LDS: Is God Omniscient?

[Calm]

It is logically impossible. What we know about what he knows is irrelevant to what he knows. So trying to get past this by saying we have free will because we don't know what we are going to do isn't pertinant to omnicscience. Unless there is a possibility that we can do something different than God knows there is no free will. What we do is already decided and locked in stone. And that starts a new chain of sticky problems so we don't do ourselves any favors by defending the (nonbiblical) omnis at all costs.

I think this is a fairly new on our radar screens because LDS philosophy is just starting to take off. How this can be solved is another question but we do have to start with the axiom that there can be no free will if God is omniscient.

I think the best way it can be resolved is to discuss agency rather than free will. Agency is about responsibility. As we are eternal creatures, the ultimate sources of our choices are ourselves and external influences. If God sets up a situation for us to grow that maximizes our ability to use our eternal natures as the primary source as opposed to external influences imposing on us, then God has allowed for us to use our wills, our agency to the fullest extent. Therefor we can be said to have become morally responsible beings.

"Free will"---the part that matters to us in the here and now---is really about being able to make the choice we want to make without being prevented by external influences; it does not mean randomness, imo. God can know about the choices we will make, but as long as we are the ones making the choice, I see it as technically "free" in the sense we talk about "freedom", but not "free" in the sense of unlimited probable outcomes.

God may know what we will become, but if this is because he knows our potential and has simply created a situation where we can use all of it for development both with and without his direct help, what we will become is ultimately our choice, our responsibility. God opens the door so we can begin the journey, paves the road so we can get there, etc., but we are the ones that choose the destination.

Omniscience does negate the traditional philosophical definition of "free will" however.

[Montgomery Price]

I'm sorry I've taken so long to respond... I was busy, but I'm prepared to defend my stand points. But, before I do, I need to make ask some questions to clarify:

1. After death, is there a limit to growth?

2. When must a person attain the knowledge of good and evil? Is it possible to obtain adequate knowledge of good and evil after death?

3. It is true that God does not limit our ability to make a selection between certain choices, but who is responsible for the limit of the list of certain choices? (In other words, Through uncontrollable circumstance, I am given choice Y or Z. I have the free-agency to choose Y or Z, but I can not choose A. Who is responsible for giving me only choices Y and Z but not A? Who limits the list?)

[mercyngrace]

But you don't know he won't. You are very sure he won't and even that assumes that life conditions will remain as they are. That is not omniscience. Every example given in this thread supports only free will. None of them are demonstrating absolute foreknowledge coexisting with free will. That makes it very obvious that our first priority is to save free will. But that has to be done at the expense of omniscience...and remember that omnisicience also requires that God interact with time in a given way. That is another set of problems.

Does it really matter if God knows everything or does it just matter that he knows enough and that he can handle every contingency when we actually do surprise him by using some free will?

Ya got me... I'm not really omniscient ;-) but God is.

1 Nephi 9:6

"But the Lord knoweth all things from the beginning; wherefore, he prepareth a way to accomplish all his works among the children of men..."

Benson called Him omniscient.

Marion G. Romney said He was omniscient.

President Monson said He was omniscient.

Dallin H. Oaks said He was omniscient.

Neal A. Maxwell said He was omniscient.

I could go on...

[mercyngrace]

I'm sorry I've taken so long to respond... I was busy, but I'm prepared to defend my stand points. But, before I do, I need to make ask some questions to clarify:

1. After death, is there a limit to growth?

2. When must a person attain the knowledge of good and evil? Is it possible to obtain adequate knowledge of good and evil after death?

3. It is true that God does not limit our ability to make a selection between certain choices, but who is responsible for the limit of the list of certain choices? (In other words, Through uncontrollable circumstance, I am given choice Y or Z. I have the free-agency to choose Y or Z, but I can not choose A. Who is responsible for giving me only choices Y and Z but not A? Who limits the list?)

1. For some there are limitations.

2. I don't know the parameters of "adequate". Children that die in childbirth, for example, when do they learn? Obviously not here.

3. God tailors the circumstances to provide us with a highly individualized education. Yes. However, there are a range of experiences that can provide us with the growth we need and I believe our choices determine exactly how we progress. Sometimes, the best expression of agency is in our reaction to circumstances beyond our control.

[mpschmitt]

3 questions.

1. God said Samson would nail the Philistines. Did God know Samson would give up the goods to Delilah?

2. God said he wished none would perish. Does God know who will be saved?

3. Do you believe that omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive terms?

Hey Mudcat,

Here's a favorite passage of mine from Talmage on the subject of free-will, foreordination, and God's prescience:

"Respecting the foreknowledge of God, let it not be said that divine omniscience is of itself

a determining cause whereby events are inevitably brought to pass. A mortal

father, who knows the weaknesses and frailties of his son, may by reason of

that knowledge sorrowfully predict the calamities and sufferings awaiting his

wayward boy. He may foresee in that son's future a forfeiture of blessings

that could have been won, loss of position, self-respect, reputation and

honor; even the dark shadows of a felon's cell and the night of a drunkard's

grave may appear in the saddening visions of that fond father's soul; yet,

convinced by experience of the impossibility of bringing about that son's

reform, he foresees the dread developments of the future, and he finds but

sorrow and anguish in his knowledge. Can it be said that the father's

foreknowledge is a cause of the son's sinful life? The son, perchance, has

reached his maturity; he is the master of his own destiny; a free agent unto

himself. The father is powerless to control by force or to direct by arbitrary

command; and, while he would gladly make any effort or sacrifice to save his

son from the fate impending, he fears for what seems to be an awful certainty.

But surely that thoughtful, prayerful, loving parent does not, because of his

knowledge, contribute to the son's waywardness. To reason otherwise would be

to say that a neglectful father, who takes not the trouble to study the nature

and character of his son, who shuts his eyes to sinful tendencies, and rests

in careless indifference as to the probable future, will by his very

heartlessness be benefiting his child, because his lack of forethought cannot

operate as a contributory cause to dereliction.

Our Heavenly Father has a full knowledge of the nature and disposition

of each of His children, a knowledge gained by long observation and experience

in the past eternity of our primeval childhood; a knowledge compared with

which that gained by earthly parents through mortal experience with their

children is infinitesimally small. By reason of that surpassing knowledge, God

reads the future of child and children, of men individually and of men

collectively as communities and nations; He knows what each will do under

given conditions, and sees the end from the beginning. His foreknowledge is

based on intelligence and reason. He foresees the future as a state which

naturally and surely will be; not as one which must be because He has

arbitrarily willed that it shall be." -- James E. Talmage, The Great Apostasy,

pp. 19-20

[Montgomery Price]

1. For some there are limitations.

2. I don't know the parameters of "adequate". Children that die in childbirth, for example, when do they learn? Obviously not here.

3. God tailors the circumstances to provide us with a highly individualized education. Yes. However, there are a range of experiences that can provide us with the growth we need and I believe our choices determine exactly how we progress. Sometimes, the best expression of agency is in our reaction to circumstances beyond our control.

1. What are these limitations, why are they in place, and scripture or talk reference?

2. Adequate as in necessary to progress. If Children can attain adequate knowledge of good and evil after death, then it is possible. So, why not have every man attain it after death?

3. But, why should a person be sent to earth only to suffer their entire life, if they can just learn after death?

What learning opportunity can only be held on Earth?

Learning from faith?

See, what I'm gathering from this is pretty much what I think you're explaining to me.

Each person needs different types of attention. If someone doesn't need to learn in Earthly ways, then he goes straight to the spirit world. If someone needs to learn from faith, they stay on Earth. If someone needs to learn from suffering, then he does this and that and so on...

The problem with this though... Is that everything seems quite predetermined. God knows in what ways we will react to the path or "list of choices" he prepares for us. So, if the reaction is intended... Does God only give a list of choices that are beneficial and lead back to him? Does he make the list of choices biased in anyway in terms of salvation?

[juliann]

Ya got me... I'm not really omniscient ;-) but God is.

1 Nephi 9:6

"But the Lord knoweth all things from the beginning; wherefore, he prepareth a way to accomplish all his works among the children of men..."

Benson called Him omniscient.

Marion G. Romney said He was omniscient.

President Monson said He was omniscient.

Dallin H. Oaks said He was omniscient.

Neal A. Maxwell said He was omniscient.

I could go on...

God may well be omniscient. There is no point in repeating that he is. The point is that if he is there cannot....by definition....be free will. Talmadge is phrasing it so carefully in the quote above that he is obviously aware of the problem. I read Elder Oak's address and he was using the word...but not the definition. He is talking about God knowing desires and intents of our hearts, not what we are going to do. I didnt' read the rest but the problem is not in using the word, the problem is that if you do you can't also claim free will without redefining the word to mean something else. I know that we are used to hearing it both ways and we want it both ways but both concepts cannot exist together.

It would be interesting to see the history of the Mormon use of the omnis which are clearly a construct of conventional Christianity.

[mercyngrace]

1. What are these limitations, why are they in place, and scripture or talk reference?

Sons of Perdition are limited.

2. Adequate as in necessary to progress. If Children can attain adequate knowledge of good and evil after death, then it is possible. So, why not have every man attain it after death?

Perhaps some have progressed premortally and come simply to acquire a body.

3. But, why should a person be sent to earth only to suffer their entire life, if they can just learn after death?

As with learning a language, the immersion program is always the most effective teacher.

What learning opportunity can only be held on Earth?

D&C 93 - we need a body in order to experience a fulness of joy i.e. exaltation

Learning from faith?

See, what I'm gathering from this is pretty much what I think you're explaining to me.

Each person needs different types of attention. If someone doesn't need to learn in Earthly ways, then he goes straight to the spirit world. If someone needs to learn from faith, they stay on Earth. If someone needs to learn from suffering, then he does this and that and so on...

The problem with this though... Is that everything seems quite predetermined. God knows in what ways we will react to the path or "list of choices" he prepares for us. So, if the reaction is intended... Does God only give a list of choices that are beneficial and lead back to him? Does he make the list of choices biased in anyway in terms of salvation?

Not in this life. I'm not sure how I feel about the next. I lean, obviously, toward the idea that God will do all He can to save every one of His children. My speculation is that He always provides a path toward Him, no matter how many other paths lie before us. Eventually, we learn that peace and happiness are found in that path as opposed to the others.

The scriptures describe God as perfectly just. His justice is different than man's because He knows our hearts and our histories. When we meet Him, I have no doubt that we will all feel justly dealt with (probably mercifully dealt with) - we will not feel that our agency was abrogated in any way but will see that He has been trying to lead us home in the most efficient way possible.

[Joseph Antley]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya

[Cold Steel]

But we don't have ultimate free will. We can't have it both ways.

No, we can't. But Calvin was dead wrong when he said that "some men are predestined to eternal death without any demerit of their own, merely by his sovereign will." This type of thinking came about by observation coupled with a disbelief in premortality and the assumption that the ultimate judgment of man comes at the time of death. Jesus said, "no man cometh unto the Father save it be through me," but the door has to come on this side of the veil. The Restoration didn't change the rules, but merely the timeline.

Would the law of justice allow God to create man and place him on the Earth without that man's prior consent? How is that any different than torturing a small animal? Yet Mormonism is the only religion that takes all this into account! In fact, the Restoration's theology is the one one where men (and women) aren't arbitrarily thrown into varying situations without having anything to do with it. If God did create intelligence, why did he make some people intelligent and great looking (like Megyn Kelly at Fox News) and others...well...not so? Why were some born into good circumstances and others not? Mormonism answers all this and puts it into a just perspective. Mainstream Christianity, on the other hand, is arbitrary and unjust.

People say that knowledge is power, and so it is with God. In fact, God is the ultimate in power because he's the ultimate in knowledge. You can't predict things in the detail he does simply by knowing some of the inputs leading up to a certain event. The things you do at the last split second, like choosing to turn right at a certain block or continue on and do something else, are known to him before you know it yourself. Even tiny little changes in events leading up to something can change that something drastically. My parents just talked about a fellow in their home town who served them burgers at the local hop. He was killed during the second world war, they said. I started wondering, what if my parents had not gone in one of those times to get burgers and what if that decision had caused something else to happen that would caused events to turn out totally different? The guy at the hop might have fallen and broken his ankle while taking an order to another car, or he may have paused a little longer to chat with a friend. A minor thing, but it could have led to him becoming president of the United States instead of being killed. Those are the tiny things you have to know to predict long chains of events that culminate in a happening. And God has to know all the inputs to know the future, or he has to know which events to change to cause something else to happen.

[mfbukowski]

So God is omniscient, but not omnipotent. Correct?

When you decide to go on a diet, are you actually limiting your freedom, or increasing it?

If God decides to obey his own rules, how is it different than that?

[Mudcat]

Juliann!!!!

Where you been girl? I gottsta know.

It is logically impossible. What we know about what he knows is irrelevant to what he knows. So trying to get past this by saying we have free will because we don't know what we are going to do isn't pertinant to omnicscience. Unless there is a possibility that we can do something different than God knows there is no free will. What we do is already decided and locked in stone. And that starts a new chain of sticky problems so we don't do ourselves any favors by defending the (nonbiblical) omnis at all costs.

I think this is a fairly new on our radar screens because LDS philosophy is just starting to take off. How this can be solved is another question but we do have to start with the axiom that there can be no free will if God is omniscient.

IMO this is the point where all knowing and all powerful come head to head. If one can not reconcile the other, then which concept is done away with? or both?

[mfbukowski]

IMO this is the point where all knowing and all powerful come head to head. If one can not reconcile the other, then which concept is done away with? or both?

You know I am just not seeing this at all. Would you please explain where exactly the contradiction supposedly is? I don't think anyone has actually put it out as two conflicting propositions, it is all just "If God knows what I am going to do, I have no freedom." I am just not seeing what one has to do with the other logically. Knowing something is different than causing it.

I am also missing the relevance of the entire question to our daily lives which is really all that matters. How would we live our lives differently if everything WAS determined?

And if there is no difference there, who cares about the intellectual exercise? What difference can this possibly make?

Perhaps I should have directed these questions to Juliann?

[Mudcat]

You know I am just not seeing this at all. Would you please explain where exactly the contradiction supposedly is? I don't think anyone has actually put it out as two conflicting propositions, it is all just "If God knows what I am going to do, I have no freedom." I am just not seeing what one has to do with the other logically. Knowing something is different than causing it.

I used to know where the contradiction was. IIRC it was between me being able to fathom a being that was capable of knowing the end from the beginning and me getting to actually pick something for myself in that process. It doesn't make sense in respect to omniscience alone. It always struck me as a bit of problem.. I mean if God said, "I know what you are going to do Mudcat." Then I am bound to what he knows I am going to do. What happened to my choice, I am just doing what God said I would... isn't this determinism?

Well I made my peace with the fact that God was actually capable of doing things that I couldn't fathom. He is omnipotent ya know. So my problem wasn't with God. My problem was that "I couldn't fathom".

However, from an apologetic standpoint a priori faith or belief is not defensible... It is only able to be asserted. Therein lies the problem.

I am also missing the relevance of the entire question to our daily lives which is really all that matters. How would we live our lives differently if everything WAS determined?

Well that is a good question. The answer being that it would likely be the same.

Regardless, I find myself in the same camp with Galileo when he said, "I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

Perhaps I should have directed these questions to Juliann?

Perhaps, but if its all determined Bukowski its not like you could help yourself!

[mfbukowski]

I used to know where the contradiction was. IIRC it was between me being able to fathom a being that was capable of knowing the end from the beginning and me getting to actually pick something for myself in that process. It doesn't make sense in respect to omniscience alone. It always struck me as a bit of problem.. I mean if God said, "I know what you are going to do Mudcat." Then I am bound to what he knows I am going to do. What happened to my choice, I am just doing what God said I would... isn't this determinism?

Well I made my peace with the fact that God was actually capable of doing things that I couldn't fathom. He is omnipotent ya know. So my problem wasn't with God. My problem was that "I couldn't fathom".

However, from an apologetic standpoint a priori faith or belief is not defensible... It is only able to be asserted. Therein lies the problem.

Well that is a good question. The answer being that it would likely be the same.

Regardless, I find myself in the same camp with Galileo when he said, "I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

Perhaps, but if its all determined Bukowski its not like you could help yourself!

Dang. I am stumped.

Nothing here I can disagree with, try as I might.

[DLClark]

Here are your questions.

3 questions.

1. God said Samson would nail the Philistines. Did God know Samson would give up the goods to Delilah?

2. God said he wished none would perish. Does God know who will be saved?

3. Do you believe that omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive terms?

Answer to #1. Yes God knew what Sampson was going to do. God know all thing past, present, and future, actual amd possible.

#2. Yes for sure but He does not send people to hell. Each person is accountable for the choices they make in faith or out of faith.

#3. Yes they are compatible. God knows all things but has given man the ability to choose. God does not want robots that just resond to their programing. Love means we freely accept what God offers. John 3:16 if you read it will point out that gospel is a "whosever wii" gospel.

[cjcampbell]

3 questions.

1. God said Samson would nail the Philistines. Did God know Samson would give up the goods to Delilah?

yes

2. God said he wished none would perish. Does God know who will be saved?

yes

3. Do you believe that omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive terms?

No. When God showed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ to Isaiah, He showed Isaiah the actual event. When He showed Adam and Moses and Abraham the whole history of the earth from beginning to end, they saw the actual events. When Moroni saw our day and said he knew our doing, he actually saw us.

It is simply a matter of perspective. If I see a bank robber, I do not, by the mere fact of observing him, take away his free will. From God's perspective, we have already done whatever we are going to do on the earth. Time as we know it does not exist for God. But time does exist for us. The fact that we are capable of perceiving time in in only one direction has no bearing whatsoever on our agency.

[cjcampbell]

Thanks all for the responses so far.

Seems the overwhelming consensus would be that God is omniscient and omniscience and free will are not mutually exclusive.

To take this a bit further, I would ask how does God's omniscience as defined by LDS coincide with the concept of exaltation. By this I mean, is God omniscient about an exalted child of his that becomes a God and the worlds they will create and be peopled by... and so on down the line?

Possibly. Any worlds created by us would, of necessity, be observable by us throughout their existence. God would be able to see that, too. The question would be whether there is some sort of meta-time that exalted beings are subject to. I do not know the answer to that question.

[cjcampbell]

That is an interesting question, since it rises to the question of what exactly is infinity. Can infinity have borders? Can something be finite and infinitie?

Some infinities are subsets of others. Just as the set of prime numbers is an infinite subset of the infinite set of real numbers, so is our time an infinite subset of whatever passes for time in the realm of God. His realm is infinitely larger, but that does not keep our realm from being infinite as well.

[Jeff K.]

Oh, I agree, just wanted to make the point with a question. Yours was an excellent and succinct answer.

[DLClark]

"No. When God showed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ to Isaiah, He showed Isaiah the actual event. When He showed Adam and Moses and Abraham the whole history of the earth from beginning to end, they saw the actual events. When Moroni saw our day and said he knew our doing, he actually saw us.

It is simply a matter of perspective. If I see a bank robber, I do not, by the mere fact of observing him, take away his free will. From God's perspective, we have already done whatever we are going to do on the earth. Time as we know it does not exist for God. But time does exist for us. The fact that we are capable of perceiving time in in only one direction has no bearing whatsoever on our agency."

Where do you find that God showed Is. the crucifixtion?Where do you find tha God showed Adam,Moses, and Arah. the whole history of the world? god never showed Moroni anything because he is not an angle or even a person. God can move in and out of time. I do not understand your point. God knows what will happen even before it happens.

[DLClark]

Is the law of eternal progression true? Why or why not?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Is the law of eternal progression true? Why or why not?

Why don't you start a new thread?

[DLClark]

this is a good place to ask this question. We are suppose to be talking about God. Which one are we talking about?

Is the law of eternal progression true? Why or why not?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

this is a good place to ask this question. We are suppose to be talking about God. Which one are we talking about?

Is the law of eternal progression true? Why or why not?

In this particular thread we are not talking about the law of eternal progression. I suggest not derailing this thread with your question. Show some respect.