On the omniscience of God

[Idolater]

You still can't understand this simple idea?

My point was that computer programs are complex and that the code can follow many different paths depending on design.... even if the input is the same, the output can be made to vary BY DESIGN.

The use of the random function, as an example, was to make simple the fact that you can call the SAME function multiple times, but get a DIFFERENT result each time, BY DESIGN.

The fact that the whole sequence of the random number generator is deterministic is irrelevant.

But @Clete 's mouse eating the Moon images weren't completely random. They both clearly expressed a mouse eating the Moon. But there were lots of differences in the details. But in the broadest sense, they both expressed a mouse eating the Moon. So are you saying that A.I. is like a tuned pseudorandom number generator, where certain variables have very fine tolerances, and others are left to vary pseudorandomly? And this is why each time you give the A.I. instantiation the same prompt, it gives you different results, but at the same time, also the same result? I mean a pseudorandom number generator is always giving you a number between 0 and 1 (meaning the mouse is always eating the Moon somehow), so in that sense, it's always giving you the same result, but technically even though the number is always between 0 and 1, it's basically never the same number as the one before (it's always a different picture of a mouse eating the Moon)? Like it's the same and different at the same time, but on different scales or something?

 

[Derf]

Pros And Cons of A.I.

Like it or not, Artificial Intelligence is here to stay. Last week's unveiling of Elon Musk's Optimus bot, a humanoid machine designed to perform virtually any task, is proof of that. But are there downsides?

babylonbee.com

 

[Right Divider]

So you also cannot understand this simple concept?

But @Clete 's mouse eating the Moon images weren't completely random.

Did someone say that they were?

They both clearly expressed a mouse eating the Moon.

Duh....

But as Clete said, the SAME input when repeatedly applied to this AI... produces DIFFERENT output (though clearly on the same theme).

But there were lots of differences in the details.

Duh

But in the broadest sense, they both expressed a mouse eating the Moon.

Duh

So are you saying that A.I. is like a tuned pseudorandom number generator, where certain variables have very fine tolerances, and others are left to vary pseudorandomly? And this is why each time you give the A.I. instantiation the same prompt, it gives you different results, but at the same time, also the same result?

My point was that AI is not "thinking" but running a program (which is what AI is) that allows it to VARY (and, yes, it's probably roughly pseudo-random) its output on each iteration.

I mean a pseudorandom number generator is always giving you a number between 0 and 1 (meaning the mouse is always eating the Moon somehow), so in that sense, it's always giving you the same result, but technically even though the number is always between 0 and 1, it's basically never the same number as the one before (it's always a different picture of a mouse eating the Moon)? Like it's the same and different at the same time, but on different scales or something?

Again, the point was that the AI is not "thinking"... just running a program. And that the program has variability build into it by its designer(s).

Computers simply do what they are told to do, nothing more.

 

[SwordOfTruth]

Again, the point was that the AI is not "thinking"... just running a program. And that the program has variability build into it by its designer(s).

Computers simply do what they are told to do, nothing more.

Isn't the same true of all animals and life forms that we deem to be "thinking"? Aren't you just another form of AI?

 

[Right Divider]

Isn't the same true of all animals and life forms that we deem to be "thinking"?

Some animals clearly do think.

Aren't you just another form of AI?

No. I have actual intelligence. Are you artificial?

 

[SwordOfTruth]

Some animals clearly do think.

Any proof of that ? How can you tell that they are not simply acting and behaving according to the way they are programmed?

No. I have actual intelligence. Are you artificial?

I believe I am a construct. I believe that the human condition is an appallingly vulnerable one. Humans are essentially empty vessels, computers, and can be programmed with almost anything. You can make a child into a loving caring person or into a brutal freedom fighter. You can make a person believe X or Y and another person Z. We process information and sensory inputs and what we do, how we act is a result of that processing.

Our ego would like us to believe we have full independence and free thinking, but the reality is we are super complex biological robots.

 

[Right Divider]

Any proof of that ? How can you tell that they are not simply acting and behaving according to the way they are programmed?

Perhaps human are just robots too.

I believe I am a construct. I believe that the human condition is an appallingly vulnerable one. Humans are essentially empty vessels, computers, and can be programmed with almost anything. You can make a child into a loving caring person or into a brutal freedom fighter. You can make a person believe X or Y and another person Z. We process information and sensory inputs and what we do, how we act is a result of that processing.

Our ego would like us to believe we have full independence and free thinking, but the reality is we are super complex biological robots.

So you're an atheist materialist?

I won't spend much more time trying to converse with a robot.

 

[SwordOfTruth]

Perhaps human are just robots too.

Certainly, just incredible bio mechanical robots rather than the clunky metal things we normally associate with the term robot.

So you're an atheist materialist?

I won't spend much more time trying to converse with a robot.

You seem fixated with trying to label people. Not sure why. Well unless you're just programmed that way

 

[Right Divider]

You seem fixated with trying to label people. Not sure why. Well unless you're just programmed that way

It's not about labels, it's about understanding where you are coming from.

 

[SwordOfTruth]

I'm coming from the position of a free thinker whose mind and opinions are not shackled by religious indoctrination. I'm coming from a position of being able to freely look at and assess/appraise anything, any theory, any claim, any belief system, any universal model.

 

[Right Divider]

I'm coming from the position of a free thinker whose mind and opinions are not shackled by religious indoctrination.

Me too! What a coincidence!!

I'm coming from a position of being able to freely look at and assess/appraise anything, any theory, any claim, any belief system, any universal model.

Me too! What a coincidence!!

 

[Clete]

So the disagreement(s) here have to do with what it means to "think".

I am so far away from being an expert on AI that's it's sort of funny for me to even be saying this much, but it seems clear that LLMs are, at the very least, emulating the function of a brain.

Is that thinking?

If not, what is it and what does it mean to think?

I decided to ask Chat GPT exactly that. Here's what it responded with....

What does it mean to think?​

​

Thinking involves the process of consciously engaging with information, ideas, or experiences in order to analyze, understand, evaluate, or imagine. It can take many forms, including reasoning, reflecting, problem-solving, and daydreaming. Here's a breakdown of different aspects of thinking:​

1. Perception: Taking in sensory information from the environment, which can serve as the foundation for thoughts.
2. Reflection: The process of looking back at past experiences or beliefs to gain insight, understanding, or make sense of them.
3. Analysis and Reasoning: Breaking down information, ideas, or problems into parts and making logical connections to form conclusions or solve problems.
4. Creativity and Imagination: The ability to think of new ideas, invent, or visualize things that don’t exist in the immediate present.
5. Metacognition: Thinking about your own thinking, which helps with self-awareness and improving how you approach problems or decisions.
6. Judgment and Decision-Making: Using information and intuition to form opinions or make choices.
7. Emotions and Intuition: While we often think of thinking as purely rational, emotions and intuitive feelings also influence how we think and make decisions.

Would you like to explore any specific type of thinking or how it relates to your own experiences?​

​

That response alone seems to be enough to settle the debate here, but I went one step further....

In what way, if any, can it be accurately said that LLMs think?​

​

While LLMs (Large Language Models) like me process information and generate responses based on input, saying that LLMs "think" in the same way humans do would be misleading. Here’s a breakdown of why that is and how LLMs function:​

​

How LLMs "Think" vs. Human Thinking:​

1. Information Processing:
   
   • LLMs: We process vast amounts of data using statistical patterns to generate responses. We don’t understand the meaning behind the words but are trained to predict what words are likely to come next in a sequence.
   • Humans: Human thinking involves understanding, context, and meaning. Humans interpret the world through subjective experience, reflection, and emotion, allowing for nuanced thought and self-awareness.
2. Memory and Learning:
   
   • LLMs: We don’t have memory of past interactions beyond the specific session (unless there's a persistent memory, like this chat). LLMs don’t learn or form long-term memories from new experiences. We respond to input based on patterns we've seen during training, without evolving or learning in real time.
   • Humans: Humans can reflect on past experiences, form memories, and learn from new information. Thought involves growth and adaptability over time, driven by personal experiences and learning.
3. Purpose and Intent:
   
   • LLMs: There’s no inherent purpose behind the responses. We’re programmed to generate relevant text based on statistical probabilities, without goals, desires, or intentions.
   • Humans: Human thinking is purposeful, driven by needs, desires, values, and personal goals. We think to solve problems, understand emotions, and interact meaningfully with others.
4. Creativity and Originality:
   
   • LLMs: LLMs can generate new combinations of words, which may appear creative, but it’s a recombination of patterns from training data. We don’t have an inner sense of originality or innovation.
   • Humans: Human creativity involves deep imagination, self-expression, and the ability to connect unrelated ideas in truly novel ways.

Can LLMs "Think" in Any Sense?​

While LLMs don’t think in the human sense, they perform complex tasks that might seem like thinking because of:​

​

• Pattern Recognition: We can recognize and respond to patterns in language.
• Simulating Conversations: We generate coherent, contextually relevant text, simulating aspects of conversation or reasoning.
• Problem Solving: LLMs can provide solutions to problems (e.g., generating code, offering suggestions) based on previous data.

This simulation of thought may appear “intelligent,” but it lacks the subjective, conscious experience that defines human thinking.​

​

Would you say that thinking, for humans, requires self-awareness? Or is it more tied to the process of information handling?​

​

​

I'd have to say that I agree with Chat GPT (and Right Divider)! Whatever LLMs are doing, it isn't "thinking".

 

[Derf]

My turn to take a second bite.

There isn't really a problem of identity with animals and plants since they are all genuinely substitutable or "fungible", like how gold is fungible, one piece of pure gold is as good as the next, as long as they're the same level of purity.

Most dog owners would disagree with you here. I'm not one (anymore) but I can kind of see their point. Dogs exhibit personality (animality?). Maybe a lookalike with the same personality could be found, like when a child loses a beloved pet, and you want to replace it. The replacement might become just as beloved as the first, but so might a child born after a first died.

There's no soul needed because there's no hard problem of identity that the soul needs to solve, with animals, plants (etc., including microbes for example),

Plants and microbes, but beloved pets? I'm not so sure.

or with computers.

This one is sticky, because our technology isn't yet at its highest point. Can personality be imbued in a machine? Maybe...

 

[Idolater]

My turn to take a second bite.

Most dog owners would disagree with you here. I'm not one (anymore) but I can kind of see their point. Dogs exhibit personality (animality?). Maybe a lookalike with the same personality could be found, like when a child loses a beloved pet, and you want to replace it. The replacement might become just as beloved as the first, but so might a child born after a first died.

Plants and microbes, but beloved pets? I'm not so sure.

Witches walk among us. They’re not like the fictional ones you grew up with | CNN

lite.cnn.com

Everything's philosophical. The philosophy that spirits or souls animate lifeforms beyond humans is part of witchcraft philosophy, but also the Chinese believe in such (the Chinese worship their ancestors as well).

My evidence to refute it is to hypothetically ask what veterinarians think, first of all, since they know these animals so much more thoroughly and objectively than pet owners do. And the second witness I'd call to the stand are ranchers and dairy farmers and shepherds; men who work with livestock. They know animals, including animals popular as pets, like dogs and cats, really well as well, and on a professional, disinterested level.

I say this because my own personal first hand experience with many kinds of pet types renders my view as valid as yours, even though our views are at odds, neither of us are good witnesses in this case of whether Fido has a soul. We'll just cancel each other out.

I just say Fido's 100% substitutable in the final analysis, and you'd disagree, and I don't think either of us could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt who's right, but if a jury could be persuaded to render a verdict, I think it would be by expert witness testimony from veterinarians and secondarily from ranchers, because these parties have the most applicable direct first hand experience with animals. And if they all say the same thing, then I think that's as strong a case as can be made, but even then, all people are susceptible to being enthralled to selective, narrowly scoped error, such as what happened with Fauci and him claiming to personify science (obv not POLITICAL science but I digress)–anyway if they did all say the same thing, we can at least imagine what it might mean.

I find it highly implausible that ranchers would unanimously say that they recognized unsubstitutability in all their animals. That'd be like being in a job at Auschwitz. You come to find out personal nuances and details about each creature and then treat them all like cogs in a machine. I mean at best. A dairy rancher isn't killing his animals for business, he wants them alive and healthy. A sheep farmer wants his sheep producing wool. But to imagine dairy farmers who identify every creature's subtle differences from all the others all around them, only to treat them impersonally ... this is why ranchers would only be my second witness, after veterinarians.

Veterinarians ofc are employed by ranchers, but they also earn careers treating pets. So they know pets really really well. On a professional, objective, disinterested level. They're experts, and their expertise is relevant. What would they all say?

I just think they'd be divided. And that would mean they're not relevant as experts, because appealing to expert witness testimony is only valid to do when all those experts are in lockstep on the matter in question. So if it's as I suspect, and veterinarians are divided on whether or not pet animals are all substitutable in the final analysis, then I think it just remains an open question, which is why I started with the link to what witches think, because witches think animals are ensouled. So just for comparison.

This one is sticky, because our technology isn't yet at its highest point. Can personality be imbued in a machine? Maybe...

But it'll always be code, ones and zeroes. It's clearly substitutable, and trivially.

If you're going to argue that perhaps the entirety of computer code all together constitutes just one soul, and that computer-ness itself isn't substitutable ... I'd hear you out. That sounds like the "singularity" idea I've heard of from A.I. public commentators, but I don't really understand the idea very well.

 

[Derf]

Witches walk among us. They’re not like the fictional ones you grew up with | CNN

lite.cnn.com

Everything's philosophical. The philosophy that spirits or souls animate lifeforms beyond humans is part of witchcraft philosophy, but also the Chinese believe in such (the Chinese worship their ancestors as well).

My evidence to refute it is to hypothetically ask what veterinarians think, first of all, since they know these animals so much more thoroughly and objectively than pet owners do.

Really? More than the pet owners themselves?

And the second witness I'd call to the stand are ranchers and dairy farmers and shepherds; men who work with livestock. They know animals, including animals popular as pets, like dogs and cats, really well as well, and on a professional, disinterested level.

I say this because my own personal first hand experience with many kinds of pet types renders my view as valid as yours, even though our views are at odds, neither of us are good witnesses in this case of whether Fido has a soul. We'll just cancel each other out.

I actually raise beef cattle. So I think from the above we wouldn't cancel each other out.

I just say Fido's 100% substitutable in the final analysis, and you'd disagree, and I don't think either of us could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt who's right, but if a jury could be persuaded to render a verdict, I think it would be by expert witness testimony from veterinarians and secondarily from ranchers, because these parties have the most applicable direct first hand experience with animals. And if they all say the same thing, then I think that's as strong a case as can be made, but even then, all people are susceptible to being enthralled to selective, narrowly scoped error, such as what happened with Fauci and him claiming to personify science (obv not POLITICAL science but I digress)–anyway if they did all say the same thing, we can at least imagine what it might mean.

I find it highly implausible that ranchers would unanimously say that they recognized unsubstitutability in all their animals.

I've heard seeral of them describe personality traits, including nurture-based ones, i.e., where the animal was treated poorly even just once and developed issues from it. That's only one side of the equation, but I've seen it happen. The other side, nature is well-known, as ranchers (including myself) will cull the ones who are hard to get along with, so they don't breed.

That'd be like being in a job at Auschwitz. You come to find out personal nuances and details about each creature and then treat them all like cogs in a machine. I mean at best. A dairy rancher isn't killing his animals for business, he wants them alive and healthy. A sheep farmer wants his sheep producing wool. But to imagine dairy farmers who identify every creature's subtle differences from all the others all around them, only to treat them impersonally ... this is why ranchers would only be my second witness, after veterinarians.

But beef ranchers DO kill their animals for business. That would put them above vets, imo. But I think vets would agree with me on the individuality issue.

Veterinarians ofc are employed by ranchers, but they also earn careers treating pets. So they know pets really really well. On a professional, objective, disinterested level. They're experts, and their expertise is relevant. What would they all say?

I just think they'd be divided. And that would mean they're not relevant as experts, because appealing to expert witness testimony is only valid to do when all those experts are in lockstep on the matter in question.

I doubt you could get them all in lockstep, but I would guess that a grand majority would agree with me (not on the "soul" question, but on the personality/individualit question).

So if it's as I suspect, and veterinarians are divided on whether or not pet animals are all substitutable in the final analysis, then I think it just remains an open question, which is why I started with the link to what witches think, because witches think animals are ensouled. So just for comparison.


But it'll always be code, ones and zeroes. It's clearly substitutable, and trivially.

You know what the future holds for computer-based intelligence?

If you're going to argue that perhaps the entirety of computer code all together constitutes just one soul, and that computer-ness itself isn't substitutable ... I'd hear you out. That sounds like the "singularity" idea I've heard of from A.I. public commentators, but I don't really understand the idea very well.

I don't know for sure, but I think it might be possible for humans to engineer something like that.
Genesis 11:6 KJV — And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

 

[Lon]

The highlighted phrase in the quoted text above is simply false.

:nono: If you are told to 'be' perfect as your Heavenly Father, it intimates a standard (see below). Genesis 17:1; Matthew 5:48

PHILOSOPHY, not scripture, says "perfection does not change."

Incorrect: From H8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as noun) integrity (standard), truth (standard): - without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright (-ly), whole. Deuteronomy 32:4

Rethink your paradigms. Perfection IS Biblical.

It was Plato who claimed "that which is perfect does not change."

Doesn't matter if he did or didn't, but rather if it was correct.

Yet, we have the entire first and second chapters of Genesis, along with the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and general facts of reality, that demonstrate that such claim is false.

You are conflating 'what' changes. God's character does not. Cannot.

God is perfect, yet He changed the moment He thought of creating something new, because before He had not done so, and then He did. That's a change.

Conflating 'doing' with 'being.' A perfect Being moves does not change His character.

God is perfect, yet He changed the moment He started to create, because He went from being a God who had never created, to a God who was the Creator. That's a change.

Same conflation.

The perfect creation He created changed over the course of the first seven days, and then continued to change even up until the Fall.

You are talking about a 'process.' Was it 'perfect' (completed, part of the definition of perfection) the first day? :nono:
Question: Can God be 'in process' in His character? Your answer should be "no."

God, who is perfect, became a man, and tabernacled among us. That's a change.

"What" changed? His being? :nono: Fully God, fully Man? It again conflates 'doing' vs. being. Even Open Theism believes in immutability of God's character. Be careful not to usurp that tenant. You have to be exacting in what you are arguing. I'm not arguing God does not move nor that incarnation was something BUT everything Our Lord Jesus became was already 'from' His being. Specifically: what He became, was from Him, His being, His creation; in the first place.

Jesus, who is God, who is perfect, changed a lot, from the moment of his conception, all the way up until His crucifixion on the cross.

Luke 2:52 Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. What 'could' change? What couldn't/didn't?

A perfect acorn changes greatly from it's small form into a great oak tree.

In DNA, does the fetus change? Or does it 'grow' from what is already there? I'm trying to nail down what we both mean by 'change' for this. I believe we have agreement here, but I also believe we have to pay attention to what exactly we mean by perfection not changing. A perfectly righteous God does not change in His righteousness else the standard is gone. The stability of God (what never changes) is the definition of unchanging perfection else we'd have no standard, target, to 'be perfect' as He is. In that sense, Plato was right because he is agreeing with a biblical concept of our God as perfect, which is given clearly in scripture. The Hebrew word means exactly that.

So no, Scripture does not say "perfection does not change," for that would be contradictory to truth.

Your categorical conception of 'perfect' needs to recognize 'doing' and 'being' are significantly different and conflate/cause trouble. I gave you a clear scripture. Malachi 3:6 clearly states that His nature and being does not change. You must admit in some sense of Who He is, He does not change which lines up with the Hebrew definition given above, that He is perfect and does not change in His being. Plato had to be correct on point, if not on categorical accuracy. The Greeks argued for perfectionism unmoving, but we'd have to climb into that in great detail to know what they really meant: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/immutability/ (good presentation if you have the time)

Can God, at this very moment, design a new butterfly that He had never thought of before?

Can God, at this very moment, write a new song that He had never composed before?

Can God, at this very moment, think a new thought, one which He had never thought before?

No. Why? Because He IS infinite. A paradox in our thinking is that anything can exist 'outside' of God. Colossians 1:16-20
The problem is that we cannot think of God as 'already infinite' because we are finite moving toward infinite and have no capacity to understand God is already infinite. God relates to us in our finite, in a finite way, but told Moses he could not see Him. A finite view was all Moses could handle.

 

[Bright Raven]

From gotquestions.erg

Omniscience is defined as “the state of having total knowledge, the quality of knowing everything.” For God to be sovereign over His creation of all things, whether visible or invisible, He has to be all-knowing. His omniscience is not restricted to any one person in the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all by nature omniscient.

All you who accept partial omniscience need to call it like it is an stop playing games with the attributes of God

 

[SwordOfTruth]

For God to be sovereign over His creation of all things, whether visible or invisible, He has to be all-knowing.

To be all-knowing must by definition include knowledge of all future events (that's future as we humans perceive it). To be able to actually KNOW everything that's going to happen means one of two things:

Either

1. Every action in the universe is the result of other actions, causes. e.g. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It means every tiny particle is moving and changing in direct accordance with external forces acting upon it and those external forces themselves are moving and changing in direct accordance with all the other external particles/forces. As humans we don't have the power to compute this unfathomable myriad of complex interaction, but a super computer or god might be capable of crunching all those numbers. We can think of this like someone throwing a pair of dice. To a poor human the dice, for all intents and purposes, appear to be random but critical thinking and common sense tells us that they are not remotely random. The dice will, given all the prevailing circumstances and factors, always come up as they are about to come up. The factors include the air pressure, air temperature, force with which they are being held by the thrower, the body temperature of the thrower, the height above sea-level they are being thrown, the direction of the throw, the position of the 2 die in the hand prior to and during the throw, the speed of the throw itself, the level of fricction of the surface of the dice and the friction of the table, the earth's gravitational force at that point and many millions more factors to boot. If ALL those factors are set the same then the dice will always come up the same, that's just simple physics.
As stated, mere humans don't have the power to know or compute all those factors. But a super computer or god potentially could. Thus God could know everything via an ability to compute every future event before it happens.

This concept lends itself to predeterminism.

It means that everything is happening because of those external forces and interactions and there's nothing we can do about it. Our lives are merely the result of those interactions and any choices or actions we think we are making for ourselves are just illusions. We can not help but make those choices and actions

or

2. Everything that will ever happen in the universe from it's initial creation to its ultimate ending HAS already happened and we are just somehow experiencing a tiny part of it somewhere along the finite timeline, likely as observers but with a crazy clever experience that makes us think we're actually there in it and contributing to it's fabric. If everything HAS already happened then the entire universe and timeline are like one huge DVD in which the entirety of existence is recorded. A god could therefore know everything if it had access to this "DVD" or recorded history. God knows all hearts and minds and all future events simply because they have already happened and he can fast forward or rewind through the "DVD" at will.

This concept also lends itself to predeterminism. If everything has already happened then we are powerless to change it. We are merely observers along that timeline and nothing we think we are doing and choosing is actually changing anything.


The above leads to an interesting paradigm which is simply this:

If God is Omniscient then human life is predetermined and there is not nor can there be any real free-will

You can only in fact have free will IF God is not Omniscient

You can only have free will if the future has not already happened

You can only have free will if there does not exist the primary principles of cause and effect


Thus the concept of free will is inextricably tied in with the concept of God's Omniscience.

Food for thought

 

[Clete]

From gotquestions.erg

Omniscience is defined as “the state of having total knowledge, the quality of knowing everything.” For God to be sovereign over His creation of all things, whether visible or invisible, He has to be all-knowing. His omniscience is not restricted to any one person in the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all by nature omniscient.

All you who accept partial omniscience need to call it like it is an stop playing games with the attributes of God

Just how do we not, "call it like it is"?

All of the omni-doctrines are overstatements. God does not know absolutely everything, He is not absolutely everywhere and delegates power to others.

However, the exceptions are minimal when compared to the whole. God knows whatever He wants to know, is present wherever He chooses to be, and any power He’s delegated can be taken back immediately if necessary. So, generally speaking, it’s not wrong to describe God as omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent.

It's similar to if someone where to ask what the red light means at an intersection. You could rightly answer, "It means you have to stop and wait until the light turns green." There is no requirement to explain all the exceptions (like how you're allowed to turn right on red) nor do the exceptions mean that your general answer is somehow dishonest. In the same way, generally speaking, God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

Personally, I avoid the use of those terms but I know some who still use them in spite of their proper understanding of the biblical material and their doing so is totally fine. I fully understand what they mean when they use those terms. It has a lot to do with your audience, I suppose. I avoid using the terms because my audience is mostly on web forums were the use of the terms would likely lead to confusion, but in another setting, where the audience is well versed in my doctrine, there'd be more freedom.

 

[Clete]

To be all-knowing must by definition include knowledge of all future events (that's future as we humans perceive it). To be able to actually KNOW everything that's going to happen means one of two things:

Either

1. Every action in the universe is the result of other actions, causes. e.g. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It means every tiny particle is moving and changing in direct accordance with external forces acting upon it and those external forces themselves are moving and changing in direct accordance with all the other external particles/forces. As humans we don't have the power to compute this unfathomable myriad of complex interaction, but a super computer or god might be capable of crunching all those numbers. We can think of this like someone throwing a pair of dice. To a poor human the dice, for all intents and purposes, appear to be random but critical thinking and common sense tells us that they are not remotely random. The dice will, given all the prevailing circumstances and factors, always come up as they are about to come up. The factors include the air pressure, air temperature, force with which they are being held by the thrower, the body temperature of the thrower, the height above sea-level they are being thrown, the direction of the throw, the position of the 2 die in the hand prior to and during the throw, the speed of the throw itself, the level of fricction of the surface of the dice and the friction of the table, the earth's gravitational force at that point and many millions more factors to boot. If ALL those factors are set the same then the dice will always come up the same, that's just simple physics.
As stated, mere humans don't have the power to know or compute all those factors. But a super computer or god potentially could. Thus God could know everything via an ability to compute every future event before it happens.

This concept lends itself to predeterminism.

It means that everything is happening because of those external forces and interactions and there's nothing we can do about it. Our lives are merely the result of those interactions and any choices or actions we think we are making for ourselves are just illusions. We can not help but make those choices and actions

or

2. Everything that will ever happen in the universe from it's initial creation to its ultimate ending HAS already happened and we are just somehow experiencing a tiny part of it somewhere along the finite timeline, likely as observers but with a crazy clever experience that makes us think we're actually there in it and contributing to it's fabric. If everything HAS already happened then the entire universe and timeline are like one huge DVD in which the entirety of existence is recorded. A god could therefore know everything if it had access to this "DVD" or recorded history. God knows all hearts and minds and all future events simply because they have already happened and he can fast forward or rewind through the "DVD" at will.

This concept also lends itself to predeterminism. If everything has already happened then we are powerless to change it. We are merely observers along that timeline and nothing we think we are doing and choosing is actually changing anything.


The above leads to an interesting paradigm which is simply this:

If God is Omniscient then human life is predetermined and there is not nor can there be any real free-will

You can only in fact have free will IF God is not Omniscient

You can only have free will if the future has not already happened

You can only have free will if there does not exist the primary principles of cause and effect


Thus the concept of free will is inextricably tied in with the concept of God's Omniscience.

Food for thought

You'd be right about it being food for thought if your mind hadn't already starved to death.

God is not omniscient (in the Classical sense of that term) and so option 2 is not an issue.

Option 1 is based on the premise that a cause (or set of causes) can only possibly have one effect. Quantum Mechanics (and other things such a Chaos Theory) tells us that this is not so. We live in a universe where both randomness and unpredictability are real and that all of the initial conditions cannot be known, if they are even set to begin with, and that to whatever extent they are known, that knowledge itself alters the initial conditions. Causal determinism is therefore false, even by secular standards.