Omniscience and Omnipotence are incompatible

[Sarkus]

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

Well, I could look at it at an angle that is not being asked, and move away from the pure logic of the scenario into realms of wishful thinking and unproven assumption if you'd like?

Otherwise we're talking about potential to do something, not whether it is actually done or not, not whether it needs to be done or not.

But sure, if you can't answer the question in a way you feel will satisfy, feel free to change it the question to one you can.


As I see it there are two solutions to this apparent paradox...
One is that God is either not omniscient (as defined) or God is not omnipotent (as defined) or God is neither.
The other is that our understanding of God's omnipotence and omniscience is wrong, and those words - as applied to God - mean something different than the usual understanding - and then provide evidence / proof / support for their position.

One should feel free to argue one solution or the other... and provide cogent arguments in support... but they should have the decency and politeness not to merely say that the question is wrong, or wrongly conceptualised, or merely point to intent when the issue of omnipotence and omniscience are matters of ability.

i.e. people should have the decency to address the issue - not merely quip that "Oh, but God works in mysterious ways" or some other cop-out argument that is left unexplained as to actual substance.

 

[wynn]

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.

The Bible was written by people whom God Himself called "stiff-necked" and whom He didn't want to have much to do with.

So the Bible is biased like that: that God is presented as jealous and angry and revengeful and fire-and-brimstone-and-eternal-damnation and all that - that says more about the writers of the Bible than it says about God.

When someone speaks about another person, they first and foremost reveal things about themselves, not about the other person, even if nominally they speak about the other person.

 

[wynn]

i.e. people should have the decency to address the issue - not merely quip that "Oh, but God works in mysterious ways" or some other cop-out argument that is left unexplained as to actual substance.

Do see my previous posts in this thread.

 

[Sarkus]

Do see my previous posts in this thread.

It's not actually your posts I'm referring to - although you did leap to their defence.

 

[Cyperium]

Sure the Bible say that the world was done in several steps, but the more I think about it the more reasonable it seems that it was done in a single act of creation which isn't done yet for us, but is done for God. In this single act of creation there would be no "future" to be seen as all has already (in the eyes of God) been done. All prayers (that were answered) and all actions within our history must also have been answered and done (in the eyes of God). Within this singular creation he could have left gaps for us to fill in (as I said in a post earlier in this thread), this would allow us to have free will but still have a future that is created by God where some things just must come to be as we can't influence them through our will.

I really think it's a matter of perspective. We are seeing this through our human eyes, the Bible is explaining creation from a human viewpoint. But Gods omnipotence and omniscience could only be truly seen with Gods perspective.

Only an idea, but one that I think is worthy to consider. Not only is God here with us, he's actively creating us.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

...
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 think you are quite correct.

 

[Syne]

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?

Any discussion of omniscience should necessarily address what can be said to exist and thus have properties available to being known. Has anyone logically proven that a definite future actually exists prior to it becoming the present? If not then it is simply a logical contradiction that something which does not exist can be known.

Taking such considerations into account, omniscience is more accurately defined as maximal knowledge.

 

[DaveC426913]

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?

Perhaps this is evidence for the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM.

If God's actions can bifurcate to an infinite number of future actions (all possible actions), then he can both observe his future and at the same time not have his actions constrained by knowing it.

QED.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

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?

Classic paradox that could be interpreted as "paranormal" I’m sure you are familiar with a quote by Epicurus “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” Then there is the paradox of omnipresence and somehow being able to exist outside of known time and space. If "it" could exist outside the known boundaries of time and space..how could said being perform any task without having multiple causalities or "time” to consider the options along with matter or energy to perform said actions that would affect our universes if it were outside it’s laws and boundaries to begin with. Many of you here in the forum could point to the “Joker” force which is theoritical that governs the universe but has only be found to imitate or replicate the mannerisms of the know four.
http://science.discovery.com/videos/through-the-wormhole-how-the-universe-works/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_force

http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm

 

[Yazata]

I'm inclined to agree with [JamesR]

Why?

If God knows at time1 that he's going to do A at time2, then could God do B at time2 instead, without contradicting his knowledge and hence his omniscience?

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

I didn't read JamesR as putting forward an explanation of anything. He was just pointing out what's arguably a logical inconsistency between omniscience and omnipotence. I think that there are a number of similar problems lurking among the various divine 'omni's'. Saturnine Pariah just quoted Epicurus pointing out another one, the famous problem of evil.

Interestingly, Epicurus lived from 341 - 270 BCE, so some of the omni-ideas were already bouncing around the Hellenistic Greek world centuries before the early Christian theologians adopted them.

Per definition, everything that God does, is good.

I squirm when people say things like that, because I don't see any way that a human being could possibly know that it's true. It's why I said that the 'omni's' seem motivated by piety, by religious devotees' emotional desire to invest whatever the object of their devotions is with all imaginable perfections.

But sure, we can accept it for purposes of argument.

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."

Ok, I won't argue with that.

But the issue James raised doesn't appear to be whether God will ever feel motivated to change his holy mind. (In the Judeo-Christian scheme, didn't he change his mind abut creation, when he sent down the flood?) The issue seems to be the rather different question of whether or not God could change his mind, without contradicting and hence negating another of his divine attributes.

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.

Yes. With a personal God, we don't seem to have any other choice, since our deities often seem to be made in our own human image. We humans are the only kind of 'persons' that we know.

Ie., it's the kind of understanding as "What would you do if you would be omnipotent/omniscient?"

It's true that people think that way, but I don't think that's the issue here. The problem seems to be more logical.

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.

Those are good points. Much of our thinking, planning, deciding, acting, observing, recalculating and adapting in light of our experience, takes place precisely because we aren't omniscient and omnipotent. Throughout our lives, we are constantly making pragmatic choices in conditions of imperfect information and improvising in the face of uncertainty. That's the human condition.

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.

Is God incapable of making a mistake, incapable of screwing up? What implications would that have for his omnipotence? More generally, can God learn? Can God grow? Can he change his mind? Can he be surprised?

If we take the divine attributes seriously (I'm not sure exactly why we should) it may very well be true that such a being's cognition and decision making might have to be radically different from those of frail, finite and temporally-embedded mortals like ourselves. So much so that it raises real questions about how much meaning there is in imagining God as a "person".

 

[Rav]

If we take the divine attributes seriously (I'm not sure exactly why we should) it may very well be true that such a being's cognition and decision making might have to be radically different from those of frail, finite and temporally-embedded mortals like ourselves. So much so that it raises real questions about how much meaning there is in imagining God as a "person".

If something like a god exists, it will be whatever it is. Some transcendent and immutable state from which all quality emerges perhaps. But the moment we project human abstractions and embellishments onto the idea is the moment we, well, fuck it up.

Traditional religious conceptions of God don't make sense because they're basically just inventing the details as they go along. In fact we've all seen details get invented on the fly in these very forums in response to critical evaluation. It basically goes "God can't be Y, because X", and the response is "well, maybe God isn't Y, but Z". And then weeks later, "God is Z".

If religious people would just stop making claims that they can't possibly be qualified to make, and admit that it's just a mystery, I doubt that my atheism would ever really show. In fact in that context, I'm not even really an atheist at all, more of an agnostic.

 

[wynn]

If God knows at time1 that he's going to do A at time2, then could God do B at time2 instead, without contradicting his knowledge and hence his omniscience?

Given that everything God does, is good, then there is no need for Him to change His mind.

I didn't read JamesR as putting forward an explanation of anything. He was just pointing out what's arguably a logical inconsistency between omniscience and omnipotence.

And it is an inconsistency that exists as long as we specifically avoid the issue of the quality of an action.

I think that there are a number of similar problems lurking among the various divine 'omni's'.

I don't think so, as I keep working out at these forums.

Saturnine Pariah just quoted Epicurus pointing out another one, the famous problem of evil.

And the problem of evil only exists if we take for granted that life as it is usually lived is all there is to God's creation.

I squirm when people say things like that, because I don't see any way that a human being could possibly know that it's true.

I think there is always the problem of verification, yes. For all I know, God could be watching us and think to Himself, "Gee, and these people think they are talking about Me?!"

But we're just working out a philosophical position for the time being.

But the issue James raised doesn't appear to be whether God will ever feel motivated to change his holy mind. (In the Judeo-Christian scheme, didn't he change his mind abut creation, when he sent down the flood?) The issue seems to be the rather different question of whether or not God could change his mind, without contradicting and hence negating another of his divine attributes.

And I'm pointing out that there is no need for God to change His mind.

"If God can't change His mind, then He is not omnipotent" is in the same group with "If God can't make square circles, then He is not omnipotent" - in both instances, a typically human idea of what omnipotence is is projected into God.

It's true that people think that way, but I don't think that's the issue here. The problem seems to be more logical.

Sure. And people approach issues of logic by operating with premises they get from all kinds of sources, sometimes, those premises are simply their projections.

Those are good points. Much of our thinking, planning, deciding, acting, observing, recalculating and adapting in light of our experience, takes place precisely because we aren't omniscient and omnipotent. Throughout our lives, we are constantly making pragmatic choices in conditions of imperfect information and improvising in the face of uncertainty. That's the human condition.

Yes. And typically, God is beyond such problems.

Is God incapable of making a mistake, incapable of screwing up? What implications would that have for his omnipotence? More generally, can God learn? Can God grow? Can he change his mind? Can he be surprised?

If we take the divine attributes seriously (I'm not sure exactly why we should) it may very well be true that such a being's cognition and decision making might have to be radically different from those of frail, finite and temporally-embedded mortals like ourselves. So much so that it raises real questions about how much meaning there is in imagining God as a "person".

Us imagining God as a person has more to do with us than God. This not in the sense of anthropomorphizing God, but in the sense that if we are to meaningfully relate to someone, we have to be true to ourselves, ie. we have to be fully personal, because that is what we are - persons.

 

[wynn]

Traditional religious conceptions of God don't make sense because they're basically just inventing the details as they go along. In fact we've all seen details get invented on the fly in these very forums in response to critical evaluation. It basically goes "God can't be Y, because X", and the response is "well, maybe God isn't Y, but Z". And then weeks later, "God is Z".

I would say that it is not necessarily a case of "inventing details," but rather an effort for a more precise understanding and verbal expression thereof.

What do you think is wrong with that?

If religious people would just stop making claims that they can't possibly be qualified to make, and admit that it's just a mystery, I doubt that my atheism would ever really show. In fact in that context, I'm not even really an atheist at all, more of an agnostic.

Or perhaps you simply trust them too much and/or trust the wrong people.
Or perhaps you perceive a position as final, when it wasn't intended as such by the author.

 

[Balerion]

I would say that it is not necessarily a case of "inventing details," but rather an effort for a more precise understanding and verbal expression thereof.

Well, of course you wouldn't say that. You're a theist. Or, more precisely, a seeker. So your opinions are colored by a desire for the source material to be true, rather than a desire to learn the actual truth.

But since so many different religions/demominations insist upon wildly different motivations and other details, the more probably conclusion is that they're making it up as they go along, as opposed to doing actual scholarship.

Yes. And typically, God is beyond such problems.

Case in point. You're asserting your own details here, as if you could possibly know what the Christian God is beyond. You have no idea, but rather than saying "I have no idea," you insist upon certain details--details without which your tenuous faith would obviously have no purchase. So again we return to inventing these details for fear of the unknown, and a desire to shape the god-figure in an image that the believer requires.

 

[wynn]

Well, of course you wouldn't say that. You're a theist. Or, more precisely, a seeker. So your opinions are colored by a desire for the source material to be true, rather than a desire to learn the actual truth.

But since so many different religions/demominations insist upon wildly different motivations and other details, the more probably conclusion is that they're making it up as they go along, as opposed to doing actual scholarship.



Case in point. You're asserting your own details here, as if you could possibly know what the Christian God is beyond. You have no idea, but rather than saying "I have no idea," you insist upon certain details--details without which your tenuous faith would obviously have no purchase. So again we return to inventing these details for fear of the unknown, and a desire to shape the god-figure in an image that the believer requires.

You're simply projecting, while assuming yourself superior.

:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

You're simply projecting, while assuming yourself superior.

:shrug:

Slippery troll is slippery.

:shrug:

 

[wellwisher]

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 tempo

In special relativity, at the speed of light, time dilates or slows to zero, relative to any inertial frame of reference. If God was timeless he would need to exist at the speed of light. God being light is a well known tradition.

Visible light travels at the speed of light, but it also has finite attributes called wavelength and frequency that are finite reference dependent. If we change space-time reference (expand or contract) we will get a red or blue shift to these finite attributes. The sped of light will not change (timeless). "Let there be (visible) light", implied forming a bridge between the speed of light (never changing) and reference dependent wavelength/frequency attributes of light. God is in both, by tradition, by being called the light.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

If something like a god exists, it will be whatever it is. Some transcendent and immutable state from which all quality emerges perhaps. But the moment we project human abstractions and embellishments onto the idea is the moment we, well, fuck it up.

''Something like a god'' is not the subject matter. ''God'' is the subject matter.
Omnipotence and omniscience are products of trancendence, therefore there is only one God, or many of God.

Traditional religious conceptions of God don't make sense because they're basically just inventing the details as they go along.

Then ask someone to show you the oneness in what you see as difference.

In fact we've all seen details get invented on the fly in these very forums in response to critical evaluation.

Then it's a good thing the definition of God is not dependent on the ones given in this forum.

If religious people would just stop making claims that they can't possibly be qualified to make, and admit that it's just a mystery, I doubt that my atheism would ever really show. In fact in that context, I'm not even really an atheist at all, more of an agnostic.

Great, but the question isn't a religious one, and quite frankly has nothing to do with religion.
It does imply a definition of God (ie, omniscience and omnipotence), so we can bypass religious claims and get straight to the point.

Trancendence is a must.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

So it's merely a question just for sake of asking a question.

jan.

 

[Rav]

''Something like a god'' is not the subject matter. ''God'' is the subject matter.

No. The subject matter is a hypothetical entity, or transcendent reality, that is entirely beyond anyone's comprehension. The rest is a religious and/or personal embellishment of such.

Then it's a good thing the definition of God is not dependent on the ones given in this forum.

I think you meant to point out that the reality of the nature of an existent entity is not dependent on the definitions given.

Reality supersedes any individual or collective speculation. And guess what? That includes yours. More so than most, actually.

Great, but the question isn't a religious one, and quite frankly has nothing to do with religion.
It does imply a definition of God (ie, omniscience and omnipotence), so we can bypass religious claims and get straight to the point.

Absolute nonsense. Your conception of God derives from religion. The ideas of omnipotence and omniscience derive from religion. Religion has everything to do with this.

Trancendence is a must.

Demonstrate that omnipotence and omniscience necessary follow from transcendence.