The Paradox of Omnipotence & Omniscience

I was thinking recently that omnipotence and omniscience are each impossible. Having all power or knowledge in the universe can never be achieved, by anyone. First of all, an omnipotent being would have the power to destroy everything everywhere in existence, including itself. Since it would be possible, then it would happen, eventually. One may counter that an omnipotent being could prevent this, but that is the paradox of it. If it has all-power then it cannot contradict itself, in my opinion. An omniscient being would be just as bad. Knowing everything would provide the same basic paradox: the ability to destroy everything.

Now I think that there are deities in the universe: highly advanced and enlightened beings with immense power. There seems to be a trend in religions that suggest there is always One supreme deity over all others (God). I do not believe that God is omnipotent or omniscient. To suggest that God is both of these things creates many problems, resulting in atheistic conclusions. I'm not atheist, because I do not believe God is all powerful or all knowing. Here's one reason why: according to Christianity, God actually needs/wants humans (Christians deny this). But think about it. The purpose of the Christian God is that he wants a bride for himself. All of the good people in the world that trust in Him become a part of this bride and go to heaven to be with him. That suggests that God actually needs humans, which the Bible and Christianity deny. God does not need us puny humans. Then why does he so want a mate? Has his immortality gotten the best of him? I think so. He realizes that He will be alone... forever... Unless he creates a partner for himself. Like any true lover, He knows that simply "creating" a mate that immediately loves you is not true love. He wants the mate to love Him willingly, on its own. Therefore the entire Christian Faith is established. The entire faith implies that God needs humans, does it not? Well if a being NEEDS anything, then it is certainly not omnipotent OR omniscient. Say God were to read this post and say, "I'll show you! I DON'T need any of you!" Then BOOM. He destroys the human race. Well now the poor chap is back to square one. He has to start all over making humans to love him again...

This is just one reason why I think omnipotence and omniscience are impossible.

This argument has been raised before. i think you should read this article. Please read the whoel thing and then we can talk about it some more. It is very informative. www.answersingenesis.org...

It is true that God does not NEED humans. However, God wants love and companionship from a free-willed being. This means that we have the choice to love Him or not. That, after all, is what love is. It is a choice, not a feeling. So this is why you are breathing. It is your choice as to what you do with that breath.

Edit: I think we need to first establish between "want" and "need" These are the two deciding terms.

[edit on 3-2-2010 by trueperspective]

reply to post by OrphenFire


Hi. Why is it, you think all knowledge and power would end in destruction ?
It would be a possibility but when knowledge is present why would it destroy itself, by creating a chain of events that ends up to a point all the knowledge in the universe can't know what it's like to simply not be.

Another view leads me to think this has already happened before. Pointing out the big bang theory. After destruction knowledge just started to from scratch.
This could then be seen as a cycle of existence. No different from any other cycle in the universe and life. It's just how it works.

Even with all this in mind. I could asume there should be a point of origin. A force that spins the wheel but also started the first spin.
So. The cycle completes itself cause now my understanding lead me ( again ) to a creator.

Mind boggling this idea !??

Anyway nice thread

It really lighted up a brain wave. Thanks !

Peace !

[edit on 3/2/10 by Sinter Klaas]

reply to post by OrphenFire

Well if a being NEEDS anything, then it is certainly not omnipotent OR omniscient.

Having the ability to affect all physical things and know all things does not imply a lack of a need. In fact the need can be seen as "I lack nothing, thus what I lack is a lack of something." What you're really exploring here is the notion of scarcity.

First of all, an omnipotent being would have the power to destroy everything everywhere in existence, including itself. Since it would be possible, then it would happen, eventually.

Our physical universe is designed in such a way that through entropy all things will eventually end in destruction. Meaning if the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds to the end of time and space all matter will eventually radiate away in to massless particles as time goes to infinity (for more on this see Roger Penrose's Weyl Curvature Hypothesis).

To resolve this Dr. Penrose came to the conclusion that if the Weyl Curvature was conformally invariant and tends to 0 then the universe could slowly re-accrete. Meaning that something can both destroy itself but also be reborn from the ashes.

What this idea suggests, as a cosmogony, is very much what's seen below,

An omniscient being would be just as bad. Knowing everything would provide the same basic paradox: the ability to destroy everything.

An omniscient sentience does not necessitate control, but simply knowledge of all things. To really understand the dependencies between these concepts requires looking at all permutations and having a mechanism to see how control, knowledge, and observation of all things act as a cohesive system.

Without this there's no way to specify a dependency graph or know the points of intersection between them. In an attempt to answer this question for myself, because it is confusing, here's what I came up with based around the notion of scarcity as a closed system.



[edit on 3-2-2010 by Xtraeme]

Originally posted by trueperspective
It is true that God does not NEED humans. However, God wants love and companionship from a free-willed being. This means that we have the choice to love Him or not.
[edit on 3-2-2010 by trueperspective]

Now here is a paradox: How can God be omniscient and Humans have free-will? Both cannot be true. Either God knows what each of us will do, which gives us no choice whatsoever, or we are free to choose our actions and God does not know in advance what we will do and what course the future will take.

reply to post by Xtraeme


Excellent! I will delve into your graphs later, but I understood the basic concepts you discussed, and agree with much of it. Thanks!

reply to post by Karilla


That's a good way to observe this philosophy as well. Thank you for pointing that out.

I work with a man who is has a Master's in theology among other studies. We got into a discussion one day about "predestination". He argued that in order for God to be perfect, predestination would have to exist. Meaning, if God knows all, then everything is known, therefore everything is already decided before we have a choice. I agree completely with him, though I do not believe that God actually DOES know all, because I have free will. I think, therefore I am. My friend said our free will is an illusion that leads us down our path that is already set before us (the path to heaven or hell). I argued, "Well what would be the point in DOING anything if we will all ultimately end in a preset destiny that is in no way escapable?" He could not answer. I believe it is very evident that God is not all-knowing, UNLESS He used his power to prevent Himself from knowing the end...

reply to post by OrphenFire


I believe it is very evident that God is not all-knowing, UNLESS He used his power to prevent Himself from knowing the end...

This would be the biggest hoax ever !

I do believe in a bigger or omni present entity or force and i call it God.
The trigger of believes was and is religion. Do to all the control, misleading, cheer number of them and the power they wield.

God is a force not to be a topic of debate. Evidence or deniability of God is always a issue and can not be won proven or dis-proven.
Why even bother ?
Followers of any religion will always be right in their own head. They often are incapable of debating anything what will question their believes.

I really enjoy reading these topics. However it's always about the human mind.

Originally posted by Karilla
Now here is a paradox: How can God be omniscient and Humans have free-will? Both cannot be true. Either God knows what each of us will do, which gives us no choice whatsoever, or we are free to choose our actions and God does not know in advance what we will do and what course the future will take.

The way I've come to understand this by imagining a grid. Lets say that grid is 3 x 3. There are 9 cells and those cells can be filled in varying ways. If I enumerate all possibilities accounting for orderance there are (9!)/((9-9)!) = 362880 arrangements. So while I know all possibilities it doesn't dictate how it must be filled for a given sequence, just that it must eventually be filled in all possible ways.

Now change that from a 9 cell grid to an infinite grid. This is the idea behind Conway's Game of Life.

Understanding all possibilities is quite different from experiencing those possibilities:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9a9f85b3da85.gif[/atsimg]

As for free-will, the prelude to choice must encompass the laying of the foundation. If you look at Fig. 2 you'll see that I call out Q3 (which represents density 2 & 3) as being absent of choice.



Choice defined in this scenario as nature ultimately having final say over personal desire or will. One way that we overcome this is through technology and science. Allowing us to slowly whittle away nature and gain more options.

It's important to understand when I say "End Choice" or "End Self" or "End Natural Exigency" it doesn't necessarily mean these things are entirely removed such that they no longer exist. For instance, overcoming self at the transition from Q3 to Q4 (or density 3 to 4) means complete self-empowerment and thus no reason to have to vie for "self" (to arrive at this conclusion requires an understanding of Fig. 3). Overcoming nature (i.e. End Natural Exigency) means complete control over an outcome irregardless of nature's rules. Likewise overcoming choice at the transition from Q2 to Q3 (density 1 to 2) means being in a situation where a person can will a particular outcome, but not see it manifest. Thus choice as enactment is extremely limited.

In understanding this it means that each quarter through the lack of a particular quality determines how it will manifest in its creation. Seen another way the lack of choice as enactment now determines how we attempt to bring such a thing in to existence. If you can understand this, it means that through the end of a particular quality the characteristic is fully realized and thus even stronger in someways than when it naturally did exist.

Meaning 3rd density is the truest form of personal choice, due to our having overcome choice, which allows for us to make a decision completely of our own design because we have no foreknowledge, lack hindsight, and possess minuscule power. Once all options become available the path becomes more clear and thus choice is gradually removed despite us having more power or choice to enact whatever we will on reality.

This is the idea behind solved games. Once you know the solution, what's the point of playing the game? Having figured it out actually results in a lack of something to solve. An inability to solve it allows it to be worth experiencing.

[edit on 3-2-2010 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by Karilla


You are getting into some good stuff right there. Here's the thing...People have free will in their circumstances. This means that within your life ( the family you were born to, the land you live in, the language you speak, what you are taught) You have free will within that context. Though outside influences do affect decisions, you still have free will. So it could be said that God effects free will, because he does know and allow the circumstances in which you live. How do I know this? It is in the Bible: Jesus said it himself, "20 Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.”
Did you catch that? If the circumstances were different then the people would have made a different free-will decision. So to clarify, you have free will within your context. Besides this, the only free-will that God cares that you have is the free will to chose Him or not, and that can be done within ANY context in ANY land and ANY language. So yes God is omniscient and you have free will. The real sticking point is within the definition of free will and to what extent do humans have it.

Originally posted by trueperspective
It is true that God does not NEED humans. However, God wants love and companionship from a free-willed being. This means that we have the choice to love Him or not. That, after all, is what love is. It is a choice, not a feeling. So this is why you are breathing. It is your choice as to what you do with that breath.

Edit: I think we need to first establish between "want" and "need" These are the two deciding terms.

[edit on 3-2-2010 by trueperspective]

But is it not true that if you deny God and/or Jesus the love that you *should* have for them, you are condemned to an eternity of torment in a fiery lake being jabbed by hot pokers? You call that free will? Love me or suffer? Sounds like spousal abuse to me.

Originally posted by trueperspective
reply to post by Karilla

 

So yes God is omniscient and you have free will. The real sticking point is within the definition of free will and to what extent do humans have it.

But that is a limited definition of omniscience. The standard definition is all-knowing, which doesn't really allow for your qualifications. I know the usual argument is that inconsistencies within the bible should be seen as a matter of faith, but its paradoxes such as this that have always struck me most about the Christian, scratch that - all monotheistic religions. I'm not sure that we have any free will, as such, anyway. A recent study has shown that our subconscious makes decisions a full 6 or 7 seconds before we are aware of those decisions. Yes, our subconscious is still "us", but our rational, waking minds have no control over it. Is this free will?

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Originally posted by Karilla
Now here is a paradox: How can God be omniscient and Humans have free-will? Both cannot be true. Either God knows what each of us will do, which gives us no choice whatsoever, or we are free to choose our actions and God does not know in advance what we will do and what course the future will take.

The way I've come to understand this by imagining a grid. Lets say that grid is 3 x 3. There are 9 cells and those cells can be filled in varying ways. If I enumerate all possibilities accounting for orderance there are (9!)/((9-9)!) = 362880 arrangements. So while I know all possibilities it doesn't dictate how it must be filled for a given sequence, just that it must eventually be filled in all possible ways.

Now change that from a 9 cell grid to an infinite grid. This is the idea behind Conway's Game of Life.

Understanding all possibilities is quite different from experiencing those possibilities:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9a9f85b3da85.gif[/atsimg]

As for free-will, the prelude to choice must encompass the laying of the foundation. If you look at Fig. 2 you'll see that I call out Q3 (which represents density 2 & 3) as being absent of choice.



Choice defined in this scenario as nature ultimately having final say over personal desire or will. One way that we overcome this is through technology and science. Allowing us to slowly whittle away nature and gain more options.

It's important to understand when I say "End Choice" or "End Self" or "End Natural Exigency" it doesn't necessarily mean these things are entirely removed such that they no longer exist. For instance, overcoming self at the transition from Q3 to Q4 (or density 3 to 4) means complete self-empowerment and thus no reason to have to vie for "self" (to arrive at this conclusion requires an understanding of Fig. 3). Overcoming nature (i.e. End Natural Exigency) means complete control over an outcome irregardless of nature's rules. Likewise overcoming choice at the transition from Q2 to Q3 (density 1 to 2) means being in a situation where a person can will a particular outcome, but not see it manifest. Thus choice as enactment is extremely limited.

In understanding this it means that each quarter through the lack of a particular quality determines how it will manifest in its creation. Seen another way the lack of choice as enactment now determines how we attempt to bring such a thing in to existence. If you can understand this, it means that through the end of a particular quality the characteristic is fully realized and thus even stronger in someways than when it naturally did exist.

Meaning 3rd density is the truest form of personal choice, due to our having overcome choice, which allows for us to make a decision completely of our own design because we have no foreknowledge, lack hindsight, and possess minuscule power. Once all options become available the path becomes more clear and thus choice is gradually removed despite us having more power or choice to enact whatever we will on reality.

This is the idea behind solved games. Once you know the solution, what's the point of playing the game? Having figured it out actually results in a lack of something to solve. An inability to solve it allows it to be worth experiencing.

[edit on 3-2-2010 by Xtraeme]

What motivates you to create such an overcomplicated post?

I lack the motivation to write a wall of text, and even post on forums.

On topic, knowledge is forever evolving, there's no such thing as omniscience.

In the case of omnipotence. A infinite creator strength should be limitless. The infinite creator should not be capable of creating a rock he can't lift because the mass of the rock has to be big enough to be defiant towards infinite strength, which is impossible. Note "big enough" implies finite principles. It's very presumptuous of people to give God abilities that fits under the same banner of "poofing" things into existence. (i.e creating a rock, so heavy he can't lift type of logic). The act of creating implies the creation being finite initially, thus it's completely illogical for it to turn into something infinite in size to render God's infinite strength useless.



[edit on 3-2-2010 by GrandKitaro777]

[edit on 3-2-2010 by GrandKitaro777]

[edit on 3-2-2010 by GrandKitaro777]

Originally posted by Karilla

Originally posted by trueperspective
It is true that God does not NEED humans. However, God wants love and companionship from a free-willed being. This means that we have the choice to love Him or not.
[edit on 3-2-2010 by trueperspective]

Now here is a paradox: How can God be omniscient and Humans have free-will? Both cannot be true. Either God knows what each of us will do, which gives us no choice whatsoever, or we are free to choose our actions and God does not know in advance what we will do and what course the future will take.

Where does this idea come from? I hear it all over and it doesn't make any sense to me. Also, the idea is always stated with nothing to back it up. It's just put out there like it's fact, but what is it based on? A false premise in my opinion.

Just because you know something is going to happen doesn't mean you made it happen or that something else couldn't have happened. It just means you know how things go because you've been around the block.

Like when my stupid brother gets out of jail again I know he'll do something stupid and get put right back in.

It doesn't mean it was predestined. Everybody tells him to do the exact opposite of what he gets in trouble for. But he continues to make the choices he makes that gets him into trouble over and over and over. But just because the behavior is predictable doesn't mean he couldn't have made different choices. It's still his choice.

Being able to predict which choices people will makes does not mean that they didn't have a choice.

Originally posted by GrandKitaro777
I lack the motivation to write a wall of text, and even post on forums.

I imagine this is said tongue in cheek.

What motivates you to create such an overcomplicated post?

A lack of people who share a similitude of thought. And of course, the same reason anyone posts anything, a search for feedback.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
Just because you know something is going to happen doesn't mean you made it happen or that something else couldn't have happened. It just means you know how things go because you've been around the block.

Like when my stupid brother gets out of jail again I know he'll do something stupid and get put right back in.

This is exactly the argument I was trying to get across when I said, "Understanding all possibilities is quite different from experiencing those possibilities."

I think the reason Karilla posed the question, "How can God be omniscient and Humans have free-will?" was more to point out that if such a sentience does know all things we have to consider it may not be omni-benevolent; because if a god-like sentience is all powerful and all-knowing why allow negative events to happen in the first place?

The usual response to this comes in the form of another question. Without negative events how can there be symmetry? It's only through this delta that we understand the qualitative positive characteristic. Likewise if this God-like sentience takes away our ability to perform negative actions then how can it be said the person has free-will?

So the person has to then ask themselves, what's more important? Free will? Or a world where nothing negative ever occurs thereby sacrificing our capability to know and choose amongst all possibilities.

reply to post by Xtraeme


So I guess I'll tell a story cause I'm bored. I don't really have an answer to the question is choice more important than nothing bad ever happening. Obviously which is better depends on who you ask. I think choice is more important.

So, one time my two friends were playing chess, but they were just learning and I'm pretty good at it. So, I was being really annoying to one friend and being like, don't move that piece there, don't do that. Don't take your queen out early! Protect your king! No! Go over there! Geez, you don't even know what you're doing. Why don't you just let me play? lol. And the one friend got mad at me and told me to shut up and just let him play and he got really ticked off.

And I was like, but you'll lose if you play. And he's like, I don't care! How am I supposed to learn if I don't play?

So I guess the moral of the story is, even though something bad might happen because of it, I've never met anyone that didn't want to play their own game. Same with life. I've never met anyone that didn't want to live their own life regardless of how bad they were at it or how much better it would be if they'd just let someone else do it for them.

So, I wonder if God is up there thinking the same thing. Why don't you people just let me play it for you lol? You're so bad at it! But that's just not how we work. People just want the freedom to decide for themselves.

reply to post by tinfoilman


You nailed it. Free choice trumps someone playing a game for you. This is why if a God-like sentience exists it can be seen as benevolent force because ultimately we get to play our life the way we choose. So even though those around us don't provide everything we demand. We still have the ability to pursue our desires to our hearts content.

reply to post by Xtraeme


All of your posts are very in depth and enlightening. This is why I post my philosophical inquiries on ATS. I am sure to receive very intelligent answers that can open my mind to more knowledge and wisdom. Thank you.

Originally posted by OrphenFire
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

All of your posts are very in depth and enlightening. This is why I post my philosophical inquiries on ATS. I am sure to receive very intelligent answers that can open my mind to more knowledge and wisdom. Thank you.

Hey I'm just happy someone actually found it worth reading.

Really though to understand the entire philosophy requires a good familiarity with the core argumentation that I put together in this thread.

I realize the idea is fairly complex. So if you have any questions feel free to post them. Even though I have been a bit slack recently I will eventually get to them.

The fascinating aspect about this entire thing is it behaves as a mechanical system. So as spare time allows I've been trying to fill in the remaining "holes" with the hopes that the system will naturally lead me to a conclusion. Rather than the way most philosophy works, which involves some guy making assertions about the nature of how the whole thing works without really having a methodical way to show others how they too can arrive at the same judgment.

Appreciate the kind words, cheers!
-X

[edit on 4-2-2010 by Xtraeme]