Freewill-Omniscience Paradox

[Vegan Charity]

I'm sure the question has come up many times, the question of whether humans have Free-Will.

For those of you who have not taken a college course in Philosophy, this will be an interesting read...


If you believe God is omniscient, then you come across a wide spectrum of Paradoxes.

Many Philosophers would disagree with statement regarding "Total Free Will". The reasoning is simple:
Pick one -- Green Hat or Brown Hat?
If it were possible to rewind time, then the inner and outer circumstances of your situation would be identical. Because of that, you will pick the same hat every single time. Hence, you do not have free-will (Determinism).

You can rationalize this by saying you picked whichever hat at your own Free-Will, but given the same inner and outer circumstances you will choose the same hate everytime, this belief was Championed by Hume. Its called Compatibilism (or Soft Determinism). The notion of identical inner and outer conditions or circumstances yielding identical ends is demonstratably true in Chaotic Systems because they are fully Deterministic.

For Clarification, Determinism means "the philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs". In simpler words, it means "everything which you do right now, has been influenced by events which occur in the past" (Even more clarification: a line of dominos fall because the domino which came before it fell, the thing which initially caused the dominos to fall was your pushing over the first domino, etc. etc. etc. etc. until you trace all actions all the way back to the whatever you believe is the origin of the universe).

Another helpful word to know is the word Causality. The word "Causality" refers to the principle of or relationship between cause and effect. Note: There are some events (such as radioactive decay) which appear to occur without having anything cause it to occur.


Now onto aspect of an Omniscient God...

In the case of Omniscience, you can easily argue against Open Theism in that knowledge of the future does not necessarily mean that the future is influenced in any way.

Except that, if God knows the future, the future is determined going forward and has been determined from the very start.

Thus, by creating the universe the way it is, exactly the way he did, God has in fact done something to direct or influence the course of action of all future events.

So a few possibilities:
1. The future is pretermined by God (due to his omniscience). If this is the case, then assuming God is omnibenevolent, there should be no Hell.
2. God does not know the future, therefore he is not omniscient. This means humans do have some amount of Free Will. Something more to add: If God is not omniscient, then he is not omnipotent. The reason why is that Omniscience and Omnipotence is redundant (if you know everything there is to know, then you know how to do everything). And seriously, who cares if God is not omniscient, it wouldnt make him any less God.
3. The future is pretermined, Hell exists, nonbelievers do go to Hell, therefore you can only assume God is Evil.
4. God does not exist.
5. Others possibilities I have not listed


If you believe in an Omniscient God, then you cannot argue that humans are the ability to willfully reject or accept God. The reason being is that God knows whether a person will become an Atheist or Christian in his life, and he deliberately creates the person so that they are unable to do anything about whether they Accept or Deny His existence.


Another thing to note is that if God knows the Future, then God knows his Future. If God knows his future, then that knowledge of the future effects the "past" (which is a form of backwards casuality). Because the future is based on current inner and outer circumstances of the present, that new knowledge effects the future, that means the future God knew does not occur. Therefore, there are 2 options:
1. God has no Free Will (i.e. what God knows as the future unfolds exactly as he knew it)
2. God is not omniscient
3. God does not exist
3. A fourth one, but I dont know of one immediately


Something about Omniscience, it is an internally contradictory characteristic. To know everything, you must know about that which you do not know -- which is a logical contradiction.

To illustrate the point, consider: God1 creates God2 in such a way that God2 believes he has all of the powers, capabilities, and possibilities as God1 -- such as always having existed, controlling the rules and specifics of his own universe, etc. Additionally, God1 creates God2's reality in such a way that God2 does not know that God1 and God1's reality exist -- and cannot know, unless God1 deems to reveal this to God2.

Now, consider: Can God1 know that he is not also in the same position as God2. Could a God0 exist that God1 does not know about? If he cannot answer this question, he cannot claim to know everything. He has an unresolvable blind-spot in his knowledge and is therefore not omniscient.

You can easily counter this saying "God knows all there is to know, therefore this is nothing God does not know". However, that suggest there is only a finite amount of knowledge in the universe. You have two more possibilities:
1. That means characteristics about God are finite. If you define Omniscience as "infinite knowledge", then God's Omniscience is denied by definition, there is an unavoidable blind spot
2. God is not infinite
3. God does not exist
4. A fourth option if available

Moreso, what if God just chooses not to know the future? Then he would cease to be omniscient, which still gives him an inevitable blindspot.


In terms of Creation, if God knows the future, then the nature of omnibenevolence is put to question. Why would he create herbivores which he knew would be food for carnivores? Why would war and disease be predestined to occur?


If God is Omniscient while wanting as little suffering in the world as possible, then there are two options:
1. People do not suffer for a higher purpose. Why then does God allow it? Surely, a God which knows about, wants to stop and can stop suffering would put an end to pointless suffering. This would be a contradiction in logic.
2. Many people cannot accept what you have just accepted; namely, that a loving God - a God who possesses great power and insight - has created the world in such a way that people need to suffer horribly for some higher purpose. There is no logical contradiction in the position, but some would argue that it is obscene. Could you really look someone dying of a horrible flesh-eating disease in the eye, and tell them that their suffering is for the greater good of themselves or the world?


Its very easy to ask "If God is omniscient, can he pose a question that even he does not know the answer to?". There is 3 scenarios:
1. There is a question God does not know the answer to
2. God does not know of any questions which he does not know the answer to
3. God does not exist

In either case, Omniscience is denied.
Of course, there is a hidden option #4: Can knows how to relinquish some of his omniscience, then he can ask himself the question. Therefore no such contradiction in logic occurs.

But in hidden option #4, there is yet one more hidden option #4a: If God relinquishes some of his omniscience, then logically there is no way for him to become omniscient again. Omniscience is therefore denied if God chooses options #4.

However, there is still one more option 4b: God does not have to obey the laws of logic. In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), that is saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. Therefore, the only defendable position to adopt is that of Agnosticism, all other presumptions about God would inherently lead to this inconsistency. There are then 3 options:
1. God obeys the Laws of Logic
2. God does not obey the Laws of Logic. This suggests God cannot be known or defined, therefore Agnosticism is the defendable position.
3. God does not exist.


Note to all: I have a very Liberal Unorthodox way of thinking. I know some of the paradoxes I've outlined are debatable, but who doesnt enjoy a good hearty discourse about Philosophy. I dont lay down the Paradoxes as an ipso facto guide to logic (probably due to the fact that my definition of Omniscient may not be universally accepted), I'm wouldnt say its impossible that I have made a few flaws. I would very much hope that I have not offended anyone (I personally know how easy it is to be offended for religious reasons). If anyone is offended, I would very much recommend you refrain from taking Philosophy or Theology in college (although I think a person who calls herself educated ought to have formal training in Philosophy, but thats just a personal opinion). Oh, and sorry if some of the grammar is unpleasant, I can speak English very well and at least as well as Americans (I notice Americans say I have a very cute little accent), but I cant speak it that well.

 

[Farasha]

Very well put.

 

[Lifesaver]

Many Philosophers would disagree with statement regarding "Total Free Will". The reasoning is simple:
Pick one -- Green Hat or Brown Hat?
If it were possible to rewind time, then the inner and outer circumstances of your situation would be identical. Because of that, you will pick the same hat every single time. Hence, you do not have free-will (Determinism).

I too used to think long times about that same problem in the past. Even if the universe is not all predetermined (as quantum physics is showing it isn't), humans don't have free will (any free will at all), if the physical reality is all there is to existence. There would be more than one possible outcome from one set of conditions, but the outcome wouldn't be "up to us", but rather some cosmic throw of the dice.

However, if you accept the existence of the mind separated from the brain (and I don't honestly see how anyone could claim there is no such distinction), it is possible to at least cast some doubt on the certainty of this problem.

How the human mind works is a problem that has troubled many people over the ages, and no actual progress seems to be made. There are always many theories, but no actual way to test any of them. Advances in neuroscience might help, but they will never be decisive.

Anyway, it is becoming apparent that the human mind is not equipped with the proper tools to understand itself. This theory was very well explained in Colin McGinn's auto-biography The Making of a Philosopher.

As you can guess from my age, I'm not a philosopher, so excuse me if I don't have the rigour you're probably accustomed with.

Still, the impossibility to understand how our mind works indicates that it is nothing like the world around us. Simple cause and effect, only one outcome for any given starting conditions might not apply. So our free will might exist, but it's not something we can understand and rationalize.

I know, it doesn't explain anything, but it leaves open the possibility that, if there is more to this universe than only physical reality, free will might exist. In other words, all conditions being equal, I could just as well choose either the brown or the green hat.

Now onto aspect of an Omniscient God...

In the case of Omniscience, you can easily argue against Open Theism in that knowledge of the future does not necessarily mean that the future is influenced in any way.

Except that, if God knows the future, the future is determined going forward and has been determined from the very start.

Thus, by creating the universe the way it is, exactly the way he did, God has in fact done something to direct or influence the course of action of all future events.

I used to think it was a given that if God existed and were omniscient free will did not exist, or else God was not omniscient. I still don't know how that is worked out, but I am aware that there are theological explanations that seem to conciliate both. They even have disagreements as to how this happens (Thomists and Molinists).
Are you aware of their arguments?

Another thing to note is that if God knows the Future, then God knows his Future. If God knows his future, then that knowledge of the future effects the "past" (which is a form of backwards casuality). Because the future is based on current inner and outer circumstances of the present, that new knowledge effects the future, that means the future God knew does not occur. Therefore, there are 2 options:

I'm not sure Free Will could ever apply to God, for He has one immutable Will. If it were not immutable, He wouldn't be perfect.
He Knows what He'll do and that's what He wants to do; and if we imagine Him choosing otherwise, it wouldn't be God at all.

Something about Omniscience, it is an internally contradictory characteristic. To know everything, you must know about that which you do not know -- which is a logical contradiction.

To illustrate the point, consider: God1 creates God2 in such a way that God2 believes he has all of the powers, capabilities, and possibilities as God1 -- such as always having existed, controlling the rules and specifics of his own universe, etc. Additionally, God1 creates God2's reality in such a way that God2 does not know that God1 and God1's reality exist -- and cannot know, unless God1 deems to reveal this to God2.

Aren't we talking of a decrease of knowledge here? God 2 isn't omniscient at all (even though he believes to be so), whereas God1 is indeed omniscient and knows it. He knows that there is no God0, and this knowledge is right.
God2 "knew" that there was no God1, but he was wrong.

I fail to see the logical impossibility of God1 knowing that He is right.

Its very easy to ask "If God is omniscient, can he pose a question that even he does not know the answer to?". There is 3 scenarios:
1. There is a question God does not know the answer to
2. God does not know of any questions which he does not know the answer to
3. God does not exist

God can't pose a question He doesn't know the answer to. Such a question does not exist. And it is still true that God knows everything.
Basically what you are saying in 2 is that God doesn't know "nothing".

Do you know of a natural number that comes between 2 and 3? No.
Does this mean you are ignorant in this matter? No, for such a number does not exist.

God does have to respect the laws of logic, as far as I see. But this doesn't mean that He is not omnipotent, either. He can do everything. Logical impossibilities are not part of "everything". They are not a thing at all. They are not only impossible, but unconceivable.

So can God make it so that 2+3=4? No. But that doesn't limit His power at all. 2+3=4 is not a part of everything, just as the infamous "rock so heavy He can't lift".

Hm. I don't know how clear I made myself. But I'll return tomorrow, after some sleep, for it is already 3:40 AM. Good night.

 

[Vegan Charity]

I too used to think long times about that same problem in the past. Even if the universe is not all predetermined (as quantum physics is showing it isn't), humans don't have free will (any free will at all), if the physical reality is all there is to existence. There would be more than one possible outcome from one set of conditions, but the outcome wouldn't be "up to us", but rather some cosmic throw of the dice.

A quick note about Quantum Physics:

x = rx(1-x) is chaotic when put into a feedback loop. (meaning given initial x, solve right hand side. Take output, and feed back into right hand side to get the next value.

That equation is fully deterministic. Yet chaotic.
This page shows a nice java applet.

To see how this relates to the real world, think of how we represent numbers in decimal notation. Assume a function whereby the nth position to the right of the decimal point is affected by the nth+1 position. Say, add the 2 together mod 10. So, let's say you can measure the initial condition to 50 decimal places (not really realistic). Big deal, as we don't know what the 51st digit is, so after 50 feedback loops we cannot predict the value of the digit to the left of the decimal point.

Well, go and improve your measurement capability so you can measure to 100 decimal points. Again, big deal, as you do not know what the 101st digit is, and so within a few more iterations, you still cannot predict the value to the left of the decimal point.

In real world scenerios, such as a dripping faucet (which can be modelled very accurately mathmatically), no matter how accurate you measure the first few drips, you cannot predict the times for more than 5-6 drips out.

In case it isn't clear, real world chaotic systems are subject to feedback. Take the dripping faucet example. Obviously, when the next drip occurs depends on when the previous drip occured, since the last drip caused the water volume at the faucet to drop to near zero.


You are still young, what that means is Quantum Physics is fully determistic.

However, if you accept the existence of the mind separated from the brain (and I don't honestly see how anyone could claim there is no such distinction), it is possible to at least cast some doubt on the certainty of this problem.

Materialists are people who believe matter and natural phenomena are all that exist. When I debate Materialists, they have some pretty ingenious replies.

Materialists define the "mind" as "the totality of conscious and unconscious mental processes in a sentient organism". They do not believe the Mind is seperately from matter, they do not believe the mind is an entity or a substance. For all they care, the mind is a word which means the same thing as self-awareness.

The word "soul" is different. A soul is a something which is immaterial (meaning not made of matter), it is the actual "you", and it exists seperately from matter. Materialists dont believe in a soul.

Most Philosophers are reject the idea that "matter and natural phenomena are all that exist" do it because they cannot imagine that a organism's self-aware can be logically reduced down to a few Materialistic functions. I've participated in some debates about the subject, its quite interesting to see 2 equally knowledgable Philosophical thinkers with Polar Opposite ideas about the natural world (theres lots of scratching and biting).

How the human mind works is a problem that has troubled many people over the ages, and no actual progress seems to be made. There are always many theories, but no actual way to test any of them. Advances in neuroscience might help, but they will never be decisive.

I wrote this on Dec. 26, its post #13.

Note: I always explain things very Materialistically, but only because my occupation requires that. I'll tell you what, when I "think from the brain" and "think from the heart", the two thoughts never agree with one another.

As you can guess from my age, I'm not a philosopher, so excuse me if I don't have the rigour you're probably accustomed with.

Dont sell yourself short, you're doing just fine

I used to think it was a given that if God existed and were omniscient free will did not exist, or else God was not omniscient. I still don't know how that is worked out, but I am aware that there are theological explanations that seem to conciliate both. They even have disagreements as to how this happens (Thomists and Molinists).
Are you aware of their arguments?

Yes, the source of many of those arguments revolves around the definition of the word "Omniscient". Some people believe Omniscient means "knows everything going on right now", some people extend the definition to include "everything in the past and the future", others might define it as "knowing all that can be known (which does not inlcude the unknown)", others define it as "Infinite knowledge", and still others define Omniscience as a catalyst of Omnipotence.

(And yes, those arguments go so far as to define what the word "knowledge" could mean...)

I'm not sure Free Will could ever apply to God, for He has one immutable Will. If it were not immutable, He wouldn't be perfect.
He Knows what He'll do and that's what He wants to do; and if we imagine Him choosing otherwise, it wouldn't be God at all.

Free-will and Immutability are incompatible properties. Immutability means "forever unchangeable", Free-will means "ability to change". If God has always existed, then there was a time where the universe did not exist. God cannot create the universe if he is immutable, therefore he has Free-will.

If something has Will, then it has desire. To be perfect, you must have no desires (or be dead?). It is quite impossible to perform any act intentionally without desire to drive you to do so. By that particular facet of perfection, God's intentionally creating the universe makes him imperfect.

If you define God as perfect, then you must consider 2 things:
1. God is not perfect. That wouldnt make him any less God.
2. There is no God.

Most people would just redefine God as "as near to perfection as logically acheivable" which seems like the sensible thing to do if you still believe.

Of course, that reasoning rests on whether your definition of perfect includes being "desireless" (Note: Desireless does not mean emotionless).

Aren't we talking of a decrease of knowledge here? God 2 isn't omniscient at all (even though he believes to be so), whereas God1 is indeed omniscient and knows it. He knows that there is no God0, and this knowledge is right.
God2 "knew" that there was no God1, but he was wrong.

I fail to see the logical impossibility of God1 knowing that He is right.

God2 believes he is right, he is unaware of God1. God2 has a blindspot, God1 hides in the blindspot.

God1 cannot escape the blindspot either, he could not know whether he is in the same position as God2.

Basically what you are saying in 2 is that God doesn't know "nothing".

Do you know of a natural number that comes between 2 and 3? No.
Does this mean you are ignorant in this matter? No, for such a number does not exist.

Its possible to redefine that as "there are an infinite number of decimals between 2 and 3" because its possible to redefine knowledge in terms which are not absolute (as in the case between Natural Numbers between 2 and 3).

However, if you do define knowledge in terms of absolute, then that suggests there is a finite amount of knowledge. Omniscience as defined as "infinite knowledge" is therefore denied by definition (it also implies aspects about God are in fact finite which conflicts with most people's definition of God).

God does have to respect the laws of logic, as far as I see. But this doesn't mean that He is not omnipotent, either. He can do everything. Logical impossibilities are not part of "everything". They are not a thing at all. They are not only impossible, but unconceivable.

Some people define Omnipotence as "the ability to do everything which can logically be done". If there is no task which can defeat God, then that rock cannot logically exist, therefore the question "can God make a rock so big..." lacks merit as that rock cannot logically exist. In this case, Omnipotence (as constricted by the Laws of Logic) is not violated.


Sometimes the definitions in Philosophy are the most tedious part.

 

[Lifesaver]

On Quantum physics:

Okay, let's suppose the physical world is determined from day 1 (Though that means a large number of contemporary physicists must be getting is all wrong).
This works for all physical phenomena. If a non-physical mind exists, it doesn't necessarily work for it.

Free-will and Immutability are incompatible properties. Immutability means "forever unchangeable", Free-will means "ability to change". If God has always existed, then there was a time where the universe did not exist. God cannot create the universe if he is immutable, therefore he has Free-will.

I sustain that we can't even speak of free will for God in the same way we apply it to humans.
Does God have the ability to change? No, because He doesn't want to. Can He want to change? No, because He doesn't want that either.

If ever this chain was broken, the being wouldn't be God.

God is immutable and can create the universe. I see no conflict. His will was to create the universe at a certain point of time, and that's what He did, never changing His will (which remains the same). He is not part of the universe He created, for He has always been.

If something has Will, then it has desire. To be perfect, you must have no desires (or be dead?). It is quite impossible to perform any act intentionally without desire to drive you to do so. By that particular facet of perfection, God's intentionally creating the universe makes him imperfect.

Explain how desire makes someone not perfect.

According to you a rock that is completely isolated from the entire universe is a perfect being, because it is a in a stable immutable state. Is that it?

God2 believes he is right, he is unaware of God1. God2 has a blindspot, God1 hides in the blindspot.
God1 cannot escape the blindspot either, he could not know whether he is in the same position as God2.

God2 believes that he is right. He believes that he knows he is right. He believes that he knows that he knows he is right, and so on...
God1 knows that He is right. He knows that He knows he is right. He knows that He knows that He knows he is right, and so on...

There is no blindspot, no matter how far you go. One of them is wrong all along (not Omniscient), and the other is right all along.

Analogously, we could do the same with humans. You know a certain belief you have is correct. It either is or isn't.
You know that you know the truth, and so on...
When such a belief is tested, it will be clear whether you were right or not.

Did you know you were right beforehand? Yes. Could you have been wrong? Yes, but you knew that you weren't. Could you have been wrong about being wrong? Yes, but you knew that you weren't. And this continues to infinity, and the blind spot never arrives. It doesn't exist.

And with God (that there can be only one) this is even simpler. God2 wasn't like God at all. He thought he were (like a street lunatic does). The true God knows He is the one, and He is right about it.

Its possible to redefine that as "there are an infinite number of decimals between 2 and 3" because its possible to redefine knowledge in terms which are not absolute (as in the case between Natural Numbers between 2 and 3).However, if you do define knowledge in terms of absolute, then that suggests there is a finite amount of knowledge. Omniscience as defined as "infinite knowledge" is therefore denied by definition (it also implies aspects about God are in fact finite which conflicts with most people's definition of God).

The question was a very simple one: Can God ask Himself a question He doesn't know the answer to?
The answer: no.
Be knowledge infinite or not, the questions which God doesn't know the answer to do not exist. It is an empty group.
Analogously, it is like saying you don't know the "which is the Natural number between 2 and 3?" You don't know that number because it doesn't exist.

By the way, knowledge seems to be infinite, as the blind spot problem shows. In all its infinity, though, the question that God doesn't know the answer to is not contained.

Some people define Omnipotence as "the ability to do everything which can logically be done". If there is no task which can defeat God, then that rock cannot logically exist, therefore the question "can God make a rock so big..." lacks merit as that rock cannot logically exist. In this case, Omnipotence (as constricted by the Laws of Logic) is not violated.

It is a good definition.

 

[Outspoken]

"If you believe God is omniscient, then you come across a wide spectrum of Paradoxes."

You leave out a couple of possiblities. One is key.

1. You cannot cease to be you
2. God knows you intimately better then any being, including yourself
3. God knows your choice before you make it because he knows you intimately
4. Therefore
4a You have free will
4b God knows the choice before you make it
4c because you cannot cease to be you.

Thus omni is preserved as is free will.

 

[seebs]

I have a couple of responses to these.

The first point I would argue is that it is not clear that omniscience requires knowledge of the future. Omniscience doesn't require knowledge of nonsense, only of "real things". An omniscient deity need not be able to answer questions like "how many decibels is red to a colorblind rock". It is not clear that things which haven't happened yet are any more meaningfully real than this; if they aren't, we're done.

However, imagine for the sake of argument that there does exist foreknowledge. I don't see this as proving determinism any more than regular post-knowledge does. The knowledge comes about as a result of the event. This violates our intuition of temporal causality, but that's necessarily out the window if we allow for foreknowledge; we have already granted that time doesn't work the way we normally think of it.

I see no conflict here.

 

[Outspoken]

No response to my post?

 

[Vegan Charity]

"If you believe God is omniscient, then you come across a wide spectrum of Paradoxes."

You leave out a couple of possiblities. One is key.

1. You cannot cease to be you
2. God knows you intimately better then any being, including yourself
3. God knows your choice before you make it because he knows you intimately
4. Therefore
4a You have free will
4b God knows the choice before you make it
4c because you cannot cease to be you.

Thus omni is preserved as is free will.

I would question the significance of #1 and #4c.

I would question the conclusion #4a, I dont see how statements 1 - 3 are logically connected to 4a. I understand where you are coming from, you are saying that God knows what your future will hold, but you still make choices at your own accord. However, my reasoning is a bit like this:

1. God knows all future events before he creates the universe
2. God creates the universe in a way which God has in fact done something to direct or influence the course of action of all future events
3. If God knows future (1), he creates the universe so that the future unfolds the way he knows it (2),
4. Then that means the fate of the universe and everyone on Earth has been determined from the very start
5. The reasonable conclusion is that the choices you think have been made at your own free-will have in fact been pretermined by God's Will
6. Therefore Free-will and Omniscience mutually incompatible

Yes, God knows everything about you more intimately than you know yourself, however this would create a paradox 2:
If God is the one who makes you, then he makes people deliberately so that they are unable to control their beliefs or lack-thereof. From that, you can conclude your beliefs are predestined, you have no control of what you will believe. In that case,
1. People do not go to Hell as they are unable to control whether they accept or reject the belief in God
2. If Hell exists, and people go to Hell, and their beliefs are out of their control, then God is evil
3. There is no god
4. Other options

No response to my post?

Almost every bit of my spare time is eaten up during the weekdays, sorry for a not-so-hasty reply.

 

[Outspoken]

I would question the significance of #1 and #4c.

I would question the conclusion #4a, I dont see how statements 1 - 3 are logically connected to 4a. I understand where you are coming from, you are saying that God knows what your future will hold, but you still make choices at your own accord. However, my reasoning is a bit like this:

1. God knows all future events before he creates the universe
2. God creates the universe in a way which God has in fact done something to direct or influence the course of action of all future events
3. If God knows future (1), he creates the universe so that the future unfolds the way he knows it (2),
4. Then that means the fate of the universe and everyone on Earth has been determined from the very start
5. The reasonable conclusion is that the choices you think have been made at your own free-will have in fact been pretermined by God's Will
6. Therefore Free-will and Omniscience mutually incompatible

Yes, God knows everything about you more intimately than you know yourself, however this would create a paradox 2:
If God is the one who makes you, then he makes people deliberately so that they are unable to control their beliefs or lack-thereof. From that, you can conclude your beliefs are predestined, you have no control of what you will believe. In that case,
1. People do not go to Hell as they are unable to control whether they accept or reject the belief in God
2. If Hell exists, and people go to Hell, and their beliefs are out of their control, then God is evil
3. There is no god
4. Other options


Almost every bit of my spare time is eaten up during the weekdays, sorry for a not-so-hasty reply.

"If God knows future (1), he creates the universe so that the future unfolds the way he knows it "

This is not a logical conclusion. Foreknowlege doesn't take away free will, else I would take away your free will by saying in the next 2 hours you will breathe.

"The reasonable conclusion is that the choices you think have been made at your own free-will have in fact been pretermined by God's Will"

Not by the argument I have put forth. I have seen no reply simply you presenting from another "given" but for your benefit I will address your statements. The major problem is you are thinking from a temporal perspective. God created the universe and ended it, but to him it doesn't have to be in that order. God is not bound by time, and with that varible your statements break down, for you assume he is.

"he makes people deliberately so that they are unable to control their beliefs or lack-thereof. "

This is untrue. He does not control their beliefs but knows what they will do because you cannot cease to be you. That is not control, it is knowledge. You are inserting points, not critiquing the ones I have put forth. I do not control you by knowing what you are going to do anymore then you control a person by knowing what they are going to do.

 

[Vegan Charity]

Stopping by quickly, just dropping by to say "I've been so busy with work", and now I must leave again to continue writing a lecture on insect behavior... bye!

 

[wayfaring man]

Man O Man it can get complicated 'round here !

1. God made humans to be in the image of God .

2. God is free to do as God pleases , therefore we must be also ( although in limited fashion )

3. Nothing can happen , unless God allows it .

4. Just because God allows some thing , doesn't mean God approves of it .

5. When God allows that which God disapproves of , it can only be because God has already in store , a remedy which will reverse / undo any evil caused by allowing such acts ; or else God wouldn't allow it !

6. The factor of free will is so critical for our intended fulfillment , that God would allow our destruction before aborting the design .

7. Just because God creates those who do evil , this does not mean God did the evil , because if I choose to sin , I cannot rightly claim that God made me do it , simply because God gave me a choice of choosing either good or evil . [ For if the only choice available was to do good , we would not truly possess free will ; hence the role of evil in our world .]

8.God will ultimately remove the evil from the lives of those of us who have chosen good .

9. And separate the good from those of us who have chosen evil .

10. Since , it takes only a few seconds to make a choice , God has given most all of us many ,many ,many ,many ,many ,many ,many ,many, many......... chances to make up our minds !

Clearer day by day , wm

 

[Boanerge]

Wow this is an amazing post guys, i can't believe i completely ignored the philosophy section! cool.. anyway...

Warning: I wrote too much...

7. Just because God creates those who do evil , this does not mean God did the evil , because if I choose to sin , I cannot rightly claim that God made me do it , simply because God gave me a choice of choosing either good or evil . [ For if the only choice available was to do good , we would not truly possess free will ; hence the role of evil in our world .]

Although i agree 100%, for Vegan's sake i would ask "Why evil in the first place?" Because, after dusting off the excess knowledge, this is pretty much the root of it all.

Does "knowing evil" make you evil?

And woudn't omniscience be torture?

Wouldn't it also mean that your imagination is your reality?

well, this was alot, so i guess i'll start some where.

As you can guess from my age, I'm not a philosopher, so excuse me if I don't have the rigour you're probably accustomed with.

Lifesaver reminds me of an intelligent version of myself... i feel ashamed for not finishing school even more now :o . Ofcourse i have hope (confidence) that God will glorify Himself in some way with my life, if not here then some other time and place.

Now i can reply to everything and go bazerk, but I'm not "omni" like God. I could however go christiany and say the Holy Spirit will guide me into all truth, but i want to remain neutral. this leaves me at a disadvantage where i could be wrong in the things i say, but being that these are my opinions, i am not looking to send you guys any "Hey-look-I'm-Better" statements. (IF you happen to assume im smart, please take a look at my "lack of better terms" and reevaluate your hypothesis, and smile once in a while ) But this also means i will be 100% honest with my replies. But if i happen to stray into christian concepts, It is not my will but God's will that I will to fullfill. (poetic isnt it?) Something i will most likely do...

To continue...

To illustrate the point, consider: God1 creates God2 in such a way that God2 believes he has all of the powers, capabilities, and possibilities as God1 -- such as always having existed, controlling the rules and specifics of his own universe, etc. Additionally, God1 creates God2's reality in such a way that God2 does not know that God1 and God1's reality exist -- and cannot know, unless God1 deems to reveal this to God2.

Now, consider: Can God1 know that he is not also in the same position as God2. Could a God0 exist that God1 does not know about? If he cannot answer this question, he cannot claim to know everything. He has an unresolvable blind-spot in his knowledge and is therefore not omniscient.

Now at this point we are assuming that God1 does not reveal Himself to God2. This way God2 will never know that there is a "greater light". and Therefore we can also say that God1 may be in the same position. Now if i replace God1 with Our Father in heaven, It would be unlikely that He will remain secretive. Therefore He will reveal Himself to God2. Additionally God2 is made lower than God1, or else there will be no reason For God1 to make a duplicate of Himself. Lets call God2 the Son. But we can still assume there is a God0. Ofcourse this would make God0 evil, being that He is "omniscient" and yet willfully chooses to keep Himself Hidden from all existance, which will in effect make Him non-existant. This ofcourse results in God0 being "nothing". If God0 chooses to reveal Himself, Then everything will shift accordingly. "God1 the Father" will become God0, and "God2 the Son" will become God1, and we arrive at the same position as before. We could conclude that "God0 the Nothingness" EXISTED, but no longer exist or Doesn't Exist YET. Which will leave Somethingness in the Middle- Hence IMO, God1.

But this is all assuming God1 is the God im familiar with (the father). It changes with everyone else and with their religion. But this is all my opinion and the case i present..

(One would say "Essences" "Random Chance" or "Big BAng" could fit in the God1 position, But these are not valid God entities, being that we need Conscience Gods that have Will and Purpose. Living and able to Communicate.)

(The Essence/Random Chance/Big Bang are Athiestic positions that seem to be the Definition for "spontaneous" Light/life from "nowhere", ignoring spirituality and making Purpose obsolete, without the need of a Living God. But spontaneousness from Nowhere, seems abit irrational, unless something "unseen" was already there. Where there was no difference between Physical and Spiritual, Reality and Imagination. But according to these Essence/Random Chance/Big Bang Concepts, Our creators, This would mean that we are the image of these Definitions, so we say we live good lifes, but in the end, without purpose, we live truely stoic "lifeless" lives. Fighting for a life, which by definition, has no meaning.)

Now as far as i see it The Past and the Future does not exist for God1. I came to this conclusion because i figured "IF we have memories of the Past and Ideals of the Future, but those memories used to be the Present, and those goals/ideals are not YET the present. then there really is no past or present but simply 'Growth and Decay' " But If God1 is Omnipresent this would mean He Exists in Both PAst and Future and therefore For Him only the Present exists. Now if this is the Case then the Future can not exist. As i have stated before There is a Chance that God0 does not exist Yet. But Giving the Case of God1 and His Omnipresence, It is impossible for God0 to ever exist! or be above God1, Therefore as the Gospel of Luke says "Nothing is impossible with God" PTG

we could say however that God0 existed, But i could just say that God was probably standing still thinking (the Uncaused Caused?), He defeated God0 by moving. Hence the phrase in Genesis, "the earth was formless and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep" But all that changed when God said "Let there be light". I say this because of the phrase "Nothing can defeat God" In other words God can be defeated by becoming nothing, But since God is something He can not be defeated. But He can defeat Himself, by ceasing to be who He is, you eventually get to the conclusion that "Nothing" is not God. With this logic it is safe to say that God is Not nothing. Giving this reality, either Nothing exists or God exists.

But something happened to this Nothingness, i can not say it erased from God's memory..... If the case is that God speaking is His actions, then His "movement" created that Light. But is it creation or simply Himself, who He is? is God "Nothingness" or is God "Unseen"? This is where God2 comes into play. That light can hold every single aspect of who God1 is. But at the same time it is not God1 because God1 existed in a state were there was no light. no "reality".

Before the Beginning Nothing and God existed..

 

[Boanerge]

We reach an oxymoron which is too far for the human mind to comprehend, taking into accord our limited minds, our lack of spiritual understandings, this limited english language, and my lack of terms, but we can say that "Nothingness" and God co-existed. BUT when God said let there be light, Reality began... After the Light is formed, two things happen, we have the Light, and we have Knowledge of what darkness is. Now nothingness takes on the name of Darkness. it goes from God0, which can no longer co-exist with God1, into Darkness the antagonist. Right from the start we see "light" defeating "darkness". Life filling the Void, the Word of God taking form.

You can say that Darkness (God0) was a God of his own, ofcourse, until this light came and disturbed his beauty sleep (in other words God Spoke/rebuked/corrected/conquered). God could not destroy darkness because just like Himself he can not destroy that which always was (Eternal). But like the Eye of a Hurricane, God is the Rest in the Mist of this Darkness. And therefore we get the concept "dwell in Him" and "in the arms of God". God knows DArkness, Therefore it can not be erased. God chose to forget or really defeat this darkness, He Limits Himself and creates or forms another God, God2, Because God1 is omniscient, Boundless, Knows all things and His thoughts are His reality. God1 then puts everything under God2, seperating Darkness from Light, the Good from the Evil. God2 would be the right hand of God, or the Concept of Salvation. God1 is life and therefore gives life to God2, which we, as humans, happen to see as two distinct Beings. {and This is why Jesus (God2) does not know the "time and date" of His return and prays to the Father...... For the Father (God1) is above Him.}

Does this mean their are Two Gods? Not at all, God2 is simply a reflection of God1. Just like the Moon is the reflection of the Sun. Genesis says God created a Greater Light and a Lesser Light. does this mean their are two lights? God2 is the Lesser light who rules over the night (darkness) IMO.

Science helped prove this by showing that the moon is a rock that reflects the light of the Sun. The Sun being that which our humans eyes can not look at directly, unless you want to go blind. The same with the Father.

Now perhaps i am taking everything into an extreme personification level, there is no other way for me to handle this without doing so. Ofcourse my religion also has had an influence on my point of view. I am assuming we have vivid imaginations and that God gave us a mind for a reason to put two and two together..

I just want to elaborate more and go off track abit...

There are a few more "Gods" missing. See, Upon the formation of God2, The light that came out of "no where" but is supported by God1, God2 must have also developed knowledge of God1 in order for God1 to be completely righteous in His ways. This becomes God3, Wisdom. Because God2 has a choice to be like the darkness or be like the Father, and it chose to be like the Father and reflect the Father, choosing not to do is to limit oneself, and This creates yet another God who is completely dependant on God2 but is not God2. God3 is the state of making the right choice, remaining in the Good, or the goal, hence, the Kingdom of Heaven.

As more knowledge more Gods are formed the latter dependant on the former and the former supporting the latter. we call these Angels/gods/godesses/spirits. but their true forms, are reflections of God1, spirits or "unseen".

We get deeper and deeper as God puts on more limits more boundries more parimeter, organizing a place genesis 1:2 calls "formless and void"... more and more. You can say entering dimentional depth. This eventually leads us to Souls, and then to life (trees animals reality) the Seen things (3-d) and reachs infinity.

But every limit, does not abolish who God is before the Limit, Therefore God is Bounless as God1, but has limits as God2, and has more limits as God3, and so on, But each limit recognizing that the one before it is Greater. With limit there is more clarification, (God1 coexisting with Nothing; God2 with Darkness; God3 with Evil; Angels with Distortions, Half-TRuths; Souls with Desires, temptations etc. From general to specific details.)

But this leads us towards the road of spiritual things. And most likely away from Philosophy because philosophy only askes "why?" and stops. Religion tries to answer this.

I guess i have already completely digressed off topic by now...

I haven't even touched free will yet.....

 

[Boanerge]

Lets take into considerations the positions i have assumed before i go.

(1) God exists in a complete Present state.

(2) God, God2, and God3 are all one, and branches off into all life.

(3) Darkness has something to do with all this. But as God0, not above God1, considering who God1 may be, God0 aka "Nothing", is Eternal, and pretty confusing, even before the beginning of Time! (Does nothing really exist?) But since God1 is conscience of God0, it has something to do with everything.

(4) I assume God1 is the Father that "no one has seen"

(5) God2 is the Son "Who was with God and is from God, is God." Light, the Words of God1. Defeating the Darkness, God1's authority.

(6) God3 is like the "wife" of God2. God2 being light, the beginning of all, God3 being the inbetween, aka the foundation of Life. Support, Helper Sustainer. (Holy Spirit)

(7) other Gods, branches of God1, 2, 3, Resulting in Angels, Events, concepts, dominions, powers. etc. Spirits. The "fingers of God" His minstering spirits... sons of God. servants of God..

(8) Souls, the Image of God.

(9) in other words, the term God implies Eternal. But none are like God1. Which is why the Bible says God is "God of gods". We try to be like Him, but obviously we can't, we are a microscopic part of who He is.

Note: The First Three God is God1a (Will) {FAther}; God1b (Authority) {Son}; and God1c (Life) {Holy Spirit}; is what christians call the Godhead, But i used God2 and God3 terms for arguements sake.

(But lets say "God2" does not recognize a God1, This view is in the position that God1 does not reveal Himself, a position i can not Hold because I believe in God the Father and His Goodness. what i see is that God1 has revealed Himself, and therefore, "God2", who is not aware of the existance God1, would then not be For or One or Similar or From God1 at all. Even though God1 supports "God2" still.. out of Grace and mercy.. Until God2 can choose wisely.)

Whatever happened in "One Day" we are the result of that in extreme detail. For us to try to understand this all, is like a book trying to read himself, he can't, he needs help, and not from another book, but someone greater than the book. (we are the books) (a book can try a mirror, but it will only distort the words.)

Anyways, i probably don't make any sense...

But its 7 AM, i wrote too much, and who really has the time to truely consider what i have written?

I'm going to go get some sleep, and will be back to organize some of my thoughts.

I guess this is the rough draft so you can have some ideas of what i'm trying to get at..

i'll come up to post some real replies to you guys.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Wow this is an amazing post guys, i can't believe i completely ignored the philosophy section! cool.. anyway...

Warning: I wrote too much...

Although i agree 100%, for Vegan's sake i would ask "Why evil in the first place?" Because, after dusting off the excess knowledge, this is pretty much the root of it all.

Does "knowing evil" make you evil?

I think Genesis 3 tells us that no human "knows evil" until they have experienced it and become trapped in it. After eating the forbidden fruit, the humans, like God, know good and evil. However, unlike God they do not know good and evil without having done evil.

I find this story fascinating in the way it distinguishes the nature of human knowledge from the nature of divine knowledge.

 

[HadouKen24]

Boanerge, have you been looking into Gnosticism?

Many Philosophers would disagree with statement regarding "Total Free Will". The reasoning is simple:
Pick one -- Green Hat or Brown Hat?
If it were possible to rewind time, then the inner and outer circumstances of your situation would be identical. Because of that, you will pick the same hat every single time. Hence, you do not have free-will (Determinism).

You can rationalize this by saying you picked whichever hat at your own Free-Will, but given the same inner and outer circumstances you will choose the same hate everytime, this belief was Championed by Hume. Its called Compatibilism (or Soft Determinism). The notion of identical inner and outer conditions or circumstances yielding identical ends is demonstratably true in Chaotic Systems because they are fully Deterministic.

Exactly how do you know that if you rewound time and ran it again, that I would do exactly the same thing? I'm not going to just accept this premise because you say so, you know!

Most of your post depends on this idea. Although you attempted to defend it with the "chaotic systems" idea, you'll have to prove to me that the mind is, in fact, a chaotic system before you can use it as an actual argument. So give me some good reasons to believe determinism, please. (I won't be making it easy for you... )

Something about Omniscience, it is an internally contradictory characteristic. To know everything, you must know about that which you do not know -- which is a logical contradiction.

To illustrate the point, consider: God1 creates God2 in such a way that God2 believes he has all of the powers, capabilities, and possibilities as God1 -- such as always having existed, controlling the rules and specifics of his own universe, etc. Additionally, God1 creates God2's reality in such a way that God2 does not know that God1 and God1's reality exist -- and cannot know, unless God1 deems to reveal this to God2.

Now, consider: Can God1 know that he is not also in the same position as God2. Could a God0 exist that God1 does not know about? If he cannot answer this question, he cannot claim to know everything. He has an unresolvable blind-spot in his knowledge and is therefore not omniscient.

You can easily counter this saying "God knows all there is to know, therefore this is nothing God does not know". However, that suggest there is only a finite amount of knowledge in the universe. You have two more possibilities:
1. That means characteristics about God are finite. If you define Omniscience as "infinite knowledge", then God's Omniscience is denied by definition, there is an unavoidable blind spot
2. God is not infinite
3. God does not exist
4. A fourth option if available

Moreso, what if God just chooses not to know the future? Then he would cease to be omniscient, which still gives him an inevitable blindspot.

You raise a valid point here. Although I don't think your conclusion inevitably disproves God. All it says is that God cannot have this kind of omniscience. It does not rule out a being who knows all there is to know.

In terms of Creation, if God knows the future, then the nature of omnibenevolence is put to question. Why would he create herbivores which he knew would be food for carnivores? Why would war and disease be predestined to occur?


If God is Omniscient while wanting as little suffering in the world as possible, then there are two options:
1. People do not suffer for a higher purpose. Why then does God allow it? Surely, a God which knows about, wants to stop and can stop suffering would put an end to pointless suffering. This would be a contradiction in logic.
2. Many people cannot accept what you have just accepted; namely, that a loving God - a God who possesses great power and insight - has created the world in such a way that people need to suffer horribly for some higher purpose. There is no logical contradiction in the position, but some would argue that it is obscene. Could you really look someone dying of a horrible flesh-eating disease in the eye, and tell them that their suffering is for the greater good of themselves or the world?

There is yet a third option. You could be lumping material well-being together with spiritual well-being in a thoroughly unjustified way. One of Jesus' main points was that physical wealth is useless for spiritual growth, and in fact can present a serious stumbling block. Now, if physical well-being is detrimental to spiritual well-being, then we have two options:

1) Physical loss and suffering is beneficial to spiritual well-being.

2) Physical loss and suffering is irrelevant to spiritual well-being.

Jesus also said that spiritual well-being was vastly more important than physical well-being. Ergo, the greater good is not necessarily violated by suffering, and an omnibenevolent God is still a possibility, if you accept Jesus' teachings as true.

 

[wayfaring man]

Quote : from Boanerge

Although i agree 100%, for Vegan's sake i would ask "Why evil in the first place?" Because, after dusting off the excess knowledge, this is pretty much the root of it all.

Does "knowing evil" make you evil?

And woudn't omniscience be torture?

Wouldn't it also mean that your imagination is your reality?

well, this was alot, so i guess i'll start some where
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings Boanerge ,

It's appears you may need to downshift and slow the pacing of your thoughts a little .

Evil in the first place ?

Already partially addressed by stating , without evil , and only good to choose from , we could not possess free will .
Also , for us who are in a state of learning both good and evil serve in helping us to define aspects and issues of our existence . For if we only had hot , and not cold , then how lukewarm would hot become ?! Or , if you prefer -" For there must be also heresies among you , that they which are approved may be made manifest among you . " <-----> 1st Cor. 11:19 ( Necessary contrast principle )

Now regarding God's commandment for man and woman not to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil , in their case ( like ours , at least initially ) it does make us evil to know evil ; why ? Because we lack -(ed), the moral fortitude , as mere babes in the universe of God , to understand how , and when , and where to use that knowledge appropriately and why . It's the equivalent of a two year old taking hold of a loaded gun , by the trigger no less , with some malevolent coaching on the sideline .

As our maturity allows - God reveals knowledge to us .
Lucifer seeking to "outshine" God probably sought to beat God " to the punch " , so that he would be thought of as the one responsible for the opening up of mankind's eyes . But we can see now , can't we ?! that our Heavenly Father knows best !

Consider Christ's consideration : " I have many things to say unto you , but you cannot bear them now . " <-----> John 16:12

Omniscience , would be torture to those of us who are impure in heart , who lack moral excellence and unfeigned integrity ; but this not the case with God , or even those of us who are transformed into being one with God as Christ is one with God . [ the fullness of which may require tremendous renovation of our current estate .]

Imagination being reality ? For limited mortals , we can imagine all the day long without making the slightest dent in reality , or even beginning to scratch the surface of initiating change . But , once again , in the realm of God's capacity and capability , the mere notion of a thing may indeed alter the course of both time and space indefinitely ; which is why we need to learn to be contiuously and continually - " Casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God ...bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ . " <-----> 2nd Cor. 10:5 If ever we are to be bestowed with the authority and empowerment which goes along with being held in the Divine Embrace of Father , Son , and Holy Ghost .

Start with prayer ... and end with praise !!!

Sincerely ,wm

 

[Vegan Charity]

font=Arial]Exactly how do you know that if you rewound time and ran it again, that I would do exactly the same thing? I'm not going to just accept this premise because you say so, you know![/font]

Most of your post depends on this idea. Although you attempted to defend it with the "chaotic systems" idea, you'll have to prove to me that the mind is, in fact, a chaotic system before you can use it as an actual argument. So give me some good reasons to believe determinism, please. (I won't be making it easy for you... )

[Circular Argument] How do you know that you wouldnt pick the same hat everytime? [/Circular Argument]

By rewinding time, the inner and outer circumstances of when you made your choice would be identical. It would be a mystery as to how you choose differently if your choosing circumstances are identical. There is the hypothetical choice that you could choose the other hat given that the inner and outer circumstances would be different, but the circumstances do not change if you were to rewind time.

A quick test to show Determinism: I and writing this because I read your reply, you replied because you read my initial thread, you read my thread because you saw the title, you saw the title because... and Hard Determinism would have it so you could trace back all events as be causally related to one another until you came back to first cause.

Of course, if time were rewinded back to the first cause, I would doubt the world we see today would be identical to the world we see in that new universe. The reason being that some interpretations of Quantum Mechanics are non-deterministic, and there are some events like radioactive decay which clearly occur with no immediate cause.

As for a Deterministic world-view, I would say Newtonian Physics has led to the widest acceptance of Determinism. A ball thrown in a vacuum will behave exactly the same as another ball thrown in a vacuum given the initial inner and outer conditions are identical. A pair of dice will always fall in the same arrangement showing the same value given the the initial conditions when throwing the dice are identical, this phenomena is predicted by the Laws of Physics, it has also been verified.

As for the mind, I think I'll argue opposite of what I believe (and if you want, I could argue Hard Materialist for fun as well ), and try to argue that humans have no free-will.

The human mind is misleading, most people assume that the "mind" is something which exists concretely and seperately from matter. That is only half true, the mind exists seperately from matter, but in the same was "evil" exists seperately from matter: The human mind is an abstract concept which merely refers to self-awareness.

What we call the "mind" is actually rapid fluctuations of voltage between parts of the Cerebral Cortex passing through the Corpus Callosum. (Ok, it looks like I am arguing Materialism ) Most people do not like the idea of reducing down the human mind to a set Materialistic functions, but then why would they be so willing to settle for reducing down digestion and the circulatory system to a set of Materialistic functions as well?

Like population growth, like horseraces, like water dripping from a faucet, the human mind is a (Non-linear) chaotic system. The whole of the human body is a manificant amazingly complex Chaotic system.

As a good rule of thumb, Chaotic Systems are so incredibly sensitive to their initial conditions, that they are inherently unpredictable in the long run. However, if two systems begin, where one condition is slightly different from another condition of the other system, this will be magnified over time, the two systems will end up almost unrecognizable from one another. And like all natural Chaotic Systems, they are subject to feedback, time delay, etc. Essentially, this demonstrates that a system can be fully deterministic, yet unpredictable.

Wow! As I was writing this, I was googling for fun and I came across this PDF titled "Human Beings as Chaotic Systems". Its not very long, and a fascinating read.

You raise a valid point here. Although I don't think your conclusion inevitably disproves God. All it says is that God cannot have this kind of omniscience. It does not rule out a being who knows all there is to know.

That was my point, I was not trying to disprove the existence of God. I am a very spiritual person.

There is yet a third option. You could be lumping material well-being together with spiritual well-being in a thoroughly unjustified way. One of Jesus' main points was that physical wealth is useless for spiritual growth, and in fact can present a serious stumbling block. Now, if physical well-being is detrimental to spiritual well-being, then we have two options:

1) Physical loss and suffering is beneficial to spiritual well-being.

2) Physical loss and suffering is irrelevant to spiritual well-being.

Some great thinkers would argue that Physical suffering is equivelant to or causes Spiritual suffering (a less spiritual person would consider Physical suffering causes Psychological suffering). This could easily be propagated to include ridding yourself of your material possession, so that they will not later come to hurt you (or just as easily material attachment inhibits spiritual growth).

You say "physical wealth is useless for spiritual growth", I would agree, money is probably less likely to make you a spiritual person.

The story of Julia Sweeney is a characterization of the relationship between physical and spiritual suffering. Here is a story about Sweeney's fight with Cervical Cancer. Julia as written a book called "And God said 'Ha'", the book details how Julia was once a devout Catholic, she even considered becoming a nun. Then her brother developed cancer. Julia explains "my brother was really ill and they didn't know why. They kept doing test after test and finally figured out that he had non-Hodgkins lymphoma". While she was helping her brother battle cancer, her gynecologist revealed that Julia herself had developed cervical cancer. Julia's brother died, but Julia eventually recovered. She lost her faith in God, which has somehow given her inspiration to pursue and see life through new eyes.

(I think there has been some divigergence in the point I was trying to make )

Jesus also said that spiritual well-being was vastly more important than physical well-being. Ergo, the greater good is not necessarily violated by suffering, and an omnibenevolent God is still a possibility, if you accept Jesus' teachings as true.

Spiritual well-being is very well affected by physical well-being for most people (its very difficult to find a person who would be spiritually indifferent to torn and mangled physical body). Greater good is not violated only when spiritual well-being and physical well-being exist entirely independent of one another, which they clearly do not. If what Jesus says is true, then God deliberately allows suffering, this is not a characteristic of an omnibenevolent God. And if there is higher purpose in mind, God deliberately harms people, Omnibenevolence is again defeated. That is why omnibenevolence is such an usual paradox.

 

[Jeremiah the Bullfrog]

Ok, here is the way that I see it. If there is a person that is able to exist outside the constraints of time, then that person can see the choices that you make when you make them. Therefore, that person can take part in any event that said person chooses to and all events that take place within time are visible to said person.

Anyhow, assume that the person in the above paragraph is God. If God exists outside of time, then humans can still have free will and God still can be omnicient. He also can choose to take part in any event that takes place within time and can see all that transpires within time.