Must a monogod be omniscient?

[BurtWorm]

If so, why would it concern itself with what humans do? Why would it interact with humans if it knows the outcome and consequences of all actions?

If not, what doesn't it know and why do you think it doesn't know it.

As an atheist, I still believe that a monogod would have to be omniscient or it wouldn't be worthy of the name God. I don't believe there is anything worthy of that name in the universe, but I admit that if there were one, it would be as impossible to know it as if there were no god at all.

[htuttle]

1. Logic is the devil's tool!

:evilgrin:

[roguevalley]

2. I tend to believe that we are all god and that the spirit that animates

us learns about its own creations through experiences through us. I wish I were more articulate but it seems that any animating spirit wouldn't be interested if it was all knowing. since it isn't, for me, it can learn about all the variety of creation through our lives.

[Fovea]

3. How are you defining the terms

god and monogod?

The question as I see it is what do you see as being worthy of the name?

Does the divine exist in systems too simple to contain self awareness, for example?

What can good and evil use for validation below the level of concepts? Indeed, at the level of existance of a sub atomic particle there may be no physical space in which to allow for persistance of information.

Without context, can truth exist? In the quantum level of existance, state equals truth. As mammals, we demand more from experience than that, of course.

The question enters the human condition with questions like-- Is Herne the god of the hunter, the deer, or both?

If Herne is both, how would I experience god if I were the deer? In the polytheist model, the divine is named and visualized primarily at the systems level. Pantheons address the heirarchy of human needs as a part of the cosmos. But working against strict taxonomy of powers/systems is the concept of familiar relationships.

Monotheism has to work harder to address this divisibility of the divine. But both find the idea of divinity subject to granularity.

The great chain of being and the world of fairie express these principles of the divine in the natural world - below conceptualizing scale.

I fear that we are conceptualizing the term god just differently enough that there is a bit of an impedance problem.

[BurtWorm]

4. God: hypothetical omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being

or supernatural potentate in many mythologies, often part of a court of gods called a pantheon

Monogod: the unique god in a monotheistic system

God worthy of the name: One that matches my definition, especially the first part.

[Fovea]

6. In such heresies as

the 14th C. penitential orders there was room for an inferior being as god. But since the reformation, not so much.

I think with your definition, god must be all of the above. There is no room for ambiguity, is there?

It does reduce the need for doggie heaven.

[jgraz]

8. Well, it's impossible for god to be both omniscient and omnipresent

Especially if the omnipresence extends across all time, as most theists postulate.

A god that is all-knowing AND eternal would have to store an infinite amount of knowledge in his memory, then somehow find room for all the cognitive processes (to say nothing of the giant power generator needed to fling galaxies around the firmament). When you really explore this concept, it becomes clear that not only will god's mind have to be greater than infinite, his mental capacity will have to exceed all possible infinities. This is the core feature of Gödel's incompleteness theorem, and has been widely accepted as mathematical truth.


You can say the words "omniscient and omnipresent", you can even say you believe those words, but that doesn't change the fact that your belief fits well within the dictionary definition of "impossible".

[kiahzero]

10. It would be aleph-infinity

There's nothing impossible about that.

[jgraz]

11. Remember, I'm using the normal, accepted English definition of impossible

I'm not familiar with the definition you're talking about. Just because something can be conceived or talked about, that does not make it true, or even meaningful. Chomsky's "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is a perfectly valid English sentence, but it's completely meaningless. "A god of Aleph-infinity complexity is not impossible" is another example of this.

[kiahzero]

12. Aleph can have any whole number as its subset.

By induction:
Aleph-0 exists.
If Aleph-n exists, Aleph-(n+1) must exist.
Therefore, there exists an Aleph-n for all n > 0.
Therefore, Aleph-(infinity) is a meaningful concept. It's an infinitely large infinite cardinality.

[jgraz]

14. Yes, it's a meaningful concept

But a being that has any characteristic of that cardinality is not. The number 5i is also a meaningful concept. "I have 5i grapes in my hand" is not.

[kiahzero]

19. I fail to see how it's any less sensical than a smaller infinite cardinality.

Besides which, I may have overstated the claim: if I understand your objection correctly, then an omnipresent omniscient entity would merely need a memory on the order of aleph-1: an infinite set of possible times, and then for each of the elements of that set, an infinite set of possible knowledge.

As an aside, I really don't miss discrete math one bit.

[jgraz]

20. We agree on this

All you need is a character of aleph-1 cardinality to cause yourself serious problems with postulating an omniscient being. All I was pointing out is that the problem is even deeper than mere nonsensical infinities. True omnisicence is incompatible with Gödel's theorem, which is about as fundamental a mathematical concept as the value of pi.

[kiahzero]

21. Would you care to explain how Godel's is relevant here?

I've never been exposed to it before, so I'm pretty much just working off of what's on Wikipedia, but it seems limited to first-order logic. If you're discussing an entity with a "natural" omniscience - that is to say, possesses all knowledge without having to reach that knowledge by way of logical inferences - then Godel's is irrelevant. I think.

[jgraz]

22. So god can know everything but figure out nothing?

This is making less and less sense to me. It sounds as it you're trying to find a limitation on omniscience that makes it logically possible. I'll allow that a being who is really, really smart is logically possible (feel free to add as many "really"s as you wish). My problem is with a being who is infinitely smart (or infinitely anything, for that matter). If you simply say that god is omniscient -- with no additional limitations -- then Gödel's theorem applies.

[kiahzero]

23. I didn't say he couldn't figure anything out.

I said that he has all possible knowledge without having to reach that knowledge by way of logical reasoning. It's not putting a limitation on omniscience - in fact, it makes it more potent. Theoretically, if not for Godel's theorem, if I knew enough axioms to logically derive all knowledge, I would become 'omniscient' without actually have innate knowledge of everything by way of my reasoning. I'm saying that an omniscient entity would have innate knowledge of all existing knowledge before logical reasoning came into play, not saying that an omniscient entity would have to have no logical reasoning ability.

[jgraz]

24. No matter how you frame it, the logic collapses

For example, if God has ALL knowledge AND thought processes, he must know what he himself will think for every instance of all eternity. This begins a cascade of infinite recursion that is impossible to avoid. You have to limit omniscience in some way or the concept is not logically supportable.

[kiahzero]

26. Why is that a problem?

What is not logically supportable about such an entity knowing what he will think for every instance of all eternity?

[jgraz]

27. Infinite recursion, among other things

This is a different problem than before. The earlier problem is that the mind of god couldn't logically be large enough to be both eternal and omniscient. Once you add introspection, you run into the additional problem of recursion.

If god knows what he'll think for every instant of all eternity, then he must know what he thinks about what he'll think for every instance of all eternity. If that's true, than he must have some sort of reaction to his reaction to his own thought processes (otherwise, "knowing" and "thinking" become meaningless), so we add another layer. And so on.

Even if he only has one thought for all eternity, omniscient introspection will lead down an infinite path of self-examination. He becomes so wrapped up in his own thoughts and reactions that he doesn't have room for anything else.


Actually, that explains a lot. ;)

[unpossibles]

29. ha!

if that's the case, then what god is thinking/doing is saying "SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!" to Itself eternally...

then again, if God is omnipotent, would that not allow It to overcome such logical weak points? "Dude, i can do ANYTHING, including the impossible!"

Hell, I don't know.

[jgraz]

30. Omnipotence has its own problems

The classic "Can god make a rock so big he can't lift it?" is the most famous of these. You've just pointed out another problem: can an omnipotent god make himself non-omniscient? He would have to if he actually wanted to think.

People are free to believe whatever they want, but theists who believe in a deity with infinite properties should at least understand how much basic logic they're denying.

[unpossibles]

31. there's the problem

it's not about logic, it's about faith. I guess I don't have enough faith then, because it all sounds made up to me.

[skepticscott]

32. Sorry, but it doesn't

Godel's theorem only applies to formal mathematical systems of deductive logic. It doesn't apply to anything in the real world, even if it looks like it does. The acquisition of knowledge by empiricism and induction is a completely different world, I'm afraid.

[jgraz]

33. Assuming an omniscient god is capable of deductive logic

AND that hs has knowledge of the underlying formalisms he used to create the universe, Gödel certainly applies.

Even if you argue that there is no underlying formalism to the universe -- and I'm not even sure that makes sense -- are you really saying that an omniscient god can't do math? If he knows EVERYTHING, then he must know all formal mathematical systems of deductive logic -- something that Gödel has shown to be impossible.

[skepticscott]

34. Sorry, try again

Godel's proof did NOT show that it's impossible to know all formal mathematical systems of deductive logic. What it showed was that within any such system, it is possible to derive an undecidable statement of the form "this statement has no proof", in other words, a statement that has no fixed truth value. Another way of stating it is that within any such system, there are true statements that cannot be proven.

And if a god knows everything that it is possible to know, why wouldn't that qualify as omniscience?

[jgraz]

37. ability to copy/paste wikipedia != knowledge

Read a few philosphy texts on the implications of the second incompleteness theorem wrt conscious understanding of the universe. Put simply, Gödel's theorem indicates that it is impossible for a system to contain a complete description of itself. In other words, a conscious being cannot completely understand a universe that also contains the conscious being.

If we define the universe to be "everything that there is" , then we are left with two choices: 1) There are some things which god can never know, or 2) god doesn't exist.

[skepticscott]

38. You still don't get it, do you?

The arguments of philosophers trying to apply Godel's theorems to the physical world are NOT the same as a mathematical proof. It may be interesting to approach the idea of the completeness/incompleteness of knowledge about the physical universe along the same lines of thought that Godel used, but Godel's theorems simply do not prove anything about the physical universe as a whole. Saying that Godel's theorem "indicates that it is impossible for a system to contain a complete description of itself" is just silliness and misunderstanding. Theories may "indicate" things, but mathematical theorems are about 100% proof....they either prove something or they don't...period.

And if you're going to use Wikipedia as your ultimate authority (really bad idea, BTW), you might at least bother to actually read the article that matters. If you had in this case, you would have read any number of things that would have told you why you're barking up the wrong tree. Here's just one:

"Note that Gödel's theorems only apply to sufficiently strong axiomatic systems." (Note for you-the universe is NOT an axiomatic system. Case closed.)

[jgraz]

39. I understand exactly what you're saying, I just don't agree

You'll find there's a lot of that on this forum. If you really want to engage in discussion, you might try dialing down the micro-parsing and pomposity and dialing up the reading comprehension.


The disconnect here is that I'm talking about the implications of Gödel while you seem stuck on the narrow mathematical application. A lot of the "facts" you're asserting are simply one side of a complex argument. For example, you state categorically that "the universe is NOT an axiomatic system", even though that assertion is very much open to debate. Since Pythagoras people have argued that the universe actually is an axiomatic system, especially when seen by an omniscient (or quasi-omniscient) observer.

I'm very interested in hearing from people who have thought about this topic and have something to add (even -- or especially -- if they disagree with me). I'm somewhat less interested in seeing you hold forth on your own opinions while failing to understand anyone else's.

[skepticscott]

41. Here are a couple of tips

If you're going to snidely title one of your posts "ability to copy/paste wikipedia != knowledge" and then end up being totally wrong, expect a pompous reply. And if you're going to venture into discussions of mathematics, expect "micro-parsing", as you so quaintly call it...that's what mathematics requires, like it or not. When you say that Godel's theorem applies to something that it doesn't, that's simply wrong and you should expect to be told so. Mathematics doesn't give a darn whether people have been arguing about the universe's status as an axiomatic system for a few thousand years...until that status is proven, you're nowhere as far as Godel is concerned.

And if you'll recall, I was the one who said "It may be interesting to approach the idea of the completeness/incompleteness of knowledge about the physical universe along the same lines of thought that Godel used, but Godel's theorems simply do not prove anything about the physical universe as a whole." That puts things in the proper perspective as far as the spheres of mathematical and philosophical thought are concerned, and if you had started off saying something like that, I would have had no disagreement with you.

[jgraz]

42. You're stating absolutes that simply aren't there

Gödel's application to theology and cosmology has been discussed since his theorems were first published, and there is a huge body of work on this exact issue. You're welcome to disagree with some of the conclusions, but denying them categorically simply isn't supported outside of the most simplistic, narrow view of Gödel's work.

We've now strayed into meta-argument and topics that I'm sure 90% of the readers aren't interested in. If you want to PM me with some pointers to writings supporting your position, I'd be extremely interested in reading them (sincerely). I'll even turn off the snark machine, though I'd have to remember where I put the off switch.

[BurtWorm]

13. It's not my belief that such a thing exists.

It's only my belief that anything less isn't worthy of being called God--let alone of being worshipped.

[jgraz]

16. Well considering how badly he's fucked up

I wouldn't worship God no matter how omni-whatever he was. He's the George W. Bush of deities.

[Stevepol]

43. Not impossible to be both omniscient and omnipresent IF

God is defined as all that is, i.e., as ONE and not a being separate from His/Her creation. When you start with a premise that God is a separate being, you can't prove anything about God and it's true that omniscience, etc. and all those things are impossible and all the other arguments about God's non-existence are quite true. It's true that for us as we try to understand our incarnated being on earth, God has to be seen as outside of us, but God is also inside of us and the outside and inside are one. ONE.

But if God is you and me and everybody else, as well as every rock and tree and atom and quark in the universe known and unknown, then what you have is a Being that knows itself and acts in accordance with that self-knowledge and thus has all power since He/She is that power, all that is, and all wise because He/She is that wisdom, all the wisdom that is. We are part of God and we even gain God's powers (our part of God's powers) as we overcome the selfishness that keeps us from accessing those powers. We have to have the good of the whole in mind and not blame anybody for who/what they are at any particular moment.

Anyway, that's my understanding of the issue at the moment. Naturally, if you want to have God as a white-haired, cranky old Caucasian sitting on a throne with a crown on His head, all bets are off. Our concept of God says more about ourselves than it does about God or His/Her universe.

[More Than A Feeling]

5. For a second, I thought that said mongoose.

I need sleep.

[jgraz]

7. All hail the great and powerful mongoose!

:rofl:

[kiahzero]

9. I think it would

Any omnipotent entity would, by definition, have the power to have knowledge about whatever it so chooses.

Of course, having "all knowledge" is still restricted by the definition of knowledge, so one might argue that omniscience does not imply knowledge of the future, depending on one's epistemological outlook.

[Evoman]

15. If god exists, I don't care...but it bothers me that he can watch me pee whenever he wants.

Thats creepy. Of course, according to some definitions of god, god actually IS my pee, seeing as how he is the universe and all. Thats pretty sweet.

[jgraz]

17. I thought my pee was looking at me kinda funny this morning

Does that make is a sin to flush?

Edit: or maybe that toilet backup I had was actually a resurrection.

[cosmik debris]

18. Christian Kids want to know

Does Jesus watch me go poopy?

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0506/watchingyoupoo.html

This is the funniest story I've seen on this site since "Accept Jesus and get a Play Station 3!"

[Random_Australian]

25. Sure you could get a nonomniscient monogod.

Just start with the Norse ones and get Thor to kill the others.

Am I missing something?

[jgraz]

28. I'd nominate my cat for this

but I'm pretty sure she thinks she's onmiscient.

[Ron Green]

35. "why would it concern itself...?"

If God truly exists, God is infinite and wouldn't have a "self" in the way separate beings have selves. In fact if there is an infinite God (I believe there is), all sense of separate "self" is illusory because it is outside God.

In my opinion that doesn't mean we shouldn't work on finding and connecting with the true (undifferentiated) Self while we're here on earth; to me, that's where "God is Love" applies.

[Evoman]

36. ....

There once was a god who knew all.
but who did shit that was off the wall.
It turns out sky dad,
Is really quite mad,
Omniscience can cause quite a fall.

[kiahzero]

44. You win the internets.

Congratulations on your series of tubes.

:D

[nickols_k]

40. monotheism

Please don't mix the monoteistacal religions with God word!

Creator is omniscience omnipotent and omnipresent!

Be bless!