree with you.

Why?

The OP is putting forward an explanation of divine action, and it is an explanation that excludes the awareness of the quality of action.

Per definition, everything that God does, is good. Thus there is no need for God to change his mind, the way humans change their mind as they struggle to "do the right thing."


In the OP, as well as often theist/atheist exchanges, the understanding people tend to have of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence, along with free will, is anthropomorphic, shaped and limited by the usual human experience.
Ie., it's the kind of understanding as "What would you do if you would be omnipotent/omniscient?"

Our ordinary human free will is encapsulated into issues of whether we will be able to act on our plans or not, whether our plans will turn out to be actionable or not. Since we lack omniscience, we don't know whether what we set out to do will be possible to do or not: we have to actually do it before we can be sure whether it can be done or not, before we can be sure whether we have done it or not. Given that we lack omnipotence and omniscience, we are bound to sooner or later run into obstacles, difficulties, where we will change our minds, change our plans - give up on the old ones, design new ones.

God, on the other hand, sets out to do things that He is able to do, and does not make mistakes.
Unlike we ordinary humans, God cannot misassess His abilities and resources.

The problem is that it doesn't always make sense and it isn't always consistent. But the people who invented these ideas weren't philosophers, and by the time philosophical theology got to work trying to systematize everything, the divine attributes were well enshrined in tradition.

It all depends on how much effort one is willing to invest in reasoning things out, and on one's motives for doing or not doing so.

 

[Sarkus]

Good point James, but that brings up another question. If a powerful being were to show up and proclaim to be God. What's the minimum ability he/she/it would have to demonstrate in order to be accepted as God by all the people? I'm betting it wouldn't have to be close to omniscience or omnipotence to be very convincing.

How could someone prove actual omniscience, rather than it just being "great knowledge"?

 

[wynn]

It's not a matter of having to, it's a matter of being able to.
Purpose is not being discussed. Ability is being discussed.

You mean by that that you refuse to look at the issue from a different angle, and insist in yours.

 

[wynn]

Good point James, but that brings up another question. If a powerful being were to show up and proclaim to be God. What's the minimum ability he/she/it would have to demonstrate in order to be accepted as God by all the people? I'm betting it wouldn't have to be close to omniscience or omnipotence to be very convincing.

I seriously doubt God has an approval addiction.

People may have a need to be understood, to be recognized.

But why would God have such a need? Can you explain?

 

[quadraphonics]

I seriously doubt God has an approval addiction.

People may have a need to be understood, to be recognized.

But why would God have such a need? Can you explain?

The God of the Abrahamic tradition is on record as being "jealous" and demanding worship to the exclusion of other gods, etc. He's pretty explicit about all this stuff.

One does wonder why an omnipotent being would care so much about that kind of thing, though.

 

[wynn]

The God of the Abrahamic tradition is on record as being "jealous" and demanding worship to the exclusion of other gods, etc. He's pretty explicit about all this stuff.

One does wonder why an omnipotent being would care so much about that kind of thing, though.

I'm not hung up on Jehovah, so I rather look outside of the Abrahamic box.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The God of the Abrahamic tradition is on record as being "jealous" and demanding worship to the exclusion of other gods, etc. He's pretty explicit about all this stuff.

One does wonder why an omnipotent being would care so much about that kind of thing, though.

By definition, God doesn't have any rivals, as he is the origin of all beings.
Maybe he was relating to those particular people who had it in their mind that the god they were worshiping was of equal or greater stature.

jan.