Theology Club: What determines the Omniscience of God

[Shasta]

I'd say you can't pour out of a thing more than was in the thing, as one principle. Another would be even more pragmatic. Any being capable of creating the sum total of all physical and moral law is necessarily so unimaginably more intelligent than we are as to make the question of omniscience a bit of a moot point.

Now I can watch my son as he's about to get himself in trouble and see that moment coming a mile away. Were I to believe in the arrow of time and the privacy of mind I'd still believe God to be practically omniscient in extension of my own experience in relation to my son, as limited as I am by comparison to God and as sharp as Jack is relative to his age (he's reading letters and small words, humming bits of Miles Davis jazz as he walks around the house at sixteen months of age ).

Beyond that I'd say that unless you only believe in oral prayer you have to believe in omniscience and something like omnipresence.

Foreknowlege gets into the question of the reality of time. I suspect we're mistaken about that one and there are both physicists and biologists making that case by degree. MTF

"Practically omniscient" is a contradiction in terms. Such omniscience with regard to predict what choices people will make are often very inaccurate or outright wrong - hence God calling people who subsequently abandon their call (e.g., King Saul). God makes a lot of mistakes.


I read a page citing the John Sanders, The God who Risks, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998, pages 132-133. I do not like quoting things second hand but I have no plans to buy the book. Any of you who possesses that book feel free to offer corrections.

"A third way of explaining some predictions according to presentism is to see them as statements about what will happen based on God's exhaustive knowledge of the past and present. In other words, given the depth and breadth of God's knowledge of the present situation, God forecasts what he thinks will happen. In this regard God is the consummate social scientist predicting what will happen. God's ability to predict the future in this way is far more accurate than any human forecasters, however, since God has exhaustive access to all past and present knowledge. This would explain God's foretelling Moses that Pharoah would refuse to grant his request. Nonetheless, this does leave open the possibility that God might be "mistaken" about some points, as the biblical record acknowledges. For instance, in Exodus God thought that the elders of Israel would believe Moses, but God acknowledges that Moses is correct in suggesting the possibility that they may not believe him (Exodus 3:16-4:9). God also thought the people of Jeremiah's day would repent and return to him, but they did not, to God's dismay (Jer. 3:7, 19-20).
The notion that God could be dismayed or wrong about anything may not sit well with some people, so perhaps some qualifications may be helpful. First, what is meant by the word mistake? Strictly speaking, God would make a mistake if you declared infallibly that something would come to pass and it did not. God would never be mistaken so long as he never said that X (for example, Adam will not sin) would infallibly come to pass and did not. Using the term more or loosely, we might say that God would be mistaken if you believe that X would happen (for example, Israel in Jeremiah's day would come to love him) and, in fact, X does not come about. In this sense the Bible does attribute some mistakes to God.
Finally, even if we affirm that God is sometimes "mistaken" in the sense that God believe that something would happen when, in fact, it does not come about, there is a question as to how often this happens. The biblical record gives a few occasions, but we are in no position to judge just how many times this occurs with God."

 

[Lighthouse]

God determined the parameters of existence, thus that which exists to be an object of knowledge; and even then God is sovereign over that which He wants and chooses to know.

 

[lucaspa]

Then Heisenberg hasn't established a want of omniscience, only the existence of a parallel to a square circle, provided we accept the principle as binding on God. But being that natural law is the expression of God and is subsumed by Him that isn't necessarily a foregone conclusion.

There was a lot of resistance to Uncertainty by physicists. Some came from scientists who wanted determinism -- like Einstein. Some came from physicists who were theists and also believed in omniscience. The end result was that there was extreme effort to get around Uncertainty and some of the other areas of quantum mechanics that indicated the future could not be known. Everyone tried to think of a way to know both the exact properties of complementary pairs. Einstein worked on the problem for over 10 years (he really, really didn't like Uncertainty). Everyone failed. In fact, in the process the mathematics showed that it was impossible to know both the precise position of an electron and its momentum at the same time.

Yes, I would agree that God created natural law. In this case God created a natural law that limits His ability to know within the universe He created. To deny all the evidence and try to say that "God knows somehow" is to put our own desires and ideas ahead of God. It means that we have stopped listening to what God has to tell us. This time He is telling us in His Creation.

IOW, what I am saying is not that God is forced to be less than omniscient, but rather that God chose to be less than omniscient. The question then becomes: why would God do this?

 

[lucaspa]

God determined the parameters of existence, thus that which exists to be an object of knowledge; and even then God is sovereign over that which He wants and chooses to know.

Which goes back to the point I made: God chooses not to know some things. He set up the universe so that He would not be able to know some things. One of those things seems to be the exact future. The future is open.

 

[lucaspa]

Science is not the source of divine omniscience;

I never said it was. I simply said that science reads God's other book: Creation. Creation is just as much, if not more, from God as scripture.

nor an explanation of the spiritual concept.

I never said it was. Please stop projecting your fears and simply read what I write. What I said was that studying God's Creation can provide information to illuminate our discussions of spiritual concepts. It may also tell us something about God. This concept -- called "natural theology" among Christians -- is as old as Christianity (remember Jesus's parable about sparrows and flowers) and a respected part of it.

Man should not measure or limit what God knows, according to what man does not know.

Again, Einstein, Bohm, and, initially, all physicists thought Uncertainty and the other parts of quantum mechanics were not real, but simply some failure of our human knowledge and ability to measure. They thought there simply must be some way of knowing. In the process of trying to find this way around Uncertainty, what they ended up proving is that there is no way.

I would say that man should not insist on what God is, according to what man wants God to be. Instead, man should listen to God, in both His books, and figure out what God is. From that, we might gain insight into what God wants for us and of us.

 

[lucaspa]

"Practically omniscient" is a contradiction in terms.

Technically, yes. A being is either omniscient or not, there isn't much in-between. However, if the term "practically omniscient" is meant to say "knows VERY much and knows on a practical level enough to a) grant salvation b) figure out who the unrepenetant sinners are", then the term is much better.

Such omniscience with regard to predict what choices people will make are often very inaccurate or outright wrong - hence God calling people who subsequently abandon their call (e.g., King Saul). God makes a lot of mistakes.

Define "often" and "a lot". If we read Genesis 2-3 either literally or as intended, it still comes across that God is suprised by the choice Adam and Eve made. Since God rescinded the dietary laws, the implication is that making those laws to begin with was a mistake. So, scripture is clear that the future does not always turn out the way God planned. However, I hesitate to say God "makes a lot of mistakes". In fact, I would refer you to the end of the post and John Sanders saying the same thing!

I wouldn't say that calling people who subsequently abandon their call a "mistake". That may be because I'm a Methodist. Methodists believe that we have free will and a choice to walk with God and work toward salvation. To us, salvation is not a moment in time, but a process. And we can turn back from that process, turn back so much that we actually can lose that salvation. Methodists don't agree with "once saved, always saved". IMO, God calling Saul wasn't a mistake on God's part. Saul walking away from that call was Saul's mistake.

I read a page citing the John Sanders, The God who Risks, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998, pages 132-133. I do not like quoting things second hand but I have no plans to buy the book. Any of you who possesses that book feel free to offer corrections.

"A third way of explaining some predictions according to presentism is to see them as statements about what will happen based on God's exhaustive knowledge of the past and present. In other words, given the depth and breadth of God's knowledge of the present situation, God forecasts what he thinks will happen. In this regard God is the consummate social scientist predicting what will happen. God's ability to predict the future in this way is far more accurate than any human forecasters, however, since God has exhaustive access to all past and present knowledge. This would explain God's foretelling Moses that Pharoah would refuse to grant his request. Nonetheless, this does leave open the possibility that God might be "mistaken" about some points, as the biblical record acknowledges. For instance, in Exodus God thought that the elders of Israel would believe Moses, but God acknowledges that Moses is correct in suggesting the possibility that they may not believe him (Exodus 3:16-4:9). God also thought the people of Jeremiah's day would repent and return to him, but they did not, to God's dismay (Jer. 3:7, 19-20).

I agree with this. In fact, I've said much the same thing several times by invoking the analogy of how well I know my children. I can predict what they will order in a restaurant, for instance, because I know them very well and I know their likes and dislikes. My younger daughter, for instance, will always order the vegetable sushi because she can't stand the thought of raw fish. Sometimes, however, because they have free will and the future is not determined, they will surprise me.

Finally, even if we affirm that God is sometimes "mistaken" in the sense that God believe that something would happen when, in fact, it does not come about, there is a question as to how often this happens. The biblical record gives a few occasions, but we are in no position to judge just how many times this occurs with God."

LOL! The guy you quoted just made my point about your use of the phrase "a lot". Thank you, John Sanders!

 

[Nang]

I never said it was. I simply said that science reads God's other book: Creation. Creation is just as much, if not more, from God as scripture.

Problem is, natural theology does not provide sound epistemology that can save any sinful soul.

In fact, just the opposite.

The bible teaches that natural theology (or "natural creational laws" that give witness to the majesty of God) only condemn mankind, for no man has ever been saved according to this knowledge of the creation. The inclination of all men is to worship the creature rather than the Creator. See Romans 1:18-25.

What I said was that studying God's Creation can provide information to illuminate our discussions of spiritual concepts. It may also tell us something about God. This concept -- called "natural theology" among Christians -- is as old as Christianity (remember Jesus's parable about sparrows and flowers) and a respected part of it.

True saving knowledge of God comes only via the particular and covenantal grace of God, who regenerates dead sinners to new spiritual life (John 3:3-8); gifting them with saving faith and spiritual capacity to understand the gospel.

Men, who remain in their natural state, apart from this work of the Holy Spirit, cannot and will not exhibit faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. They will continue to consider it foolishness. I Corinthians 2:7-16

Saving faith and knowledge comes only by the Word of God. (Romans 10:17)

There is no knowledge of God that works to save the soul, but that found and preached from the Holy Scriptures.

Instead, man should listen to God, in both His books, and figure out what God is. From that, we might gain insight into what God wants for us and of us.

There is only one Book that contains the moral/formal Law of God and the gospel that saves souls and spiritually enlightens any individual sinner.

No sinner has ever been saved according to natural laws as witnessed in creation and/or the sciences.

Sola Scriptura!

Nang

 

[godrulz]

Which goes back to the point I made: God chooses not to know some things. He set up the universe so that He would not be able to know some things. One of those things seems to be the exact future. The future is open.

LH would say that God can choose to not know knowable things. This is a denial of omniscience.

Recognizing that the future is partially open is not a limitation on omniscience because God still knows all that is knowable. By creating a non-deterministic creation, there is a voluntary self-limitation on the ability to have exhaustive definite foreknowledge
(just as not being able to create square circles is not a limitation for an omnipotent God, so not being able to have EDF of future free will contingencies is not a limitation on omniscience...both would be logical absurdities).

 

[Nang]

LH would say that God can choose to not know knowable things. This is a denial of omniscience.

Recognizing that the future is partially open is not a limitation on omniscience because God still knows all that is knowable. By creating a non-deterministic creation, there is a voluntary self-limitation on the ability to have exhaustive definite foreknowledge
(just as not being able to create square circles is not a limitation for an omnipotent God, so not being able to have EDF of future free will contingencies is not a limitation on omniscience...both would be logical absurdities).

Supposed future "free" will contingencies, are a human invention. They do not exist. No such thing.

Thus, there is no such limitations upon God's omniscience or question about His will being done, on earth as it is in heaven.

 

[godrulz]

Supposed future "free" will contingencies, are a human invention. They do not exist. No such thing.

Thus, there is no such limitations upon God's omniscience or question about His will being done, on earth as it is in heaven.

So, I cannot choose between Hawaii or Hollywood, reading the Bible or watching TV, chocolate or vanilla? iRobot?

No free will contingencies= no love, no relationship, no moral responsibility, etc.

If you really think that God's will on earth is for babies to be raped and murdered on film, then you are sick and your idea of God is little different than Satan.

 

[Ktoyou]

I believe that would be omniscience, which is perhaps different from the idea and concept of foreknowledge.

Not so different.

Now suppose I see an ant, and seeing it, I know that ant is going for a hole in an ant hill. Now does my knowing it, cause the ant to go into the hole? Might it be possible the ant does not know I am observing it? If a person can know what an ant will do, surly God knows it too, and much more. How can you disagree so far?

 

[godrulz]

Not so different.

Now suppose I see an ant, and seeing it, I know that ant is going for a hole in an ant hill. Now does my knowing it, cause the ant to go into the hole? Might it be possible the ant does not know I am observing it? If a person can know what an ant will do, surly God knows it too, and much more. How can you disagree so far?

This analogy works for past and present knowledge, but the future is fundamentally different. The observer of the ant does not see what it will do 5 days from now, but what it is actually doing right now.

If one tries to see the not yet future, they see nothing. To not know a nothing is not a lack of omniscience.

 

[Lighthouse]

Which goes back to the point I made: God chooses not to know some things. He set up the universe so that He would not be able to know some things. One of those things seems to be the exact future. The future is open.

:thumb:

LH would say that God can choose to not know knowable things. This is a denial of omniscience.

Recognizing that the future is partially open is not a limitation on omniscience because God still knows all that is knowable. By creating a non-deterministic creation, there is a voluntary self-limitation on the ability to have exhaustive definite foreknowledge
(just as not being able to create square circles is not a limitation for an omnipotent God, so not being able to have EDF of future free will contingencies is not a limitation on omniscience...both would be logical absurdities).

Translation: :blabla:

 

[Shasta]

Sorry, which book of the Bible was that from?

Jesus I know and Paul I know but who are you?

The Church Fathers knew the Paul, Peter and the Apostles and were taught their interpretations of scripture not those of modern theologians teaching novel interpretations of the Bible. Who has more credibility - Boyd? You? or Pinnock who did not even believe in the inerracy of scripture. I am not saying what they wrote was canon but it certainly was indicative of what was taught and believed then and from all evidence it is not what you teach.

 

[oatmeal]

Is God totally omniscient or are there some things for which He does not have foreknowledge. If so, what?

Totally man! Totally!

 

[oatmeal]

Totally man! Totally!

Isaiah 57:15

God inhabits eternity.

He inhabits all time, backward and forward and beyond time.

The past and present and future are all the same to God.

He occupies eternity

" For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones."

o'meal

 

[Shasta]

We’re not talking about only one right answer on a quiz—God is not taking a quiz. No parallel here.

God is just as prepared for my choices as if they were the only choices I could ever make. For you, possibilities are not the same thing as “knowing” because you’re finite, but for God, who is infinitely wise and omnipresent (knowing all things at once), possibilities are “knowing” as if the possibilities are certain.

Interesting. Elaborate on this, if you will,

 

[Shasta]

Sorry, which book of the Bible was that from?

Jesus I know and Paul I know but who are you?

Is your denial of their teaching an admission that your doctrine is not historical?

 

[Jacob]

Not so different.

Now suppose I see an ant, and seeing it, I know that ant is going for a hole in an ant hill. Now does my knowing it, cause the ant to go into the hole? Might it be possible the ant does not know I am observing it? If a person can know what an ant will do, surly God knows it too, and much more. How can you disagree so far?

You see me to disagree with something or want me to affirm what you are saying in agreement. I don't know for sure what you mean. I do believe we are small compared to God, like ants compared with us. But knowing what an ant will do, as predictable as a particular action might be, does not chart its course. I guess now I am asking about foreknowledge, when the question of omniscience deals with God knowing everything. To set something in motion, which God may do, is different from predicting based upon observed behavior.

 

[Shasta]

Sorry. I will try and organize my thoughts better

Shasta,
You seem to have placed everything in quotes, which makes it quite difficult to reformat.

I'll try to make do but perhaps later you could edit accordingly.

You said

OK, so let's see where this leads.

"If God existed in this current moment in universal time, God only exists in this current moment of universal time."

Is that what you are trying to say? I still fail to see how this places any kind of limitation on God, let alone "limitations on His omnipresence as well". By the time you have finished pronouncing your sentence, we are already at another "current moment of universal time" and I still haven't made any sense of what you are saying.

So if in another 75 moments of 'universal time' later (whatever moments of 'universal' time might mean... do you know?) you look and lo and behold there is an amazing coincidence: God is there as as well, completely unexpected! And of course no one in their right mind would possibly draw the inference that God was actually a living being...

I'm not sure what being a pantheist has to do with this but I assure you that I believe that Jesus Christ is the perfect representation of God himself and I don't see how anyone who claims the Bible to be inspired by God can believe otherwise. Can I ask you if you believe the same and if so, how can you also suggest that God is not part of the 'physical system'? If your concern is his omnipresence then how can you deny that he is everywhere in the physical system, even he, Jesus, who upholds the universe by the word of his power?

However, the universe is more than physical things. Surely you accept this, otherwise you would probably be an atheist?

As to a definition of time - time is a construct, it is a convenient term for use in human affairs but it has no actual direct physical referent. In other words, it can't be measured because it isn't something that exists physically to be measured. You can't catch it and analyse it, you can't put a sample of it in a bottle or watch it passing by or travel along it in a time machine. And anyone who thinks that Einstein showed that it was a physical property of the universe has completely misunderstood him.

I really don't understand your point. It again makes no sense at all. I firstly said
The universe is everything that is real. God is real. Therefore God is a part of the real universe. This is undeniable, what is so difficult about it?

Look, is love real? Do I hear a 'yes'? So where is this love situated then? I think you are hung up on this physical vs spiritual issue. The universe is much more than the physical.
Also you display a basic misunderstanding of the so called expansion of the universe, which isn't expanding at all. Because the universe is ALL (got it?) that exists. It can never be more than that and never be less than that. This is basic logic. You possibly imagine the big bang as a pea that suddenly turns into a football. I assure you that it is not like that at all. There isn't a vast infinite array of empty space into which the ever expanding football expands. The universe has no borders and cannot be measured. A rhetorical question for you: what do you measure EVERYTHING with?

No, it is very relevant. If you think that there is a boundary to the universe within which you think God (according to your view of open theism) is limited, then it is very relevant. Because you have completely misunderstood the concept of isomorphic expansion. Please cite me a reputable physicist who can confirm that the universe can be measured. I am confident that when you go and look carefully at your sources you will find you have misunderstood them.