He knows therefore he controls?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On another thread the topic of omniscience came up with one poster positing ,if I have him correct , as saying that omniscience means total control.

I question this so let's take an alleged instance of Omniscience, say God and his relationship to the universe. I stated that God is omniscient because he is at the temporal end of the universe and has observed everything.

The response to this was I believe ......,....'therefore he controls or determines everything. I cannot see how this stands except as a circular argument.

In my scheme God's knowledge is collected in the conventional way, By Observation of the acts of others. The thing is though is that he is at the end of the universe and therefore has observed everything. Because he is God he is at the end and now and at the beginning and omnipresent. As scripture would have it, the same today, yesterday and tomorrow.(transtemporal) God's omniscience might be said to be always a property.

In such a way he can be omniscient and yet be so with out being omnicontrolling. He observed what we do and choose to do. Of course the result is that at the end of time there is only ever one possible course of history but it is that which WE determine.

[Outrider]

In and of itself, Omiscience doesn't presuppose a deterministic nature to reality.

However, when coupled with the idea that God is the creator of reality, it does.

Suppose that there are an infinite number of possible realities that God could initiate - God selects one of those with the benefit of its omniscience.

It has then selected which universe would occur - whilst all decisions may have been theoretically possible, God has decided which of them we would make by initiating that universe.

Of course, that itself suggests that God has not let all possible universes run in parallel.

O.

[BeRational]

Vlad,

Did he create the original start conditions knowing exactly how it would play out?

If so, then he is in total control.

The simple reason is that at the time of creating stuff he already knows how it will go, so if he does not like it, he tweeks the creation until he is happy.

Therefore this must be exactly what he wanted.

[trippymonkey]

If He allows 'it' does He always necessarily approve of 'it'

Muslims say Insh'Allah meaning God Willing. Mustn't this mean that NOTHING occurs without God at least allowing it??

Nick

[Jack Knave]

On another thread the topic of omniscience came up with one poster positing ,if I have him correct , as saying that omniscience means total control.

I question this so let's take an alleged instance of Omniscience, say God and his relationship to the universe. I stated that God is omniscient because he is at the temporal end of the universe and has observed everything.

The response to this was I believe ......,....'therefore he controls or determines everything. I cannot see how this stands except as a circular argument.

In my scheme God's knowledge is collected in the conventional way, By Observation of the acts of others. The thing is though is that he is at the end of the universe and therefore has observed everything. Because he is God he is at the end and now and at the beginning and omnipresent. As scripture would have it, the same today, yesterday and tomorrow.(transtemporal) God's omniscience might be said to be always a property.

In such a way he can be omniscient and yet be so with out being omnicontrolling. He observed what we do and choose to do. Of course the result is that at the end of time there is only ever one possible course of history but it is that which WE determine.

If God created everything and set it all in motion by Its laws then It not only knows what 'will' happen, as it is deterministic, but in doing so has full control of all outcomes.

[Nearly Sane]

I take it it's me that is being referred to in the OP? In which case Vlad has it wrong. Omniscience doesn't mean control at all. The point applies even if the 'entity' with omniscience has no control of anything. It is merely pointing out that a factor of omniscience is that there is only one possible way for everything to happen. Omniscience is not about a time bound knowledge.

The controlling part only happens if you combine omniscience with omnipotence.

[Jack Knave]

If He allows 'it' does He always necessarily aproove 'it'

Muslims say Insh'Allah meaning God Willing. Mustn't this mean that NOTHING occurs without God at least allowing it??

Nick

Many Muslims are having a shitty time at the moment so It can't be too pleased with them!!!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I take it it's me that is being referred to in the OP? In which case Vlad has it wrong. Omniscience doesn't mean control at all. The point applies even if the 'entity' with omniscience has no control of anything. It is merely pointing out that a factor of omniscience is that there is only one possible way for everything to happen. Omniscience is not about a time bound knowledge.

The controlling part only happens if you combine omniscience with omnipotence.

Sorry but what is ''The point'' to which you refer? In other words where are we in disagreement.

I think I have said that there is only one way for everything to happen decided on by us in the context of time. Hence we know what has happened but not what will happen.

[Nearly Sane]

I take it it's me that is being referred to in the OP? In which case Vlad has it wrong. Omniscience doesn't mean control at all. The point applies even if the 'entity' with omniscience has no control of anything. It is merely pointing out that a factor of omniscience is that there is only one possible way for everything to happen. Omniscience is not about a time bound knowledge.

The controlling part only happens if you combine omniscience with omnipotence.

Sorry but what is ''The point'' to which you refer? In other words where are we in disagreement.

I think I have said that there is only one way for everything to happen decided on by us in the context of time. Hence we know what has happened but not what will happen.

And since we aren't omniscient that is an irrelevance. If there is an omniscient thing all our decisions are known.


Before you reply, think about it and think about it again because that reply did even scale the heights of non sequitur.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I take it it's me that is being referred to in the OP? In which case Vlad has it wrong. Omniscience doesn't mean control at all. The point applies even if the 'entity' with omniscience has no control of anything. It is merely pointing out that a factor of omniscience is that there is only one possible way for everything to happen. Omniscience is not about a time bound knowledge.

The controlling part only happens if you combine omniscience with omnipotence.

Sorry but what is ''The point'' to which you refer? In other words where are we in disagreement.

I think I have said that there is only one way for everything to happen decided on by us in the context of time. Hence we know what has happened but not what will happen.

And since we aren't omniscient that is an irrelevance. If there is an omniscient thing all our decisions are known.


Before you reply, think about it and think about it again because that reply did even scale the heights of non sequitur.

At the moment I am certainly ''unscient'' about what your point is.
I am at your feet though Sane and wish to be a Catchumen in your academy of intellectual delights.

[floo]

On another thread the topic of omniscience came up with one poster positing ,if I have him correct , as saying that omniscience means total control.

I question this so let's take an alleged instance of Omniscience, say God and his relationship to the universe. I stated that God is omniscient because he is at the temporal end of the universe and has observed everything.

The response to this was I believe ......,....'therefore he controls or determines everything. I cannot see how this stands except as a circular argument.

In my scheme God's knowledge is collected in the conventional way, By Observation of the acts of others. The thing is though is that he is at the end of the universe and therefore has observed everything. Because he is God he is at the end and now and at the beginning and omnipresent. As scripture would have it, the same today, yesterday and tomorrow.(transtemporal) God's omniscience might be said to be always a property.

In such a way he can be omniscient and yet be so with out being omnicontrolling. He observed what we do and choose to do. Of course the result is that at the end of time there is only ever one possible course of history but it is that which WE determine.

All pure speculation, which seems like an excuse for its despicable behaviour, if the deeds attributed to it had any credence.

[Nearly Sane]

At the moment I am certainly ''unscient'' about what your point is.
I am at your feet though Sane and wish to be a Catchumen in your academy of intellectual delights.

If there is a thing/entity that is omniscient then all action past and future is know. There is only one outcome. Omniscience is deterministic by definition, not in the sense of of control but in the implication that for omniscience to exist, determinism applies.

[jeremyp]

In and of itself, Omiscience doesn't presuppose a deterministic nature to reality.

Doesn't it?

If I am omniscient then I know everything that is going to happen in the future. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the future is completely determined. Note that that doesn't imply I have control over or necessarily ever had control over the future.

[Outrider]

In and of itself, Omiscience doesn't presuppose a deterministic nature to reality.

Doesn't it?

If I am omniscient then I know everything that is going to happen in the future. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the future is completely determined. Note that that doesn't imply I have control over or necessarily ever had control over the future.

If you know all but have neither created what you know nor have the power to directly influence it, then no I don't think so. This isn't the classical depiction of the Christian deity, I know, but in and of itself omniscience doesn't result in control.

If you have omniscience you might have a better insight into how to apply the influence you have more effectively, and you can select an action based on the future effects it might have, but unless you are the first mover then you do not have absolute control.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

No one as far as I know, other than Vlad's misunderstanding, has suggested control is caused by omniscience. Simply that if there is omniscience then there is only one way things can be.

[Rhiannon]

If we determine the course of history then there is no point in thanking God for the good stuff, surely? You know, accidents avoided, successful operations, recovery from illness, tickets cancelled for the plane that crashes... completely out of God's hands.

[Outrider]

No one as far as I know, other than Vlad's misunderstanding, has suggested control is caused by omniscience. Simply that if there is omniscience then there is only one way things can be.

Omniscience... if we presume infinite capacity to extrapolate from current, which would appear to be part of omniscience, then yes omniscience does imply predestination.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

At the moment I am certainly ''unscient'' about what your point is.
I am at your feet though Sane and wish to be a Catchumen in your academy of intellectual delights.

If there is a thing/entity that is omniscient then all action past and future is know. There is only one outcome. Omniscience is deterministic by definition, not in the sense of of control but in the implication that for omniscience to exist, determinism applies.

yes but it is we who determine.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No one as far as I know, other than Vlad's misunderstanding, has suggested control is caused by omniscience. Simply that if there is omniscience then there is only one way things can be.

Omniscience... if we presume infinite capacity to extrapolate from current, which would appear to be part of omniscience, then yes omniscience does imply predestination.

O.

Yes it is us doing the predestining.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If we determine the course of history then there is no point in thanking God for the good stuff, surely? You know, accidents avoided, successful operations, recovery from illness, tickets cancelled for the plane that crashes... completely out of God's hands.

A narrow view of history and thanksgiving if you ask me. We have been given the universe and the world.

What's to stop divine intervention or advice?

[Outrider]

No one as far as I know, other than Vlad's misunderstanding, has suggested control is caused by omniscience. Simply that if there is omniscience then there is only one way things can be.

Omniscience... if we presume infinite capacity to extrapolate from current, which would appear to be part of omniscience, then yes omniscience does imply predestination.

O.

Yes it is us doing the predestining.

No, it's just the nature of reality that our subjective and limited experience of time doesn't mean that the future does not exist, just that we can't perceive it.

The future exists, the past exists, space-time is an entirety - it makes no more sense to say that the future is undefined because we can't see it as it is for me to say that America is undefined because I can't see it.

O.

[Outrider]

A narrow view of history and thanksgiving if you ask me.

Really? Why thank god for a team winning a football match but not thank god for bone cancer in children?

What's to stop divine intervention or advice?

What's the point of advice if the world is predetermined? Why give advice when you already know what the result is going to be? Unless, of course, part of God's omniscience is understanding that he's not in control, he's as intrinsically a part of the machine as anything else?

A god beholden to it's own plan for creation, there's an angle I've not looked at before.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

At the moment I am certainly ''unscient'' about what your point is.
I am at your feet though Sane and wish to be a Catchumen in your academy of intellectual delights.

If there is a thing/entity that is omniscient then all action past and future is know. There is only one outcome. Omniscience is deterministic by definition, not in the sense of of control but in the implication that for omniscience to exist, determinism applies.

yes but it is we who determine.

Not is there is omniscince - if there is it logically follows that there is only one set of events. If you want to posit non determinism then there is no omniscience.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

At the moment I am certainly ''unscient'' about what your point is.
I am at your feet though Sane and wish to be a Catchumen in your academy of intellectual delights.

If there is a thing/entity that is omniscient then all action past and future is know. There is only one outcome. Omniscience is deterministic by definition, not in the sense of of control but in the implication that for omniscience to exist, determinism applies.

yes but it is we who determine.

Not is there is omniscince - if there is it logically follows that there is only one set of events. If you want to posit non determinism then there is no omniscience.

But I am proposing determinism. We are that which determines.

[Nearly Sane]

But I am proposing determinism. We are that which determines.

Do you get a sweet for every word you misuse?
If so, I suggest you get checked for diabetes
deŠterŠmin|ism.[dɪˈtəːmɪnɪz(ə)m]NOUN
1.philosophythe doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.