The Omniscience of God Must Be Defended

[Freak]

Omniscience is an attribute of God that must be embraced by all orthodox Christians. It is an attribute that is spoken about throughout Holy Scripture.

God's Word tells us:

Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon me, and he told me to say: "This is what the LORD says: That is what you are saying, O house of Israel, but I know what is going through your mind.

Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit."

Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account

Omniscience simply means "all knowledge"-Holy Scripture points to the truth that God knows all things for He has all knowledge contrary to the heretical open view theory.

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?"
"Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?"
For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.

[geebob]

Omniscience simply means "all knowledge"-Holy Scripture points to the truth that God knows all things for He has all knowledge contrary to the heretical open view theory.

How does the open view deny God's knowledge? Can't God know that it is true that one may choose amongst several options if that is indeed the case?

[Freak]

Originally posted by geebob
How does the open view deny God's knowledge? Can't God know that it is true that one may choose amongst several options if that is indeed the case?

My concern lies with those in the open view camp (and there is a vocal group) that denies God foreknowledge. As I mentioned, the Scriptures are quite clear on this subject-

"Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit."

His understanding is not merely limited to the past or the present. He knows all. He is perfect so His attributes are perfect as well.

[geebob]

My concern lies with those in the open view camp (and there is a vocal group) that denies God foreknowledge. As I mentioned, the Scriptures are quite clear on this subject-

I understand. I am in the open view camp. But I don't deny God's foreknowledge and that is not necessary to the open view.

As I mentioned, the Scriptures are quite clear on this subject-

Indeed.

Jer. 3:7

I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it.

"Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit."

His understanding is not merely limited to the past or the present. He knows all. He is perfect so His attributes are perfect as well.

right, like I said,

"Can't God know that it is true that one may choose amongst several options if that is indeed the case?"

let me expand on that. In some instance, it may be false that someone will certainly peform an action in a specific way. The truth of how specifically that action will be performed may be non-existent and not true at all and to insist that God must know something that isn't true is nonsense. It may become true after it has been determined by a free agent, but before then, the truth of the matter is represented by a proposition that involves multiply possible outcomes.

AS an open viewer, I believe that God's knowledge of the future is indeed perfect as it is at the least knowledge of everything that is logically possible to know and at the most the knowledge is of the sum total of the reality of the future. I don't believe that that knowledge only consists of metaphysical certainties.

[Pilgrim]

I agree with Freak. however for the sake of argument it must be pointed out that "understanding" is not the same as "knowledge"

Understanding is what you do with your knowledge.

[geebob]

I agree with Freak.

On what part? That ov'ers don't believe in God's omniscience?

That the scriptures clearly teaches a version of omniscience that excludes the open view?

That ov'ers don't believe in foreknowledge?

[Freak]

Originally posted by geebob
On what part? That ov'ers don't believe in God's omniscience?

That the scriptures clearly teaches a version of omniscience that excludes the open view?

That ov'ers don't believe in foreknowledge?

God is perfect in knowledge and understanding, right geebob?

[geebob]

Of course, but I would take issue with what we consider perfect.

At minimum we could say that God has perfect knowledge because he knows everything that is significant and/or everything that he needs to know.

At most, perfect knowledge implies that God knows everything period.

the second statement represents what most of your *classical theologians would hold to, but open theists can subscribe to either one.

Where the open theist cries foul is when the classical theist sneeks in an assumption where perfect knowledge of absolutely everything cannot change. But in a universe that can change, omniscience in fact demands that knowledge changes with the changes in the universe.


*ov'ers use the term "classical" to label a variety of views that is held by many theologians in the tradition, but not all of them, such as determinism and the impassibility of God.

[Philemon]

I dont think its fair to charatrize the classical theists as "sneaky" when they say God's knowledge cannot change.

Please tell me in your own words how you think it is possible for God's knowledge to change?

Listen to my presupposition:
A change in His knowledge will denote either an increase or decrease. Either God truely forgot something that He cannot recall to His mind or he truely gained knowledge that was not previously known to His mind. In both instances you are adding or subtracting something from God. This is logically inconsistant if God truely knows all there is to be known not to mention viloated the presupposition of impassability, which you may not hold to I would assume. We must qualify that everything that can be known would refer to anything in and out of a temporal reality. Which includes every action or outcome of every free-will creature seen from a temporal and eternal perspective. If God exists externally He is not bound by motion or sequence of events. If we are going to go into this iuncharted territory than metaphysical distinctions are going to have to be made.

So tell me again, how can God's knowledge change?

[geebob]

Please tell me in your own words how you think it is possible for God's knowledge to change?

consider what I've already written.

In some instance, it may be false that someone will certainly peform an action in a specific way. The truth of how specifically that action will be performed may be non-existent and not true at all and to insist that God must know something that isn't true is nonsense. It may become true after it has been determined by a free agent, but before then, the truth of the matter is represented by a proposition that involves multiply possible outcomes.

In other words, something became true that was not previously true, and something that was true is no longer true (after the choice has been determined, it is no longer true that it is possible that more than one outcome could happen). Knowledge of the world must follow if it is to remain as knowledge.

In both instances you are adding or subtracting something from God.

by making God's specific knowledge of what the world is like an essential part of God, you make God ontologically dependent upon his creation.

I could say you are adding or subtracting to God, but just not in any way that is significant to his nature or essence, and that is all that matters with regard to his attributes that are properly immutable.

We must qualify that everything that can be known would refer to anything in and out of a temporal reality. Which includes every action or outcome of every free-will creature seen from a temporal and eternal perspective.

this only applies if the world is an eternalistic entity as opposed to a presentist entity. If only the present has concrete existence, such notions of timelessness as you suggest are meaningless. I had more to say on this in Jaltus' timelessness thread. Timelessnsess negates omnipotence. For arguements to that effect, see my first post there.

[GrayPilgrim]

How does this differ from Molinism? [Not really up on either view]

[Philemon]

Dear Geebob,
I think I understand your point, however your presupposition is that God does not/cannot know which possible outcome will come to fruition until it is actually determined by the free-will agent. Is that a correct summation of what you stated previously?

If that is accurate, I would submit your presup for thinking God cannot know which possible outcome will be determined until the moment of determination is flawed with the following reasoning:

Lets examine your reasoning for a moment: God knows all things that are knowable and thus every variable that would determine every possible outcome. Since God created all things He surely would know what every possible variable that could act upon any event's outcome.

Now we delve into probability. Lets say for the sake of arguement that OVT's are correct and no future exists for God to know it. Thus ablsoving us of the foreknowlege issue. However, if God knows all possible outcomes and EVERY variable that could affect an outcome, is it not reasonable to assume He can then predict which outcome is most likely from the data He has?

Infact, if he KNOWS ALL variables, is it not reasonable to say that God can predict every event's outcome with 100% accuracy?
Unlike our weathermen, bookies, or any other profession that uses odds and probability to predict.

For every event there is only one outcome that is 100%. God knows all of the possible outcomes and their probability as well does he not? If so then He knows the 100% certain outcome. All because He is the "perfect" mathematician and statistician. He knows all variables, therefore can predict with 100% accuracy all outcomes. The future doesn't need to exist for Him. :)

[geebob]

How does this differ from Molinism? [Not really up on either view]

see what I said in Jaltus' thread. I may not have said it as well as I should've, but I think you can get the gist, and if not, ask for more explanation over there.

I think I understand your point, however your presupposition is that God does not/cannot know which possible outcome will come to fruition until it is actually determined by the free-will agent. Is that a correct summation of what you stated previously?

yes, but there's something you need to know about the term possible. We can have a logical possibility. That describes a circumstance that is coherent and not logically contradictory. That your computer should sprout wings and fly away is a logical possibility.

we can also describe possibilities that at a superficial level appear to be possible.

the meaning of possibility that I use is something that truly can occur and is %100 consistent with all facts of the present. If in libertarian free will we say that it is possible for you to choose to do A at Time T and possible for you to choose ~A, then both truly can happen.

Now if God knows which possibility one will choose, If he knows that you will choose A and has always known that you will choose A, then that it is not truly possible for you to choose ~A because that possibility is not consistent with at least one aspect of the past and present and that is God's knowledge that you won't choose ~A. The chance that you will choose ~A is 0.

For every event there is only one outcome that is 100%. God knows all of the possible outcomes and their probability as well does he not? If so then He knows the 100% certain outcome. All because He is the "perfect" mathematician and statistician. He knows all variables, therefore can predict with 100% accuracy all outcomes. The future doesn't need to exist for Him.

this is only true within a deterministic universe (or an eternalistic indeterministic universe). In an indeterministic universe, all the variables will often yeild no such certainty. You may weigh all the variables and the most certain thing you may come up with is something like "there is a 64 percent chance that this will happen and a 35 percent chance that that will happen and a 1 percent chance that this other thing will happen." Any certainty as to which option will come to pass would negate the finality of those percentages, but I believe that for a moment those percentages may indeed represent the final fact of the matter for a moment in time.

molinism might have another option that is the exception to the rule above, but it has never been clear to me as to why molinism should not in fact be considered a full blown determinism. As far as I'm concerned, it only suggests that God did not have full power to determin, but nevertheless everything is determined.

[Freak]

geebob:
see what I said in Jaltus' thread. I may not have said it as well as I should've, but I think you can get the gist, and if not, ask for more explanation over there.



yes, but there's something you need to know about the term possible. We can have a logical possibility. That describes a circumstance that is coherent and not logically contradictory. That your computer should sprout wings and fly away is a logical possibility.

we can also describe possibilities that at a superficial level appear to be possible.

the meaning of possibility that I use is something that truly can occur and is %100 consistent with all facts of the present. If in libertarian free will we say that it is possible for you to choose to do A at Time T and possible for you to choose ~A, then both truly can happen.

Now if God knows which possibility one will choose, If he knows that you will choose A and has always known that you will choose A, then that it is not truly possible for you to choose ~A because that possibility is not consistent with at least one aspect of the past and present and that is God's knowledge that you won't choose ~A. The chance that you will choose ~A is 0.



this is only true within a deterministic universe (or an eternalistic indeterministic universe). In an indeterministic universe, all the variables will often yeild no such certainty. You may weigh all the variables and the most certain thing you may come up with is something like "there is a 64 percent chance that this will happen and a 35 percent chance that that will happen and a 1 percent chance that this other thing will happen." Any certainty as to which option will come to pass would negate the finality of those percentages, but I believe that for a moment those percentages may indeed represent the final fact of the matter for a moment in time.

molinism might have another option that is the exception to the rule above, but it has never been clear to me as to why molinism should not in fact be considered a full blown determinism. As far as I'm concerned, it only suggests that God did not have full power to determin, but nevertheless everything is determined.

geebob, I would encourage you to humble yourself before God. You are but a mere creature (as we all are) and this will result in our limitations of understanding His attributes. God however is not silent on these issues. God's Word tells:

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?"
"Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?"
For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.

Note: "His paths beyound tracing out", "Who has known the mind of God", and "unsearchable his judgements."

Your understanding will fall short my friend. At that point we need to turn to His Word which declares: Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account God knows all and "Nothing in all creation is hidden..."

[Ishmael]

Doesn't anyone believe in meticulous exhaustive foreknowledge anymore?