Jewish and Christianity Question - Is God all knowing?

[Yar-El]

Jewish and Christianity Question - Is God all knowing?

 

I have a revelation to present after someone with Christian or Jewish knowledge answers.

[Fredi]

I would like to know this answer as well.

[jrrtoken]

Could you elaborate? That question is sort of... vague.

 

Oh, and you might as well modify of the Jewish and Christianity subtitle, since there are a LOT of religions which are monotheistic, or perhaps you wanted to stay in the Abrahamic realm, then you might as well include Islam, too.

 

Thanks.

[jonathan7]

God has to be all knowing, if as in the Christian conception he is outside of time, as he already know everything that will come to pass....

 

By extension this would be true for Judaism; and Islam.

[Achilles]

God has to be all knowing, if as in the Christian conception he is outside of time, as he already know everything that will come to pass....

...therefore there is no free will.

[jonathan7]

...therefore there is no free will.

 

If you hold with a latin way of thinking which means if one thing is true, something contrary to it must be false (opposed to an eastern, 'holistic' way of thinking). Personally I'd hold that both God being all knowing, and people have freedom of choice are true. God gave us freedom to choose - but because he is outside of time he already know's what we will choose. Is that the same as pre-destination?

[GarfieldJL]

While God may be all knowing, that doesn't mean the future is fixed, I imagine God has done a few things to influence things, but by and large we do have the freedom to choose.

 

It isn't predestination, it's just God exists outside time and is watching everything unfold on its own.

 

Edit: The problem with arguing this is that we're looking at a paradox.

[Emperor Devon]

Wasn't there a thread on this a while ago? Oh well. If god is omnipotent he can make anything happen. If god is omniscient he knows everything that could happen. Ergo anything that does happen is decided by him. Free will is nonexistent.

 

Jewish and Christianity Question - Is God all knowing?

 

Somewhat off-topic, but why was this question deemed inherently jewish/christian?

[TriggerGod]

If what the Christian view of God is true, then there is no true free will; everything has been decided for you years in advance.

What I believe is that there is a 'plane above earth' such as heaven where he resides with his children after they die. He watches down on us while we ruin/enrich our lives, and He may change events in the future when needed.

 

Somewhat off-topic, but why was this question deemed inherently jewish/christian?

Presumably because we're talking about the Christian/Jewish deity known as 'God.'

[Achilles]

Presumably because we're talking about the Christian/Jewish deity known as 'God.'

Islam?

 

Why discriminate amongst the abrahamic monotheisms? Or amongst any religion that has a (allegedly) omniscient figure in its pantheon?

[The Doctor]

If god is omnipotent he can make anything happen. If god is omniscient he knows everything that could happen. Ergo anything that does happen is decided by him. Free will is nonexistent.

 

Just because he can make anything happen, Devon, doesn't mean he does.

 

And that is where my beliefs differ from those commonly heard today. As a former Christian, I do believe in God, as an omnipresent and possibly omnipotent being - I mean to say, a being far more powerful and intelligent than any human could ever hope to achieve. I believe that he has had a profound impact on the development of the human race by directly influencing events in our history; events that have been distorted somewhat through misunderstanding and misinterpretation. I know, though Roman historical documentation, that a man named Yeshua was in fact crucified for "crimes against the empire".

 

From there, I branch out of my raised-Christian beliefs. While, to me, Jesus was an incredibly compassionate, intelligent man with vastly progressive ideas and beliefs, he was nothing more. I do not believe that he was the incarnation of God, nor that he was divinely inspired to die to save humanity from their sins - though I have no idea what his own human motives may have been, if he even had any sort of plan. In my mind, Jesus was no different than Mahatma Gandhi, in that he was simply an intelligent, enlightened man who's ideals got him killed by people who weren't ready to hear them.

 

This leads me to my main point: while God may, at some point, have been an active force in the lives of mankind, I believe that at some point he realised exactly how detrimental to our existence his interference was, regardless of his intentions. He's since backed off considerably, though he now feels obligated to set us on the right path, speaking to some individuals in special circumstances; though the ill-formed (though basically well intentioned) religions spawned from his previous interferences have have simply swelled in number because of it, rather than people forming their own faith - solely because many people aren't interested enough in their faith to define it outside of the traditional values.

 

So, to answer the OP's question directly: yes, in my opinion, God could be described as "all knowing" to the extent that he has a higher awareness and understanding of the events of present day humanity, on both a small personal and larger global level. I would not, however, grant him the status of omnipresent, omniscient, or omnipotent in the literal sense.

[Emperor Devon]

Just because he can make anything hawppen, Devon, doesn't mean he does.

 

But if god is omniscient he knows everything that could result from whatever decision he makes (or abstains from making). Since he's also omnipotent, he can make all decisions.

 

A decision doesn't have to have required direct effort on his part for it to have been one, so what we'd consider apathy is still a decision by his standards - he knows the consequences of all given courses of action, and chooses a particular one to go with.

[Achilles]

I'm okay with whatever make-pretend rules we want to make up so long as we're honest when one of them drives a bus right over another. And if we're going to use "god is unknowable" as an excuse to make up a made-up rule that none of the other made-up rules really contradict each other, then we should just stick to that and stop pretending that we can both know and not know the unknowable at the same time.

[The Doctor]

But if god is omniscient he knows everything that could result from whatever decision he makes (or abstains from making). Since he's also omnipotent, he can make all decisions.

As I stated above, I believe that God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent in the literal sense of either word. He may have more developed powers of foresight, but to say that he knows for sure what is going to happen, in my opinion, is a flawed statement. Therefore, he does not see all, nor can he make all decisions.

 

A decision doesn't have to have required direct effort on his part for it to have been one, so what we'd consider apathy is still a decision by his standards - he knows the consequences of all given courses of action, and chooses a particular one to go with.

Again, I do not believe that he knows, for sure, the consequences of every decision he could possible make - including the decision to do nothing.

[Emperor Devon]

As I stated above, I believe that God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent in the literal sense of either word. {snip} he does not see all, nor can he make all decisions.

 

That isn't omniscient or omnipotent in any sense of the word. Anyways, looks like I misread your post - though it's inevitable you'll confuse people if you use words for anything other than their intended meaning. There is no possibility, as you mentioned above, of god being omniscient if he doesn't know everything.

[tk102]

Omniscience, omnipotence*, or omnipresence.

 

Only the last makes any sense to me.

 

 

*As en ex LF admin, I thought you'd knew better -d3

[Q]

How does one define the indefinable? Or divine its motives? Or even prove or disprove its very existence? One cannot. Period.

 

The book of Job serves as the ultimate example of why discussions of this nature, by believers and nonbelievers alike, are an utterly pointless waste of time. I humbly ask that no one take this as an insult as it is not meant as one. The answer is the same, regardless of your beliefs or point of view on the matter.

 

While it is perfectly natural to ask these questions, IMO it is detrimental and even unhealthy from a psychological point of view to obsessively persue them because the answer is unattainable. Take it from someone who knows first-hand. If taken too far it will ultimately lead to insanity. The best course of action is to accept your limitations and move on.

[The Doctor]

Some would say that the book of Job had that "lesson" installed in it in hopes that people would take it to heart and in fact not discuss such an issue, as it would weaken the Church's power if people began to question such things so readily. Challenging your own religious beliefs is the best way to adapt and grow, to be perfectly honest. To try to define what you're told cannot be defined is unavoidably human, and shouldn't be quashed. Ever.

[Achilles]

The best course of action is to accept your limitations and move on.

I think "move on to what?" is the question (and for some, the point) in this discussion.

[Q]

Some would say that the book of Job had that "lesson" installed in it in hopes that people would take it to heart and in fact not discuss such an issue, as it would weaken the Church's power if people began to question such things so readily.

Then they are missing the point. To be frank, I couldn't care less about organized religion or its motives, as I believe that it is a failure on every level. It is ultimately irrevelvant, IMO.

I think "move on to what?" is the question (and for some, the point) in this discussion.

I honestly wish that I knew. Blissful ignorance, perhaps?

[Rev7]

God has to be all knowing, if as in the Christian conception he is outside of time, as he already know everything that will come to pass....

 

By extension this would be true for Judaism; and Islam.

QFE

[Achilles]

I honestly wish that I knew. Blissful ignorance, perhaps?

I pretty much agree with every point that you made above (except the part about the book of job ), but at the end of the day only some of us accept that we can't know (and by extension, that we don't). Where we should go from there is a very important question that needs to be answered. Ignoring it has gotten where we are now.

[Q]

Actually, I believe that it is our insistence on continuing to seek it that has gotten us to where we are now.

 

I believe that I know where the answer (or at least an answer within the limits of our perception) lies, but I'm afraid that, on the whole, humanity lacks both the mental capacity and the maturity to deal with the answer and that is why I believe that, at least at present, it is best left unsought.

[Achilles]

Actually, I believe that it is our insistence on continuing to seek it that has gotten us to where we are now.

Now I think you're just arguing in circles. "Don't know the answer so move on but don't ask where to because that's dangerous also".

 

I think if irrational thinking could account for as much human progress as rational thinking, you might have a point.

 

I believe that I know where the answer (or at least an answer within the limits of our perception) lies, but I'm afraid that, on the whole, humanity lacks both the mental capacity and the maturity to deal with the answer and that is why I believe that, at least at present, it is best left unsought.

And here I suspect that you're still arguing for the first point when I thought we had moved on to the second. So please allow me to try again: What does mankind do while leaving things "unsought"?

 

Your "leave everything alone" solution doesn't sound like much of a solution to me. In fact it sounds rather apathetic.

[Samuel Dravis]

It's not a question of if events influence our decisions, it's a question of which. Any discussion on whether God predestined people is not going to ask: are we free in a libertarian-free-will sense (which is, to my knowledge, an unsupportable idea)? Instead, it's going to ask, "Just what constitutes a freely chosen action, anyway?"

 

We got this idea of choosing freely from somewhere, most likely our morality. We hold people responsible for some actions and not for others. However, when you look closely at actions that are in real life considered freely chosen, never in any case do they disregard physical law. So does that mean they're determined by laws of physics? Not exactly. I would say that it demonstrates that the laws of physics are simply not relevant to what is and what is not "freely chosen."

 

The idea that God got the ball rolling in the physical sense and therefore determined what people would do doesn't really hold up if we accept the idea above, since physical determinism isn't an issue anymore.

 

It might be said that what people consider freely willed actions are irrelevant to what actually are freely willed actions. Well! We're the ones using the words here. If we want to say we could be wrong about what a free-willed action is, then surely we must have some way to find out that it actually is or is not free. After all, for a doubt to exist there must be logical room for it. But given the parameters such a question would be asked under (a metaphysical/libertarian free will is unprovable and by corollary cannot be disproven either), I don't see that such a way is possible unless it is completely arbitrary - and something arbitrary is uninteresting to us here.

 

Because of this, I'm comfortable just going with what we know, which is how we in fact do use the idea of freedom in relation to our actions. I'd say that, regardless of whether or not you believe in an omniscient God, we're free to choose our actions in every meaningful sense.