If I were God, I'd know the entire history of the universe forever, future as well as past, I'd also know in advance every one of my own acts.

Oh, but wait, there's a dilemma there, isn't there?

Either God is bound by his future acts and has no free will, or he isn't omniscient at all because he doesn't know the future.

I call this The Problem of Omniscience.

Views: 2041

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Omniscience isn't an ability. It's a state of being. Argument over.

Interesting... how would one be certain about the distinction? Faith?

I don't claim to be as well read as some. Do you mean that a supreme intellect, first cause, or whatever, cannot blink?

I know the word has been defined thus, I am just not sure God has ever claimed it.

OMNISCIENT. 1. : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight. : possessed of universal or complete knowledge. — om·ni·scient·ly adverb.

I'm certain about what "omniscient" means because I speak English with a great degree of competence. I trust my knowledge of English. I do place a lot of faith in it based on the evidence that most people seem to understand what I'm saying and I generally understand them as well. Faith is okay as long as it's justified based on evidence vs. "blind faith" which is what Christians are expected to have. 

Ha! That's great! Touché.

No, I get it. It's just that I feel that the mainstream Christian assignation of the term to God is ridiculous and unsupported in their own 'Holy book'. It certainly seems to be runaway circular reasoning from a couple passages in the Psalms.

If the nature of a God was as I actually read in the Bible and describe above; does the paradox resolve? Or was the intent of your question just to expose a 'believer' as someone who prefers to let smart folks figure that out?

BTW. Seems God would be okay with your tongue in cheek definition of faith (Hebrews 11:1 KJV). Isn't "blind faith" a misnomer; maybe you mean credulity.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." - (Hebrews 11:1)

That is absolute and total nonsense. Hopefully, it's a bad translation.

"Blind faith" is believing in something whether or not there is evidence supporting it. I don't see how it's any sort of misnomer.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." - (Hebrews 11:1)

So a guy decides to farm the back forty acres. Why would he lay out money for seed? Why would a banker advance him?

A future reality that is currently invisible. I was just noting that even God seems to be asking a believer to look for evidence. Seems risky, no?

So a guy decides to farm the back forty acres. Why would he lay out money for seed? Why would a banker advance him?

The farmer, so that he can have a crop to survive another year.

The banker in hope receiving interest, but only after becoming familiar with the farmer's business and past performance.

A future reality that is currently invisible. I was just noting that even God seems to be asking a believer to look for evidence. Seems risky, no?

How is God asking anything? What risk are you referring to?

Paul/Sal wrote Hebrews. He claimed to speak for God. God said for one to have faith, you must have evidence. If there is no evidence you wouldn't send your adherents looking for it. Seems like the Deity risks keeping control over weak minds.

It's pretty certain that whoever wrote Hebrews, it wasn't Paul/Saul, the style is totally different, furthermore the book itself doesn't claim to be written by Paul (some of the ones that do make that claim are believed today (by non-literalists) to be forgeries, someone else claiming to be Paul wrote them, but Hebrews doesn't fit in this class).

The idea that Paul wrote Hebrews is a later tradition, just like the names of the authors of the four gospels.

I think the problems started when the Church started to mold god into something "perfect".

The Hebrew version screws up, apologizes, moves on, admits to being jealous, essentially acts like some old bronze age guy trying to muddle through life.

The catholic version is where the adjatives start to go crazy.  ALL knowing ALL seeing ALL powerful.  Everyone has free will AND god had a plan for them before they were even conceived...and so forth.

Look at Genisis...God makes Adam.  Gives him animals and plants and the Garden of Eden.

LATER, god thinks, hmmm, he needs a companion.  Maybe an animal?  God shows him all the animals (That he previously had Adam name...), and they don't do it for Adam...so, God decides, after the beastiality thing didn't take, to make a WOman.

God makes Eve, and, now that he made Eve, the plan takes a sharp twist, and he tells them to be fruitful and multiply.

So, it was just going to be Adam, or maybe Adam and donkeys, or whatever.  Adam was going to be the only human.

Add Eve, and, the new plan is to fill the garden with humans too.

Now, Adam was made to be immortal...so, the original plan is one Adam, forever and ever.

Add Eve, and the new plan is to make lots of humans.

Throw in Satan, who, apparently thought having an Adam was stupid, and decided he'd rather go to hell....

..but can go to the garden of eden and possess a lizard.

Why possess a lizard?  Well, god wanted Adam to be stupid.  But put a tree of Knowledge and good an evil in the garden.

So, Satan is in the garden of eden, & posseses a lizard to trick Eve onto eating the fruit.

She eats it, but the idea that she did something wrong doesn't take yet...she knew god said not to, but had no concept of right or wrong yet...

..and she gives some to Adam.

THEN they know right from wrong, and have knowledge.

So, as bronze age wisdom didn't quite get them quantum computers, all they knew was:

Its wrong to be naked.

How to sew, to make loins cloths from fig leaves.

So, the above, to me at least, is a god winging the entire thing....NOT some all knowing all seeing all powerful entity.

BTW - It bothers me that god cuts off the lizards legs, so he's now a snake, as PUNISHMENT for being possesed...

...and Satan, who possessed him, gets off scott free and legs intact.

And what about snakes, I mean, essentially, the bible says they're BORN punished.

Its like herpetological original sin...for the sin of being possessed.

Human original sin is being made to not knowing right from wrong, and then being tricked into doing something wrong.


A scholar I respected once said that while Christians relate to God like dogs to their owners, Jews relate to him more like cats.

There is, for example a Midrash (teaching story) where some Rabbis are debating a point of law. And after invoking several miracles to prove he was right, one of them said 'Let God testify that I am correct!" God did speak and said that the Rabbi was correct. The other Rabbi addressed God, and told him "Be silent! You had your chance to set down your word on Mt Sinai, and you told us to interpret. Well, now we are interpreting, and you have nothing to say about it!" And, according to the story, God laughed with delight at how wise his children were....

So I think you are right; the 'perfect' God came much later, and in part was the result of trying to reconcile so many different influences into something coherent....

I could know everything if I wanted to...I just don't want to.


© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service