Is God Omniscient?

[mfbukowski]

Nah, I don't think it does. You have choice, God knows what you will choose, but God doesn't make you choose what you chose. You choose what you chose because you wanted to.

I have intentionally stayed out of this thread, but I just wanted you to know that I agree, but I think you already knew that!

Pragmatically speaking, we always have a choice. If it is "really an illusion" that is totally irrelevant to our lives- so who cares?

[mfbukowski]

One more and then I will go away.

Is God omnipotent?

As this thread abundantly proves, it all depends on your definitions.

[Zeta-Flux]

Hi Log,

Let me give it one more try, if you will:

If we define foreknowledge as knowing the future as the past,

then, in principle, foreknowledge is the same as past knowledge.

I disagree, depending on one's view of time and reality. Edited March 24, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[Log]

Good catch; I had read "omnitemporality of truth" into his words.

[zerinus]

Then back it up. Where has God revealed that He can alter what He sees in the future?

Okay, I am sure you are familiar with the loss of the 116 pages of the original translation of the book of Mormon by Martin Harris, and how the Lord confounded those plotters by substituting the Small Plates of Nephi for those 116 pages. Here is the history of the preparation of those pages in the Book of Mormon, thus indicating how God knew of the events leading to the loss of those translated pages, and intervened in advance to alter the course of events in the future to frustrate Satan’s plans, thus proving that God not only sees the future, but is able to influence its outcome. These verses are not all the verses in the Book of Mormon that relates to the history of preservation of those plates, but they are sufficient to illustrate the point:

1 Nephi 9:

5 Wherefore, the Lord hath commanded me to make these plates for a wise purpose in him, which purpose I know not.

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; for behold, he hath all power unto the fulfilling of all his words. And thus it is. Amen.

1 Nephi 19:

3 And after I had made these plates by way of commandment, I, Nephi, received a commandment that the ministry and the prophecies, the more plain and precious parts of them, should be written upon these plates; and that the things which were written should be kept for the instruction of my people, who should possess the land, and also for other wise purposes, which purposes are known unto the Lord.

Jacob 1:

2 And he gave me, Jacob, a commandment that I should write upon these plates a few of the things which I considered to be most precious; that I should not touch, save it were lightly, concerning the history of this people which are called the people of Nephi.

3 For he said that the history of his people should be engraven upon his other plates, and that I should preserve these plates and hand them down unto my seed, from generation to generation.

Jacob 7:

27 And I, Jacob, saw that I must soon go down to my grave; wherefore, I said unto my son Enos: Take these plates. And I told him the things which my brother Nephi had commanded me, and he promised obedience unto the commands. And I make an end of my writing upon these plates, which writing has been small; and to the reader I bid farewell, hoping that many of my brethren may read my words. Brethren, adieu.

Alma 37:

14 And now remember, my son, that God has entrusted you with these things, which are sacred, which he has kept sacred, and also which he will keep and preserve for a wise purpose in him, that he may show forth his power unto future generations.

Words of Mormon:

3 And now, I speak somewhat concerning that which I have written; for after I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi.

4 And the things which are upon these plates pleasing me, because of the prophecies of the coming of Christ; and my fathers knowing that many of them have been fulfilled; yea, and I also know that as many things as have been prophesied concerning us down to this day have been fulfilled, and as many as go beyond this day must surely come to pass—

5 Wherefore, I chose these things, to finish my record upon them, which remainder of my record I shall take from the plates of Nephi; and I cannot write the hundredth part of the things of my people.

6 But behold, I shall take these plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my record, for they are choice unto me; and I know they will be choice unto my brethren.

7 And I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh in me to do according to his will.

D&C 3:

1 The works, and the designs, and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught.

2 For God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round.

3 Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men;

D&C 10:

38 And now, verily I say unto you, that an account of those things that you have written, which have gone out of your hands, is engraven upon the plates of Nephi;

39 Yea, and you remember it was said in those writings that a more particular account was given of these things upon the plates of Nephi.

40 And now, because the account which is engraven upon the plates of Nephi is more particular concerning the things which, in my wisdom, I would bring to the knowledge of the people in this account—

41 Therefore, you shall translate the engravings which are on the plates of Nephi, down even till you come to the reign of king Benjamin, or until you come to that which you have translated, which you have retained;

42 And behold, you shall publish it as the record of Nephi; and thus I will confound those who have altered my words.

43 I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work; yea, I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil.

Edited March 24, 2012 by zerinus

[CV75]

Where does it say that “faith leads to knowledge ...?”

***

Except that the scriptures I quoted do not connote an “eternal round” of increase in faith or knowledge.

The word omniscient is not used in scripture (except in the Lectures on Faith, which I consider to be scripture); but the word omnipotent is used in the Book of Mormon; and we must assume it means what it does in the English language

God exercises faith in Himself

***

This does not allow room for God "learning" anything new by the exercise of His faith which He didn't know before.

Yes, the exercise of faith leads to knowledge (Alma 32). Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things (v. 21), but when we exercise it (v. 26), our knowledge becomes perfect when the object of that faith is realized (v. 34). I believe this is an eternal principle and that it applies to God as well as us mere mortals, except that He has, does and will apply it more and more perfectly than we do. He is the tree of everlasting life (v. 41), that Lehi and Nephi saw in vision, that we first partake of, become joint heirs of, and become one with.

Yes, He has faith in Himself, as we have faith in Him. This results in His creations and the associated knowledge of them. God knows other Gods, and when He gets to know more Gods as they come along, He is no less and no more a God than He ever was as God in the first place. In this sense His course is one eternal round, but it is one that keeps creating and making more “worlds [and gods] without number.” He will never be finished with His work (2 Nephi 29:9), though individual works do become finished (John 4:34; 17:4; Romans 9:8; D&C 76:85; Moses 3:2).

I won’t respond to all your comments because it seems like the crux of the matter is the scriptural definition (rather, our understanding of the scriptural definition) that we use for knowledge. D&C 93 provides a scriptural definition of knowledge. If you have an alternative definition of “knowledge” from Lectures on Faith, please provide. From D&C 93:

v. 24: Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come (note it does not say knowledge of “all things”).

v. 29: Intelligence is the light of truth, or the light of knowledge of things (as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come)

v. 30: Truth is existence, so “knowledge of things” is also existence

To me, this means that God’s knowledge is God’s existence. He knows all He needs to know to be God, and we discover what that is as we apply our faith and knowledge in righteousness (D&C 88:67). Note that “all things” (most notably in D&C 88:41) in verses 36-46 refers to all things within the kingdoms and beings under God’s jurisdiction.

[CV75]

P.S. I have a suspicion that what you are really trying to do is...

This is just plain wrong. Whatever your inspiration to suspect such a thing, it is faulty as it has led you to the wrong assessment. Plus I find “eternal progression” a bit off topic from the basic need to discuss any scriptural definitions or insights of the term “knowledge” and resume a discussion about “omniscience” from there. For this reason I did not bother reading the rest of this post.

If you can continue this discussion on what knowledge is, based on my previous post, please do so.

[Zeta-Flux]

Okay, I am sure you are familiar with the loss of the 116 pages of the original translation of the book of Mormon by Martin Harris, and how the Lord confounded those plotters by substituting the Small Plates of Nephi for those 116 pages. Here is the history of the preparation of those pages in the Book of Mormon, thus indicating how God knew of the events leading to the loss of those translated pages, and intervened in advance to alter the course of events in the future to frustrate Satan’s plans, thus proving that God not only sees the future, but is able to influence its outcome. These verses are not all the verses in the Book of Mormon that relates to the history of preservation of those plates, but they are sufficient to illustrate the point:

Where does it say that the Lord altered the events? As far as I can tell, the events played out exactly as the Lord planned and as He saw they would. Edited March 24, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[zerinus]

Where does it say that the Lord altered the events? As far as I can tell, the events played out exactly as the Lord planned and as He saw they would.

If the Lord had not made the contingency arrangements, the course of events would have turned out differently from the way they did. God knew how they would have turned out if He had not intervened; therefore having that foreknowledge, He took measures to ensure that they would turn out the way He desired, not the way Satan desired--while at the same time preserving everyone's agency. Joseph Smith was allowed to make his mistake; Martin Harris was permitted to sin, and break the covenants he had entered into with God--but without the purposes of God being adversely affected. God was able to do this because of His foreknowledge. I don't see how you can interpret that in any other way except that God had used His foreknowledge of the future to plan in the past to ensure that the course of events in the future would turn out to be to His own advantage--but without overriding man's agency.

[Zeta-Flux]

If the Lord had not made the contingency arrangements, the course of events would have turned out differently from the way they did.

True. But He did make those arrangements.

God knew how they would have turned out if He had not intervened; therefore having that foreknowledge, He took measures to ensure that they would turn out the way He desired, not the way Satan desired--while at the same time preserving everyone's agency.

Again true.

Joseph Smith was allowed to make his mistake; Martin Harris was permitted to sin, and break the covenants he had entered into with God--but without the purposes of God being adversely affected. God was able to do this because of His foreknowledge. I don't see how you can interpret that in any other way except that God had used His foreknowledge of the future to plan in the past to ensure that the course of events in the future would turn out to be to His own advantage--but without overriding man's agency.

I agree. But I don't see anywhere in there that God altered what He saw.

[Mudcat]

I have intentionally stayed out of this thread, but I just wanted you to know that I agree, but I think you already knew that!

Pragmatically speaking, we always have a choice. If it is "really an illusion" that is totally irrelevant to our lives- so who cares?

I agree in practical, common sense way our ability to choose is self evident. We do it all the time.

I understand what you mean when you say "so who cares?". But I do assign some relevance to the topic, because our view on the issue of free will/determinism and so forth do have a great deal of impact on how we view God.

I know you LDS have heard the "different Jesus" mantra till you are likely blue in the face with it and in those cases the canon is usually pointed at you. But does a person who believes God has given them the freedom to follow him worship a different God than the person who believes they follow him because God determined they would do so?

To me it seems a wide gap in understanding.

[mfbukowski]

P.S. I have a suspicion that what you are really trying to do is to revive the doctrine of eternal progression, which I don’t think you will be able to do. I don’t believe that it is an inspired doctrine. The only sense in which God can be said to be “progressing” in scriptural terms is in His glory. He constantly glorifies himself by the works that He does:

And he does progress through our glory though.

You left one scripture out- "This is my work and my glory - to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."

So indeed God does progress- through the progression of his children who bring him glory.

B.R. McConkie:

Now may I suggest the list of heresies. Heresy one: There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths. This is false--utterly, totally, and completely. There is not one sliver of truth in it. It grows out of a wholly twisted and incorrect view of the King Follett Sermon and of what is meant by eternal progression. God progresses in the sense that his kingdoms increase and his dominions multiply--not in the sense that he learns new truths and discovers new laws. God is not a student. He is not a laboratory technician. He is not postulating new theories on the basis of past experiences. He has indeed graduated to that state of exaltation that consists of knowing all things and having all power. The life that God lives is named eternal life. His name, one of them, is "Eternal," using that word as a noun and not as an adjective, and he uses that name to identify the type of life that he lives. God's life is eternal life, and eternal life is God's life. They are one and the same. Eternal life is the reward we shall obtain if we believe and obey and walk uprightly before him. And eternal life consists of two things. It consists of life in the family unit, and, also, of inheriting, receiving, and possessing the fullness of the glory of the Father. Anyone who has each of these things is an inheritor and possessor of the greatest of all gifts of God, which is eternal life. Eternal progression consists of living the kind of life God lives and of increasing in kingdoms and dominions everlastingly. Why anyone should suppose that an infinite and eternal being who has presided in our universe for almost 2,555,000,000 years, who made the sidereal heavens, whose creations are more numerous than the particles of the earth, and who is aware of the fall of every sparrow--why anyone would suppose that such a being has more to learn and new truths to discover in the laboratories of eternity is totally beyond my comprehension.

http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6770

By the way I think it is interesting that he would accept scientific dating of the age of the earth but not human fossils.

[Log]

The doctrine of eternal progression - including in knowledge - happens to be an official teaching of the Church anyways.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

Hi Log,

Let me give it one more try, if you will:

If we define foreknowledge as knowing the future as the past,

then, in principle, foreknowledge is the same as past knowledge.

As such, an argument that foreknowledge denies free will, is also an argument that past knowledge denies free will, or in other words, it is an argument that knowledge denies free will.

However, an argument against past knowledge denying free will, is also an argument against foreknowledge denying free will, or in other words, it is an argument against knowledge denying free will.

Does this help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

To me, God must live in a state not unlike what we call "ritual". When we go to the temple, we know pretty much exactly what will happen for the next two hours or so. Of course our knowledge isn't perfect- there could be accidents, the lights could go out, an earthquake etc- but for the most part, those are pretty unlikely.

But for our foreknowledge, we are not MAKING things happen, in those cases where we have foreknowledge of what will in fact happen. We don't push the temple workers through their duties in doing the ordinances- we don't force the Aaronic priesthood in sacrament meeting to do the ordinances either. But we know what they will do (for the most part)

So for me, God having foreknowledge has nothing to do with him making things happen. Choice is not an illusion- even if that idea made sense, which pragmatically it does not, in my opinion, (because we really don't experience what determinism would be if it were true) the idea would still be false.

I can pick up a pen and hold it over the desk and let go, and I know for a certainty that it will fall. Did I MAKE it fall? No. Perhaps I "allowed" it to fall because I knew what would happen, but I did not make it happen. It happened all on its own

[mfbukowski]

The doctrine of eternal progression - including in knowledge - happens to be an official teaching of the Church anyways.

Well I happen to agree with you- but I was trying to play nice nice with Zerinus and at least get him to accept half of it.

The mere fact that God is still creating- organizing- whatever word you like- worlds means that there will be new "situations" arise with new children, etc.

Perhaps he foreknows what they will be, perhaps not. That is why it gets so confusing and is strictly a semantic thing as I see it. It is just too big for us to understand and the words get in the way. That's one way of putting it anyway.

It's more like we haven't got the language to do these ideas justice.

[mfbukowski]

I agree in practical, common sense way our ability to choose is self evident. We do it all the time.

I understand what you mean when you say "so who cares?". But I do assign some relevance to the topic, because our view on the issue of free will/determinism and so forth do have a great deal of impact on how we view God.

I know you LDS have heard the "different Jesus" mantra till you are likely blue in the face with it and in those cases the canon is usually pointed at you. But does a person who believes God has given them the freedom to follow him worship a different God than the person who believes they follow him because God determined they would do so?

To me it seems a wide gap in understanding.

Well I can see that to an Evangelical it could be a big question because they the problem becomes essentially "Was Calvin wrong"? and then you have Calvinist leaning Evangelicals who are suddenly no longer "on the same side" of the question as you are, and that could give one definite discomfort.

But of course we also have statements in the scriptures about being "foreordained" to the Priesthood etc, so we do not wholly escape the conflict either.

And then we have the whole philosophical view of what is called "compatiblism" which says that free will and determinism are compatible.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

So I am certainly not inclined to say that those who believe in determinism believe in a "different God" than I do. As I said, it becomes pretty much a semantic issue for me, and isn't really worth losing sleep over much less than thinking that someone's salvation depends on it.

Just my opinion.

[mfbukowski]

I would highly recommend this article and this section of the article especially to show how process theists resolve this problem. I would consider myself a process theist- that means that I believe that God progresses and is immanent in the world- a view most LDS take. Most Pragmatists who are theists would be considered "process theists" as well.

http://plato.stanfor...process-theism/

6. Divine Knowledge and the Problem of Future Contingents

The Preacher in Ecclesiastes gives eloquent expression to world-weariness by saying that there is nothing new under the sun. Nevertheless, process thought reminds us that there was once a time when even the sun was something new. We noted earlier that in process metaphysics, time is the process of creation. The universe is not a totality, fixed once and for all, but a dynamic vector growing from a determinate past into an open (partly indeterminate) future. We have also seen that process theism conceives God as being really related to the world through prehensions or feelings. If divine knowing is considered perfect, then it follows from these premises that God knows the past as fully determinate (as created), the present as the process of determination (as being created), and the future as partly indeterminate (as yet to be created). Some have criticized process theism for advocating a limited God who is ignorant of the future. Process theists reply that this is incorrect and represents a subtle begging of the question. The question is not whether God knows a fully determinate future but whether there is a fully determinate future to know. It is the nature of time, not the nature of divine knowing, that is at issue. If the future exists as partially indeterminate, unsettled, or uncreated, then a perfect knower must know it as such.

The fact that process theism construes God's knowledge as prehensive means that it is a mistake to interpret it primarily in terms of the information content of declarative sentences. This is not to say that God does not have this information, but it is well to keep in mind that omniscience, for process theism, is more akin to what Bertrand Russell calls knowledge by acquaintance than it is to knowledge by description (Hartshorne 1941, 241). Divine prehensions of the world include not only information but affective tone (Whitehead calls it the “subjective form” of prehensions); God's knowledge is empathetic, feeling the feelings of the creatures. Again, this contrasts with the traditional account of omniscience which “attributes to God the informational content of our perceptions without the hedonistic content” (Kenny 1979, 32). E. S. Brightman and (more recently) Henri Simoni-Wastila argue that claiming this kind of knowledge for God is excessive, for it would mean, for example, that in knowing a creature's fear of death, God would also fear death (Auxier & Davies 2001, 43 and 70; Simoni-Wastila 1999). Hartshorne's response is that God feels how we feel without feeling as we feel, similar to the way in which persons can vividly remember emotions they once experienced without actually having those emotions as their own in the present experience of memory (Hartshorne 1984b, 199; Viney 2001). This issue highlights a tension between Whitehead and Hartshorne. Whitehead speaks of an actual entity's subjectivity as “perishing” as it becomes past, but Hartshorne insists that the divine memory preserves the immediacy of our experiences, making them objectively immortal (Whitehead 1978, 351; Hartshorne 1970, 118).

Process theism provides an account of the mechanics of omniscience—that is, an account of how God knows the world—that fits well with analogies drawn from experience (Viney 1989). We know that events occur, in part, because they occur; they do not occur because we know about them. Process theism applies the same logic to God. This account differs from traditional views in two important ways. First, many theists follow Aquinas in reversing the cognitive relation in God. For Aquinas, God knows events in the world because God is their cause (Summa Theologica I, Q. 14, a. 11). This allows Aquinas to affirm omniscience while denying real relations in God; however, it also makes an unambiguous affirmation of the contingency of creaturely decisions difficult if not impossible, as we have already seen in our discussion of God and creativity. Second, the process view contradicts the Boethian concept of eternity as a non-temporal viewpoint on temporal events. For Boethius (and for Aquinas) events in time are related to God as the points on the circumference of a circle are related to its center (Consolation of Philosophy, bk 5, prose 6; Summa Contra Gentiles I, ch. 66, para. 7). For process thought, time is more like a line being added to from moment to moment, but never complete, so there is no vantage from which it can be taken in all at once (Hartshorne 1945, 284).

There are peculiarities in traditional metaphors for omniscience that process thought rejects. God, it was said, “sees” all of time in one eternal instant; yet seeing, like knowing, requires real relations in the perceiver; moreover, one cannot see as fully actualized that which is still only possibly to be actualized, that is to say, the partially indeterminate future. It is noteworthy, however, that process theism retains one element of the traditional view. We have seen that Hartshorne attributes the laws of nature to an act of God. For this reason, God knows the extent to which the future is open—what the laws allow and what they do not allow. The process God must also be aware of the conditions that creaturely decisions set upon future actualization, opening up some possibilities and closing others.

Edited March 25, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Log]

So, perhaps the discussion ought to be "Do the scriptures mandate a deterministic universe?"

Determinism being true is sufficient to eliminate libertarian free will.

[mfbukowski]

So, perhaps the discussion ought to be "Do the scriptures mandate a deterministic universe?"

Determinism being true is sufficient to eliminate libertarian free will.

Did you read the article on compatiblism?

Edited March 25, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited March 25, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Log]

Your link is a summarization of positions taken, but I'll read it now. Before that, however, my position is quite simple: agents can be morally accountable if and only if libertarian free will obtains.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

Your link is a summarization of positions taken, but I'll read it now. Before that, however, my position is quite simple: agents can be morally accountable if and only if libertarian free will obtains.

The point is that there are other ways of seeing the problem- whether or not you want to, or agree with the possible positions is another question of course.

[Log]

The point is that there are other ways of seeing the problem- whether or not you want to, or agree with the possible positions is another question of course.

I agree that other positions may be taken. Did I ever say otherwise?

...now, as to whether or not those other positions are COGENT, that's a different discussion.

Incidentally, does anyone genuinely believe they don't have libertarian free will?

Edited March 25, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

I agree that other positions may be taken. Did I ever say otherwise?

...now, as to whether or not those other positions are COGENT, that's a different discussion.

Incidentally, does anyone genuinely believe they don't have libertarian free will?

Easy does it. I wasn't picking a fight

[Log]

No worries. I know I acted stupidly on the first couple of pages. Hopefully I've demonstrated a change of approach.

But the question interests me - does anyone genuinely believe that for all past actions they remember performing that they did not have power to do other than they did, in fact, do?

Incidentally, I am now in the middle of "The New Dispensationalism," and I literally LOLd as I pondered the extreme ingenuity of the attempts to circumvent the straightforward arguments against the compatibility of determinism and moral accountability. I wonder what the desired end goal of all these mental gyrations is - I mean, what is so compellingly desireable about a deterministic universe (especially in an observable real-world seemingly governed by indeterministic quantum mechanics) that these people have to build such elaborate castles in the sky to escape observational reality? It is clearly the case that determinism is NOT obviously true, at a minimum, so why these increasingly convoluted arguments seeking to establish it?

I'm thinking people have some prior allegiances they are protecting from criticism which rely on the fact of either determinism or indeterminism - probably ones entangled with specific views on God, or the nonexistence thereof - but they still wish to be able to make moral judgements against people without acknowledging their philosophical/theological views render people as ... well, glorified rocks.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Log