Is God Omniscient?

[zerinus]

Okay, so here is what I understand your current position to be.

God sees the future in the past.

True.

It is impossible for this foreknowledge to be mistaken. God really does see the actual future.

True. He is also able to alter the course of events in the future to His own advantage.

You also agree that it is impossible to change the past, which is fixed. So we cannot change what it is God saw.

Not sure about that. You are here linking the past with the future, so that altering the future means altering the past.

Therefore we cannot do other than what God saw us do. There is only one possible outcome.

Not true. We could do, or have done, other than what God saw us do; but it happens that we wouldn't or didn't, and God knew that we wouldn't or didn't.

But you also agreed with libertarian free will: that freedom requires the power to do otherwise.

Yet, apparently we don't have the power to do otherwise, since we don't have the power to change the past.

Not true; see above.

In your response to me earlier you said it was possible for the atonement to fail. . . .

I never said that.

You also say that (7) (in the previous numbering) did not follow. How so? How could Christ have had the power to change the past?

I don't think I said that either.

[Deborah]

I can't imagine assigning moral culpability to a deterministic process, neither can I imagine assigning moral culpability to a random process.

The problem is in defining it as a deterministic process, or even a random process. The choices we made in the past affect the choices we make now and which choices we will make in the future. We made the choices and continue to make the choices. Obviously even if we made bad choices in the past we can change our course in the present and future, which is what repentance is about. But God knowing what is down the road has no part in the choices we made from the beginning or continue to make.

[CV75]

The premise that is false is that God's foreknowledge limits our actions.

I agree that God’s foreknowledge does not limit our agency. When, as a result of His acting on His foreknowledge, He intervenes in our behalf, we still have a choice, and He intervenes to give us the opportunity to expand our agency. This has been the case since the Garden of Eden.

But I do think His foreknowledge is manifest in various forms. Some forms are knowledge in the customary sense while some are actually the expression of His perfect faith. We are accustomed to His ability to know of future events in a temporal sphere because He experiences them from an eternal perspective. But He also exercises faith while operating in His eternal sphere (such when He creates), which results in knowledge (an eternal principle).

I think the root to understanding what God knows and foreknows lies in understanding how He applies faith from His eternal perspective. Perhaps it is better addressed by another thread.

[asbestosman]

An impasse, as it never becomes clear at what point or why moral culpability would ever be assigned to a process known to be deterministic, whatever the source of its initial state.

Here's another question, inspired by the latest episode of Awake on Hulu - is it possible to design an experiment to confirm or disconfirm libertarian free will?

Moral culpability would be co-eternal with the process which has no beginning. Actually, it might increase by degrees if the process increases in the ability to anticipate consequences.

I'm not sure that one could design such an experiment. Perhaps you could confirm it for a subsystem or a different system, but not for yourself.

Edited March 23, 2012 by asbestosman

[wenglund]

Wade, to be blunt: I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

To be equally blunt, what is there about the words "yesterday" and "the past" do you not understand?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

To be equally blunt, what is there about the words "yesterday" and "the past" do you not understand?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Relevance - that would be what I don't understand. Feel free to explain exactly what you mean at anytime.

[asbestosman]

True. He is also able to alter the course of events in the future to His own advantage.

Would it be accurate to say that you see God's foreknowledge as provisional--that God foresees what will happen unless He intervenes and what will happen when He does intervene? If so, does this provisional foreknowledge also apply to mankind such that God foresees what will happen if we choose X and what will happen if we choose Y instead? Or does God already know that we will choose X instead of Y (perhaps unless He intervenes)?

[Log]

Moral culpability would be co-eternal with the process which has no beginning. Actually, it might increase by degrees if the process increases in the ability to anticipate consequences.

I don't get it. Deterministic processes are deterministic and hence, in my view, not culpable no matter if the process has a beginning or not.

Perhaps you could confirm it for a subsystem or a different system, but not for yourself.

That was my conclusion. God can know if libertarian free will is true in this sphere, but we can't know unless told.

But what might bake noodles is "Can God know he has libertarian free will or not?"

Edited March 23, 2012 by Log

[CV75]

Just one more thoguht: why cannot "omniscience" simply mean "knowing all that all mortal humanity combined has, does and will know" and "omnipotence" mean "exercising all that all mortal humanity has, does and will exercise". After all, all we can know and have power to do comes from Him. This leaves plenty of room for Him to know and do more that that (which He does), and also leaves Him plenty of room to exercsise faith.

[wenglund]

To further my point, see if you agree with the following termporal reorientation of Blake's argument:

The valid, and I believe sound, argument to show that past-knowledge is incompatible with free will is as follows:

1. It has always been true that I sinned in the past (Assumption: Omnitemporality of Truth).

2. It is impossible that God should hold a false belief or fail to know any truth (Assumption: Infallible Foreknowledge).

3. God has always believed that I had sinned in the past (from 1 and 2).

4. If God has always believed a certain thing, then it is not in anyone's power to have done anything which entails that God has not always believed that thing (Assumption: Fixed Past).

5. It is not in my power to have done anything that entails that God has not always believed that I sinned in the past (from 3 and 4).

6. Had I refrained from sinning in the past entails that God has not always believed that I had sinned in the past (necessary truth and from 2; Principle of Transfer of Powerlessness).

7. Therefore, it was not in my power to have refrained from sinning in the past (from 5 and 6).

8. If I had acted freely when I sinned in the past, then I also had it within my power to have refrained from sinning (assumption libertarian free will).

9. Therefore, I did not act freely when I had sinned in the past (from 7 and

.

Do you agree? If not, then why not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[asbestosman]

I don't get it.  Deterministic processes are deterministic and hence, in my view, not culpable no matter if the process has a beginning or not.

I tend to think that free will requires some kind of determinism. We have to be able to anticipate consequences (which requires some amount of determinism) and we follow some basic principles according to what we anticipate to be the consequences--in other words more determinism.

That was my conclusion.  God can know if libertarian free will is true in this sphere, but we can't know unless told.

But what might bake noodles is "Can God know he has libertarian free will or not?"

Even if God told us, would we really know that it wasn't just some deterministic / random process saying that to us?

Maybe God just has to take libertarian free will on faith. Perhaps that is why faith is so important and is the first principle of the gospel (although specifically faith in Jesus Christ).

[Log]

Wade,

I think your "temporal reorientation" does nothing for me to understand whatever you think your point is (of which, as before, I am entirely ignorant). I'm not really sure what I am supposed to be agreeing to. Can you simplify this, or, better yet, simply state your point?

Edited March 23, 2012 by Log

[Log]

Maybe God just has to take libertarian free will on faith.

That's certainly possible, and is one way I think the principle behind Godel's Incompleteness Theorems - the truth of all propositions expressible in an axiomatic system cannot be known (proven) without unproveable assumptions (assuming this principle applies outside of arithmetic) - could have profound implications for omniscience.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Log

[wenglund]

Relevance - that would be what I don't understand. Feel free to explain exactly what you mean at anytime.

The relevance of the past to the future is that both are part of the same time continuum. As such, I see no reason why, in principle, an argument related to looking into the future, wouldn't also apply when looking into the past. If you can point out a reason, I would be pleased to hear it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade,

I think your "temporal reorientation" does nothing for me to understand whatever you think your point is (of which, as before, I am entirely ignorant). I'm not really sure what I am supposed to be agreeing to. Can you simplify this, or, better yet, simply state your point?

Do you agree with the conclusion of the reoriented argument? If you do, then there is no conflict with what I stated earlier.

If you don't agree with the conclusion, then please explain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

Wade,

I'm still not getting whatever it is you are getting at.

Thanks, though, for trying.

[wenglund]

Wade,

I'm still not getting whatever it is you are getting at.

Thanks, though, for trying.

I am not seeing that you have answered my follow-up questions. Doing so may help you to get what I am getting at. How about giving it a try.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 23, 2012 by wenglund

[Log]

Wade,

Your "reoriented" argument is sufficiently convoluted and confusing that I am simply not going to agree or disagree with it; I literally don't know what I'm getting into. Sorry. If your point cannot be made in any other fashion, or your thoughts be made known through straightforward statements which clearly and concisely communicate information, then I am going to refuse to engage with you.

Sorry.

[asbestosman]

Godel's Theorem isn't unproved. It just can't be proved within a formal system of that system (with certain assumptions, but the ability to express the natural numbers is sufficient). One way to interpret Godel's theorem is that some things can be proved without the possibility of formally proving them in a formal system. I don't think it would be proper to call it an unprovable assumption. Actually there is one unprovable assumption: that the system is consistent.

The halting problem is related to Godel's theorem but may in some way be stronger. If God could be modeled by a really powerful Turing machine, then God could not know for all programs whether they halt. The assumption is that God could be modeled in such a way. That is not too different than assuming that God's ability to prove things is limited to formal proofs in axiomatic systems. It's easier for me to imagine the possibility of proving something without it being a formal proof in an axiomatic system (Godel's theorem does that) than it is to imagine something more powerful than a Turing machine which definitely has no halting problem. Such a thing may be possible, but I can't currently prove it one way or the other.

[zerinus]

That is fine for you to say that according to your understanding, but my question was:

Do you see any way that God expands in knowledge, such as when He generates new exalted offspring and they in turn generate their own? Or, when in using faith in the creation process, He generates and experiences new knowledge with the realization of the end of that faith?

As I said, I can only go by what God has revealed; and what He has revealed doesn't seem to me to allow for that possibility. Take a look for example at what God revealed to Moses:

Moses 1:

4 And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease.

5 Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth.

8 And it came to pass that Moses looked, and beheld the world upon which he was created; and Moses beheld the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the same he greatly marveled and wondered.

27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the spirit of God.

28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.

29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.

38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come, and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.

My reading of these verses is that God sees from the beginning of eternity to the end of eternity (for want of a better way of expressing it), all that He has ever done and all that He will ever do. There is nothing that escapes His gaze. In fact, He is not only able to see all that He has ever done and all that He will ever do, but He is even able to show it to someone else. That is what I understand from these verses by showing to Moses “all of” His “glory;” the seeing of which is such an experience that after it no one can remain as a mortal human being. I don’t know about you; but from my point of view, that rules out any kind of “learning” that God will need or be expected to do.

Regarding such scriptures as 2 Nephi 9:20, to “know” means to possess “knowledge,” which is described in some places in scripture as something very different from how it is commonly used, just as the words “intelligence” and “light” are. I think “he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it" means He has “been there, done that” as far as mortal probation goes.

Cannot agree. See above.

Edited March 23, 2012 by zerinus

[wenglund]

Wade,

Your "reoriented" argument is sufficiently convoluted and confusing that I am simply not going to agree or disagree with it; I literally don't know what I'm getting into. Sorry. If your point cannot be made in any other fashion, or your thoughts be made known through straightforward statements which clearly and concisely communicate information, then I am going to refuse to engage with you.

Sorry.

I thought I was clear. But, evidently I over-estimated your abilities to comprehend salient counter arguments that may be new to you. I have had discussions with Blake and others on the matter, and he and they seemed to grasp what I was arguing just fine. Oh well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 23, 2012 by wenglund

[Log]

Well, Wade, you could simplify your argument so that someone of my clearly limited intellect can follow it more easily, or you could provide a link to the conversation you had with Blake so I might read how he understood your position, or you could simply indicate which premise in the argument is flawed from your perspective along with a concise statement regarding exactly how it is incorrect.

All I can even imagine at this point is that you possibly might be denying that the past is fixed.

Sorry.

[zerinus]

Just one more thoguht: why cannot "omniscience" simply mean "knowing all that all mortal humanity combined has, does and will know" and "omnipotence" mean "exercising all that all mortal humanity has, does and will exercise". After all, all we can know and have power to do comes from Him. This leaves plenty of room for Him to know and do more that that (which He does), and also leaves Him plenty of room to exercsise faith.

Because in His revelations God has told us otherwise. See my previous post.

[Zeta-Flux]

zerinus,

He is also able to alter the course of events in the future to His own advantage.

If God sees the future, how is he able to "alter" it? He wouldn't be seeing the actual future if it can change.

[Log]

Well, if my admittedly defective intellect is correct in interpreting Wade's advanced argument to mean he is denying the fixity of the past, then one might consider the tapestry of history as a tapestry, literally. Maybe God makes adjustments in earlier sections based on how the pattern turns out later on in the weavings.