Nature of Omniscience and Omnipotence

[Grazer]

Been reading Keith Ward lately over an ongoing discussion over whether God can/does/has changed his mind. Found the below in his book Why there almost certainly is a God It also links in with all the freewill discussions. Apologies for the long quote;

It looks as though God can know the future, change his mind, thereby proving himself wrong, and so causing big logical trouble. But the medieval theologians were very acute logicians, and readily produced many ways of making the definitions consistent. Resolving the alleged contradiction is easy. An eternal being cannot logically change its mind, so it is no restriction on omnipotence that God cannot change his mind. Even an omnipotent being cannot do what is logically impossible. That resolves the issue of contradiction. But as a matter of fact I prefer an alternative solution. The point is that a truly omnipotent being should be able to do new, original, creative things. Creativity and originality are great values, and it would be good for God to possess them. This is a value judgement that, surprisingly perhaps, only became widespread after the 16th century in Europe. Possibly it reflects the growing interest in the ability of technology to change the world for the better, whereas before that it was often assumed that all change was for the worse. As the Duke of Wellington once said, "Reform? Reform?Aren't things bad enough already?" As I previously argued, a being that is necessary in existence and in its essential nature could also be creatively free in many of its particular actions. If it is good for God to be creatively free, then it could well be necessarily true that God is creatively free. If God is creatively free, then God can "change his mind". In that case, omniscience must be taken to mean that God knows everything it is logically possible for one being to know. But no possible being could know what it has not yet decided, or perhaps what it has allowed other beings to decide freely. So there is still no problem with making omniscience and omnipotence consistent. It is perfectly reasonable to adopt a definition of omniscience such that "knowing everything possible" does not include things not yet decided (since that is not possible), and to adopt a definition of omnipotence such that "being able to do everything possible" does not include being able to do things that conflict with the necessary nature of God (like unutterably evil things). Then we can say that there are necessary limits on the things God, as an ultimately necessary being, can do. God cannot do absolutely anything. But since we do not know the inner nature of God, we can not know what the limits of divine necessity are. Presumably God cannot commit suicide, or do evil for its own sake, or change the past. God is nevertheless omnipotent, because God is the only source of finite existence, and can do the maximum that any possible being can do. What God cannot do is laid down by the necessities of the divine nature, which no possible being could evade. That is as much as we can reasonably ask of a definition of omnipotence.

 

[Guest]

John is such a beautiful Gospel, I'd also like to point out John 5:42
Also, God is omnipresent. He is present everywhere at the same time.

 

[ivdavid]

But no possible being could know what it has not yet decided, or perhaps what it has allowed other beings to decide freely.

If I've understood this correctly, then it seems to be a circular argument. If one were to accept the initial assumption that other beings can decide 'freely'[a very ambiguous term requiring much clarification] - then maybe, it could perhaps follow that it's not possible to know what such 'free' decisions are going to be. But this conclusion becomes invalid if the initial assumption is false. [By 'freewill', I do not negate the 'will' at all - just its scope of freedom.]

And while it is indeed true that no being can know what they have not yet decided, you seem to be applying it to God as if He were limited to making His decisions only at the time of action. This again stems from the earlier assumption that other beings can decide freely - from which you infer that God cannot know what such free decisions are going to be until the time of occurrence, and hence His own decisions that are in response to these others' decisions cannot precede that - thereby concluding that God cannot know beforehand His exact precise course of action(from among the zillion He perfectly knows are possible) that is to occur.

The alternate explanation is provided by foreknowledge and predestination. Foreknowledge states that God precisely knows what other beings are going to choose at any point in time. This is similar to that of a scientist who is able to foreknow exactly what chemical product would result when chemical A is mixed with chemical B, given his knowledge of their properties. Freewill denotes a kind of an arbitrary will - whereas it need not be so. Our will is quite predictable, given perfect knowledge of what's in our hearts and what circumstances would arise around us - which knowledge God does have.

And predestination is God's choice of action in response to such foreknowledge - well before the actual occurrence of events. And since this decision has been predetermined, God does know all there is to know - both others' decisions(foreknowledge) and His own future decisions(predestination).

As to which of these explanations are true, we could discuss about which of these give more glory to the wisdom and nature of God. But for now, would you concede the possibility of this alternate explanation to be true?

 

[Grazer]

Absolutely. I have no issues with it possibly being true. My current stance on it is that God knows us so well that he can predict with 100% accuracy how we will react to things, decisions we will make etc but he doesn't know in the sense that he's seen the future.

There's a related but wider issue of does he know when and where a natural disaster will strike and why doesn't he stop it if it does but that's a whole other topic.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[ivdavid]

...but he doesn't know in the sense that he's seen the future.

Didn't quite get this point. Could you rephrase or elaborate please.

There's a related but wider issue of does he know when and where a natural disaster will strike and why doesn't he stop it if it does but that's a whole other topic.

He does know. But how is this different from Him knowing when a 90-year old will breathe their last or when a 60-year old will have a fatal cardiac arrest? If you question why God does not stop people from dying in natural disasters, you'd also have to ask why He does not stop people from dying naturally. From Luke 13:4-5, the only distinction that matters seems to be dying in Christ or not dying in Christ - the manner of death seems quite immaterial spiritually. Would you agree or do you have a different take on this?

 

[Grazer]

Didn't quite get this point. Could you rephrase or elaborate please.


He does know. But how is this different from Him knowing when a 90-year old will breathe their last or when a 60-year old will have a fatal cardiac arrest? If you question why God does not stop people from dying in natural disasters, you'd also have to ask why He does not stop people from dying naturally. From Luke 13:4-5, the only distinction that matters seems to be dying in Christ or not dying in Christ - the manner of death seems quite immaterial spiritually. Would you agree or do you have a different take on this?

People dieing of old age I have no issues with really. It's the natural disasters part that I struggle with along getting hit by cement trucks and dieing of heart attacks (yes, I've lost some friends over the last year or so)

As for the first bit, not sure how else to put it. He can predict with 100% accuracy what I will do but he doesn't KNOW in the sense of he's already seen it because I have free will and can choose.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[P31Woman]

Been reading Keith Ward lately over an ongoing discussion over whether God can/does/has changed his mind. Found the below in his book Why there almost certainly is a God It also links in with all the freewill discussions. Apologies for the long quote;

It looks as though God can know the future, change his mind, thereby proving himself wrong, and so causing big logical trouble. But the medieval theologians were very acute logicians, and readily produced many ways of making the definitions consistent. Resolving the alleged contradiction is easy. An eternal being cannot logically change its mind, so it is no restriction on omnipotence that God cannot change his mind. Even an omnipotent being cannot do what is logically impossible. That resolves the issue of contradiction. But as a matter of fact I prefer an alternative solution. The point is that a truly omnipotent being should be able to do new, original, creative things. Creativity and originality are great values, and it would be good for God to possess them. This is a value judgement that, surprisingly perhaps, only became widespread after the 16th century in Europe. Possibly it reflects the growing interest in the ability of technology to change the world for the better, whereas before that it was often assumed that all change was for the worse. As the Duke of Wellington once said, "Reform? Reform?Aren't things bad enough already?" As I previously argued, a being that is necessary in existence and in its essential nature could also be creatively free in many of its particular actions. If it is good for God to be creatively free, then it could well be necessarily true that God is creatively free. If God is creatively free, then God can "change his mind". In that case, omniscience must be taken to mean that God knows everything it is logically possible for one being to know. But no possible being could know what it has not yet decided, or perhaps what it has allowed other beings to decide freely. So there is still no problem with making omniscience and omnipotence consistent. It is perfectly reasonable to adopt a definition of omniscience such that "knowing everything possible" does not include things not yet decided (since that is not possible), and to adopt a definition of omnipotence such that "being able to do everything possible" does not include being able to do things that conflict with the necessary nature of God (like unutterably evil things). Then we can say that there are necessary limits on the things God, as an ultimately necessary being, can do. God cannot do absolutely anything. But since we do not know the inner nature of God, we can not know what the limits of divine necessity are. Presumably God cannot commit suicide, or do evil for its own sake, or change the past. God is nevertheless omnipotent, because God is the only source of finite existence, and can do the maximum that any possible being can do. What God cannot do is laid down by the necessities of the divine nature, which no possible being could evade. That is as much as we can reasonably ask of a definition of omnipotence.

What you are saying in a nut shell is "we cannot trust God". Pretty much the thing Satan was doing in the garden.

 

[Grazer]

What you are saying in a nut shell is "we cannot trust God". Pretty much the thing Satan was doing in the garden.

Not at all. We can completely trust him. Not sure how you arrived at the conclusion I'm saying otherwise

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Grazer]

That's kind of how I'm reading it too. Or perhaps that you're sort of setting limits on God. I believe it is true that God can not lie or sin or things like that, but it isn't because he can not, for he is God and could do anything. He can not because it is his nature and character. Much the same way that, say, I could not kill my child. I am capable of it, yet I would not. It's not in my nature. It does not make sense that God doesn't know the future because you haven't made the decision yet through your free will like you say. You do have free will and can make either a yes or no decision on something, and it is in fact your decision to make...but God lives outside of our time domain and is not limited to only looking back. He can see the beginning and the end and already knows what your decision will be because he is not limited by time.

As you said, God cannot do anything against his nature but is changing his mind against his nature? I think God can see all possible scenarios and outcomes but our freewill means he doesn't know which path well follow but he has contingencies in place or uses what is around at the time. But he knows us so well that he can predict with 100% accuracy where we will go. Doesn't limit God to me.

I'm not saying this is definitely the case, just where I am at the moment in the "can God change his mind" and "freewill vs predestination" discussions.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[farouk]

God is God, yes, indeed.

When we say, Thy will be done, we are really saying, Let God be God in my life.

 

[Grazer]

[QUOTEGod cannot do anything against his nature but is changing his mind against his nature? I think God can see all possible scenarios and outcomes but our freewill means he doesn't know which path well follow but he has contingencies in place or uses what is around at the time. But he knows us so well that he can predict with 100% accuracy where we will go. Doesn't limit God to me.]

What you wrote in bold sets a limit on God and denies his Omniscience. That he can predict with 100% accuracy what we will do would be Him making an educated guess and would bring Him down to our level of being human, which is incorrect and denies his divinity. This is absolutely incorrect. God is GOD. Don't forget that God is not limited by our time domain. That is our limit, not His.[/QUOTE]

But as Keith Ward illustrates, it wouldn't deny his omniscience at all,

I think I'm going to have to draw a diagram or some kind of animated picture or come up with an analogy to illustrate my point because I don't think I'm explaining myself very well.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Grazer]

This is giving me ideas....

Anyone good at computer generated animation?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[P31Woman]

Absolutely. I have no issues with it possibly being true. My current stance on it is that God knows us so well that he can predict with 100% accuracy how we will react to things, decisions we will make etc but he doesn't know in the sense that he's seen the future.

There's a related but wider issue of does he know when and where a natural disaster will strike and why doesn't he stop it if it does but that's a whole other topic.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

That would put God and Satan on pretty much the same level don't you think?

 

[Grazer]

That would put God and Satan on pretty much the same level don't you think?

The devil does know us though does he not?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[P31Woman]

The devil does know us though does he not?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

I don't believe Satan knows me. I believe a demon may.

 

[Grazer]

I don't believe Satan knows me. I believe a demon may.

I very much believe Satan knows me enough to know how to get at me

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[ivdavid]

I think God can see all possible scenarios and outcomes but our freewill means he doesn't know which path well follow but he has contingencies in place or uses what is around at the time. But he knows us so well that he can predict with 100% accuracy where we will go.

I'd agree with Edward's pointing out this part of your position as the one that seems to detract from the glory of God.

If God can always and surely 'predict' with 100% accuracy where we will go - isn't that the same as "He knowing which path we'll follow"? I can't see the difference between these 2 positions that you seem to contrast against each other.

I know of 2 theories that explain God's omniscience - one with an unpredictable arbitrary freewill and differing time domains for God and man - and the other with only the will that is fully predictable and active predestination by God. I subscribe to the latter of these theories. Your position is neither of this - hence the request for further elaboration.

 

[Grazer]

Ok here's the best analogy I can come up with so far (its not perfect but no analogy is)

You're driving a car, all you see is the road you're on. You can't see that far ahead but you can see where you've been. Were trying to get to where God wants us. God is in a helicopter flying above everything. He can see us, all roads and all routes. To know whether were on the right road, we radio up to him (prayer) We can either follow his directions or do something else. Which ever we do, God knows where we will end up. Now sometimes the devil will put up a roadblock and we need to radio God to find out whether we need to go round it or through it. Now God knows us so well that he can predict what we do so it may not matter what answer he gives us. He sometimes puts roadblocks up and we need to radio to find out what we do. Since he can see all paths, he can put contingencies in place in case we wander off (which is what I believe happened to me) If we don't radio, he may take direct action but we as Christians are also to act as signposts.

To me, God being outside time means he can see the path of every decision we are ever likely to take, not that he has seen the future.

As I said, its not a perfect analogy but it works for me at the moment.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[ivdavid]

Grazer,

I think I understand your position. As far as I can see, we seem to differ only on language and not beliefs - but let me get that clarified.

If God 'predicts with 100% accuracy', isn't it the same as 'knowing the future'? Note, by 'knowing the future', I'm not referring to some kind of physical time-travel by God into the future or some video of a future event playing out to Him as it really happens either. I'd say it's more on the lines of absolutely and certainly knowing what the end result would be of a chemical reaction, given complete knowledge of its properties. I could use your phrase 'infallibly predict" but that could carry the connotation of God not knowing for certain - when actually He predicts accurately because He knows for certain.

 

[Grazer]

Grazer,

I think I understand your position. As far as I can see, we seem to differ only on language and not beliefs - but let me get that clarified.

If God 'predicts with 100% accuracy', isn't it the same as 'knowing the future'? Note, by 'knowing the future', I'm not referring to some kind of physical time-travel by God into the future or some video of a future event playing out to Him as it really happens either. I'd say it's more on the lines of absolutely and certainly knowing what the end result would be of a chemical reaction, given complete knowledge of its properties. I could use your phrase 'infallibly predict" but that could carry the connotation of God not knowing for certain - when actually He predicts accurately because He knows for certain.

I'd go along with that As you said, it seems we have the same belief just different wording

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2