Omniscience

[masterjedijared]

A while ago a theist friend of mine (weird pseudo-Christian) posited a definition of omniscience that he likes. He feels that this version of omniscience doesn't violate free will or his deity's proposed omnipotence.

Basically:

God is omniscient in that it can know all possible potentialities at once. By knowing the possibilities it essentially knows all.

My problem:

It still isn't omniscient then. It may know all the possibilities but it doesn't know what WILL happen. It's just a big chess computer at that point.

I bring this up just to see what everyone else thinks. I think its more for the 'lulz' than for solid logic but w/e.

Discuss

 

[eimerian]

If you flip a coin it will be either heads or tails.
Lo and behold! I am omniscient!

 

[Case]

If you flip a coin it will be either heads or tails.
Lo and behold! I am omniscient!

No, Sir. That depends on where, or if, the coin lands. It could also land on the thin side, for instance.

 

[monitoradiation]

God is omniscient in that it can know all possible potentialities at once. By knowing the possibilities it essentially knows all.

Personally I think that definition is irrelevant.

If he meant that omniscience entails knowing potentialities that CURRENTLY exist, at any given point in time, then it is essentially as you've said, a big database of dies that have yet to be rolled.

Plus, I don't buy that argument at all - This definition assumes that the knowledge of the situation is irrelevant. For example, if a die were to be rolled and ALL factors have been taken into account, the omniscient being would know what the dice will land on. In such a case, there is no potentiality whatsoever.

What this person is trying to do is to refute, in some sense, the free will argument, in saying that an omniscient being cannot foretell the future. Which I think is BS, he's just trying to retrofit the definition so a god can be said to be omniscient without trespassing on our free will. That's just trying to define a god into existence, really.

What's the difference, then, between someone who's omniscient, and a really really really smart person?

 

[masterjedijared]

I completely agree. I'm not sure what my friend was trying to do but he's more nutter than most with his brand of religious nuttiness. It's like an odd mix of Christianity meets Final Fantasy. It's an abhorant mess that just induces epic face-palmage.
:!: :facepalm: :!:

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

The reason why certain futures are only deemed "possible" in the first place is due to lack of information.

The aforementioned dieroll has 6 possible outcomes, but if you have all the information you'll know the air pressure, the spin to the die, its speed and angle of impact, etc. which allows you to calculate the outcome of the roll.

Perhaps you can ask him next time how much his god actually does know, because right now, he doesn't seem very impressive to me.

 

[masterjedijared]

Like I've said, this guy is a bit off; he thinks that because he has a recreational interest in mathematics he can famboozle nearly anything by adding math to legitimatize it. Another thing is he loves string theory but at the same time refuses to think that the Higgs-Boson particle could exist. He's very selective it seems. I'd venture to guess that his problem with the Higgs-Boson is that it could invalidate his dice-rolling deity as Creator.

 

[monitoradiation]

On the otherhand, I can sort of see where this argument might work.

I mean, sure, you can apply some sort of deterministic arguments to mechanical objects.

But there's an additional factor that comes into play if this guy is trying to refute the free will argument, in that humans are not deterministic. He's basically assuming that an omniscient being CANNOT know what the person thinks, etc.

If that's the kind of reasoning, I may sympathize to a certain extent, in that it isn't about what people know/think about a certain situation, it's about how likely they will take a particular action, given what they know/think, and their past actions.

Though, I still don't know I completely buy that argument...

 

[jenisturt]

God is omniscient, this is a belief that people believe in. A person who believes in something is right while thinking from his perspective and the matter of God and religion is taken in that way. Everyone has different beliefs and has different thesis to prove it. We as humans can only discuss and enlighten ourselves about the different possibilities possible.

 

[masterjedijared]

Incorrect. Just because someone, or even a group of someones believe in something doesn't make it right, correct or true.

Folks who can correctly utilize reason, logic and provide evidence should be taken a bit more seriously than those participating in cultural delusion.

 

[masterjedijared]

I should probably add:

Even though someone may hold an untrue or unverifiable belief doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't (imo). Folks can believe whatever they want but should expect that rational people may not take them seriously if they insist on bringing these beliefs into legislation or similar public arena.

 

[TheRatiocination]

My anthropology teacher in high school (the year of high school I spent in Georgia) said that God knows what you will do before you do it, before you are born, however it is you who ultimately makes the choice (and yes it was often that teachers brought up the Christian god to prove a point).

I also just had a Chemistry teacher that used God as the origin of energy when she was explaining the Law of Conservation of Energy this last semester.... I really need to get out of the south.

 

[monitoradiation]

My anthropology teacher in high school (the year of high school I spent in Georgia) said that God knows what you will do before you do it, before you are born, however it is you who ultimately makes the choice (and yes it was often that teachers brought up the Christian god to prove a point).

That leads directly into the Epicurean classic of the problem of evil.

I don't understand how it is still a "choice" if someone else already knew what you're going to do. It's only an illusion of choice, at most.

 

[TheRatiocination]

My anthropology teacher in high school (the year of high school I spent in Georgia) said that God knows what you will do before you do it, before you are born, however it is you who ultimately makes the choice (and yes it was often that teachers brought up the Christian god to prove a point).

That leads directly into the Epicurean classic of the problem of evil.

I don't understand how it is still a "choice" if someone else already knew what you're going to do. It's only an illusion of choice, at most.

Well, I think he was speaking under the context of "God usually does nothing anyway." The guy was cool, he wasn't illogical in his illusions. He was as "down to earth" as any christian could be in the sense that he believed in God, he just didn't think he openly interacted with Earth. *shrug*

 

[masterjedijared]

I think the larger issue there is that religious ideaology was pushed in school :facepalm:

Unless of course you attended a xian charter school of some kind.

 

[monitoradiation]

Well, I think he was speaking under the context of "God usually does nothing anyway." The guy was cool, he wasn't illogical in his illusions. He was as "down to earth" as any christian could be in the sense that he believed in God, he just didn't think he openly interacted with Earth. *shrug*

Ah, a deist.

Although the deist position is more easily defended, I also happen to think that it's a useless position. A being that created everything and then just silently watches and does absolutely nothing is essentially no different than a being who doesn't exist (in some views, the being really doesn't exist currently).

One can ascribe to that being whatever properties he wants, I guess.