Is God omniscient or limited?

[I, Brian]

Certainly I would be far more inclined to perceive God as a far more neutral figure - "good" and "evil" as irrelevant as making morality judgements on the cycles of Nature itself.

However, the whole polar distinction between Deism and Pantheism I see as an artificial one. Perhaps it works for some, but persons like myself find Deism and Pantheism far too limited, and prone to becoming linguistic arguments, rather than theological ones - as per Wittgenstein's arguments of philosophy being a "critique of language", so theological niches becomes less about metaphysical perceptions of what may or may not constitute Ultimate Divinity, as much as arguments over the actual application of certain semantics.

However, something to bear very much in mind is the not too common experience of feeling some intermediary working on behalf of Divinity, and with humankind. To some this may be the Saints, the Angels, animistic spirits or demi-gods. I would even personally consider that intuition itself could be required as an intermediary process between self and Divinity. However perceived, I often feel that this element is very much missing from certain perceptions of Divinity. Deism itself is incapable of deciding what is and is not actually supernatural, whereas Pantheism itself is unable to consider the existence of Divinty beyond the immediate boundaries of the universe. In short, there's room for a far wider perception of God in metaphysical philosophy that has yet to be properly considered.

2c.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Definition of Metaphysics (from the Webster's Unabridged)
"[The term was first used, is is believed, by Andronicus of Rhodes, the editor of Aristotle's works, as a name for that part of his writings which came after the Physics.] That division of philosophy which includes ontology, the science of being, and cosmology, or the science of the fundamental causes and processes in things; in a looser serse, all of the more abstruse philosophical diciplines, in a narrower sense, ontology alone."

This is the definition that the traditionalists use, as do most theology.

Furthermore theologians and traditionalists agree that a non-theistic notion of metaphysics is a self-determined limitation and not acceptable.
hardly ideal, but because a philosopher decides he doesn't believe in God, that does not give him the right to alter the definitions of terms which are founded on the belief of the Transcendant.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

moreover, there are things that God cannot do.. for instance, God cannot draw a square circle. Omnipotence means that God has the ability to do anything that is logical, Omniscience means that God has the ability to know anything that is logical. things that aren't logical are removed from the equation.

This is a well-tried argument, and was defeated long ago. It falls on the principle that that a 'square circle' is an error in definition, and thus renders itself nonsensical, rather than impossible.

Another classic poses 'what happens when the irresistible force meets and immovable object?' - the answer being that you can have one or the other, but logically, not both, and might as well say 'what happens when Tuesday arrives on a Friday afternoon?'

It's a linguistic trick, that's all.

Lastly, the realisation of a given possibility, in a relative universe, precludes the realisation of other, contrary possibilities, but this is a limit of contingency, not of God. It might well be the case that god creates other universes wherein alternative possibilities are realised (Quantum Mechanics points to this possibility)

pax,
Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nogodnomasters

So a whole knew concept must be introduced. The problem still exists, god who is perfect deliberately made an imperfect being. God who is good, created evil. God who is all powerful can defeat evil at any time, but does not. This is absurd.

An argument states that if God creates anything, other than himself, then it cannot be 'perfect' because it is not God, who is the sum of all perfection.

Scripture tells us however, that what God created he saw as 'good' - so the point is that perfection can exist, in a limited and contingent fashion, outside of God - as can Good, Beauty, Truth and Reality. It doesn't have to be God to be perfect, it simply has to be what it is.

Thomas

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Thomas

This is the definition that the traditionalists use, as do most theology.

Furthermore theologians and traditionalists agree that a non-theistic notion of metaphysics is a self-determined limitation and not acceptable.
hardly ideal, but because a philosopher decides he doesn't believe in God, that does not give him the right to alter the definitions of terms which are founded on the belief of the Transcendant.

Namaste Thomas,

thank you for the post.

i disagree as evidenced by the initial use of the word, as far as we can tell, in the editing of Aristotles works... this necessarily implies a non-theistic interpetation of the concept.

many theists like to proclaim the metaphyisical ground as their sole purview, i think that they are mistaken. metaphysics are not confined to the discussion of theistic deity rather it is a philosophical discipline that can conform itself to a theistic expression or a non-theistic expression.

This is a well-tried argument, and was defeated long ago. It falls on the principle that that a 'square circle' is an error in definition, and thus renders itself nonsensical, rather than impossible.

Another classic poses 'what happens when the irresistible force meets and immovable object?' - the answer being that you can have one or the other, but logically, not both, and might as well say 'what happens when Tuesday arrives on a Friday afternoon?'

It's a linguistic trick, that's all.

it's along the same lines as the "can God make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it?". it's a nonsensical question because it's not logical when using accepted definitions of God however that also makes it impossible at the same time. it is both, nonsensical and impossible.

that is, perhaps, where we are disagreeing... you are seeing things as A or B whereas i'm seeing things as A AND B.

Lastly, the realisation of a given possibility, in a relative universe, precludes the realisation of other, contrary possibilities, but this is a limit of contingency, not of God. It might well be the case that god creates other universes wherein alternative possibilities are realised (Quantum Mechanics points to this possibility)

pax,
Thomas

correct.. and it also a limit of God. I didn't create Quantum particles that behave the way that they do... and if we posit that such things are created, and the Christian God as the creatOR, then God created Quantum particles in such a fashion that He could not determine the outcome of an event beyond a probility. people may not like this idea.. and for a long time physicists rejected it.. the evidence, however, overwhelmed them and they accepted it as a valid theory.

this, of course, allows free will for without the Quantum variables, every outcome would be predictable, especially for God which would negate the very idea of free will.

now... i'm not suggesting that there is free will, however, it is a concept that finds plenty of support within most of the Christian tradition.

[Thomas]

Pax Vajradhara -

Generally in the West the concept of metaphysics has move beyond Aristolean concepts - much in the same way that 'gnosis' has moved beyond its Platonic definition.

The term itself means 'beyond physics' and thus applies to all speculation on First and final Causes - even if Aristotle's view was somewhat limited in that regard.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

this necessarily implies a non-theistic interpetation of the concept.

Not strictly necessary I think - but again this is a matter of perspective. The Traditionalist School hold that metaphysics is beyond all form and all definition - and thus beyond theism as the expression of a personal God, hence their, and my, deployment od such terms as 'Absolute', 'Infinite' and 'All-Possible' in discussion - not ideal terms, perhaps, but the best we have to hand.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

it's a nonsensical question because it's not logical when using accepted definitions of God however that also makes it impossible at the same time. it is both, nonsensical and impossible.

that is, perhaps, where we are disagreeing... you are seeing things as A or B whereas i'm seeing things as A AND B.

Sorry - I'm not sure I understand you here.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

correct.. and it also a limit of God. I didn't create Quantum particles that behave the way that they do... and if we posit that such things are created, and the Christian God as the creator, then God created Quantum particles in such a fashion that He could not determine the outcome of an event beyond a probility.

But surely this posits God as contained within his own creation?

In a recent TV programme (on the soul, as it happens) they spoke to a number of physicists who all agreed that there is something 'fundamentally missing' from Quantum Physics as it is currently understood - so in my view a science that is acknowledged as incomplete by its own scientists displays man's limit - not God's.

The notion of 'free will' exists within the bounds of possibility - which from a Christian perspective is determined by the Creator. Thus God need not know whether you turn left or right, the point being that left or right are the only possibilities available in this cosmos - as determined by God.

Of course modern psycho-whatever is getting closer and closer to saying that man has no free will because he acts according to his nature and his education, environment, etc. etc. - in my view, in the end, the only expression of free will shall be the acceptance or denial of God - but that's just idle speculation.

Thomas

[mikie8]

the problem with quantum pyhics is the harder and deeper we look the more we disturb what we are looking at even light has an effect .so an all seeing all knowing diety who designed the quantum universe will know the preordained path of these particals .but if a diety is all knowing then our path is already set in stone and free will dont exist and we just act out a pre written script .boring :O
time is not a constant we all percieve time seperatly

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Pax Vajradhara -

namaste Thomas,

thank you for the post.

Generally in the West the concept of metaphysics has move beyond Aristolean concepts - much in the same way that 'gnosis' has moved beyond its Platonic definition.

The term itself means 'beyond physics' and thus applies to all speculation on First and final Causes - even if Aristotle's view was somewhat limited in that regard.



Not strictly necessary I think - but again this is a matter of perspective.

fair enough.

The Traditionalist School hold that metaphysics is beyond all form and all definition - and thus beyond theism as the expression of a personal God, hence their, and my, deployment od such terms as 'Absolute', 'Infinite' and 'All-Possible' in discussion - not ideal terms, perhaps, but the best we have to hand.

fair enough. using this rather broad definition, i'd ask for you to consider that this could apply to a non-theistic tradition. you don't have to agree to it as a principle, rather, for the sake of conversation.

Sorry - I'm not sure I understand you here.

my apologies. i think that this represents a fundamental difference in our world view. generally speaking, the western world has what is known as a mechanistic world view. everything was made from something else, you can find the smallest bit of it and it was made for a purpose.

this is expressed quite well in the modern device called the computer. i shall, for the sake of brevity, presume that you are a) conversant with how a computer works b) know the history of the machine to a small degree. if this isn't the case, please let me know and i'll fill in the gaps.

the pc is working in a binary way. 1 or 0. On or Off. Y or N. A or B.

new technologies, however, have changed the way that computers work. there is a mathmatical concept called Fuzzy Logic which has been applied to computers, in particular things like fans and atmospheric control systems. this is a fascinating field of exploration and, as you'll read and discover, a tremendous potential lies herein.

http://www.emsl.pnl.gov/proj/neuron/fuzzy/what.html

i'll post a snippet from the site:

Fuzzy set theory implements classes or groupings of data with boundaries that are not sharply defined (i.e., fuzzy). Any methodology or theory implementing "crisp" definitions such as classical set theory, arithmetic, and programming, may be "fuzzified" by generalizing the concept of a crisp set to a fuzzy set with blurred boundaries. The benefit of extending crisp theory and analysis methods to fuzzy techniques is the strength in solving real-world problems, which inevitably entail some degree of imprecision and noise in the variables and parameters measured and processed for the application. Accordingly, linguistic variables are a critical aspect of some fuzzy logic applications, where general terms such a "large," "medium," and "small" are each used to capture a range of numerical values. While similar to conventional quantization, fuzzy logic allows these stratified sets to overlap (e.g., a 85 kilogram man may be classified in both the "large" and "medium" categories, with varying degrees of belonging or membership to each group). Fuzzy set theory encompasses fuzzy logic, fuzzy arithmetic, fuzzy mathematical programming, fuzzy topology, fuzzy graph theory, and fuzzy data analysis, though the term fuzzy logic is often used to describe all of these.

a more comprehensive reading can be done here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-fuzzy/

But surely this posits God as contained within his own creation?

i believe that i had stipulated that previously for the sake of our convesation. however, God is only one of 6 potential 1st Causes and is not the default position.

In a recent TV programme (on the soul, as it happens) they spoke to a number of physicists who all agreed that there is something 'fundamentally missing' from Quantum Physics as it is currently understood - so in my view a science that is acknowledged as incomplete by its own scientists displays man's limit - not God's.

hmm... i would disagree. one of the reasons that we can put so much trust in science is that it can falsify itself. if a theory is proven wrong, it is discarded and a new one is adopted, until it is proven wrong. this is a very good method of establishing trust. man never claims to know everything that there is to know. we do, however, claim that we can know what we can observe to a reasonable degree of accurracy.

the television show reference, though, is a bit though to take without any sources not saying that you're wrong mon ami, rather, i would like to learn for myself. that's how we Buddhists do things

The notion of 'free will' exists within the bounds of possibility - which from a Christian perspective is determined by the Creator. Thus God need not know whether you turn left or right, the point being that left or right are the only possibilities available in this cosmos - as determined by God.

hmm... don't we have any Calvinists on this board yet? in any event, they are Christians and they don't really believe in free will like you are describing in the least.

i, however, believe that it is fact.

[Susma Rio Sep]

The discussion has entered into very subtle depths.

May I just contribute this thought:

We are all here minds exchanging views on God and existence. If there were no mind like ours and we ourselves don't have a mind like the ones we are all using now, all our exchange would be more than irrelevant, being that there is no mind to see irrelevancy at all -- except that mind distinct from ours that is or might be present.

Now what?

It seems obvious then that mind is existence, effectively.

No mind = non-existence. If we don't have a mind we don't exist for ourselves to ourselves; and we won't discuss about any mind that might be existent to be mindful of us; although he might be present to be mindful of us, but we ourselves being without a mind won't be mindful of nothing.

As a humor respite, may I bring to your attention:

What is mind? Mind is not matter.
What is matter? Never mind.

Susma Rio Sep

PS hahaha.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

The discussion has entered into very subtle depths.

May I just contribute this thought:

We are all here minds exchanging views on God and existence. If there were no mind like ours and we ourselves don't have a mind like the ones we are all using now, all our exchange would be more than irrelevant, being that there is no mind to see irrelevancy at all -- except that mind distinct from ours that is or might be present.

Now what?

It seems obvious then that mind is existence, effectively.

No mind = non-existence. If we don't have a mind we don't exist for ourselves to ourselves; and we won't discuss about any mind that might be existent to be mindful of us; although he might be present to be mindful of us, but we ourselves being without a mind won't be mindful of nothing.

As a humor respite, may I bring to your attention:

What is mind? Mind is not matter.
What is matter? Never mind.

Susma Rio Sep

PS hahaha.

Namaste Susma,

Bertrand Russell said that his parents would say that very same phrase to him repeatedly.. he eventually quit laughing after the 100th time or so...

you've basically described a version of the Anthropic Principle here... and i happen to agree with it

[Septegram]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Ah, no, Blackheart - the same can be applied to any perception of Divinity.

True. A being with infinite power must take responsibility for everything that happens, including the bad stuff. Further, there is no excuse for an omnipotent deity, since It could fix anything and everything.

The idea of a fractional, limited, Divinity, only makes sense if the universe itself makes no sense.

How does that work? Why must there be a single, supreme deity for the Universe to make sense? For that matter, why assume that a deity is required at all for the Universe to make sense?

Septegram

[Manesdracon]

First there was God... Now then, what is that God? And if we would be able to capture such an undefinable, almighty 'thing', then would it not essentially be a false definition, in the form of being incomplete since it is on itself limited to our limited language and limited perception of 'that which is' (which we can't even quite proof to our individual being on itself)?

Alright... So let's take it for granted that existence actually exists, and therefore take God for granted as 'creator' (whatever that may mean).
Let's just in other words say, existence is 1 (it is 'TRUE', it 'is') and nothingness is 0 (it is 'FALSE', it 'is' not). Considdering I just spoke of 'nothingness' I suppose I have already proven it's relativity as 'non-existing', after all, did I not speak of it, and therefore made it 'be'?
Paradox is what is implicated here by these two factors of 'false' and 'true', or rather I would say, by the 1, by the one that is ('true'). Existence implcates the existence of nothingness when one looks at it as absolute (beyond its movement in forms; or states); as time passes things come to be and things come to 'be-not', they end, but if one looks at this 'movement' as a whole being, capturing both that which is and which is not, one comes to see that existence is constantly implicating itself (being and not-being = being and not-being, etc).
What it comes down to is that God is the 'cause'... God is the almighty implicator that set off 'existence'... Since everything we speak of exists to a certain level (else we would not speak of it), it is an 'attribute' of God; a logical consequence of the beginning.

So yes... I think everything is limited to the limitationless nature of God, in other words there is free will and 'divine will' at the same time (whatever it may be). Is the door to your house not a part of your house, even if it cannot cover it's full definition? Yes, God is both limited and omniscient, just as well as He is both good and evil. To define as omniscient is a relative form of limititation on itself and another argument for the existence of all(!) things, to a certain level.

Greetings!
/Jeroen

[Quahom1]

You know what is funny? When we were babies and tiny children, DAD knew everything. When we were teen agers and young adults, dad knew nothing. When we are old and feeble, we wish DAD was around to tell us what we still don't know.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

You know what is funny? When we were babies and tiny children, DAD knew everything. When we were teen agers and young adults, dad knew nothing. When we are old and feeble, we wish DAD was around to tell us what we still don't know.

I am a dad now, have been for some good numgber of years. My own dad died some years back. Without disrespect toward him, in all modesty, I would say that I know more than he knew were he around today; because we here grew up in circumstances where we have been privileged to know more and better than he was in -- and his mind habits had been unavoidable barriers to his knowing as much as fast and as better as we have been privileged to in our own times nowadays.

What I miss from my dad is his experience of life and his insights into life.

Susma Rio Sep

[JJM]

Originally Posted by BlackHeart

And you think a deity would have to be "infinite" to know the answers to these things? Not just "vast beyond the imagination of man?" Or is that close enough to infinite that you consider them the same thing?

I don't think a deity would have to know *everything* to understand the nature of man & the universe. Or that a deity would have to be all-powerful, to be able to help those he likes and punish those he dislikes. "Ability to throw planets around like ping-pong balls & spark atoms into life" is plenty powerful enough to do that... that still doesn't assume infinite power. "Knows the true meaning of the human condition" doesn't, to me, imply "knows absolutely everything there has ever been or could be to know."

B'sides, those who talk about the "limited" nature of the Greek, Roman & Hindu Gods have generally never met them. They're not infinite (except for Brahma, but that's a whole 'nuther ball o' wax)... but that doesn't mean cultivating a relationship with them is useless, any more than you would avoid ties to your city council because they're not the President.

__________________________________________________ ____________


I don't feel that a diety would have to be limitless. But If he says he is then who are we to question. He doesn't have to be all loving but if he says he is why not belive him. Is their some sort of sceme in his head or are you just doubting his existence. As for knowing all that one is simple. If you create somthing you should know how it works right so if he created everything wouldn't he know everything. It seems obvious to me.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth May

If there are smaller gods then aren't they just like the saints?

I know I just wrote something but I can't help but reply to this. If saints are like small gods then that would mean That all people in heaven have some power over our live which isn't true. The Idea behind praying to a saint is that he or she is close to God and therefore can personally take your request before him. I've always seen the lesser gods of other religions as misinterpretations of angels. Rather than figments of the imagination.