Is God Omniscient?

[zerinus]

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.

I am not convinced that that is a true statement because we are talking about two different things. Alma is talking about the exercise of faith in God (by mortal man) to obtaining salvation; whereas in the other case, we are talking about the exercise of faith by God in His own omnipotence and omniscience to perform basically a miracle—to create. In the first instance the man is not certain of the outcome until he achieves it. He is “working out” his salvation with “fear and trembling” before God (Philippians 2:12). In the second instance, God knows and sees the outcome in His omniscience (foreknowledge) before He has started to create. I don’t think that the two are comparable. Joseph Smith in the Lectures teaches that in order to exercise faith of the latter kind (i.e. as a principle of power) one must be assured of the outcome. That is the definition of faith as a principle of power. And if God is exercising that faith in Himself because of His omnipotence and omniscience, any element of uncertainty has to be removed from the process.

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.

D&C 93 contains some pretty deep doctrines, which I don’t pretend to fully understand. If you think you have understood its mysteries better than I have, I can’t argue with that; but if you want me to take your word for it that you have, I would expect you to make it clearer to me than it appears to be in the revelation itself, and you are not doing that. Those verses you quoted give a definition of “truth”, not a definition of “knowledge”. They tell us that: “Truth = knowledge of ...” So it is a definition of “truth,” not a definition of knowledge.

What I understand from that is something different from you. “Knowledge” requires a “knower”. The word “knowledge” is only meaningful if there is a “knower” of that knowledge. Nothing can be called “knowledge” if it is something that is not, or cannot be “known”. Defining “truth” in terms of “knowledge” means that it is something that is “knowable”. If it is not knowable, then it is not truth. Truth is also defined in terms of “light”. When it talks of “the light of truth,” I don’t think it means that truth is something that “gives off light;” but rather that truth itself is a form of (spiritual) light. The same concept can be understood from the expressions, “light and truth”. It doesn’t mean that light and truth are two different things; it means that they are equivalents. That makes truth in the spiritual sense something that has a physical existence, as opposed to something abstract as we understand it in mortality. For example, in D&C 93:29 it says that “intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be”. So according to these verses, that which is “not created” is in fact truth = light = intelligence. That I believe is the bit that in D&C 93 is said to have been “placed” in a state where it can “act for itself”.

Now here comes the interesting bit. In verse 36 of the same section it says, “The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.” So this same “intelligence” or “light of truth” that was “not created or made,” and which can be placed in a condition where it can “act for itself,” is what the “glory of God” is made of; and we are told that this “intelligence or light of truth” is something that can be acquired in ever increasing measure, until one receives a “fullness”:

26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

27 And no man receiveth a fullness unless he keepeth his commandments.

28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

We are also told in verse 37 of the same section that, “Light and truth forsake that evil one.”

That puts all the pieces of the puzzle together as far as I can see. From these I deduce the following:

1. Truth in spiritual sense has the quality of “light,” and has a physical existence.
   
2. That thing, or object, that is called “truth” (or “light” or “intelligence”) has an eternal existence, and was not created or made.
   
3. That is the object that can be placed to “act for itself,” without which “existence” is not possible. That is a deep doctrine the nature of which I do not claim to fully understand.
   
4. This truth is something that can be acquired or lost according to one’s faithfulness or wickedness.
   
5. God and Jesus Christ possess this truth in its fullness, and therefore “know all things” (i.e. are omniscient).
   
6. We also may acquire the same truth in fullness, therefore come to “know all things”.
   

That is what I understand from those verses. Now I don’t know of any scripture which says that this “all things” is relative, and not absolute. To “know all things” means all, not some. When it says that God “knows all things,” it really means all, not some.

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.

That is not how I read it. To me all things mean all things, and all truth means all truth.

Edited March 26, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

True. But He did make those arrangements.

He did because He knew what the future would hold otherwise; therefore He intervened to change the course of events in the future to His own advantage.

Again true.

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

See above.

[CV75]

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

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

I agree with this statement about / use of teh term "eternal progression."

I also think it interesting that Elder McConkie uses the term “our universe” and then ages it based on a calculated amount of time that eternity “has been going on in this system;” in other words, limits "our universe" to that part of eternity has been set apart into “this system.”

So when God says “I have set [Kolob] to govern all those which belong to the same order as that [Planet Earth] upon which thou standest (Abraham 3:3-9)”, and “only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you (Moses 1:35)”, and that “this system” is like unto all the innumerable others (Moses 1:29-35), it means that as He knows one, knows the others that were, are, and will be.

[zerinus]

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.

What I had said was:

After giving it further thought, I have also come to the conclusion that your earlier statements that God didn’t know who would be exalted to be incorrect. The scriptures make it clear that God knows in advance who will be faithful and thus would be exalted. Here are the verses:

Read it to find out more.

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

I just did. See above.

[CV75]

That is what I understand from those verses. Now I don’t know of any scripture which says that this “all things” is relative, and not absolute. To “know all things” means all, not some. When it says that God “knows all things,” it really means all, not some.

That is not how I read it. To me all things mean all things, and all truth means all truth.

In light of what I wrote in #178, I also think “all things” means that which pertains to “this system” which is set apart from eternity and so is relative. I also think that what I wrote in #178 relates to mfb's observation about His ritual nature (#164).

[CV75]

What I had said was:

What you said was:

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

And this is just plain wrong--I am not really trying to promote another agenda, and it is by faulty means that you came to that wrong conclusion. It was clear that you are reading my posts through some kind of negative filter; and your post exlains what that is.

[zerinus]

In light of what I wrote in #178, I also think “all things” means that which pertains to “this system” which is set apart from eternity and so is relative.

I answer that with the following:

D&C 93:

26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

To me the meaning of that is clear. All means all, and fullness means fullness. No mention is made of "this system".

I also think that what I wrote in #178 relates to mfb's observation about His ritual nature (#164).

I recognize no such thing as "ritual nature". Unheard of in the standard works.

Edited March 26, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

What you said was:

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

And this is just plain wrong--I am not really trying to promote another agenda, and it is by faulty means that you came to that wrong conclusion. It was clear that you are reading my posts through some kind of negative filter; and your post exlains what that is.

Well if you are expecting that I am going to repeat it, I am not going to.

[Zeta-Flux]

He did because He knew what the future would hold otherwise; therefore He intervened to change the course of events in the future to His own advantage.

You keep asserting this, but the scriptures never say that He changed what He saw. Sure, He made it so that the future unfolded differently than what would have happened otherwise. That doesn't mean He changed the future.

[zerinus]

You keep asserting this, but the scriptures never say that He changed what He saw. Sure, He made it so that the future unfolded differently than what would have happened otherwise. That doesn't mean He changed the future.

If the course of future events would have been one thing without His intervention; and became something different as a result of His intervention, that leads us to the following conclusions:

1. God was able to foresee the future in the past with minute precision and detail, including all the choices that several people would make.
   
2. He was able to intervene into the future by setting in motion a course of events in the past to ensure the outcome of those choices in the future would be to His own advantage (without restricting anyone's agency).
   
3. God is able to not only foresee the future with minute detail, but to intervene to changed its course to His own advantage (without at the same time restricting man's agency).
   

Tell me why you cannot see that as clearly as I can see it.

Edited March 26, 2012 by zerinus

[wenglund]

I disagree, depending on one's view of time and reality.

Can you give me an example? What I am looking for is how one may define foreknowledge in relation to the view of time and reality you had in mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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

Nicely said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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?

I certainly don't. For the same reason, I don't believe that foreknowledge will rob us of power to do other than what we will, in fact, choose to do in the future.

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.

Speaking for myself, my earlier argument wasn't raised to protect a prior allegiance or belief about God (I happen to be agnostic about God's omniscience--in an absolute sense of the word), but rather to point out that the foreknowledge/free will question may not have been settled, contrary to what some may have supposed. In other words, I am trying to encourage, or allow for, more open-mindedness in this case.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Nicely said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks!

[Zeta-Flux]

Can you give me an example? What I am looking for is how one may define foreknowledge in relation to the view of time and reality you had in mind.

I'll give you the example I'm most familiar with, from those who believe in libertarian free will. Free will exists only when forces outside of one's self do not necessitate actions. According to the "possible worlds" view of the universe, those things which are necessary hold true in every possible world. Those things that are contingent hold in some possible worlds and not others. To make sense of possible world scenarios, one's worldview must allow for a non-deterministic (in the sense of physics) universe. Even if one believes that actuality (i.e. the real world) is a "bright line" through the possible multiple worlds, we only know which bright line it is as we travel along it and make choices.

On any given line, at any given point, there is a past history. People like Ostler and others assume that this past is fixed. It cannot be changed. It is what it is. And information in the past is, after the fact, true in all possible worlds from that point on. Thus, that information is necessarily true for possible worlds sharing the same past.

I hope you can see how, under this worldview, the past differs greatly from the future. Knowledge of the future would make the future a necessary contingent, which is fatalism. Or alternatively, knowledge of the future is simply impossible. On the other hand, knowledge of the past is a simple thing and corresponds to what we do in our real world (we remember the past, but not the future).

Edited March 26, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[wenglund]

I'll give you the example I'm most familiar with, from those who believe in libertarian free will. Free will exists only when forces outside of one's self do not necessitate actions. According to the "possible worlds" view of the universe, those things which are necessary hold true in every possible world. Those things that are contingent hold in some possible worlds and not others. To make sense of possible world scenarios, one's worldview must allow for a non-deterministic (in the sense of physics) universe. Even if one believes that actuality (i.e. the real world) is a "bright line" through the possible multiple worlds, we only know which bright line it is as we travel along it and make choices.

On any given line, at any given point, there is a past history. People like Ostler and others assume that this past is fixed. It cannot be changed. It is what it is. And information in the past is, after the fact, true in all possible worlds from that point on. Thus, that information is necessarily true for possible worlds sharing the same past.

I hope you can see how, under this worldview, the past differs greatly from the future. Knowledge of the future would make the future a necessary contingent, which is fatalism. Or alternatively, knowledge of the future is simply impossible. On the other hand, knowledge of the past is a simple thing and corresponds to what we do in our real world (we remember the past, but not the future).

I see what you are saying, and I appreciate the clear explanation. Evidently, this world view solves (or rather avoids) the philosophical problem of foreknowledge and free will, by negating foreknowledge.

It stands to reason, then, that my definition of foreknowledge only applies to those world views that allow for foreknowledge.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 26, 2012 by wenglund

[Zeta-Flux]

Wade,

As I understand it, that worldview allows for foreknowledge. However, it turns out that if there ever is foreknowledge then the world is a fatalistic one (if one accepts libertarian free will).

By the way, as it appears that you accept foreknowledge I'd like to know what your world view is that allows for it? Do you not use a "possible worlds" point of view? Do you reject libertarian free will? Do you believe the past is fixed?

Thanks,

Zeta-Flux

[Uncertain]

Hi All,

I don’t have much time for discussion but I did want to clarify what I view as Ostler’s argument. I don’t believe he is arguing that if God infallibly knows the future God is necessarily causing our choices. It is my understanding his argument is simply that if the future can be known with 100% percent accuracy this necessarily means any future act we perform we could not have done otherwise. If free will is defined as the ability to do otherwise than if the future is fixed we by definition do not have fee will. If God has the ability to predict the future with 100% accuracy then the future is necessary fixed. If the future is fixed than for every decision we make that is the only possible decision we could have made given the inputs to our decision making and hence depending on how you define free will a fixed future is problematic.

It is important to understand it is not Gods foreknowledge that fixes the future God by knowing the future in no way causes the future to happen the way he sees. The issue is if God has 100% accurate foreknowledge then this means the future is fixed and cannot be other than what God sees. In other words Gods foreknowledge is a symptom of the problem not the problem itself. At least if I understand Blake correctly.

Again it is critical to understand Blake is not arguing the foreknowledge of God causes the future to happen the way God sees it. For example suppose I ate bacon and eggs for breakfast if God has infallible foreknowledge he knew a trillion years ago I would eat bacon and eggs for breakfast. Now the causes of my choice could be many and varied. Perhaps I did not have any pancake mix or oatmeal and so was forced to make due. In no way does God foreknowledge cause me to choose bacon and eggs instead of some other choice. However if God does indeed have perfect knowledge of the future than it is true I must have chosen bacon and eggs over some other option. If I had choosen something other than bacon and eggs Gods foreknowledge of the future would have been wrong and hence God would not have infallible foreknowledge of the future. Blake argues the ability to choose other than I did is a critical component of free will. Hence infallible knowledge of the future is incompatible with free will as Blake defines it. Hence God does not have infallible foreknowledge of the future.

Again the problem is the fact the future can be known. For example suppose there was no God but a computer could see the future with 100% accuracy this would lead to the very same problem Blake points out. That being able to see the future with 100% accuracy means the future is fixed and cannot be changed. For that matter suppose God does not have infallible foreknowledge but it is possible to have infallible foreknowledge this would lead to the same problem.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited March 26, 2012 by Uncertain

[Zeta-Flux]

If the course of future events would have been one thing without His intervention; and became something different as a result of His intervention...

And we already disagree at this point. The future events would have been one thing. But they were not. They never occurred that way. God's intervention did not change the future events to a new set of events. God's intervention contributed to the future unfolding as He already saw it would.

[mfbukowski]

Hi All,

I don’t have much time for discussion but I did want to clarify what I view as Ostler’s argument. I don’t believe he is arguing that if God infallibly knows the future God is necessarily restricting free will. It is my understanding his argument is simply that if the future can be known with 100% percent accuracy this necessarily means any future act we perform we could not have done otherwise. If free will is defined as the ability to do otherwise than if the future is fixed we by definition do not have fee will. If God has the ability to predict the future with 100% accuracy then the future is necessary fixed. If the future is fixed than for every decision we make that is the only possible decision we could have made given the inputs to our decision making and hence depending on how you define free will a fixed future is problematic.

It is important to understand it is not Gods foreknowledge that fixes the future God by knowing the future in no way causes the future to happen the way he sees. The issue is if God has 100% accurate foreknowledge then this means the future is fixed and cannot be other than what God sees. In other words Gods foreknowledge is a symptom of the problem not the problem itself. At least if I understand Blake correctly.

Again it is critical to understand Blake is not arguing the foreknowledge of God causes the future to happen the way God sees it. For example suppose I ate bacon and eggs for breakfast if God has infallible foreknowledge he knew a trillion years ago I would eat bacon and eggs for breakfast. Now the causes of my choice could be many and varied. Perhaps I did not have any pancake mix or oatmeal and so was forced to make due. In no way does God foreknowledge cause me to choose bacon and eggs instead of some other choice. However if God does indeed have perfect knowledge of the future than it is true I must have chosen bacon and eggs over some other option. If I had choosen something other than bacon and eggs Gods foreknowledge of the future would have been wrong and hence God would not have infallible foreknowledge of the future. Blake argues the ability to choose other than I did is a critical component of free will. Hence infallible knowledge of the future is incompatible with free will as Blake defines it. Hence God does not have infallible foreknowledge of the future.

Again the problem is the fact the future can be known. For example suppose there was no God but a computer could see the future with 100% accuracy this would lead to the very same problem Blake points out. That being able to see the future with 100% accuracy means the future is fixed and cannot be changed. For that matter suppose God does not have infallible foreknowledge but it is possible to have infallible foreknowledge this would lead to the same problem.

Best,

Uncertain

I think you are exactly right on this.

The only problem of course is that all of this discussion becomes irrelevant then, because we still have choice and God's knowledge has nothing to do with it.

The phrase "We could not have done otherwise" may be true, but it has nothing to do with the fact that we had free choice. My point is- why worry about it then? God can have foreknowledge AND we can have choice. It's what I have been saying all along!

Of course it is entirely a different question whether or not he is "omniscient" whatever that is supposed to mean. God could know the future but not know other "things" whatever, again, that is supposed to mean. On the other hand, maybe he IS omniscient according to some definition.

It's all semantics in my book.

Edited March 26, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Deborah]

I'm having trouble understanding why "libertarian free will" is so important to some people. Or why it matters what God knows or doesn't know. Whatever God may know we will make the choices we make in ignorance of that. Unless of course he has warned his prophet of what will come to pass if for example a people don't repent. But then based on the example of Nineveh, he gave the warning because he knew what the outcome would be which is why he chastised his prophet for trying to get out of the task.

[wenglund]

By the way, as it appears that you accept foreknowledge I'd like to know what your world view is that allows for it? Do you not use a "possible worlds" point of view? Do you reject libertarian free will? Do you believe the past is fixed?

I am open to the prospect that the future is as fixed (in terms of knowability) as the past, with both the past and future being a function of free will, and not in contravention to it. So, I don't accept the Libertarian argument nor do I ascribe to causal determinism. My world view doesn't consider knowledge as necessarily causal.

But, then, I haven't given the intricacies of this philosophical issue a whole lot of thought.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[zerinus]

And we already disagree at this point. The future events would have been one thing. But they were not. They never occurred that way. God's intervention did not change the future events to a new set of events. God's intervention contributed to the future unfolding as He already saw it would.

Not quite! If God had not been able to see into the future, and see what the course of events would be without the intervention that He made, He would not have been able to devise the required intervention to alter the course of events to His advantage as He did. Therefore it is correct to say that He was able to, and in fact did intervene through His foreknowledge to alter the course of events from what they would have been in the future to His own advantage (but without overriding man's agency).

There was another way that He could have dealt with the situation if He had wanted to. He could have waited until the right moment came, and then struck down dead all those wicked people who had plotted to steal the translated pages, and altered them to frustrate the work of the Lord; but He chose to do it this way, for reasons best known to Himself--perhaps in order to give them a chance to repent--or perhaps in order to show us what great power and foreknowledge He has!

There could be a combination of many factors why He chose to do it this way and not some other way. But the fact that He did it this way is undisputed proof that He not only knows the future to the minutest detail imaginable; but is able to alter it if He chooses to suit His own purpose. So when we talk about God's omniscience and omnipotence, we are really talking about something; and you had better believe it!

Edited March 27, 2012 by zerinus

[Zeta-Flux]

I'm having trouble understanding why "libertarian free will" is so important to some people. Or why it matters what God knows or doesn't know. Whatever God may know we will make the choices we make in ignorance of that. Unless of course he has warned his prophet of what will come to pass if for example a people don't repent. But then based on the example of Nineveh, he gave the warning because he knew what the outcome would be which is why he chastised his prophet for trying to get out of the task.

Deborah, while I don't subscribe to libertarian free will, I think people feel it is important because they don't like the idea that their free will is an illusion. They don't want to be androids, merely fulfilling their biological programming, and libertarian free will speaks to them.

As for God knowing the future, it matters to me because it allows me to trust that He knows the end from the beginning and to help me through unseen perils.

[Zeta-Flux]

I am open to the prospect that the future is as fixed (in terms of knowability) as the past, with both the past and future being a function of free will, and not in contravention to it. So, I don't accept the Libertarian argument nor do I ascribe to causal determinism. My world view doesn't consider knowledge as necessarily causal.

But, then, I haven't given the intricacies of this philosophical issue a whole lot of thought.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thank you.