Crazy Question about Omnipotence

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
Why doesnt omniscience extend to knowing the outcome of random events?

[/ QUOTE ]

The very definition of a random event (with more than 1 possible outcomes) does not allow knowing before hand the result of any independent trial. Time is not a factor. If there is such a thing as an unbiased coin and it is tossed and the results are truly random one cannot, not even one that is omniscient, predict the outcome with any more than %50 accuracy. Omniscient does not meant having power to do anything just to know things.

For example Steven Hawkings may be the most knowledgeable scientist in the world when it come to Black Holes but he cannot lift his own spoon to feed himself (unfortunate and sad). Knowledge alone is not power just a good portion of it. Omnipotence and omnicience are not synonyms.

pokervintage

[mickeyg13]

[ QUOTE ]
For what it's worth, I also dont think he defined good, loving, moral etcetera. I think those are "there" too. I dont see how we can ascribe properties to god if those properties are solely defined by him in the first place.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe theologians studied this centuries ago. They basically asked, "Does God like something because it is good, or is it good because God likes it?" I believe they concluded that it must be the case that things are good because God likes them, and not the other way around, for otherwise God (whose nature is good) would be limited in what he might like, which wouldn't be possible for an omnipotent God (which they supposed he was).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why doesnt omniscience extend to knowing the outcome of random events?

[/ QUOTE ]

The very definition of a random event (with more than 1 possible outcomes) does not allow knowing before hand the result of any independent trial. Time is not a factor. If there is such a thing as an unbiased coin and it is tossed and the results are truly random one cannot, not even one that is omniscient, predict the outcome with any more than %50 accuracy. Omniscient does not meant having power to do anything just to know things.

For example Steven Hawkings may be the most knowledgeable scientist in the world when it come to Black Holes but he cannot lift his own spoon to feed himself (unfortunate and sad). Knowledge alone is not power just a good portion of it. Omnipotence and omnicience are not synonyms.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

So you have an unbiased coin. You flip it. It comes up tails. You write it down. I cannot read that piece of paper? Do you get what I'm saying here? God isnt bound by time. So everything has already played out, including all of the random events. He knows what all the outcomes were, and he could "go back in time" and change them. Or whatever he wants. You are sort of imposing a lack of imagination or an anthropmorphized quality to this God here.

Also, I think mickey's point about randomness is legit as well.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think god is bound by logic. Although I dare say a large part of this is because I just couldnt understand anything if he wasnt. So I dont think he wrote the rules of logic - they're just "there". (For what it's worth, I also dont think he defined good, loving, moral etcetera. I think those are "there" too. I dont see how we can ascribe properties to god if those properties are solely defined by him in the first place.)

I think God is able to do everything it is logically possible to do and able to know everything it is logically possible to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the question wasnt EXACTLY "do you believe that, of all the possible Gods that could exist, the one and only one that does is the type of God who is bound by logic?" But thats still a question worth responding to.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was expanding perhaps - I intended it to include all possible gods though if that wasnt clear.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For what it's worth, I also dont think he defined good, loving, moral etcetera. I think those are "there" too. I dont see how we can ascribe properties to god if those properties are solely defined by him in the first place.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe theologians studied this centuries ago. They basically asked, "Does God like something because it is good, or is it good because God likes it?" I believe they concluded that it must be the case that things are good because God likes them, and not the other way around, for otherwise God (whose nature is good) would be limited in what he might like, which wouldn't be possible for an omnipotent God (which they supposed he was).

[/ QUOTE ]
If you accept their answer there, presumably you would accept that he cant be bound by logic either (or he would be limited in what he might do...etc).

I just dont think it means anything to say:

God is good.
What's good?
It's what God is.

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
No physical event in the universe is "truly" random. We can really only discuss probabilities when assuming a certain level of ignorance. Adding knowledge means that the probabilities change. Absent any amount of ignorance (as would be the case for an omniscient figure), and all events either have probability 1 or 0, even flipping a fair coin.


[/ QUOTE ]

The only part of this statement that I understand is that no event in the universe is truly random. It is only true because with our limited intelligence we cannot imagine a truly random event occurring in a physical universe. However, the Hiesenberg uncertainty priciple may actually make the statement false. I wish I understood it better. But either way an omniscient being would know for sure whether or not a physical event could be truly random. Since mickey is not omnicieint, maybe, I do not believe that he knows for sure that randomness cannot be achieved in the physical universe. Interestingly enough, even if it can't presently be achieved, an omnipotent being could make a random event happen. How? Don't ask me, I'm not omniscient.

[ QUOTE ]
So you have an unbiased coin. You flip it. It comes up tails. You write it down. I cannot read that piece of paper? Do you get what I'm saying here? God isnt bound by time. So everything has already played out, including all of the random events.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, God is not bound by time. Not because he is omniscient but because he is omnipotent. Were he just omniscient he would be bound by time. He could predict the future with probabilistic accuracy but could not travel between future, past and present without being omnipotent. So things for an omniscient but not omnipotent being would only travel forward in time.

I am not saying that God is not both omnipotent and omniscient. I am saying the two characteristics are distinct and separate (somewhat) and compliment the other.

pokervintage