I don’t know if this is really a great debate as much as it is a question. But the question seems more rooted in theology historically so I thought I’d ask it here. The basic dictionary meaning of omniscient is having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight. But what exactly does this mean? I don’t fully understand the concept or exactly what it means. But I thought it an important question as it seems to be the basis of many peoples theological stance. It plays a significant role in questions such as why does God create people that he knows are destined for hell as well as being a centerpoint in the conflict between freewill and predestination.
In order to be omniscient, does the omniscient being needs to know the position and velocity of every atom throughout the universe in both time and space? Or would the being only need to know the laws behind them and thus accurately predict their velocity and position? Does the uncertain rule apply?
Does an omniscient being need to know not only everything that is in existence, but everything that is not or has not yet come to be? Similiarly, would the omniscient being still be omniscient if it didn’t know the future (which at least from my POV hasn’t occured yet and therefore does not yet exist)?
If the omniscient being can see in to the future, would it perceive multiple possible futures? Or would the being only see one possible future?
IMO, Any being that had the property of being Omniscient would have to have powers that transcend the physical universe, so I don’t think we can use our understanding of physics and logic to decide what omniscience is like.
It comes down to semantics. It could mean any of those things you mentioned. It would probably be a good idea if people talking about omniscience defined how they are using the term.
Omniscience means, literally, all-knowing. In other words, if entity A is omniscient and B is some knowledge, A knows B. I think a lot of confusion comes from people abusing the concept of what constitutes knowledge when debating. B isn’t knowledge just because one can apparently phrase it in words. We can phrase total nonsense, and that’s not knowledge. For example, A does not “know” false things, like “Adolf Hitler was the first Pope.” A does not “know” the answer to nonsensical questions like, “What is the name of my cat?” I don’t have a cat; the question has no answer.
So how much does a hypothetical omniscient entity know? Not being omniscient ourselves, we can only make our best guess. Certainly everything we know (rightly) would be known by it. Besides the knowledge we (as a species) discover every day, there may be truths simply beyond our capacity to express in words (the flip-side of the talking nonsense mentioned above), or even beyond our capacity to contemplate, which an omniscient entity would know and we never will. If you put same degree of confidence in an omniscient being knowing something as you put in that same “something” being true, you’ll at least be consistent.
Our best guess in this case would be “no,” since an atom’s position and velocity are not simultaneously well-defined according to quantum mechanics.
I would say so. Following Parmenides, if it doesn’t exist, how can there be knowledge of it?
Maybe. Which interpretation of QM floats your boat?
Omniscience is a meaningless concept. The paradoxes you bring up have yet to be explained, other than to say it is “beyond our understanding”.
I would think so. By definition, there can be nothing the being does not know.
What’s the difference? If it predicted them, or “just knew”, it would still know.
I believe at least the Judeo-Christian God is considered to have knowledge of all future events.
I think it’s supposed to be just one future, since prophecy is supposed to work.
If you create something, and know everything it is going to do, then it doesn’t have free will. If you know what it will do, its actions are predetermined by definition.
To build on something that Lib said in another thread (and about omnipotence, not omniscience, but hey); I would define omniscience as the state of knowing (or being able to know) any and every thing to which the word ‘know’ can properly and reasonably be applied.
This does not necessarily include impossible knowledge in imaginary scenarios that we may choose to construct.
You are right in that the being would know either way but the difference is in the matter of how the being would experience the omniscience. Whether the omniscience was from experience (the being was there and saw it happen) or from foresight and prediction (which leads to the conclusion that it is possible that the being could be wrong).
I am sure that this is correct for many Judeo-Christian God worshippers, but as one himself, it is a concept that is rather alien to me and not part of my concept of the Judeo-Christrian God.
Mangetout, how can you define when the word “know” can properly and reasably be applied? I see your point on that knowledge is impossible in scenarios in which we form constructs that are contradictory to reality. And I can also see how “know” could be applied to all past and present events. But is it an imaginary situation to “know” future events? Are future event only imaginary from our perspective? Would an omniscient being have to see the future as reality or would it see it as an still undefined imaginary construct?
That I can’t say (so maybe my contribution to this thread wasn’t terribly useful); maybe an omniscient being would be able to know things that we consider it impossible to know (for example the simultaneous position and velocity of a particle; this is impossible from our viewpoint, but in the extreme example of, say all reality existing as a maintained construct in the mind of a supreme being, (or even reality being a very large and complex mathematical model) it would be entirely reasonable for the entity or system maintaining the fabric of the reality in question to ‘know’ such things).
I only chimed in because these threads about Omni-whatever seem quite often to attract comments to the effect “If it’s impossible for me to grasp, then it’s impossible for it to be so”.
If by explained you mean explained to everyone’s satisfaction, then sure. But the paradoxes are rooted in theologies that presuppose an omniscient being who is also benevolent, not in the nature of omniscience itself.
Certainly. That’s why they (Christians) have ideas about eternity, i.e. a “place” outside of the spacetime we know. From this vantage point, what something is going to do or is doing or has done has no meaning. There is only what something does. Thus, the omniscient god can know all that happens without deriving knowledge of the universe’s future from knowledge of its past according to some deterministic rule. Naturally the existence of such an eternity is a mystery taken on faith (or not). Any Dopers familiar with the notion who know whether it’s supposed to offer any insight into the world we live in?
Well, at any rate, the God portrayed in the Bible appears to have knowledge of the future. I suppose, since “God” is ill-defined, you are free to grant Him any characteristics you wish - assuming, of course, that you believe in God, which wasn’t really clear.
That’s an interesting concept, though - God as a kind of sorceror or genie, who can create in the present, but doesn’t really know how things will pan out. Can’t say I’ve ever heard that one before.
An omniscient being is one that people have made up, then have ascribed astonishing powers to (the better to glorify it and by association themselves) without ever actually having thought about to the depth that would allow such persons to answer your question.
Let me try that again and this time I’ll try to use the English language:
An omniscient being is one that people have made up, and then ascribed astonishing powers to (the better to glorify it and by association themselves) without ever actually having thought about what “omniscient” means, to the depth that would allow them to answer your question.
You bring up a very good question Ottto, a little off from the original topic, but one I would be interested in finding out more about also. What support can be provided that the Judeo-Christian god is omniscient? What perspective do other religions have on this same issue?
The question, I suppose, is going to be somewhat difficult to answer since we still do not have a concrete meaning of what omniscient means. But we can give it shot anyways.
How is the concept that the Judeo-Christian god being omniscient consistant with Genesis chapter 3 ?
I realize that he story of Adam and Eve are allegorical, but the story should still reveal in part the nature of God and his relationship to humanity. But if God is omniscient, why would God ask these questions, why did he not arrive and say something to the effect of “I know you ate of the tree and now you are going to die.” But as written, God seems somewhat surprised (as well as angry) that they did this and wanted confirmation of their deeds. If God did already know they had ate of the tree, would it had not been somewhat deceitful to even ask these questions, i.e. God would have to pretend not to know the answers when really he did.
Not at all (and as you say, most people accept the story as allegorical); I quite often use this device with my children when they do something bad; I know exactly what they have done (often I even know pretty much why too), but asking them about it is part of the process that (hopefully) leads to their realisation that they can’t just do whatever they want.
I’m not sure about some of the translations. I looked up a couple of those passages in KJV, and they didn’t seem to be saying exactly the same thing. But I think you can get the idea. There are quite a few references to omniscience, and a couple about ability to see the future.
Well said. For God, all events are not yet begun, are ongoing, and have already happened — all at once. The errant supposition that omniscience is incompatible with freewill misses that fact that God does not “collapse a wave” by observing it at a point in time.
