Podcast #128: We chat with Kent C Dodds about why he loves React and discuss what life was like in the dark days before Git. Listen now.
10

Definitions One has to define "omniscient" (knowing all things) and "omnipotent" (being all powerful) properly, otherwise one runs into trouble without even considering your question. Let's deal with "omnipotent" first. Omnipotence 1 If by "omnipotent" you literally mean "being able to do everything", then consider the following fact: It is impossible ...


7

To make sure one isn't setting up a straw man argument, that is, making up an opponent's position so it can be easily refuted, one has to find out what theists actually mean by "omniscience". The theist must define this, not the atheist. Given a quotable definition, the atheist can then try to find a logical flaw with that definition. Wikipedia provides a ...


6

I think that killing oneself is contrary to the goodness of God, so I don't mind saying that "God could not do that". Here's how William Lane Craig addresses this thought: ...omnipotence should not be defined in terms of ability to do certain tasks. This is the presupposition of your question. Rather omnipotence should be defined in terms of ability to ...


5

I am not surprised at the confusion because the theorem in question is neither simple nor entirely logical. It is Tarski's undefinability of truth theorem, which says roughly that one can not define a faithful "truth predicate", which unerringly detects when a sentence is true. More precisely, there is no formula T() in the first order arithmetic such that T(...


5

I'm... not only not seeing a problem here, but barely anything of interest. If god is omniscient, then he can see into everyone's future, including his own. Okay. That's consistent with a reasonable definition of "omniscient". If god is omnipotent, then he could in theory end his own existence at any moment. Okay. An omnipotent being can do any ...


4

Matas, In one of your comments to the original question, you wrote, "why create something when you know what it will be like by thinking of it anyway?" I really like that way of expressing your question. So you are making a distinction between the thought and the creation... a valid distinction in our own experience. But in what sense would a being that ...


4

One could argue that knowing, that something will happen, and experiencing, that and how it actually happens, are two different things. And the latter could be even motivation for creation. But apparently these and other speculative answers - as well as the question itself - are based on an anthropomorphic conception of god. We try to put ourself in gods ...


4

In traditional Christian theology, God's omniscience means that God knows everything that can be known. There are no gaps in his knowledge. No mysteries to be discovered and nothing to learn. But there are things that can't be known because they're nonsensical. God's omniscience doesn't mean that he knows what a three sided square looks like or how to divide ...


3

There's a few tongue in cheek answers. The first is to point out that the question is moot: if an omniscient being was omniscient, it would know whether there was a way to prove their omniscience to a particular observer or not. And if they did know it was possible, they'd know how to do it. The other is to approach this as a radical skeptic and ask ...


3

1 The internal observer, X, could know that Y was omniscient if - which is a logical possibility - X was herself omniscient. There is nothing to rule out the existence of two omniscient beings - as in contrast there is to rule out the existence of two omnipotent beings. 2 If X could prove the existence, on whatever grounds, of a perfect being, Y, then it ...


3

According to Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics there is no particle state where the particle has simultanenously both a precise position and a precise momentum. The point is not that we do not know them. The point is that they do not exist simultaneously. Also an omniscient being cannot know a property which does not exist. Hence your first ...


3

If by omniscience you mean the ability to know everything about the future as well as the past in our current universe, then determinism would make such a creature simpler to conceive. Such a creature would not need to know everything about the universe per se; it would need to know the exact starting position of the universe, and the rules under which the ...


3

There are alternate views of God's omniscience. For example, open theists see God's omniscience as knowing everything there is to know, but the free acts of creatures or the free acts of God would not be something that there is to know in advance. Here is how James Rissler describes it: Even though God is all-powerful, allowing Him to do everything ...


3

Being free of making decisions means being free to give different directions to the future This is only one view on free will, called libertarian free will. The other school of thought is compatibilist free will. In this school, free will does not mean that you could have made one choice or the other. Rather, free will means that your actions come directly ...


2

Conway's Game of Life provides one solution to this paradox. It is a mathematical algorithm with extremely simple rules that leads to arbitrarily complicated outcomes. Much like "real" life. When you run a Game of Life, you are: Omniscient. You know all the rules by which the universe moves. You know the exact location of every particle in the universe. ...


2

As Apologist to the Arts? Perhaps these questions could clarify the issue: Is omniscience relevant, or is this a question about valuation? If you create something you intend, say a painting, is it less valuable for your having done it as intended? What made it valuable in the first place? If you are omniscient (or think you are), how does that change the ...


2

I have many terabytes of digital media at home on a media server that I "built." It amounts to thousands of hours of TV and movies, all of which I have watched, and most of which I remember. However, even having watched them all before, and "knowing" what's in any given movie or TV episode, I still watch them again. (Why else would I have them?) Knowing ...


2

The answer by Frank Hubery is a good one, and he is careful to allow the theist position to speak for itself. However, his conclusion appears to me to be wrong, since he smuggles in an additional requirement for omniscience that is absent from the definition he quotes. According to the definition quoted in that answer, "omniscience" is defined as follows (...


2

There is a common thread through all the answers: "There is something we do not know". We don't know that omniscience entails "one past - one future", we don't know how God sees Time or if Knowledge is the same for God as for us. "Free will", "choice", these are anthropocentric concepts. We think in terms of category, duality, causality, agency... There is ...


2

A widespread assumption is that God, if there is a God, is incorporeal. Since God does not occupy space, or have any spatial location, the knowledge God has does not need any spatial storage, let alone 'a space larger than the universe itself. 'Omniscience' is a concept full of logical difficulties. So it is not clear what we are attributing to God when we ...


2

As so posed, the answer would be "yes" according to some conceptions of God, and "no" according to some other conceptions of God: If you are a pantheist --believing that God is the totality of everything in the universe --or (like me) a panentheist, believing that the totality of the universe is contained within God, then by definition, an omniscient God ...


1

This argument assumes that an omniscient being is limited by the constraints posed by the argument. If such a being isn't, one might as well be arguing who'd win at arm wrestling, God or Superman. I'd be surprised if an omniscient being is limited by anything we barely evolved humans could conceive of, such a being would by definition transcend our ...


1

Current ideas suggest this is definitely a possibility. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism gets round the issues of complete knowledge violating Bell's Inequality. It is not a widely held view in the physics world, but it is considered plausible. The https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_wavefunction suggests a fundamental unity to the ...


1

Your first premise assumes that there are particles, and that they have location and momentum, and that all this is knowable. Buddhism is an example of an entire school of thinking that claims that all phenomena are empty of own-being, ie there are no things that have an intrinsic nature; rather all phenomena arise in dependence on other factors, which in ...


1

An article by Stephen T. Davis is useful here. We can pick it up at the point where it cites an argument from Nelson Pike. The article addresses the reconciliation, possible or not, of divine omniscience with human freedom. It isn't my practice to quote longish extracts from articles but the problem we're dealing with is perplexing and its resolution complex....


1

Given open theism, an omniscient being would not know what a free agent will do since what a free agent will do is not something that is knowable until the free agent does it. This does not contradict omniscience defined as knowing everything that is knowable. It does challenge one to be precise about what “knowable reality” actually is. As James Rissler ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible