Omniscience-Omnipotence Paradox

February 22, 2014 by  
Filed under Dialogues



Patrick Speckamp
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the omniscience vs omnipotence paradox: If God is omniscient, then he knows what he will do, and must inevitably do what he already knows he will do. If he must do what he already knows he will do, how does this make him omnipotent? (with omnipotence implying free choice of actions without limitations)
Like · February 22, 2013 at 5:56pm · 
  • New Apologetics The answer is that God is a single atemporal act. There is no “will do” in God. 

    Going further: There have been arguments made that an atemporal (and hence immutable) being cannot have a two -way relationship with temporal creatures. So, for example, it is said that petitionary prayer is worthless if God is changeless. After all, in praying, we are either going to change God’s mind or not. If we do, then he is not changeless, and if we don’t then there is no point in praying. This conclusion is provably false, though. 

    Consider that it is logically possible that God is unchanging yet God timelessly wills the truth of conditional propositions describing all contingent states of affairs. For example, from all eternity, God could will the following:

    “If Patrick Speckamp prays, then whatever he asks will be done for him, but if Patrick Speckamp does not pray, then he will not receive the desire of his heart (because he has not asked).”

    God could will the above changelessly from all eternity, and yet the outcome depends entirely on what you decide.

    Note also that this way of describing the mind of God is not intended to be accurate, but is simply intended to show the logical possibility of a timeless mind interacting with temporal creation.
    February 22, 2013 at 10:59pm · Like · 2
  • Patrick Speckamp You wrote: “The answer is that God is a single atemporal act. There is no “will do” in God.”

    I grant you the atemporal aspect of God. There is, however, a “will do” for humans.

    You wrote: “Consider that it is logically possible that God is unchanging yet God timelessly wills the truth of conditional propositions describing all contingent states of affairs.”

    It does not seem logical that a potentially infinite number of possible states of affair entails an actuality for all of them. In the absence of evidence to the contrary we must assume that any given situation manifests in only one actuality (at least until we can say more about the potential existence of multiverses). Assuming that God must know which one of these contingent possibilities is (will be) actual, the paradox therefore does not appear to be solved by ascribing an atemporal dimension to God.

    Also, the example of a conditional answering of prayers does not seem to help by encapsulating all of my possible prayers or the outcome thereof. Given God’s omniscience, he would still oversee what prayers are said by me during my whole life and the respective effect they take. Hence, the outcome must be clear from time immemorial even if we grant God’s existence to take place in a space-time singularity.

    Far from wanting to argue in the Calvinist vein, the logical conclusion of this paradox seems to deeply shatter the concept of free will.
    March 5, 2013 at 5:37pm · Like · 1
  • New Apologetics Patrick Speckamp 
    You wrote:
    I grant you the atemporal aspect of God. There is, however, a “will do” for humans.

    We reply:
    We don’t disagree.

    You wrote:
    Quoting us: “Consider that it is logically possible that God is unchanging yet God timelessly wills the truth of conditional propositions describing all contingent states of affairs.”

    It does not seem logical that a potentially infinite number of possible states of affair entails an actuality for all of them. 

    We reply:
    We agree that there is no such entailment.

    You wrote:
    In the absence of evidence to the contrary we must assume that any given situation manifests in only one actuality (at least until we can say more about the potential existence of multiverses). 

    We reply:
    We agree, and we deny the existence of multiverses as a consequence of there being a sound ontological argument. The derivation of that conclusion is an easy one if you are interested.

    You wrote:
    Assuming that God must know which one of these contingent possibilities is (will be) actual, the paradox therefore does not appear to be solved by ascribing an atemporal dimension to God.

    We reply:
    We are unclear on why you still think there is a paradox. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding somewhere.

    You wrote:
    Also, the example of a conditional answering of prayers does not seem to help by encapsulating all of my possible prayers or the outcome thereof. 

    We reply:
    By our lights, the “atemporal conditional will” model does account for this. 

    You wrote:
    Given God’s omniscience, he would still oversee what prayers are said by me during my whole life and the respective effect they take. Hence, the outcome must be clear from time immemorial even if we grant God’s existence to take place in a space-time singularity.

    We reply:
    To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. Indeed, he does know what you will do and what the effect will be. However, the locus of control for what you will decide is *you*. [Note: God’s omnipotence is the ability to cause any logically possible situation to obtain. This does not entail any conclusion pertaining to the *control* of all actions such as to determine what you will do.] 

    You wrote:
    Far from wanting to argue in the Calvinist vein, the logical conclusion of this paradox seems to deeply shatter the concept of free will.

    We reply:
    There seems to be no such implication. 

    If God is omniscient, he knows all that he/you will do and the effects of his/your actions.

    If God is omnipotent, he can cause any logically possible situation to obtain.

    If God is unchanging, he can participate in two-way interactions with creatures via atemporal conditional will.

    You stated the paradox originally as follows:

    “If God is omniscient, then he knows what he will do, and must inevitably do what he already knows he will do. If he must do what he already knows he will do, how does this make him omnipotent? (with omnipotence implying free choice of actions without limitations)”

    The answer is that all of time is eternally present to God. God eternally knows his free action, your free actions, and all of the effects of these free actions. Neither his omnipotence nor anyone’s freedom is compromised by God having such knowledge.
    March 11, 2013 at 12:29pm · Like
  • Patrick Speckamp New Apologetics 
    Maybe I’m being a bit obtuse here but let’s take it step by step:

    Possibility does not necessarily result in actuality (you agreed on that).

    Actuality is a state of affairs that takes place, vs. a potentially infinite number of states of affairs not taking place (You also agreed on that).

    It is therefore necessarily true that at any given point only one actuality manifests itself, and not another possibility out of the other infinite number of possibilities (follows from the above premises).

    God knows about the infinite number of potential states of affairs in an atemporal, nonspatial singularity in which he exists (Your proposition, which I granted you for the sake of argument).

    Within this singularity, God knows which one of these potentialities will result in an actuality.

    Leaving out the dimensions of space and time does not logically invalidate the possibility of any given actuality.

    God’s changeless and conditional will for an infinite set of potentialities to manifest in one actuality does not invalidate the premise of there only being one logically possible actuality.

    God is necessarily bound by the actuality that happens by virtue of it happening and since no other actuality can manifest itself at the same time.

    Omnipotence (meaning, power to make any potentiality happen at a given point) and Omniscience (Meaning, knowledge of the actuality that happens at a given point) are mutually exclusive.

    The godly properties of Omniscience and Omnipotence constitute a paradox.

    Where is my mistake?
    March 15, 2013 at 8:41pm · Like
  • New Apologetics Patrick Speckamp
    You wrote: Maybe I’m being a bit obtuse here but let’s take it step by step:

    Possibility does not necessarily result in actuality (you agreed on that).

    We reply: We do agree (unless we are talking about a possibly necessary being).

    You wrote:
    Actuality is a state of affairs that takes place, vs. a potentially infinite number of states of affairs not taking place (You also agreed on that).

    We reply: Yes.

    You wrote:
    It is therefore necessarily true that at any given point only one actuality manifests itself, and not another possibility out of the other infinite number of possibilities (follows from the above premises).

    We reply: Yes.

    You wrote:
    God knows about the infinite number of potential states of affairs in an atemporal, nonspatial singularity in which he exists (Your proposition, which I granted you for the sake of argument).

    We reply:
    We didn’t say “singularity”, but we grant the essence of what you wrote above.

    You wrote:
    Within this singularity, God knows which one of these potentialities will result in an actuality.

    We reply:
    Yes.

    You wrote:
    Leaving out the dimensions of space and time does not logically invalidate the possibility of any given actuality.

    We reply:
    Correct.

    You wrote:
    God’s changeless and conditional will for an infinite set of potentialities to manifest in one actuality does not invalidate the premise of there only being one logically possible actuality.

    We reply:
    True.

    You wrote:
    God is necessarily bound by the actuality that happens by virtue of it happening and since no other actuality can manifest itself at the same time.

    We reply:
    True.

    You wrote:
    Omnipotence (meaning, power to make any potentiality happen at a given point) and Omniscience (Meaning, knowledge of the actuality that happens at a given point) are mutually exclusive.

    We reply:
    We don’t accept that definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence (as we defined early in the exchange) is the power to cause any logically possible situation to obtain.

    Because God has given the power to act freely to his creatures, it can be said that free-willed individuals (through the gift of God) have a power that God does not. This is not a limit of God’s omnipotence metaphysically, but is a function of his generosity (viz., how God chooses to use his omnipotence). 

    It is not logically possible to both give away power and keep the same power for oneself. God has chosen the latter, and therefore the state of the universe is very much dependent on what we choose. He knows in advance what we will choose, and that does not create a paradox.

    You wrote:
    The godly properties of Omniscience and Omnipotence constitute a paradox.

    We reply:
    Only if there is a presumption that God cannot choose to give away authentic power to free-willed creatures. There is no reason to make such a presumption, and if there were, then that would (in itself) militate against the coherence of the concept of omnipotence without needing to bring omniscience into the picture.
    March 18, 2013 at 7:03pm · Like
  • Patrick Speckamp Maybe it somehow bypassed my attention but I can’t see how you provided a definition of omnipotence early in the discussion that would contradict my definition. Could you perhaps clarify what your take on omnipotence is?

    The power to cause any logically possible situation to obtain? Does this not mean “the power to let anything possible happen”? Well, yes. That’s not a power of God though, that’s how things work in this universe. Something possible can happen and the tragedy that an infinity of possibilities (among which may be the much better possibilities) does not happen instead, is a property of this universe.

    Then you say “[b]ecause God has given the power to act freely to his creatures, it can be said that free-willed individuals (through the gift of God) have a power that God does not.”

    I can’t follow. I agree that we can act freely (neuroscience could tell a more differentiated story here but that’s beside the point). God has given part of his almightiness out of his hands? So, he is not almighty in every aspect? That would not make him almighty to me. He has given us a power that he has not? Really? That would not be an omnipotent God.

    Saying this is a function of generosity, does not restore omnipotence in my understanding. Surely, if God is omnipotent and has provided humans with free will out of generosity, then he would still have the power to change absolutely any human will.

    I absolutely agree on your statement that giving away power yet still keeping the same power is logically impossible.

    You write that God “chose” to give away the power of free will. To me this would seem like God deliberately chose to diminish his omnipotence in favour of his creation to decide for themselves. 

    I do not agree with the sweeping statement that the “state of the universe” is dependent on our decisions, it is provably not. Our tiny earth may be affected by some decisions we make but the universe as a whole could not care less.

    God does know our decisions and nothing happens that would not have been a part of his plan from time immemorial. Is that correct?

    If so, our decisions would have been known from eternity. Our fate would have been known from eternity. The fact whether I’ll personally go to hell or not is not obscure to God, he already knows it, correct? And he has known it forever, is that correct?

    If so, of what use is my free will? Either my fate has been known or it has not. And if it is not known then I have the option to change and shape it. If it is known, then free will would be an illusion.

    You say that God can give away free will to his creatures. What I would grant you is that God can give away the*illusion* of free will, according to the characteristics that you ascribe to God. If everything is known from eternity, then there is no option to it. God can’t change what he already knows to be true. Time and space don’t even seem to have an effect on this, it’s just pure eternal knowledge. 

    Let me conclude with a question, to which I’d ask you to answer succinctly: 

    Does God know whether I’m going to heaven or hell?

    Lastly, from your answers and from what I understood and replied, Omnipotence and Omniscience are not friends, still. Maybe some other commentators on this site could provide some different input? Omniscience and Omnipotence understood as a godly property taking place at the same time is still a blatant paradox to me.
    March 18, 2013 at 8:50pm · Like
  • New Apologetics Patrick Speckamp

    You wrote: Maybe it somehow bypassed my attention but I can’t see how you provided a definition of omnipotence early in the discussion that would contradict my definition. Could you perhaps clarify what your take on omnipotence is?

    We reply: The definition was in our second comment. We wrote: “[Note: God’s omnipotence is the ability to cause any logically possible situation to obtain. This does not entail any conclusion pertaining to the *control* of all actions such as to determine what you will do.]”

    You wrote:
    The power to cause any logically possible situation to obtain? Does this not mean “the power to let anything possible happen”? 

    We reply:
    We’re not quite sure what you mean by the above paraphrase, but we’ll try to clarify.

    God, being omnipotent, can cause any situation to obtain that is not logically impossible. For example, God could cause any of the following situations to obtain:

    S1: Patrick Speckamp becomes the most intelligent man alive.
    S2: Patrick Speckamp becomes able to fly.
    S3: All continents become reunited into “New Pangea” before 2014.
    S4: God gives Patrick Speckamp the means to reunite all continents into “New Pangea” before 2014.

    However, God cannot cause the following situations to obtain because the act involves a contradiction.

    S5: Patrick Speckamp freely goes to Mass every Sunday. [It is logically impossible for God to cause you to *freely* do something]
    S6: An evil act is committed by God. [It is logically impossible for God (being omnibenevolent) to do something evil.
    S7: God both does something and does not do it.
    S8: God both wills something and does not will it.
    S9: God both truly gives away a power to a created person and truly does the thing supposedly delegated directly.

    You wrote:
    Well, yes. That’s not a power of God though, that’s how things work in this universe. Something possible can happen and the tragedy that an infinity of possibilities (among which may be the much better possibilities) does not happen instead, is a property of this universe.

    We reply:
    It seems that this is where there has been a misunderstanding in our discussion. Our comments all depended upon the definition of omnipotence given above. When that definition is heeded, then there is no paradox.

    You wrote:
    Then you say “[b]ecause God has given the power to act freely to his creatures, it can be said that free-willed individuals (through the gift of God) have a power that God does not.”

    I can’t follow. I agree that we can act freely (neuroscience could tell a more differentiated story here but that’s beside the point). God has given part of his almightiness out of his hands? So, he is not almighty in every aspect? That would not make him almighty to me. He has given us a power that he has not? Really? 

    We reply:
    Metaphysically speaking, God retains the ability to cause any logically possible situation to obtain. However, as a function of omnibenevolence, God has chosen to bestow real power on created persons. In other words, we have power to act, and it is not God doing it. Certain finite powers have been delegated to creatures, and entails nothing contrary to God’s nature as metaphysically omnipotent. Rather, the decision to delegate power to created persons only pertains to what God chooses to *do* with his omnipotence. 

    You wrote:
    That would not be an omnipotent God.
    Saying this is a function of generosity, does not restore omnipotence in my understanding. 

    We reply:
    Consider the following two propositions:

    P1: God, in his nature, has the power to cause any logically possible situation to obtain, and chooses to control all events directly.

    P2: God, in his nature, has the power to cause any logically possible situation to obtain, and chooses to voluntarily limit the use of his power in order to give created persons real causal significance.

    On both P1 and P2, the divine nature has the property of omnipotence, but the way this same omnipotence is used is very different. There is nothing incoherent about P2, and it surely does not violate the definition of omnipotence that we’ve proposed. Your paradox only is a paradox on the condition that P2 is nonsensical.

    Continued…
    March 25, 2013 at 10:09pm · Like
  • New Apologetics Patrick Speckamp
    You wrote:
    Surely, if God is omnipotent and has provided humans with free will out of generosity, then he would still have the power to change absolutely any human will.

    We reply:
    It is logically impossible for God to force someone to freely do something. Of course, we grant that God could (when we look at the question strictly in terms of power, and disregard divine goodness) revoke free will and force any person to act in one way or another. 

    You wrote:
    I absolutely agree on your statement that giving away power yet still keeping the same power is logically impossible.

    We reply:
    Very well. This is enough to solve the paradox. See the point concerning P2 above.

    You wrote:
    You write that God “chose” to give away the power of free will. To me this would seem like God deliberately chose to diminish his omnipotence in favour of his creation to decide for themselves. 

    We reply:
    We assert that he did do this. If God has done so, it does not metaphysically alter the fact that the divine nature is omnipotent. Rather, the choice to give away power concerns only what God freely does with omnipotence. These are obviously two very distinct ideas.

    You wrote:
    I do not agree with the sweeping statement that the “state of the universe” is dependent on our decisions, it is provably not. Our tiny earth may be affected by some decisions we make but the universe as a whole could not care less.

    We reply:
    We would argue (from a scientific perspective alone) that there is not one thing in the universe that is not affected in some way by your decisions. The butterfly effect and universal gravitation are enough to establish this. Quantum entanglements add a whole other level to it…

    You wrote:
    God does know our decisions and nothing happens that would not have been a part of his plan from time immemorial. Is that correct?

    We reply:
    Trick question… We would say that there are great many things contrary to the intentions of God because real causal power was delegated to created persons, and (to a very large extent) that power was misused. We would also say that from all eternity, those events contrary to God’s intentions were “redeemed”. That is, they were integrated into a higher plan such that they do not contravene the divine order, even though when considered absolutely, in and of themselves, they are evil actions. This is a whole other conversation, though.

    You wrote:
    If so, our decisions would have been known from eternity. Our fate would have been known from eternity.

    We reply:
    We agree that our decisions are known from eternity.

    You wrote:
    The fact whether I’ll personally go to hell or not is not obscure to God, he already knows it, correct? And he has known it forever, is that correct?

    We reply:
    Yes.

    You wrote:
    If so, of what use is my free will? 

    We reply:
    It is because the knowledge in question is not “foreknowledge” in the temporal sense, but is a function of all moments in time being immediately present to God. He knows what you will decide only *because* you freely decide it. 

    You wrote:
    Either my fate has been known or it has not. And if it is not known then I have the option to change and shape it. If it is known, then free will would be an illusion.

    We reply:
    You have the freedom to determine it, and what you will do has been seen already.

    You wrote:
    You say that God can give away free will to his creatures. What I would grant you is that God can give away the*illusion* of free will, according to the characteristics that you ascribe to God. If everything is known from eternity, then there is no option to it. God can’t change what he already knows to be true. Time and space don’t even seem to have an effect on this, it’s just pure eternal knowledge. 

    We reply:
    It would be pure eternal knowledge which is determined by the actions of free creatures.

    You wrote:
    Let me conclude with a question, to which I’d ask you to answer succinctly: 

    Does God know whether I’m going to heaven or hell?

    We reply:
    Yes, but it’s up to you where you go.

    You wrote:
    Lastly, from your answers and from what I understood and replied, Omnipotence and Omniscience are not friends, still. 

    We reply:
    It seems that your position reduces to presupposing an A-theory of time such as to render God’s knowledge of free future actions impossible. Viz., if God knows them, then they must not be free. This, however, is not the case on a B-theory of time in which past, present, and future are equally real. 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time

    Ultimately, your paradox is not between omnipotence and omniscience, but between omniscience and free will on the presumption of an A-theory of time.
    March 25, 2013 at 10:09pm · Like