Can an omniscient god exist if the universe is inherently non-deterministic?
Printable View
Can an omniscient god exist if the universe is inherently non-deterministic?
May I rephrase your question to ask: Can an omniscient god be moral or compassionate if He/She/It foresaw all that would be visited on humanity in the form of natural disasters, pandemics and human ignorance and cruelty?Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
What more exactly do you mean by non-deterministic?
It seems to me that this is essentially another look at the "Free Will v.s. Omniscience" debate. Here are some definitions of "Determinism":Quote:
Originally Posted by Visionary3
“Determinism is the theory that all human action is caused entirely by preceding events, and not by the exercise of the Will.”
“Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. The idea is ancient, but first became subject to clarification and mathematical analysis in the eighteenth century. Determinism is deeply connected with our understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory ambitions, on the one hand, and with our views about human free action on the other. In both of these general areas there is no agreement over whether determinism is true (or even whether it can be known true or false), and what the import for human agency would be in either case.”
I think that the answer here is clear. Why would omniscience play any deciding role in morallity or compassion? Is it at all possible that this poor divinity necessarily created the Universe as a result of it's character and essence, but sadly did a poor job of it and isn't powerful enough to solve all of the problems here?Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
My point is that it is possible for nearly anything to be the case, if the only characterization we place on the theoretical god is omniscience. If the god is omnipotent as well, however, then I think that the question has greater meaning.
Careless of me. In positing omniscient I took omnipotent to be implied.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoutGrace
A well-phrased question. I will take non-determinism as simply that future events are not wholly determined by those events which precede them. If the omniscient God is capable of knowing the factors that affect future events, the ones that the term "non-deterministic" implies are not the preceding events, then I think God can exist in a non-deterministic universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
To show that one does exist with ontology is a different story. To say that an omniscient God must know these factors because he is omniscient is circular. Good thread.
Omniscient means everywhere and omnipotent means can do anything?
I think if we took God to be the basic force behind everything, energy, or if we took it to be something that powered energy, I mean something more basic than energy, then we could say yes, it's possible. (I don't know if what I'm saying is garbage or not, if it is, feel more than free to say so! :))
Anyway, I think that the universe is non-deterministic. I mean, that wasn't the question, but I think that it is. It seems to be anyway. It seems that I can decide to do something, perhaps after much flip-flopping, and that decision will affect events; and that I am something which can decide such things.
The following is an attempt to convey the thoughts of Thomas Aquinas on these very interesting and important questions.
God's omniscience does not necessarily conflict with either non-determinism or with Free Will. God's omniscience does not cause events to occur in the way he knows they will turn out, any more than my knowing the end of Hamlet kills the prince. The compatibility of omniscience with free will is a little subtler. Since all beings other than God are created beings, they do not possess existence of themselves but only through God. God's knowledge does not force these beings to act in a way contrary to themselves, but rather is the motive force that comes from within them.
The question of God's morality does not come up, since within the very meaning of the term 'God' is that he is possessed of all Goodness.
If 'God' is omniscient and the first cause then God at very least assented to and more literally caused everything that follows from his prescient decision to create the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
To give someone free will knowing in advance how he or she will use it surely means to become a collaborator or at least an ennabler of anything they might do. If 'God' is possessed of all goodness he is ipse facto possessed of all evil as well. And the question of 'His' morality does indeed come up with every falsehood proclaimed in his name (however sincerely put forward), every abuse inflicted on every child, every person who dies of starvation, every soldier on every side and every civilian who is killed in war.
Not being a religious person, I don't claim to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but in reading this thread I had a question which takes the original question a step back. The original question is:
To which I ask the question, can God exist? By this I'm not making a statement that there is no God, but rather that God does not 'exist' in the way that we exist. If, as the theory goes, God created existence, then by definition God does not 'exist' but is beyond existence. Or even is existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
So the answer to your question would be no. An omnicient God does not exist. The universe exists, God is beyond existence. God does not reside in the universe therefore cannot be judged or interpreted within the boundaries or observable rules and nature of the universe.
The answer I'm most familar with to this conundrum is that "we can't know all ends". God is a collaborator in evil by virtue of the fact that he knew it would happen before he created the world, but that's his perogative, and his reasons must have been good ones. The religious person has to have faith that the world has turned out in the best possible way that it could. In other words, when he concieved of the universe, God had many different options about how much or little free will he would provide his creation with. He chose to provide the exact amount necessary for the least amount of evil to occur. We can't easily comprehend this, because God's reasons are inscrutable ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
Of course, a Deist could just argue that God created the universe, then sat back to watch, admire, and "see what would happen". Or maybe God's motivations are simply impossible for human beings to comprehend.
[QUOTE=Noisms;419192]The answer I'm most familar with to this conundrum is that "we can't know all ends". God is a collaborator in evil by virtue of the fact that he knew it would happen before he created the world, but that's his perogative, and his reasons must have been good ones.[QUOTE]
Which takes you back to the beginning of this circular argument, i.e., the Bible or other central book for other religions. God must be good because in the Bible God is demonstrated to be good. But on the other hand, is 'God' is inscrutable, can we ever know what he means by "good"?[QUOTE]
Therefore 'He' might indeed - for those inscrutable reasons - have chosen the worst possible option (in our eyes and experience).Quote:
The religious person has to have faith that the world has turned out in the best possible way that it could. In other words, when he concieved of the universe, God had many different options about how much or little free will he would provide his creation with. He chose to provide the exact amount necessary for the least amount of evil to occur. We can't easily comprehend this, because God's reasons are inscrutable ones.
A really hard-wired Deist, a dyed-in the-wool deist, a this must be true otherwise what is the point of life - of my life, especially deist would argue anything other than contemplate even for a moment that there may be an explanation for existence other than a deity, and no compulsion to be moral other than a) one is happier that way or b) morality is the only guarantee of the species' survival.Quote:
Of course, a Deist could just argue that God created the universe, then sat back to watch, admire, and "see what would happen". Or maybe God's motivations are simply impossible for human beings to comprehend.
I still think you're thinking about this all the wrong way. You are trying to understand God within the confines of the universe, explaining God in terms of the universe is like comparing apples with the Empire State Building, there's no relationship.
Think of it in different terms. God is a composer, the universe a grand opera God is creating. God decides to compose the opera, chooses the tune, the harmony. He wants it to turn out a particular way, and in so doing he reflects in the opera (universe) the characteristics he wants it to display, which may or may not be characteristics which exist in God. So he reflects in the opera, a part of himself, but he does not become part of the opera. In terms of the opera, people are insignificant individual notes. Thinking about it this way, how could the notes ever understand or even comprehend the whole opera? All they could see and understand would be their part in it. From God's perspective, people form the tune, but having been given free will it is for the person to decide what note they play. If they choose the wrong note they'll be out of harmony with the opera and will be discarded. Would God consider a plea from the note that perhaps God should have composed a different tune, so they could fit? Of course not, because God is concerned with the opera, and if the note doesn't fit it must be struck out. Perhaps you should consider the opera still in progress, as yet unfinished and still unfolding. When the opera is finished, God could replay it, and those who have remained in harmony would be replayed, those who did not cease to be. Hence those who 'fit' God's grand tune live forever, those who do not don't figure in the replay.
If there is a God then humans most certainly could not understand it. God does not exist in the universe. Back to the opera analogy it's like expecting the single note to comprehend the composer which, considered in those terms, is pretty ridiculous, the note can't even comprehend the opera.
This is one of probably 3,537,822,012 conjectures as to what 'God' is. I've been working on something about that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bii
God is the most fertile metaphor ever,
that non-existent being which,
once contrived, was the inspiration
of ‘countless proofs’ of his existence
and conjured up hierarchies
of priests and temples and gold,
armies that marched in his defense.
Belief in God is the first
and only miracle some need.
My main response to yours is a) what it reveals of your own benevolent nature, and b) how beautifully written it is. Thank you.
P.S. I suppose we could conjecture whether the composer was more like Mozart, Verdi or Wagner!
[QUOTE=PrinceMyshkin;419691]Quote:
Originally Posted by Bii
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noisms
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
I would imagine that many peolpe who want to get to the bottom (or top) of this mytery may have started with Aquinas (although that is certainly not necessary). Personnaly I pleasantly had the wind knocked out me by Aquinas and Augustine, being the rosary toting, novena celebrating, mass going Catholic kid that I was. But the quotes here all pose incredibly intelligent questions and statements.
And so I don't have to keep stating that this is just my opinion, I say it here at the top. As I have stated elsewhere, I generally step on tender areas unintentionally when I attempt this, so forgive me if I do.
First, Bii hit the year-nail on the head. All of the debate from time immemorial speaks from the position of God hanging around for a google of millenia and then deciding to create the universe. I don't see it that way. The purported supreme intelligence of God is predicated on intelligence as we experience it. The same goes for the characteristic of omniscient, omnipotent and infinite. We see intelligence mostly as something focused. We have to see it that way to analyze it quanitatively. God is outside these types of analyses because the intelligence of God is somewhat an unfocused intelligence. The closest example we can identify with in abstract art, Jackson Pollock, if you will.
The focus of God's intelligence comes from us!! We invented the awareness of God and thus are responsible for God's existence. This is not meant to be a figurative statement. Before us we had a spontaneous transformation of highly concentrated matter and energy intrinsically endowed with intelligence as ubiquitous and embedded as cosmic background radiation has come to be known. As we evolved, so did the focus of God. This is not to detract from the eternal nature of God, not as depicted in the Holy books of the world's cultures, but nevertheless always was and always will be. As Prince points out, inspired humans wrote the bible, humans like we who are discussing this very matter here. They tried to express the same thoughts as we. Our advantage is the insight into ourselves and the universe and the very nature of matter and energy, which in fact is God's insight. God is alive through us. God knows God through us. We are the image and likeness because we are a mirror.
So how does God know what will happen for all time? God doesn't know that. We have all heard that time itself does not exist, it is a construct. We have all heard that one of the current hypotheses for reality is that it is multi-layered, there are many universes within the fabric space/time. So, everything happens at once. Past, present and future are fabrications we use to make sense of something "beyond our existence." The idea of an omnicient God is an attempt to reconcile a multi-layered universe with what was available in 3000 B.C. for the Bible, much earlier for Hebrew, Muslim and Hindu holy books, I think.
This way of God existing is quite backwards from traditional thinking as far as I know. It is present in the poetry of Rilke and possibly others. God knows what we are thinking because we know what we are thinking. We know what we are going to do (if even unconsciously) before we do it.
However, there are unpredictable events in the universe(s). Although, given a high-level view of all parallel realities, that would be much diminished from what we mean by that in this reality, given this hypothetical scientific POV.
In the end, this should not diminish one's faith or belief, just as knowing the way a play is written does not diminish our enjoyment of it. God is much like these boards, given they would not shut them down if no one posted. They would still exist, the intelligent idea behind them would be there, but they would have no focus or life. The End. I am sorry for being Thread-piggy Jr. (you are older than me Prince).
[QUOTE=firefangled;419741]The end, or yet a still-in-progress, ever-in-progress poem on that seemingly inexhaustible question? Yet one more reason for 'God' - if reason at all is needed - is to be the subject of such, simultaneously passionate and dispassionate thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
But wisdom and love and truthfulness are not inevitable concommitants of chronological age. (But thanks, I suppose, for delivering me from the temptation to pursue any of the younger than 72-year old nymphets on this site!)Quote:
I am sorry for being Thread-piggy Jr. (you are older than me Prince).
This is where faith comes in. Nobody ever said religious thought had to be completely rational! (If they did, they were wrong, anyway.) It's one of the things religious people are called to do: just shut your eyes and have faith that things are the way there are for the best possible reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
Sure. That's what I meant. A Deist's morals are what they are for reasons outside what God is; God created the world for reasons inexplicable, and there is no compulsion to see him as innately good.Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
[QUOTE=firefangled;419741]This deserves to be more widely read.Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
I believe that you are correct on the point that since God is the First Cause that he is therefore the ennabler of all actions. I do not see how it necessarily follows that he therefore is responsible for what he knowa will happen by the exertion of a person's free will. For example, my knowing that my wife will eat the fassolada I am making for dinner does not impinge on her free will to choose to eat it, nor can it be said I made her do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
The example is not a perfect one for a crucial reason, though it does illustrate an aspect of what is going on here. The failure is that God is not, in the Thomistic view, animating individuals as though they were puppets. Rather it is because of his continuous act of creation that he makes it possible for the individual to exist.
God being all goodness does NOT, at least in Medieval Philosophy, require him to also be the repository of all evil as well. (I suppose that that idea is a form of Manichean heresy, though I am not certain of the exact designation.) The reason that this is not the case is that evil does not have positive existence as good does. rather the term refers to a privation. Just as we can talk about a person being blind, and even talk about blindness as a condition, there is no physical entity that is a blindness.
In talking about whether God is moral I was making the point that by definition God is moral, since a being that was not moral would, by the definition, not be God. By "God" here I mean someone who is deserving of worship. One could postulate a very powerful being who is omniscient and omnipotent, but if such a being were not also the source of goodness that being would not be God.
The morality of creatures who act in the name of God is of course an entirely separate question.
In fact it would appear that God revoked free will (or severly punished it) the first time "we" (Adam & Eve) exercised it. Free will, it would appear from that example, is co=equal to original sin.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
That is one view. Is it correct because it is that of St. Thomas or because it is demonstrable to modern eyes - the only ones through which we can see clearly?Quote:
The example is not a perfect one for a crucial reason, though it does illustrate an aspect of what is going on here. The failure is that God is not, in the Thomistic view, animating individuals as though they were puppets. Rather it is because of his continuous act of creation that he makes it possible for the individual to exist.
The flaw in that analogy is that sight and blindness are conditions of an existent being. In what does 'evil' reside? What/who is the agency of evil - and how can that be other than an aspect of God if God is the creator of everything?Quote:
God being all goodness does NOT, at least in Medieval Philosophy, require him to also be the repository of all evil as well. (I suppose that that idea is a form of Manichean heresy, though I am not certain of the exact designation.) The reason that this is not the case is that evil does not have positive existence as good does. rather the term refers to a privation. Just as we can talk about a person being blind, and even talk about blindness as a condition, there is no physical entity that is a blindness.
This is a tautology. The morality or immorality of God cannot be asserted in the face of his inscrutability. 'He' might be a rabbit for all we know of him beside what is claimed in Scripture.Quote:
In talking about whether God is moral I was making the point that by definition God is moral, since a being that was not moral would, by the definition, not be God. By "God" here I mean someone who is deserving of worship. One could postulate a very powerful being who is omniscient and omnipotent, but if such a being were not also the source of goodness that being would not be God.
In which case what is your way of distinguishing between those who claim to act in the name of God and those who actually do so?Quote:
The morality of creatures who act in the name of God is of course an entirely separate question.
The example is not a perfect one for a crucial reason, though it does illustrate an aspect of what is going on here. The failure is that God is not, in the Thomistic view, animating individuals as though they were puppets. Rather it is because of his continuous act of creation that he makes it possible for the individual to exist.
Prince Myshkin replies:
"That is one view. Is it correct because it is that of St. Thomas or because it is demonstrable to modern eyes - the only ones through which we can see clearly?"
It is Aquinas' view. Within his system (that is, given his premises) it is correct. I dispute that "modern eyes" (whatever they are) are either necessarily more or less correct, or are the only ways we can "see clearly."
Prince Myshkin states:
"The flaw in that analogy is that sight and blindness are conditions of an existent being. In what does 'evil' reside? What/who is the agency of evil - and how can that be other than an aspect of God if God is the creator of everything?"
Evil does not reside anywhere. It is NOT something that has an existence of its own, but only by a lack. That was the sense of the analogy. Just as you can see people who are blind, you can see people who lack goodness.
Prince Myshkin states:
"This is a tautology. The morality or immorality of God cannot be asserted in the face of his inscrutability. 'He' might be a rabbit for all we know of him beside what is claimed in Scripture."
This refers to my stating that by definition God is good since if he weren't he would not be God.
Well, yes and no, I suppose. What I am stating is that there are certain qualities a being would have to possess to qualify as God. If there are no such beings then there is no God. If there is a being with some of the properties such as omnipotence, but lacking others, then he does not qualify, and then again the conclusion is that there is no God.
Prince Myshkin states:
"In which case what is your way of distinguishing between those who claim to act in the name of God and those who actually do so?"
I cut the Gordian knot and judge their acts by whether or not they are right by human standards (natural law as well as I understand it). Their claims to divine support don't enter into my considerations and do not influence my attitude towards their acts.
Then it is one view among many, elevated because of the reverence felt towards Aquinas but not necessarily infallible.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
Prince Myshkin replies:
"That is one view. Is it correct because it is that of St. Thomas or because it is demonstrable to modern eyes - the only ones through which we can see clearly?"
They are the eyes that are informed by, e.g. the General Theory of Relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, long years of scholary reconstruction of the patchwork assembly of Scripture by diverse authors drawing on earlier non Judaeo-Christian sources and many other discoveries not known or thought in Scriptural & pre-scriptural times.Quote:
It is Aquinas' view. Within his system (that is, given his premises) it is correct. I dispute that "modern eyes" (whatever they are) are either necessarily more or less correct, or are the only ways we can "see clearly."
Prince Myshkin states:
"The flaw in that analogy is that sight and blindness are conditions of an existent being. In what does 'evil' reside? What/who is the agency of evil - and how can that be other than an aspect of God if God is the creator of everything?"
I understand better now how you mean the analogy. Thank you.Quote:
Evil does not reside anywhere. It is NOT something that has an existence of its own, but only by a lack. That was the sense of the analogy. Just as you can see people who are blind, you can see people who lack goodness.
Prince Myshkin states:
"This is a tautology. The morality or immorality of God cannot be asserted in the face of his inscrutability. 'He' might be a rabbit for all we know of him beside what is claimed in Scripture."
So God is defined a priori. We define the essential 'Godness' of God then look around for someone who seems to fit the job description.Quote:
Well, yes and no, I suppose. What I am stating is that there are certain qualities a being would have to possess to qualify as God. If there are no such beings then there is no God. If there is a being with some of the properties such as omnipotence, but lacking others, then he does not qualify, and then again the conclusion is that there is no God.
In response to my saying:
"I dispute that "modern eyes" (whatever they are) are either necessarily more or less correct, or are the only ways we can "see clearly." "
Prince Myshkin responds:
"They are the eyes that are informed by, e.g. the General Theory of Relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, long years of scholary reconstruction of the patchwork assembly of Scripture by diverse authors drawing on earlier non Judaeo-Christian sources and many other discoveries not known or thought in Scriptural & pre-scriptural times."
My response is that none of the physics enters in here. The question here is one of ontology, and is therefore outside the scope of science. Aquinas, as is well known, drew upon Aristotle and through Augustine, Plotinus and Plato among others. He also borrowed heavily from Islamic sources, most notably Ibn Saud known in the West as Avicenna. While I respect your scholarship, I do not see anything that is distinctly "modern" in it.
Prince Myshkin responded to my saying the existence of God corresponds to finding whether or not there is a being who possessed all the necessary and sufficient attributes that someone who is God would have to possess by stating:
"So God is defined a priori. We define the essential 'Godness' of God then look around for someone who seems to fit the job description."
That would seem to be the natural way to proceed. If we are to look for anything at all, we generally need to know what it would be. It is easier to find something (or to know you haven't found it) if you know what you are looking for.
I am not sure that there is a distinction between your position and mine in this matter. My position is that if we find some being that does not possess all the qualities necessary to be God (and I would argue that the qualities are NOT arbitrary) then he/she/it is NOT God, and that if there are no beings that fit the bill, then there is no God, that is nobody deserving of our love and devotion. IF I understand you correctly, you are arguing the point that if the universe contains evil that this implies God must be at least in part evil, and therefore does not match the image of the Judeo-Christian God. From there you can either conclude that therefore there is no God, or that the God that does exist is clearly not deserving of our love and devotion. Looked at this way, I think that our stances are just different formulations of the same basic ideas.
I wrote:
"The failure is that God is not, in the Thomistic view, animating individuals as though they were puppets. Rather it is because of his continuous act of creation that he makes it possible for the individual to exist."
Prince Myshkin responded:
"Then it is one view among many, elevated because of the reverence felt towards Aquinas but not necessarily infallible."
I agree with two of the three statements. Yes, Aquinas' view is one among many. Yes, it is not necessarily infallible. No, it is not elevated because of reverence felt for Aquinas. No claims were made by me that this is right because it came from the Angelic Doctor (or the Dumb Ox, as he was also called). I have emphasized that this is Aquinas because these were his thoughts, as I have understood. It is a matter of attribution, not argument from authority.