Omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence

[Mithrae]

Many Christians and other religious folk make grand claims for their deity along the lines of them being all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving and so on. These then obviously become the focus of various proposed paradoxes: If God is both good and powerful, then how can there be evil; if God knows everything we do before we do it, then how can we have free will; if God is all powerful and capable of doing anything, then can't he also do evil; and so on.

One common resolution to many of these proposed paradoxes is to point out qualifications in what is meant by those grand terms. All-powerful, in that view, means having all power that there is; an omnipotent deity can create a rock of any weight, and can also lift a rock of any weight. A rock so heavy that he can't lift it is a nonsensical concept, so asking whether he can create such a thing is a nonsensical question. An all-knowing God knows everything that there is to know; he presumably knows everything that Tolkien wrote or even thought about Middle Earth, but that hardly implies that he must know what Frodo's great-grandmother had for breakfast on her wedding day! Arguably the same applies to knowledge of the future; besides deterministic patterns like movement of planets etc, there's little reason to suppose that an omniscient being should have certain knowledge about things that don't even exist yet and aren't available to be known.

But following the same logic, this would imply that an omnibenevolent God is one who embodies all good that there is, rather than some arbitrary ideal of absolute perfection. For example, we generally consider that one of the best and clearest expressions of goodness is altruism, sacrificing one's own time or money to help others without receiving anything in return: Yet before the creation of the world or any other beings, it would be even more nonsensical to talk about altruism as a characteristic of God than to talk about a rock he can't lift; there was neither any sacrifice of himself that God could offer nor any needs of other beings to be met. Altruism is an aspect of goodness which God necessarily lacked at least until there existed beings to be altruistic to. And by implication, that would mean that God was less good in the past; that God has grown and learned and become more good over time.


> Are those qualified definitions of those omni- descriptions as meaning 'all power/knowledge/good that there is' a reasonable perspective?
> If not, does that mean that the unqualified/absolute omni- descriptions fall prey to the various paradoxes surrounding them and leave an incoherent or contradictory god concept?
> Or if the qualified definitions are more reasonable, do they conflict with any biblical descriptions of God?
> Do they undermine the way in which Christians commonly imagine God?

[1213]

…If God is both good and powerful, then how can there be evil; if God knows everything we do before we do it, then how can we have free will; if God is all powerful and capable of doing anything, then can't he also do evil; and so on.

It is interesting that in Biblical point of view people were expelled to this first death, because they wanted to learn what evil means. This “life� is like the Matrix in that movie. Here we can experience evil while the soul is in safe and can be destroyed only by God.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 10:28

So, in Biblical point of view, evil is not a problem, that is why I think it is allowed in this "life". It is just something that we can experience here. And those who love more good than evil and become righteous, can have eternal life, without evil (Evil actually is like emptiness, or darkness, nothing, lack of good).

Free will and knowing all are not contradictory. Person who knows all, can know what people freely choose.

I think there is no reason to say God could not do evil. I believe He doesn’t want to do evil.

One common resolution to many of these proposed paradoxes is to point out qualifications in what is meant by those grand terms. All-powerful, in that view, means having all power that there is; an omnipotent deity can create a rock of any weight, and can also lift a rock of any weight. A rock so heavy that he can't lift it is a nonsensical concept, so asking whether he can create such a thing is a nonsensical question. An all-knowing God knows everything that there is to know; he presumably knows everything that Tolkien wrote or even thought about Middle Earth, but that hardly implies that he must know what Frodo's great-grandmother had for breakfast on her wedding day! …

I think it is not bad idea to think that all-powerful means that person has all possible power. But, in the case of the rock, it could be said that God could create a rock that He can’t lift. If He would later want to lift the rock, He could create more power to Him and then be able to lift it and so He would remain all powerful, even if He could not lift the rock at one point of time.

…
> Are those qualified definitions of those omni- descriptions as meaning 'all power/knowledge/good that there is' a reasonable perspective?

I think they are reasonable, but perhaps not necessary. The problem with this is, people are not usually all knowing and therefore, if people limit by their own knowledge and understanding something that is beyond their capabilities, they may make mistakes. Is it really possible for people to even comprehend omni-things?

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

Are those qualified definitions of those omni- descriptions as meaning 'all power/knowledge/good that there is' a reasonable perspective?

Where did the idea even first originate?

In terms of the Local GOD (Earth Entity) 'all power/knowledge/ would be specific to the locale. All good is open to subjective opinion.

If not, does that mean that the unqualified/absolute omni- descriptions fall prey to the various paradoxes surrounding them and leave an incoherent or contradictory god concept?

Speaking specifically to the idea of the Earth Entity being a GOD, no. Other ideas of GOD might suffer paradoxes.

Or if the qualified definitions are more reasonable, do they conflict with any biblical descriptions of God?

I suppose if there are biblical descriptions, then they might conflict. One would have to hear those.

Do they undermine the way in which Christians commonly imagine God?

Having been in the process of discussing the image of the Christian GOD with Member Tanager, it appears that there are no agreed 'common' images of 'The Christian GOD' among those calling themselves Christians.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

> Are those qualified definitions of those omni- descriptions as meaning 'all power/knowledge/good that there is' a reasonable perspective?

I do think that the definitions need to be qualified to make sense and that they were used in a qualified way from the beginning by most thinkers. I don't think they conflict with biblical descriptions or undermine how Christians should be imagining God, although they may actually undermine their imaginings.

To your critique, why are you defining altruism as "without receiving anything in return"? I would think altruism is more about the motives than consequences of their actions. If that aspect were taken off, the Trinity could speak to good in an altruistic sense, an ever-giving love relationship between three persons of the Divine being.

But even if we don't take that route, I'm not sure it follows that God would be less good in the past, in any meaningful sense. Going back to what you said about omniscience, it doesn't have to include knowledge of the future. If God is temporal, then at t=1 God knows X amount of truths. Then at t=2, more things have happened and there are more things to know, so God knows X + Y amount of truths. Was God less knowledgeable at t=1? Quantitatively, yes, but God is always exhibiting "all that there is to know". Perhaps in the same way, with goodness, God is always exhibiting "all the good that there is".

[wiploc]

... All-powerful, in that view, means having all power that there is;

I had one Christian undefine omnipotence to the extent that it just meant all the power that god has. Even if he couldn't supersize fries, he was still omnipotent.

[Mithrae]

Is it really possible for people to even comprehend omni-things?

Probably not, which is why they're such curious features of the theologian's toolbox. As far as I know omnipotence and omniscience are not explicitly biblical concepts, at least in any clearly-defined sense, and while plenty of passages say that God is perfect and holy and so on, there's also some other passages suggesting that he repented of mistakes or changed his mind on decisions he'd made.

#####

Having been in the process of discussing the image of the Christian GOD with Member Tanager, it appears that there are no agreed 'common' images of 'The Christian GOD' among those calling themselves Christians.

There's no universal agreement, but I think that most Christians would vehemently disagree with the notion that God knew a lot less 12 billion years ago than he knows today - and perhaps even moreso with the notion that God was less good in the past, that he's grown and learned over time!


#####

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

> Are those qualified definitions of those omni- descriptions as meaning 'all power/knowledge/good that there is' a reasonable perspective?

I do think that the definitions need to be qualified to make sense and that they were used in a qualified way from the beginning by most thinkers. I don't think they conflict with biblical descriptions or undermine how Christians should be imagining God, although they may actually undermine their imaginings.

No doubt some historical thinkers have used them in a qualified way; I'm not sure about most, or from the beginning. Many Christians have had a tendency to do everything that their minds can imagine (or even simply that their words can utter) to glorify and magnify their idea of God, thinking that he has to be a "being than which no greater can be conceived," as Anselm put it. Part of what got me thinking about this was Wiploc's comments about Plantinga in another thread (hardly a lightweight thinker), who apparently supposed that God from the beginning knew everything about all possible worlds; an infinitely more absolutist notion of omniscience than merely perfect genuine foreknowledge of this world! I wouldn't be particularly surprised if there were some Christians out there who do suppose that God knows what Frodo's great-grandmother had for breakfast on her wedding day

In fairness, critics also seem to fixate on the absolutist versions of those terms just as often as Christians do.

[alexxcJRO]

> Are those qualified definitions of those omni- descriptions as meaning 'all power/knowledge/good that there is' a reasonable perspective?
> If not, does that mean that the unqualified/absolute omni- descriptions fall prey to the various paradoxes surrounding them and leave an incoherent or contradictory god concept?
> Or if the qualified definitions are more reasonable, do they conflict with any biblical descriptions of God?
> Do they undermine the way in which Christians commonly imagine God?

An omniscient being cannot have free will because it is predestined by its own knowledge of its future actions.

Quantum tunneling is suppressed by observation(Quantum zeno effect). Therefore if God is omniscient then we have a quantum zeno effect through out the whole universe. This would lead to the stop of quantum tunneling and “freeze of the universe�.

A perfect, immutable-unchanging , timeless being that created time lives in everlasting and perfect mental state with no concerns, needs. Therefore it does not have free will, for choice require changes in mental states over time in which it does not live, for choice requires needs, concerns which it does not have.

God cannot be not be omniscient for no being, however creative or perfect, cannot verify that its own knowledge is complete.

A perfectly good being makes the most perfect choices and therefore has no free will. A being with no free will cannot be morally good for it makes no moral choices, it is just an amoral robot.


A perfectly good-omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, personal God is incompatible with the current state of the universe, a place govern by entropy and natural evils.

A perfectly good-omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, personal God who wants to have a relationship based on love and respect with all humans is incompatible with the current state of the universe, a place where psychopathy is present.

A perfectly good-omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, personal God who wants to have a relationship based on love and respect with all humans is incompatible with the current state of the universe, a place where genuine disbelief in it is present.

C: Logic and the current state of the universe make the omni personal God just fiction.

I think it's time to retire it and put it where it belongs, together with the rest of the mythology.

[The Tanager]

No doubt some historical thinkers have used them in a qualified way; I'm not sure about most, or from the beginning. Many Christians have had a tendency to do everything that their minds can imagine (or even simply that their words can utter) to glorify and magnify their idea of God, thinking that he has to be a "being than which no greater can be conceived," as Anselm put it. Part of what got me thinking about this was Wiploc's comments about Plantinga in another thread (hardly a lightweight thinker), who apparently supposed that God from the beginning knew everything about all possible worlds; an infinitely more absolutist notion of omniscience than merely perfect genuine foreknowledge of this world! I wouldn't be particularly surprised if there were some Christians out there who do suppose that God knows what Frodo's great-grandmother had for breakfast on her wedding day Laughing

In fairness, critics also seem to fixate on the absolutist versions of those terms just as often as Christians do.

I only know of Plantinga in small bits and pieces, but I think he defines omnipotence in a qualified way. His free will defense against the problem of evil, for instance, talks about how God could not create free will beings that would never choose evil and this not being a knock on His omnipotence. But I could be wrong about that.

Neither would the concept of a "being than which no greater can be conceived" necessarily speak of an absolute sense of omnipotence, although I don't know Anselm all that well either. If illogical notions aren't conceivable (the phrases are, but the ideas are not), then they are beneath our conceptions, so to speak. God being greater than our conceptions would surpass these illogical notions as well.

Having said that, I was talking more about traditional published thinkers rather than everyday Christians. And I do think Descartes, and I assume those influenced by his thinking, did think God could do the illogical. But I do find that many everyday Christians are taken aback (at least at first) when I question how they interpret Matt 19:26/Mark 10:27, for instance: "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." They don't seem to hold to their initial thought too tightly and agree that God couldn't make a round square or some such nonsense, or no-thing. I could possibly see many in the Reformed tradition, as one instance, hold onto an absolute definition, so it'd be interesting to see what Calvin, Zwingli, and others thought of omnipotence.

[William]

[Replying to post 6 by Mithrae]

Having been in the process of discussing the image of the Christian GOD with Member Tanager, it appears that there are no agreed 'common' images of 'The Christian GOD' among those calling themselves Christians.

There's no universal agreement, but I think that most Christians would vehemently disagree with the notion that God knew a lot less 12 billion years ago than he knows today - and perhaps even moreso with the notion that God was less good in the past, that he's grown and learned over time!

While I certainly agree with your assessment, there being no 'universal agreement' allows for slithery argument to surface, and with it, contradiction - although the catch-phrase is still "there is no contradiction!". - That appears to be universally agreed upon.