philechat

Here I wish to present another flaw about the omniscience of God. It has to do with all the created works, sacred or profane, sublime or vulgar, which exist on this earth and influence over the minds of civilization.

God is supposed in Judeo-Christian theology to be the creator of all things, omnipotent, and omniscient, and so at the time of His creation such a God must have forseen all the created artworks of his creatures, i.e. the human creators' thoughts and works are actually the thoughts and works of God rather than of the artists (or inventors) themselves.

But such a view must necessarily lead to absurdity, for the arts existed in this world are of an uneven quality and piety. In God's omniscience all the ideas (including the atheist ones and the downright silly ones) must have been a product of His mind. Therefore, if such a God exists His mind must be the originator of both the Bible and "Why I am not a Christian", of Bach and Britney Spears. The blasphemy of this idea ranges far and wide.

And the concept of human creativity, if presupposed as a direct result of God's mind, becomes pointless by default. So is the distinction between sacred and profane books.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

LinuxPup

Although God would know the created artworks of his creatures before they happened in our timeline, it does not follow that he himself is thus *directly* responsible for their existence. God is the creator of all matter and energy, but we have freedom (within physical laws) to manipulate matter and energy.

What you are describing is known as "hard determinism", which is the doctrine that there are no intermediate causes, and that all effects (such as our thoughts and actions) are the direct cause of God. So if I were to paint a picture, it was not I who ultimately painted the picture, but God.

While some worldviews may adhere to this, the Bible seems to indicate what is known as "soft determinism", which is that God created beings (you and I) with the capacity to choose for ourselves. For example, although God created matter and energy, I have the capacity to create a sand castle, and it is I creating it, not God.

So it was not God's mind who was behind Bertrand Russel when he wrote "Why I Am Not a Christian", but rather Russel himself.

philechat

I am wondering if "soft determinism" is possible with an omniscient being? For example, when God created Russell, didn't He already have full knowledge of the complete text of "Why I am not a Christian"?

Unless we suspend God's foreknowledge of the book's existence, and His knowledge of Russell's future choice to write the book, "Why I am not a Christian" would have already existed in God's mind before Russell even wrote the book.

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

Mageth

As well as the Koran, Mein Kampf, and the Jan. 2003 edition of Penthouse.

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

seebs

I don't buy the "everything created was a product of God's mind" thing. Omniscience means He *knew*, but that doesn't mean He *chose* any given thing. Disclaimer: I don't believe that omnipotence means "any sequence of words which looks like a verb clause is available as an action". So, for instance, I'm not convinced that "make a universe just like this one except that velvet Elvises never happen" means anything, or is "possible".

So... I certainly think it's logically consistent for the options to be "make a universe with free-willed things" or "don't".

ex-xian

Maybe we need a different definition of omniscience. Omnipotence is usually understood to mean the ability to do all that is logically possible. That's the reason that questions like "Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?" are meaningless.

By the same token, omniscience should be defined as knowledge all of reality in order to avoid logical contradictions. Until future events happen, the don't exist in reality, so an omniscient being wouldn't have knowledge of them.