Can a being know it is omniscient?

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Zeeby
Student
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 3:58 pm

Can a being know it is omniscient?

Post #1

Post by Zeeby »

How can a being determine whether it is omniscient? Can it distinguish between omniscience, and the illusion of omniscience (i.e. the answers the being 'knows' are consistent with omniscience, but are not the same as the true answers)?


Questions for debate:
- Is there a way such a being can decide?
- If a being claims to be omniscient, can we trust it?

User avatar
EduChris
Prodigy
Posts: 4615
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Can a being know it is omniscient?

Post #21

Post by EduChris »

Zeeby wrote:...Are you implying that if mankind was ever in a position to create God2, that God would interfere?
Well, given the Tower of Babel account (which does not have to be interpreted literally in order to get the meaning) I think God would intervene. I think it's a moot point, since I doubt we'll ever get to that point--but if we did, I think God would intervene.

Zeeby wrote:...Would any 'innocent creatures' God2 created matter to God?
God is the source of all being, all life, all love. God's love is for all who have the capacity or the willingness to receive it.

User avatar
ChaosBorders
Site Supporter
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
Location: Austin

Re: Can a being know it is omniscient?

Post #22

Post by ChaosBorders »

EduChris wrote:
ChaosBorders wrote:...Is there a reason to think the concept of 'God2' as it were would be particularly different than the concept of the trinity? God the Father is omniscient, but Christ, at least while in the flesh, was most definitely not. As such, Christ did not have access to all the information of God the Father. If God the Father were viewed as God2, and God were over that, would there still be a problem?
I assume you mean to equate Jesus with God2?

I think if we say that God the Father created Jesus, then for me, Jesus would not be God at all. He could still be Creator, in a sense, but he could not be God.
No, I meant to equate God the Father with God2. If there were a 'God' beyond the trinity, would it make God the Father no longer God to you? Even if he still created you, interacts with you, etc.? And even if the God 'beyond' (using the word kind of loosely here) the trinity considered the trinity a part of itself?
EduChris wrote: My view of the Trinity depends on an analogy from geometry. Just as a cube is a single, undivided entity, so also it is a combination of multiple distinct squares. We don't understand how a being can be one even though 3, any more than a two-dimensional flatlander could understand how a three-dimensional cube could be comprised of multiple distinct squares. In other words, we can't understand the Trinity because of our lack of "depth perception," as it were, but at least we can begin to understand why the concept might be possible even though we can't fully wrap our minds around it.
Except we (or at least some people) can understand Tesseracts, so by that analogy a two-dimensional flatlander should be able to understand how a three-dimensional cube would work. But I get what you're saying.

However, I would think the same would in a manner apply to the concept of a God beyond God as it were. Only the analogy I like to think of it as is a reverse fractal. I find this thread interesting because it addresses an issue that my own belief system adapted to about a year ago.

EduChris wrote: My mind doesn't allow me to find genuine, mutual love within a willful act of deception on a massive scale.
This is problematic then. God is omnipotent, thus could choose to enlighten everyone regarding the truth and proper interpretation of the Bible. God does not do so, leading to millions of interpretations, most of which are wrong. Since God could, but does not, the conclusion is that it is part of God's plan/will people misinterpret the Bible. That is by deception by definition.

Personally, I don't think deception is automatically a bad thing. If it is required as a result of say, allowing our very existences as individuals, then deception (even mass deception) is consistent imo with love. In this particular thread the deception just goes at least a layer back.

EduChris wrote: Perhaps, but I believe God wants to be known by us, even as we want to be known by God.
But then this must be subject to extreme qualification. If God's desire were to be known by us, he could make it happen. He doesn't, which indicates there is a reason for not doing so. If there is a reason for not doing so, then once again there is little difference except for the addition of at least one extra layer regarding the being of God.

And we can assume we're known by God given the nature of God, though I think some people would prefer not to be.

EduChris wrote: One of the ways we can know God is by studying the world God has made--and since we are part of the world God has made, we can also examine ourselves.
Unfortunately our near inability to actually examine the world or ourselves with completeness or accuracy would seem to indicate that having that knowledge is not really God's primary purpose in the least.

User avatar
EduChris
Prodigy
Posts: 4615
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Can a being know it is omniscient?

Post #23

Post by EduChris »

ChaosBorders wrote:...I meant to equate God the Father with God2. If there were a 'God' beyond the trinity, would it make God the Father no longer God to you? Even if he still created you, interacts with you, etc.? And even if the God 'beyond' (using the word kind of loosely here) the trinity considered the trinity a part of itself?
If God1, God2, God3, ... GodN considered themselves all to be "GOD," and if each of these various aspects of "GOD" are necessarily existing entities, then yes, I would consider God1, God2, God3, ... GodN as "GOD." But still I think that my geometric analogy is more parsimonious and at least as sufficient in explanatory scope.

ChaosBorders wrote:...Except we (or at least some people) can understand Tesseracts, so by that analogy a two-dimensional flatlander should be able to understand how a three-dimensional cube would work. But I get what you're saying.
Yes, I remember seeing computer-generated images of various 4-D geometrical constructs when I was in college. That is in fact what originally prompted me to conceive of the Trinity in this way.

ChaosBorders wrote:...the analogy I like to think of it as is a reverse fractal...
I don't remember anything about reverse fractals from college...sounds interesting, though.

ChaosBorders wrote:...God is omnipotent, thus could choose to enlighten everyone regarding the truth and proper interpretation of the Bible. God does not do so, leading to millions of interpretations, most of which are wrong. Since God could, but does not, the conclusion is that it is part of God's plan/will people misinterpret the Bible. That is by deception by definition.
This is a "free will" issue, I think. We choose to turn away from God, and God allows us to wander away from the source of reason and understanding. If we are not free, then your logic would stand, but if we are free, and if God respects our freedom, then I would expect God to be very disappointed when we fail to understand (and in fact the Bible seems to indicate as much).

ChaosBorders wrote:...If God's desire were to be known by us, he could make it happen. He doesn't, which indicates there is a reason for not doing so...
Ditto on the free will thing (see above).

ChaosBorders wrote:...our near inability to actually examine the world or ourselves with completeness or accuracy would seem to indicate that having that knowledge is not really God's primary purpose in the least.
There's a lot to learn, and we'll have lots of time to keep learning. Life would be pretty dull if we had everything all figured out down to the last dotted "i".

It's funny though. On the another thread about free will, non-theists were constantly trying to tell me that we in fact do know everything we need to know about the universe, and that simple extrapolations of what we know about individual particles can be automatically applied to complex systems for which no empirical studies can possibily be done with our current technologies.

User avatar
ChaosBorders
Site Supporter
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
Location: Austin

Re: Can a being know it is omniscient?

Post #24

Post by ChaosBorders »

EduChris wrote:
ChaosBorders wrote:...the analogy I like to think of it as is a reverse fractal...
I don't remember anything about reverse fractals from college...sounds interesting, though.
I'm not sure the concept is ever explored in formal mathematics. But a fractal is an infinitely recursive figure, which no matter how far down you zoom the part is ultimately the same basic structure as the whole. One can in theory go down forever. For my conceptual framework though I reverse it, starting at the 'bottom' and going upwards forever.

EduChris wrote: This is a "free will" issue, I think. We choose to turn away from God, and God allows us to wander away from the source of reason and understanding. If we are not free, then your logic would stand, but if we are free, and if God respects our freedom, then I would expect God to be very disappointed when we fail to understand (and in fact the Bible seems to indicate as much)..
The problem with this is that not everyone who earnestly seeks for God ever finds him. Making it easier to know God would not negate free will (if we actually had any) which makes one wonder why if we are free and God wants us to know him there has been so many obstacles put into place.

EduChris wrote: There's a lot to learn, and we'll have lots of time to keep learning. Life would be pretty dull if we had everything all figured out down to the last dotted "i".
Would it though? Presumably God has everything all figured out. Is God's existence dull? But I do tend to agree that having to figure things out, being uncertain of things and the like do make my life more interesting more often than not.
EduChris wrote: It's funny though. On the another thread about free will, non-theists were constantly trying to tell me that we in fact do know everything we need to know about the universe, and that simple extrapolations of what we know about individual particles can be automatically applied to complex systems for which no empirical studies can possibily be done with our current technologies.
In absence of evidence to the contrary, it does generally make sense to extrapolate what is known already to the universe as a whole. Given there is no evidence to the contrary, trying to make an argument something does or must exist that would require contrary evidence typically falls under one of a number of logical fallacies.

If one makes no such claim and sticks to pure speculation and belief, it really can't be argued against. Though that also makes it pointless to debate.

User avatar
EduChris
Prodigy
Posts: 4615
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Can a being know it is omniscient?

Post #25

Post by EduChris »

ChaosBorders wrote:...a fractal is an infinitely recursive figure, which no matter how far down you zoom the part is ultimately the same basic structure as the whole. One can in theory go down forever. For my conceptual framework though I reverse it, starting at the 'bottom' and going upwards forever.
Not clear how you relate this to God. Is the "bottom" God1, with infinite GodX's being recursively spawned? Do you have any analogies that shed light on this?

ChaosBorders wrote:...The problem with this is that not everyone who earnestly seeks for God ever finds him. Making it easier to know God would not negate free will (if we actually had any) which makes one wonder why if we are free and God wants us to know him there has been so many obstacles put into place.
I'm not sure how we would ever know who "earnestly" seeks God. I'm not sure how we would know that the "earnest" seeker doesn't ever find God. The Bible says that God's nature is evident in the world God has made, and I think that makes sense. Most people I've met disbelieve God because they want to disbelieve God, not because they have to or because there are too many obstacles.

ChaosBorders wrote:...Presumably God has everything all figured out. Is God's existence dull? But I do tend to agree that having to figure things out, being uncertain of things and the like do make my life more interesting more often than not...
God can create new wonders--and given the diversity of our world, God seems to delight in diverse wonders. And since I believe that we have free will, I believe that God also sits back and watches us create realities out of our possibilities.

ChaosBorders wrote:...In absence of evidence to the contrary, it does generally make sense to extrapolate what is known already to the universe as a whole. Given there is no evidence to the contrary, trying to make an argument something does or must exist that would require contrary evidence typically falls under one of a number of logical fallacies...
I think our disagreement lies in the bolded phrase, above. I think we have ample evidence that complex arrangements of matter do display properties that are not found in the constituent material parts.

User avatar
ChaosBorders
Site Supporter
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
Location: Austin

Re: Can a being know it is omniscient?

Post #26

Post by ChaosBorders »

EduChris wrote: Not clear how you relate this to God. Is the "bottom" God1, with infinite GodX's being recursively spawned? Do you have any analogies that shed light on this?
Actually the 'top' would be God one. We would be at the bottom with GodX immediately above us. Since there is no way of knowing how many (and I envision that it could be infinite) links between GodX and God1, I flip the concept of the fractal and go from the bottom up.

EduChris wrote: I'm not sure how we would ever know who "earnestly" seeks God. I'm not sure how we would know that the "earnest" seeker doesn't ever find God.
Listen to their story. If it involves a long period of trying to find faith I'd say they were pretty earnest, and if they were still unable to believe I'd say they didn't find God.
EduChris wrote: The Bible says that God's nature is evident in the world God has made, and I think that makes sense.
The world is violent, inefficient, and generally apathetic. If I actually believed this world was not a very, very tiny part of a bigger and better picture then the conclusion I would have to draw (and certainly did in the past) is that God is a truly lousy designer and kind of a dick.
EduChris wrote: Most people I've met disbelieve God because they want to disbelieve God, not because they have to or because there are too many obstacles.
Very few people I've known who disbelieve in God do so because they don't want to. Most do so because they are unable to reconcile the suffering in the world (or concept of hell) with an all-loving God, do not see any evidence of those who believe in God genuinely acting any differently than others despite claiming to be filled with the Holy Spirit or what not, could not reconcile the Bible with other beliefs (or other parts of itself), etc.

User avatar
EduChris
Prodigy
Posts: 4615
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Can a being know it is omniscient?

Post #27

Post by EduChris »

ChaosBorders wrote:...Listen to their story. If it involves a long period of trying to find faith I'd say they were pretty earnest, and if they were still unable to believe I'd say they didn't find God...
Yes, we want to give people the benfit of the doubt. If they say they are earnest, we should believe them unless we have evidence to the contrary. Still, faith is a tricky thing. Some people have more than they think.

ChaosBorders wrote:...The world is violent, inefficient, and generally apathetic. If I actually believed this world was not a very, very tiny part of a bigger and better picture then the conclusion I would have to draw (and certainly did in the past) is that God is a truly lousy designer and kind of a dick...
Perhaps I would believe that as well, if I didn't also believe that we have free will and that we (individually and collectively) have misused that freedom. Still, if we don't like what we see in the world around us, that probably means that we think there must be some higher standard of the "good." This higher standard of "good" can point us to God.

ChaosBorders wrote:...Very few people I've known who disbelieve in God do so because they don't want to. Most do so because they are unable to reconcile the suffering in the world (or concept of hell) with an all-loving God, do not see any evidence of those who believe in God genuinely acting any differently than others despite claiming to be filled with the Holy Spirit or what not, could not reconcile the Bible with other beliefs (or other parts of itself), etc.
I agree that people who see only suffering and hypocrisy have a more difficult time believing that a loving God exists. As Christians, we (collectively and individually) need to be more mindful of the example we set for others.

User avatar
ChaosBorders
Site Supporter
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
Location: Austin

Re: Can a being know it is omniscient?

Post #28

Post by ChaosBorders »

EduChris wrote:
ChaosBorders wrote:...The world is violent, inefficient, and generally apathetic. If I actually believed this world was not a very, very tiny part of a bigger and better picture then the conclusion I would have to draw (and certainly did in the past) is that God is a truly lousy designer and kind of a dick...
Perhaps I would believe that as well, if I didn't also believe that we have free will and that we (individually and collectively) have misused that freedom. Still, if we don't like what we see in the world around us, that probably means that we think there must be some higher standard of the "good." This higher standard of "good" can point us to God.
I wasn't talking about the people. All the viruses, bacteria, genetic defects, and elements that kill people in horrible ways are not the result of any freedom of ours. Besides my belief that science pretty much rules out freedom at this point, I do not think freedom even remotely sufficiently solves the theological issue of suffering. A determined universe where our suffering is part of a bigger picture I can live with.
EduChris wrote: As Christians, we (collectively and individually) need to be more mindful of the example we set for others.
That I certainly can agree with full-heartedly.

User avatar
EduChris
Prodigy
Posts: 4615
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Can a being know it is omniscient?

Post #29

Post by EduChris »

ChaosBorders wrote:...I wasn't talking about the people. All the viruses, bacteria, genetic defects, and elements that kill people in horrible ways are not the result of any freedom of ours...
If humans could stop fighting with each other and start cooperating, probably most of these problems could be greatly diminished.

User avatar
ChaosBorders
Site Supporter
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
Location: Austin

Re: Can a being know it is omniscient?

Post #30

Post by ChaosBorders »

EduChris wrote:
ChaosBorders wrote:...I wasn't talking about the people. All the viruses, bacteria, genetic defects, and elements that kill people in horrible ways are not the result of any freedom of ours...
If humans could stop fighting with each other and start cooperating, probably most of these problems could be greatly diminished.
The question is why, if God's nature is evident in the world, all the evidence seems to be that the world is actively trying to kill us. (This is of course hyperbole given I do not think the world 'tries' to do anything). This is particularly problematic if one considers that a great deal of human violence against each other is in response to the scarce resources in harsh environments, which God presumably would have known would happen when making those resources scarce.

But you do bring up a good point about the nature of cooperation that I think is humorously demonstrated in this comic strip.

Post Reply