Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Kane Jiang]

If you believe in God, how can God be omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect at the same time?

Shouldn't God be elegant too?

It's most elegant, I think, to understand the most, while knowing the least. It's simpler I think.
So how can God be perfectly elegant and omniscient at the same time?

Isn't knowing too much a bad thing (wastes energy, etc.)?

[dawwg]

A problem with this subject is the transference of human qualities onto what could essentially be alien and thereby doesn't share human values and could verge into the pathological i.e. be devoid of compassion.

[LuckyR]

If you believe in God, how can God be omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect at the same time?

Shouldn't God be elegant too?

It's most elegant, I think, to understand the most, while knowing the least. It's simpler I think.
So how can God be perfectly elegant and omniscient at the same time?

Isn't knowing too much a bad thing (wastes energy, etc.)?

If a god tells you they are omniwhatever, how can you determine they are telling the truth with your mortal, human perception and computational abilities?

Hint... You can't. So if you believe such a god, that kind of makes you omnigullible.

[h_k_s]

If you believe in God, how can God be omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect at the same time?

Shouldn't God be elegant too?

It's most elegant, I think, to understand the most, while knowing the least. It's simpler I think.
So how can God be perfectly elegant and omniscient at the same time?

Isn't knowing too much a bad thing (wastes energy, etc.)?

If a god tells you they are omniwhatever, how can you determine they are telling the truth with you mortal, human perception and computational abilities?

Hint... You can't. So if you believe such a god, that kind of makes you omnigullible.

I agree.

[Felix]

It's most elegant, I think, to understand the most, while knowing the least. It's simpler I think. So how can God be perfectly elegant and omniscient at the same time?

The same way we can I suppose, by understanding the big picture rather than the existential details, how to paint the picture rather than the best way to frame it.

[Sculptor1]

It's most elegant, I think, to understand the most, while knowing the least. It's simpler I think. So how can God be perfectly elegant and omniscient at the same time?

The same way we can I suppose,

But we cannot. Is that what you mean? Do I detect irony here? Or are you just making a mistake?

by understanding the big picture rather than the existential details, how to paint the picture rather than the best way to frame it.

That's neither elegant, nor omniscient.

[Kane Jiang]

I think Felix means that painting the big picture is elegant, but I agree, I don't think that's elegant.

Maybe I should say what I believe in if that clarifies my stance.

I believe that you should only know 5 things in the world at any time in order to be perfect and perfectly elegant in knowledge.
One of the 5 things you know has to be that the world exists.
All other knowledge can stem from these 5 things AND what you can currently experience in the world right now. If you have perfect understanding, then you can extrapolate all knowledge from those 5 things and what you could experience.
That being said, I'm not sure (I'm still debating) whether one of the 5 things you know at any time should be a temporary slot for any new knowledge.

People say ignorance is bliss, and I think knowing a finite number of things in an infinite world with infinite things to know is one of the keys to perfection (perfect elegance in knowledge). It cannot be knowing nothing, because that won't get you by. It cannot be knowing everything, because that would take a huge and un-elegant brain (and yes, I think brains are ugly). Here, I think forgetting knowledge is key as well.

I believe the world to be infinitely big (infinity exists in my opinion, and is easiest to think about in terms of infinite potential, not the scientific term but the term dealing with achievement, and on another note some people say black holes are infinitely dense), so being able to determine anything finite from something infinite is a wonder.

This is just what I believe in, an inclination if you will, if you have any objections with it feel free to tell me, and I may change my beliefs.

[Felix]

Scuptor1: But we cannot (see the big picture). Is that what you mean? Do I detect irony here? Or are you just making a mistake?

I meant that humans can attempt to see and understand the big picture, to see the forest for the trees, through their science, etc., but presumably an omniscient being could just see it, and not be distracted by the details of existence, as we must - we cannot avoid it.

That's neither elegant, nor omniscient

Yeah well, elegance and omniscience are seldom seen together on the dance floor.

[Kane Jiang]

Yeah well, elegance and omniscience are seldom seen together on the dance floor.

Lol. Funny comment, but I think elegance extends beyond the dance floor. Scientific proofs, for example, can be elegant. That's what I mean by elegance in knowledge. You don't need to know what 54^2 is, you just need to know how to multiply and have the ability to multiply really fast. Having too much knowledge is un-elegant because you aren't applying those "elegant" scientific postulates.

I meant that humans can attempt to see and understand the big picture, to see the forest for the trees, through their science, etc., but presumably an omniscient being could just see it, and not be distracted by the details of existence, as we must - we cannot avoid it.

I think that's a little different from elegance, making rough estimates from the big picture. Elegance, I think, means getting the whole thing right (not just estimates) with minimal effort. It is similar to efficiency, but efficiency is minimal energy while elegance encompasses more than just minimal energy.

[Felix]

Kane Jiang: Elegance, I think, means getting the whole thing right (not just estimates) with minimal effort. It is similar to efficiency, but efficiency is minimal energy while elegance encompasses more than just minimal energy.

Yes, but you are referring to human means of knowing, which are derivative, the product of analysis and synthesis. It should be obvious that omniscience could not work that way. It would be inclusive rather than derivative. It would understand a thing directly, because the character of that thing (and every other thing) is part of it's nature.

An analogy of that would be... perhaps a moment of insight, when you instantly and fully understand the meaning of something ("satori" in Japanese). Now include all things within the bounds of that finite insight, infinity compressed to a finite point, as the Universe is supposed to have existed at the instant of its conception (the Big Bang). The infinite potential of the whole is contained within that instant.

[Kane Jiang]

Yes, but you are referring to human means of knowing, which are derivative, the product of analysis and synthesis. It should be obvious that omniscience could not work that way. It would be inclusive rather than derivative. It would understand a thing directly, because the character of that thing (and every other thing) is part of it's nature.

Yes, but my point in the original post is referring to derivative knowledge being closer to perfection than inclusive knowledge and perfect ability + derivative knowledge (and a little bit of inclusive knowledge) being closer to perfection than omniscience. I agree that omniscience can't be derivative.

I'm assuming the analogy is there to explain what inclusive knowledge is. Are you arguing for it being possible for an omniscient being to be perfectly elegant?

[Kane Jiang]

Ok maybe, this would make more sense:
In English, you have the phrases,
1. perfectly elegant,
2. perfectly knowledgeable,
3. perfectly understanding
4. perfectly powerful

1 and 3 make sense and are frequently used, but I've never heard someone say #2 or #4, especially in older books? Does that mean omniscience isn't perfect? Does that mean omnipotence isn't perfect? 4 doesn't even make sense to me . It should be absolutely powerful. Absolutely knowledgeable maybe?

English is a medieval language, I think and for the better.

[Felix]

Kane Jiang: Yes, but my point in the original post is referring to derivative knowledge being closer to perfection than inclusive knowledge.

Derivative knowledge, which is the only type of knowledge that humans can have, can never be perfect because it is descriptive rather than explanatory. You did not mention inclusive knowledge in your original post. You did say: "It's most elegant, I think, to understand the most, while knowing the least," but human beings are not capable of the sort of inclusive knowledge to which I referred. We know about things, what they are like, how they act, but not why they are that way. Omniscience would involve understanding the intrinsic nature of things, why they are what they are.

Kane Jiang: Are you arguing for it being possible for an omniscient being to be perfectly elegant?

An omniscient consciousness would be suprarational, supramental, so that term would not apply to it.

Re: omnipotence, I don't see how it would be possible to be both omniscient and omnipotent. I can imagine a omniscient, but not omnipotent, being that would understand suffering because it's intelligence is greater than it's power to act. Although deficient in both, we tend to have more of the latter than the former; thus atomic bombs, toxic waste, legal definitions, gummy bears, etc.

[steveb1]

If you believe in God, how can God be omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect at the same time?

Shouldn't God be elegant too?

It's most elegant, I think, to understand the most, while knowing the least. It's simpler I think.
So how can God be perfectly elegant and omniscient at the same time?

Isn't knowing too much a bad thing (wastes energy, etc.)?

In my Western "philosophical" view, I'm a panentheist, and my views are simple, if not simplistic. I hold that:

God is both "here" (immanent) and "more than here" (transcendent).
God is neither a Creator nor an intervener.
God bears no responsibility for the universe's origin and its current condition.
God is not omnipotent, and modifying and manipulating material cycles of force - which "He" never created in the first place - is simply not in his nature.
God is knowable as an object of experience - as in divine union mysticism (communion and union with the divine).

Perhaps this view has a "simple elegance", but it's much less complex than the implications of Abrahamic theism and the various theologies that are associated with "religions of the Book".

[TheQuixoticAgnostic]

If you believe in God, how can God be omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect at the same time?

Shouldn't God be elegant too?

It's most elegant, I think, to understand the most, while knowing the least. It's simpler I think.
So how can God be perfectly elegant and omniscient at the same time?

Isn't knowing too much a bad thing (wastes energy, etc.)?

I don't exactly believe in a god, but the conceptions I have of gods that could potentially exist aren't necessarily of the omni- variety. That said, I do think when philosophizing about very abstract things, simplicity and elegance are the best gauges of plausibility, and I'd like to put forward what I think is the most elegant, most perfect concept of omniscience.

I do think omniscience should be derivative to be most "pure". Not only is it most "pure", but it's also most powerful. I happened a while back to find some interest in how comic books handle super powers, and I noticed the most powerful characters were the ones that had that sort of "inclusive" knowledge/power that's been talked about here. Matter-manipulators, for example, can just, manipulate matter, at will. They don't need to really think about it. But that's like knowing the steps to solve calculus problems without understanding the foundations of calculus.

To get to my point, I think the most powerful form of omniscience, and the most elegant and pure, is not the ability to know all, but the ability to derive all, to understand all. Kane Jiang, you mention you should only know, say, "5 things", which I have to admit is a bit arbitrary. Instead, what I think speaks to what you're saying, in a more elegant fashion, is not that god should start knowing just 5 things, but should perhaps know nothing at all. But, when its time to interact with the universe, to require knowledge of the universe, god would just be able to pick out whatever bits of information are needed to do what needs to be done.

Some say "God is a mathematician", and I think that saying may have more truth in it than appears.