In his debate with Phil Fernandes (and elsewhere) Dr. Michael Martin argues that the God of classical theism cannot be truly omniscient. He claims that for one to be omniscient, one must have propositional knowledge (knowledge of true propositions like "Atheism is false"), procedural knowledge (e.g., knowing how to ride a bike), and knowledge by acquaintance (knowledge through experience, like knowing what it's like to be poor).

While God could have propositional knowledge, Dr. Martin claims that in most cases He could not have the other two types. For example, God has no body, and thus He would not know how to swim and He could not know what it feels like to swim (since He's never swam).

I'm curious. It seems true that these latter types of knowledge, if we have them, are held in our minds. If I can swim, I have the knowledge of how to swim, even if I am not now swimming. Often, even if a person becomes paralyzed we say that they know how to swim; they just don't have the ability to do it anymore. Thus, we actually retain that knowledge in our intellects. Moreover, if I used to be poor but am now rich, then we would still say that I have knowledge by acquaintance of poverty, since I've experienced it. Again, the knowledge is retained even if we're no longer in that situation.

My question is this: If humans can hold these sorts of knowledge in their minds, couldn't God hold it in His mind, as well? After all, He is a mind or soul. It's true that God would not obtain such knowledge like we do, since He has never ridden a bike, etc. But it doesn't appear He'd have to acquire it. As an omniscient person, He could have this knowledge essentially (just as He has mathematical knowledge essentially and need not acquire it even though we learn it through study). Am I wrong?

--Tom Wanchick

-DM-

[Thank you for your feedback regarding The Fernandes-Martin Debate. E-mail notification has been sent to Michael Martin. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post. -DM-]

Mr. Wanchick misunderstands my argument from knowledge by acquaintance rather badly. My point is that God could not have some knowledge by acquaintance (for example, lust, greed, envy) and be morally perfect. In a similar way, God cannot have knowledge by acquaintance of frustration and be all-powerful.

With respect to the knowledge how to ride a bike or swim, I disagree that this is just in one's mind. If it were just in one's mind, one could learn how to swim or ride a bike by reading a book or attending lectures. Moreover, some people know how to ride or swim and yet cannot explain it while others do not know how to ride a bike in the ability sense and yet might be able to write a book on "How to ride a bike"--that is, they only have propositional knowledge of bike riding.

The case of the paralyzed person is interesting. It does not show the knowledge how is in the mind. For consider what it would mean to say that Jones, who is paralyzed, knows how to ride a bike. It would mean that IF Jones were no longer paralyzed, THEN he would be able to ride a bike. His knowledge is a physical skill closely connected with his body, physical practice and training.


Michael Martin

I greatly appreciate Dr. Martin's willingness to answer my questions on this subject.

On knowledge by acquaintance, I was assuming Dr. Martin's argument could be extended to all sorts of feelings, not just those of lust, envy, etc. I thought there was this general line of thought: God can't know what He has not experienced. Perhaps I was wrong, since Dr. Martin restricts his argument to God's moral nature.

But this evokes another query: Would God have knowledge by acquaintance of all things that do not conflict with His goodness? E.g., would God know what it is like to be poor? Presumably, God has never been poor. But if God can know poverty without ever being poor, couldn't He know envy without ever being envious?

On procedural knowledge, the case of paralysis strikes me. If Jones knows how to ride a bike even when he's paralyzed (as Dr. Martin seems to grant), then why can't God know how to ride a bike despite being now unembodied? Jones has the procedural knowledge without the physical ability. Couldn't God have this, too? Couldn't we say: IF God became incarnate, THEN He would be able to ride a bike. Then God would be in the same situation as Jones. And we all agree that a paralyzed Jones has procedural knowledge of bike riding.

I need to make a small correction on my previous question. I stated Dr. Martin restricts his knowledge by aqcuaintance argument to God's moral nature.

That's a misstatement on my part. The argument pertains to God's nature in general, not just His goodness (e.g., God is omnipotent and thus can't know frustration).

My question on God knowing poverty is not affected by this, though. Sorry for the confusion.

--Tom Wanchick

The point of my argument is to show that God could not be all-knowing. I think that I show that by showing that certain knowledge by acquaintance is incompatible with God's moral perfection. God could not be ALL-knowing and be morally perfect since being morally perfect is incompatible with having knowledge by acquaintance of feeling hate, envy and so on. It is irrelevant to this argument whether God can have other knowledge by acquaintance, for example, knowledge by acquaintance of being poor. Perhaps God can feel what it is like to be poor. But this may not conflict with any of his other properties. On the other hand, it may. For what it is worth, an argument from poverty MAY be possible. Being poor means to lack certain material worth necessary for happiness, comfort, and so forth. But since material worth is necessarily irrelevant to God there may indeed be a problem about God having knowledge by acquaintance of being poor. He could not and still be God (someone might argue).

I think the question of whether a paralyzed man can ride a bike is much more complicated than Wanchick says or I might have suggested in my first reply. Certainly a necessary condition is that the man will be able to ride if he were not paralyzed. But I doubt this is sufficient. Suppose the man was permanently paralyzed. Perhaps in this case the accurate thing to say is that he did know how to ride a bike but no longer does. Or perhaps in this case there is no clear answer. In any case, there seems to me a huge difference between being a temporarily paralyzed man knowing how to ride a bike and God knowing how before becoming incarnate. Before becoming incarnate God did not have this knowledge: He had no body, no practice, had never been on a bike. He would obtain this knowledge only after his incarnation. So he would not be all-knowing prior to incarnation. On the other hand, the temporarily paralyzed man has had the training, has ridden a bike, has a body and will ride again.


Michael Martin

Allow me to clarify my point here. Let's assume knowing poverty is not inconistent with the divine nature. My question is: If God exists right now does He know poverty? If Dr. Martin says yes, then he grants that God can have knowledge by acquaintance of a thing (poverty) without every experiencing that thing (since God's never been poor). But then Dr. Martin's argument against knowledge by acquaintance is refuted. We would conclude that God can have such knowledge without experiencing the thing known. Thus, God could know lust without ever lusting. God would not have to act against His nature to have any such knowledge.

But Dr. Martin need not grant this in order for my rebuttal to work. For I simply note that knowledge by acquaintance is held in the mind (as shown by Dr. Martin's admission that God can have some of this knowledge). As such, theists can say God holds this knowledge in His mind essentially as a necessarily omniscient person. He need not ACQUIRE it and thus wouldn't have to do anything against His nature to have such knowledge.

On procedural knowledge, there are clear cases showing that physical capability is not a necessary condition for holding this knowledge. Joe is a gold medalist swimmer. He separates both shoulders in an accident and is physically unable to swim for a month. It would be crazy to say Joe literally doesn't know how to swim for a month. Rather, everyone would agree that Joe knows how to swim, he's just not in the condition to do so. But if Joe can hold "knowledge how" w/o physical ability, then so can God. That God has never swum before is no problem. Again, God is essentially omniscient and thus He can be said to hold such knowledge essentially w/o acquiring it. Given incarnation, he will simply be able to swim since He knew how to prior to His physical ability to do so (i.e. embodiment), just as Joe knew how to swim prior to his physical ability to do so (i.e., his shoulders' healing).

(Note that to claim such knowledge can be held by an unembodied mind does not commit one to saying such knowledge is propositional. The mind can hold non-propositional knowledge. Knowledge by acquaintance is one example.)

-DM-

[Copied here from feedback to facilitate further discussion. Michael Martin declines to respond further saying that he simply does not have time to be involved in an ongoing discussion such as this. -Don-]

John Page

While I haven't read all the material here, I don't see why any experience couldn't be undergone through simulation (in order to attain the knowledge of what it would be like if A,B,C etc.).

Arguably Neitzsche went through the experience of believing he was omniscient (having cracked the god thing) but that turned out to be a simulation also....

Cheers, John

GrandDesigner

My question is this: If humans can hold these sorts of knowledge in their minds, couldn't God hold it in His mind, as well?

This kind of thing really is personal. There are people who can aquire knowledge just by reading. And there are those who need to do it once or twice and they're amazing at it. Then there are those who cant learn much at all.

But, also, those who learn by reading sometimes do find a zest for actually physically doing the action. And in doing that, enough times, they realize that no matter how well detailed the written description was, there are little details that can only be known by physically doing it. And just because some dont learn to do things as fast doesn't mean they dont learn things at all.

God is all extremes and none. Therefore it's highly probable that no matter the amount of detail He holds in His self, He may just decide to live in His own Universe...for fun. I imagine He's capable of doing that, at least...pretty sure, anyways.

Grand Ol Designer