Is God Omniscient?

[Zeta-Flux]

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...

...then we are in a counter-factual world. And of course the future would be different.

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 in the future to His own advantage (but without overriding man's agency).

The word alter means: to make different, to change, adjust, or modify.

You seem to be claiming that God actually sees the actual future, where in that actual future God has failed to be God and has failed in His duties and has not intervened to frustrate Satan's plans, decides He does not like that future, and then acts to alter the course of events.

I do not think this is how it works. I believe, on the other hand, God sees what actually happens in the future--the actual future. He does not change this future, because that is nonsensical. If it were changed, it wouldn't be the actual future, but an unchosen alternate future.

[zerinus]

...then we are in a counter-factual world. And of course the future would be different.

The word alter means: to make different, to change, adjust, or modify.

You seem to be claiming that God actually sees the actual future, where in that actual future God has failed to be God and has failed in His duties and has not intervened to frustrate Satan's plans, decides He does not like that future, and then acts to alter the course of events.

I do not think this is how it works. I believe, on the other hand, God sees what actually happens in the future--the actual future. He does not change this future, because that is nonsensical. If it were changed, it wouldn't be the actual future, but an unchosen alternate future.

I think that you are reading into it things that are not there. You are assuming God must have predetermined all of future from all of eternity to all of eternity. But there is no requirement that that should be the case. For example, here we have an example of God making a decision to change the course of events in the future midpoint in time:

Moses 7:

50 And it came to pass that Enoch continued his cry unto the Lord, saying: I ask thee, O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ, that thou wilt have mercy upon Noah and his seed, that the earth might never more be covered by the floods.

51 And the Lord could not withhold; and he covenanted with Enoch, and sware unto him with an oath, that he would stay the floods; that he would call upon the children of Noah;

52 And he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a aremnant of his seed should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand;

EDIT to add: Was this "midpoint in time" change also "known" in advance? Is all eternity predetermined to run according to a predetermined course (by God or something else)? I don't know! But I believe that whatever the answer to that question is, (1) agency is fully operative at all levels regardless of what is, or can be "known" in advance; and (2) whatever God does, or is able to do at any point in time to affect the course of future events obeys the same principle--i.e. is part of the exercise of agency of intelligent beings, God's or man's--and therefore no one's agency is affected (God's or man's) by what is known in advance.

Edited March 27, 2012 by zerinus

[Deborah]

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.

In this we are in agreement. It is his knowing that gives confidence to putting trust in him.

[Zeta-Flux]

I think that you are reading into it things that are not there. You are assuming God must have predetermined all of future from all of eternity to all of eternity. But there is no requirement that that should be the case. For example, here we have an example of God making a decision to change the course of events in the future midpoint in time...

I find this statement interesting because there are two ways to understand the word "predetermined". On the one hand it can mean that God predestined, or established/decided in advance, what would happen. As you know, Joseph Smith taught that God does not predestinate us. This would certainly destroy agency.

On the other hand, "predetermined" could be understood in the technical sense of "figured out beforehand". This is what I believe. You seem to be asserting that this is not what God does. Rather, in your view, God can and does make course corrections at "midpoints in time" (whatever those mean).

To give a specific example, you seem to believe that there was a time (let's say around 600BC) where God knew that in the future (as things were headed?) Satan's plan would take effect and God would have to step in. God decided He didn't like that future and decided to tell Nephi to make some extra plates, to thwart Satan's plan earlier. But then, didn't God already know He would step in? Or does He not really have the power to see the future after all?

[Log]

I believe, on the other hand, God sees what actually happens in the future--the actual future. He does not change this future, because that is nonsensical. If it were changed, it wouldn't be the actual future, but an unchosen alternate future.

Therefore, God has no freedom to choose, and does not increase in at least one of his capacities. There is a four-letter word that covers that situation.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Log

[Zeta-Flux]

Therefore, God has no freedom to choose, and does not increase in at least one of his capacities.

I don't think this follows (unless you accept libertarian free will as the only option, which I don't).

Edited March 27, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[Log]

I do indeed accept libertarian free will as the only option. It's precisely what makes moral judgements possible - that you have power to do other than what you do, and thereby warrant punishment or praise. It is also what makes it possible to progress eternally in knowledge, as the Church teaches is the case with the Godhead. Can you imagine the joy of learning being denied you from eternity to eternity, worlds without end?

I'm content to settle for a holy mystery occupying the middle ground between determined and indetermined, because, frankly, a universe where events are either deterministic or indeterministic renders us no more than glorified rocks falling down the mountainside.

[zerinus]

I find this statement interesting because there are two ways to understand the word "predetermined". On the one hand it can mean that God predestined, or established/decided in advance, what would happen. As you know, Joseph Smith taught that God does not predestinate us. This would certainly destroy agency.

On the other hand, "predetermined" could be understood in the technical sense of "figured out beforehand". This is what I believe. You seem to be asserting that this is not what God does. Rather, in your view, God can and does make course corrections at "midpoints in time" (whatever those mean).

"Figured out beforehand" (as I might be able to make a good guess of how someone might behave under a given situation) cannot be the answer for two reasons: (1) the minute detail with God is able to see (and show) the future rules that out as a possible explanation. If you study the visions that God has shown to people like Moses, Enoch, Abraham, Nephi, Moroni, the brother of Jared, and many more, it cannot be explained by "figuring things out beforehand;" but necessitates an actual vision of the future that goes far beyond that. (2) "Figuring it beforehand" also introduce an element of chance, uncertainty, or luck into the equation which again rules out accuracy and certainty with which God knows and plans for the future. God's knowledge of all things (including the future) has to be perfect for His creatures to be able to exercise faith in Him to be saved.

To give a specific example, you seem to believe that there was a time (let's say around 600BC) where God knew that in the future (as things were headed?) Satan's plan would take effect and God would have to step in. God decided He didn't like that future and decided to tell Nephi to make some extra plates, to thwart Satan's plan earlier. But then, didn't God already know He would step in? Or does He not really have the power to see the future after all?

The answer to that was in part given by my edited paragraph at the end. I don't know for sure the answered to that question; but Alma 40:8 may suggest a possible answer:

"... all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men."

In other words, God sees the past, present, and future as one great big chessboard where He can manipulate the pieces anyway He likes. But that raises another interesting question: Is God able to change the past as He can the future?! That is a question which as far as I know God has not directly answered in any of His revelations.

[Zeta-Flux]

"Figured out beforehand" (as I might be able to make a good guess of how someone might behave under a given situation) cannot be the answer for two reasons: (1) the minute detail with God is able to see (and show) the future rules that out as a possible explanation. If you study the visions that God has shown to people like Moses, Enoch, Abraham, Nephi, Moroni, the brother of Jared, and many more, it cannot be explained by "figuring things out beforehand;" but necessitates an actual vision of the future that goes far beyond that. (2) "Figuring it beforehand" also introduce an element of chance, uncertainty, or luck into the equation which again rules out accuracy and certainty with which God knows and plans for the future. God's knowledge of all things (including the future) has to be perfect for His creatures to be able to exercise faith in Him to be saved.

I would include "seeing the future in perfect detail" in my statement. I was trying to be broad. In essence, I agree with you.

The answer to that was in part given by my edited paragraph at the end. I don't know for sure the answered to that question; but Alma 40:8 may suggest a possible answer:

"... all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men."

In other words, God sees the past, present, and future as one great big chessboard where He can manipulate the pieces anyway He likes. But that raises another interesting question: Is God able to change the past as He can the future?! That is a question which as far as I know God has not directly answered in any of His revelations.

I'm sorry. That is a non-answer, as I don't know how you interpret that scripture. Did God know He would step in or not?

If all is as one day with God then (in my view) He saw He would command Nephi to write the small plates. And if so, how would His command "change" the future? You seem to want to have it both ways. God sees all, including what He will do, but doesn't see all because He can change what He saw to something else. That doesn't compute.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[zerinus]

I'm sorry. That is a non-answer, as I don't know how you interpret that scripture. Did God know He would step in or not?

If all is as one day with God then (in my view) He saw He would command Nephi to write the small plates. And if so, how would His command "change" the future? You seem to want to have it both ways. God sees all, including what He will do, but doesn't see all because He can change what He saw to something else. That doesn't compute.

If time literally doesn't exist as far as God is concerned (which is what that scripture implies), then your question becomes redundant; because there is no "before" or "after" from where God is looking at it. It appears to you like a paradox because you are looking at it from a "timeline" perspective.

[Zeta-Flux]

The scriptures do not say time doesn't exist. They same "all is as one day with God" and "time only is measured unto men."

[zerinus]

The scriptures do not say time doesn't exist. They same "all is as one day with God" and "time only is measured unto men."

I thought that is what I said too.

[Zeta-Flux]

The scriptures do not say time doesn't exist. They same "all is as one day with God" and "time only is measured unto men."

I thought that is what I said too.

If time literally doesn't exist as far as God is concerned...

[zerinus]

I do not see a contradiction. I am surprised that you do.

[zeez]

Wow! Long thread.

Why would you want a God that knows all?

Also, knowing all would be hell.

[Log]

Wow! Long thread.

Why would you want a God that knows all?

Also, knowing all would be hell.

Seen Groundhog Day, have you?

[zeez]

Yes, I have seen GHD. Great movie. My mission often felt that way... but not because I knew everything lol.

[wenglund]

I do indeed accept libertarian free will as the only option. It's precisely what makes moral judgements possible - that you have power to do other than what you do, and thereby warrant punishment or praise.

What you are describing is a function of free will per se, not necessarily libertarian free will. What makes libertarian free will for you the only option?

It is also what makes it possible to progress eternally in knowledge, as the Church teaches is the case with the Godhead.

I am not sure what this has to do with free will, let alone libertarian free will. Are you assuming that learning can't, in some respects, be compelled or determined?

I'm content to settle for a holy mystery occupying the middle ground between determined and indetermined, because, frankly, a universe where events are either deterministic or indeterministic renders us no more than glorified rocks falling down the mountainside.

Unfortunately, from what I understand, libertarian free will is incompatible with any measure determinism. As such, if you accept libertarian free will as the only option, then there is no middle ground for you to occupy. Right?

Perhaps, then, it may be wise for you to allow, for yourself, other philosophical options regarding free will and determinism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Also, knowing all would be hell.

Knowing all may include knowing how to make knowing all be heavenly rather than hell.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

Hi Wade,

I apologize, but there is a long history of the ideas in my post that I don't feel like rehashing. I will clarify them in a couple of spots.

If determinism is true, and God knows each and every fact, both present, past, and future, eternally, it follows immediately that God has no choice in his actions, and God cannot learn. Yet it is the teaching of the Church that God is eternally learning. I leave it to you to reconcile bald logical contradictions. For me, that teaching is sufficent to jettison determinism OR the type of absolute foreknowledge attributed to God by some OR both.

If, on the other hand, libertarian free will pertains, then God can, in fact, be eternally increasing in knowledge, as each intelligence contributes its nondetermined choices to the spectrum of existence.

If you have not power to do other than what you do, then you do not warrant praise or punishment, any more than a rock which falls from a mountain warrants praise or punishment. Moral judgements require libertarian free will.

I am satisfied that there exist events which cannot be wholly explained by determinism (necessity), indeterminism (chance), nor any combination of the two; they are the result of the actions of intelligences who have free will in the libertarian sense. We are the middle ground. We are the patterners.

This is reality as we experience it. I simply assert that the experience is a reflection of actual reality.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

Hi Wade,

I apologize, but there is a long history of the ideas in my post that I don't feel like rehashing. I will clarify them in a couple of spots.

If determinism is true, and God knows each and every fact, both present, past, and future, eternally, it follows immediately that God has no choice in his actions, and God cannot learn. Yet it is the teaching of the Church that God is eternally learning. I leave it to you to reconcile bald logical contradictions. For me, that teaching is sufficent to jettison determinism OR the type of absolute foreknowledge attributed to God by some OR both.

If, on the other hand, libertarian free will pertains, then God can, in fact, be eternally increasing in knowledge, as each intelligence contributes its nondetermined choices to the spectrum of existence.

If you have not power to do other than what you do, then you do not warrant praise or punishment, any more than a rock which falls from a mountain warrants praise or punishment. Moral judgements require libertarian free will.

I am satisfied that there exist events which cannot be wholly explained by determinism (necessity), indeterminism (chance), nor any combination of the two; they are the result of the actions of intelligences who have free will in the libertarian sense. We are the middle ground. We are the patterners.

This is reality as we experience it. I simply assert that the experience is a reflection of actual reality.

For what it's worth, I think I agree with your conclusions but not with the chain of logic. Compatiblism shows that there are many ways we can still have justifiable moral judgements without what you call "libertarian free will", but that's ok- we are pretty much on the same page ultimately even though we got here on different paths.

But I have another reason for this post, and I just want you to think about something perhaps you have not thought about, or perhaps you have.

This is reality as we experience it. I simply assert that the experience is a reflection of actual reality.

Suppose we just throw out the whole idea of a "reflection" of "actual reality" and just call what we experience "actual reality"?

This is called "Pragmatism".

It's strength is that we no longer have to worry about how things "really are" as opposed to the way we perceive them, and all of epistemology becomes a non-problem.

What we call "spiritual experiences" are just as "real" as anything else we experience- they are just subjective- and unverified by others.

We have what we call "choice" because we experience it that way, and everything else is just metaphysical nonsense- no worrying about what God knows or doesn't know, - that's all just "talk", because we can't experience any of that anyway. We know what "true" and "false" means in general terms because we use the terms but there is no Truth as an abstract entity for things to correspond to or participate in, because we don't experience Truth.

We DO experience God, we DO experience testimony, love, hate, sin, we experience the world outside of ourselves that we all see together, we experience mathematics "working" to confirm scientific theories etc- but the sense in which any of these perceptions are "reflections" of anything else is just a tenuous hypothesis.

Now back to our regularly scheduled squabbling over words

[Log]

Hi ... Mike?

For what it's worth, I think I agree with your conclusions but not with the chain of logic. Compatiblism shows that there are many ways we can still have justifiable moral judgements without what you call "libertarian free will", but that's ok- we are pretty much on the same page ultimately even though we got here on different paths.

There's probably an excellent reason there still exists a significant effort to show compatibilism is cogent: because it's false. It is my view that compatibilism is not cogent, and is inconsistent with experience. Hence, attempts to assign falling rocks moral weight fail.

Incidentally, I hold that one can only know, in the most basic sense of the word, that which is one with oneself. I know the data fed into my consciousness because it is part of my consciousness; I don't know 'actual reality' - but I infer a great deal about it from what data I seem to have. That's why I don't call what I experience 'actual reality.'

Edited March 28, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

Hi ... Mike?

There's probably an excellent reason there still exists a significant effort to show compatibilism is cogent: because it's false. It is my view that compatibilism is not cogent, and is inconsistent with experience. Hence, attempts to assign falling rocks moral weight fail.

Incidentally, I hold that one can only know, in the most basic sense of the word, that which is one with oneself. I know the data fed into my consciousness because it is part of my consciousness; I don't know 'actual reality' - but I infer a great deal about it from what data I seem to have. That's why I don't call what I experience 'actual reality.'

Ok- just a friendly discussion then- ok?

How can you know it's "false" if all you know know is what you experience and don't have anything to compare it to but other experiences?

For what it's worth, I am not a "compatiblist" in the usual sense- the questtion is irrelevant to me

[Log]

Simply put: I know myself to have power to do something else. I could, for example, refrain from typing this post.

[mfbukowski]

Simply put: I know myself to have power to do something else. I could, for example, refrain from typing this post.

Exactly. I agree. But what that proves is that you experience choice.

It has nothing to do whether someone's version of a theory called "compatiblism" is true OR false. So why argue about whether it is or not?

It's not relevant to your life. It's also not relevant to your life to worry about whether or not somebody's DEFINITION of "omniscience" is "true"- something you can't experience and can't possibly know anyway- or "false".

Neither is "determinism" whatever that is supposed to mean, relevant to the fact that you make choices all day long. Nor is "libertarian free will" - whatever that means really, since it has various definitions- nor is the question of whether or not what somebody calls "libertarian free will" is compatible or not compatible with what someone else means by "omniscient" and whether or not that word applies to who you directly experience in your testimony as "God".

To may way of seeing it there ARE philosophical problems which are important- but just not those. For me, the only philosophical problems which are important are ones which mix people up about what is really pretty simple stuff.

There is a whole school of "philosophy" (at least they inhabit offices for the most part, and get paid by university philosophy departments and write articles in philosophy journals) dedicated to putting philosophers out of business for the most part- Pragmatists, and Anti-realists and Wittgensteinians, are all in the same general ballpark and that is where I find myself as well.

Just fyi in case you didn't know that, but perhaps you did.