Can a being know it is omniscient?

[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?

[ChaosBorders]

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?

Actually, that is a very interesting question. If it is truly omniscient, then it would know that it is omniscient. If it is not really omniscient, but rather merely has the illusion of omniscience, it presumably would believe itself to be omniscient anyways.

It seems unlikely that a being would feel the need to make such a claim, even if it were, but I think a healthy dose of skepticism would be a good thing if one did. If it really is omniscient, then it knows why you're being skeptical and presumably has already accounted for that skepticism in whatever plan it has so there should be nothing wrong with having it.

[myth-one.com]

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?

Firstly, an omniscent being would know the defintion and not waste time questioning the future -- which is unknown. He/she would know all knowledge, everything knowable. Thus he would know that what will happen in the future is not knowable until it happens, and at that time it is no longer the future.

And knowing that he must wait to know what the future held would not bother this omniscient person as it seems to bother us unomniscients or nonomniscients or non-omniscients (I just don't know).

Reality and illusion are realtime knowable characteristics and the omniscient being would know the difference.

[ChaosBorders]

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?

Firstly, an omniscent being would know the defintion and not waste time questioning the future -- which is unknown. He/she would know all knowledge, everything knowable. Thus he would know that what will happen in the future is not knowable until it happens, and at that time it is no longer the future.

And knowing that he must wait to know what the future held would not bother this omniscient person as it seems to bother us unomniscients or nonomniscients or non-omniscients (I just don't know).

Reality and illusion are realtime knowable characteristics and the omniscient being would know the difference.

A) You are using the most limited definition of omniscience. Most people do not use this definition.
B) Even if God were this limited type of omniscience, if the universe is deterministic in nature then God would still know the future. If the universe is not deterministic in nature, God would not know the future with certainty, but would still know all possible futures and each one's inherent probability.

[myth-one.com]

Firstly, an omniscent being would know the defintion and not waste time questioning the future -- which is unknown. He/she would know all knowledge, everything knowable. Thus he would know that what will happen in the future is not knowable until it happens, and at that time it is no longer the future.

A) You are using the most limited definition of omniscience.

om·nis·cient: Having total knowledge.

If I'm imposing any limitations, it would be on the definition of knowledge:

knowledge: The sum of what is known.

What will happen is unknown, until it happens.

The statement: "The sun will rise in the eastern horizon tomorrow" cannot be determined to be true or false -- until it either occurs or does not occur. The statement, "The sun rose in the eastern horizon this morning" became part of the knowledge base this morning.

B) Even if God were this limited type of omniscience, if the universe is deterministic in nature then God would still know the future.

There is no certainity of the outcome of events here on earth because God delegated authority over the earth to angels and man along with the freedom to make choices regarding earthly things -- until Jesus returns.

But because God is omniscient (knows all knowledge), He can create conditions such that there is a high probability of the future coming out as He "determined."

[ChaosBorders]

Firstly, an omniscent being would know the defintion and not waste time questioning the future -- which is unknown. He/she would know all knowledge, everything knowable. Thus he would know that what will happen in the future is not knowable until it happens, and at that time it is no longer the future.

A) You are using the most limited definition of omniscience.

om·nis·cient: Having total knowledge.

If I'm imposing any limitations, it would be on the definition of knowledge:

knowledge: The sum of what is known.

What will happen is unknown, until it happens.

Per wiki: Total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.

Knowledge: The fact or condition of being aware of something.
The fact or condition of having information

Definitely restricting the definition of knowledge then, because if one has total knowledge by those two definitions then one has total knowledge of all facts and conditions regardless of time frame.

Even with your definition you have to show that the future IS unknowable, which in the context of an omnipotent being or deterministic universe should not be assumed.

The statement: "The sun will rise in the eastern horizon tomorrow" cannot be determined to be true or false -- until it either occurs or does not occur. The statement, "The sun rose in the eastern horizon this morning" became part of the knowledge base this morning.

Unless the universe is deterministic in nature, in which case it can be known with absolute certainty what will happen tomorrow if one knows everything there is to know today.

And this also forces God into a linear time perspective, which itself makes little sense for an omnipotent being.

There is no certainity of the outcome of events here on earth because God delegated authority over the earth to angels and man along with the freedom to make choices regarding earthly things -- until Jesus returns.

Go to the free will thread and argue that then. I assume no free will of any kind and do not think you can show that we have any.

But because God is omniscient (knows all knowledge), He can create conditions such that there is a high probability of the future coming out as He "determined."

Yeah, I'd say that probability is 1 in 1.

[myth-one.com]

Firstly, an omniscent being would know the defintion and not waste time questioning the future -- which is unknown. He/she would know all knowledge, everything knowable. Thus he would know that what will happen in the future is not knowable until it happens, and at that time it is no longer the future.

A) You are using the most limited definition of omniscience.

om·nis·cient: Having total knowledge.

If I'm imposing any limitations, it would be on the definition of knowledge:

knowledge: The sum of what is known.

What will happen is unknown, until it happens.

Per wiki: Total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.

Knowledge: The fact or condition of being aware of something.
The fact or condition of having information

Then Wiki agrees with me!

future: Something that will happen in time to come.

What the future "holds" is excluded from "knowledge" because it is unknowable. It is something that has not yet happened. All one can say is that their will be a future, and the information it will contain is unknown.

So one can be omniscient without knowing what will occur in the future, because what will occur in the future is not yet in the domain of knowledge.

Definitely restricting the definition of knowledge then, because if one has total knowledge by those two definitions then one has total knowledge of all facts and conditions regardless of time frame.

It's the definition you chose. And yes, whatever the time frame, if one knows all knowable knowledge at that time, they are omniscient.

[ChaosBorders]

What the future "holds" is excluded from "knowledge" because it is unknowable. It is something that has not yet happened. All one can say is that their will be a future, and the information it will contain is unknown.

Except that this is blatantly FALSE. If the universe is deterministic then knowing everything now means you will know everything that will happen. Period. End of story.

If the universe is probabilistic then knowing everything now means you know everything that COULD happen and the probabilities of those events.

Add omnipotence into the mix and the universe is pretty much automatically deterministic because God would already know exactly what God would do and has the power to do it.

FURTHERMORE, there is no reason to believe that God is limited by time. That is one lame God if it exists solely in our own time-space continuum. It's like it built a box for itself and stuck itself in it. If God exists outside of time, from God's perspective there is no FUTURE. There's simply existence, and it would know all of that existence no matter what point of that existence you examined more closely.

So one can be omniscient without knowing what will occur in the future, because what will occur in the future is not yet in the domain of knowledge.

Only if the universe is probabilistic, God is not omnipotent, and God constricted himself to our perspective of time. So basically only if God is lame. If yes, then it is POSSIBLE for an omniscient being to not know what will occur in the future.

But not a single one of those assumptions has been shown to be true. So, I for one, will continue to believe in a God that isn't so limited.

[myth-one.com]

What the future "holds" is excluded from "knowledge" because it is unknowable. It is something that has not yet happened. All one can say is that their will be a future, and the information it will contain is unknown.

Except that this is blatantly FALSE.

But your definition of "Total omniscience" was:

Per wiki: Total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.

If something can't be known it does not apply towards omniscience. The future can be guessed, predicted, estimated, ... etc, but not known.

Future: Something that will happen in time to come.

Something: An undetermined or unspecified thing.

Add omnipotence into the mix and the universe is pretty much automatically deterministic because God would already know exactly what God would do and has the power to do it.

OK, omnipotence. That's the "omni" word meaning all powerful, right? That one is easy to debunk. All one has to do is prove there is one thing God cannot do. Here goes. God created the angels to live forever. Therefore, God cannot kill an angel. He can restrain them, but not kill them.

So God was originally all powerful, but not now. He has shared His power and limited Himself!

So one can be omniscient without knowing what will occur in the future, because what will occur in the future is not yet in the domain of knowledge.

Only if the universe is probabilistic, God is not omnipotent, and God constricted himself to our perspective of time. So basically only if God is lame. If yes, then it is POSSIBLE for an omniscient being to not know what will occur in the future.

OK, I should have stated: By ChaosBorders' definition of omniscience, one can be omniscient without knowing what will occur in the future.

But not a single one of those assumptions has been shown to be true. So, I for one, will continue to believe in a God that isn't so limited.

OK, what about the proof that God is no longer omnipotent? Can God kill Satan, for example? Not defeat or conquer, but kill. If not, then there is at least one thing God is powerless to do, and God is no longer omnipotent.

FURTHERMORE, there is no reason to believe that God is limited by time. That is one lame God if it exists solely in our own time-space continuum.

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

God created the heavens and the earth working in increments of time called days. Was there a limit to what He could do in one day? Could He have accomplished the entire creation in one day or 7 nanoseconds? Also note that God "rested" from His work. Can God become "tired?"

Anyway, God can limit Himself and not be lame. He does things for real logical reasons -- by design.

[ChaosBorders]

What the future "holds" is excluded from "knowledge" because it is unknowable. It is something that has not yet happened. All one can say is that their will be a future, and the information it will contain is unknown.

Except that this is blatantly FALSE.

But your definition of "Total omniscience" was:

Per wiki: Total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.

If something can't be known it does not apply towards omniscience. The future can be guessed, predicted, estimated, ... etc, but not known.

Future: Something that will happen in time to come.

Something: An undetermined or unspecified thing.

And now you're restricting the definition of future.

Future: A condition, esp. of success or failure, to come
Time that is to be or come hereafter

Neither of those require it to be undetermined or unspecified. It appears that way to US because we do not know everything necessary predict it with certainty. That is not the case for an omniscient being.

OK, omnipotence. That's the "omni" word meaning all powerful, right? That one is easy to debunk. All one has to do is prove there is one thing God cannot do. Here goes. God created the angels to live forever. Therefore, God cannot kill an angel. He can restrain them, but not kill them.

No, omnipotence has multiple common definitions. I would read the wiki article. The only one that God cannot logically be is frequently known as 'absolute omnipotence'. What is more, if God were actually that form of omnipotence then God would be so far beyond human comprehension that any discussion of it would be meaningless. But even if we rule out that definition, there are still several forms of omnipotence that are accepted as possible.

OK, what about the proof that God is no longer omnipotent? Can God kill Satan, for example? Not defeat or conquer, but kill. If not, then there is at least one thing God is powerless to do, and God is no longer omnipotent.

Though I could make the argument that yes, God could, this is not really the place to do so. But regarding how it effects omnipotence, if God is absolutely omnipotent then God can overrule any limit God has placed on himself at any time anyways. If God is omnipotent by most other definitions, self-imposed limits, logical limits, or limits created by God's own inherent nature have no bearing on whether God is omnipotent.

God created the heavens and the earth working in increments of time called days. Was there a limit to what He could do in one day? Could He have accomplished the entire creation in one day or 7 nanoseconds? Also note that God "rested" from His work. Can God become "tired?"

A) Even if you take that passage literally, the hebrew word for 'day' can mean different time periods: http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

B) Yes, I think God could have accomplished the entire of creation in an instant.

C) Rest doesn't necessitate being tired.

Anyway, God can limit Himself and not be lame. He does things for real logical reasons -- by design.

Though I agree with the statement, the particular limits you believe God has imposed on himself would make him very lame as far as I'm concerned.