Hubbry Logo
OmniscienceOmniscienceMain
Open search
Omniscience
Community hub
Omniscience
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Omniscience
Omniscience
Omniscience
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on the
Attributes of God
in Christianity
Core attributes
Overarching attributes
Miscellaneous
Emotions expressed by God

Omniscience is the property of possessing maximal knowledge. In Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and the Abrahamic religions, it is often attributed to a divine being or an all-knowing spirit, entity or person. In Jainism, omniscience is an attribute that any individual can eventually attain. In Buddhism, there are differing beliefs about omniscience among different schools.

Etymology

[edit]

The word omniscience derives from the Latin word sciens ("to know" or "conscious") and the prefix omni ("all" or "every"), but also means "all-seeing".[1]

In religion

[edit]

Buddhism

[edit]

The topic of omniscience has been much debated in various Indian traditions, but no more so than by the Buddhists. After Dharmakirti's excursions into the subject of what constitutes a valid cognition, Śāntarakṣita and his student Kamalaśīla thoroughly investigated the subject in the Tattvasamgraha and its commentary the Panjika. The arguments in the text can be broadly grouped into four sections:

  • The refutation that cognitions, either perceived, inferred, or otherwise, can be used to refute omniscience.
  • A demonstration of the possibility of omniscience through apprehending the selfless universal nature of all knowables, by examining what it means to be ignorant and the nature of mind and awareness.
  • A demonstration of the total omniscience where all individual characteristics (svalaksana) are available to the omniscient being.
  • The specific demonstration of Shakyamuni Buddha's non-exclusive omniscience, but the knowledge of Shakyamuni Buddha's is really infinite and no other gods or being can match his true omniscience.[2]

Christianity

[edit]
See also: Attributes of God in Christianity

Some modern Christian theologians argue that God's omniscience is inherent rather than total, and that God chooses to limit his omniscience in order to preserve the free will and dignity of his creatures.[3] John Calvin, among other theologians of the 16th century, comfortable with the definition of God as being omniscient in the total sense, in order for worthy beings' abilities to choose freely, embraced the doctrine of predestination.[4]

Hinduism

[edit]

In the Bhakti tradition of Vaishnavism, where Vishnu is worshipped as the supreme God, Vishnu is attributed with numerous qualities such as omniscience, energy, strength, lordship, vigour, and splendour.[5]

Islam

[edit]

God in Islam is attributed with absolute omniscience. God knows the past, the present, and the future. It is compulsory for a Muslim to believe that God is indeed omniscient as stated in one of the six articles of faith which is:

  • To believe that God's divine decree and predestination

Say: Do you instruct God about your religion? But God knows all that is in the heavens and on the earth; God is Knowing of all things

— Quran 49:16

It is believed that humans can only change their predestination (wealth, health, deed etc.) and not divine decree (date of birth, date of death, family etc.), thus allowing free will.

Baha'i Faith

[edit]

Omniscience is an attribute of God, yet it is also an attribute that reveals sciences to humanity:

In like manner, the moment the word expressing My attribute “The Omniscient” issueth forth from My mouth, every created thing will, according to its capacity and limitations, be invested with the power to unfold the knowledge of the most marvelous sciences, and will be empowered to manifest them in the course of time at the bidding of Him Who is the Almighty, the All-Knowing.

— Baha'i Reference Library

Jainism

[edit]
Main article: Kevala jnana

In Jainism, omniscience is considered the highest type of perception. In the words of a Jain scholar, "The perfect manifestation of the innate nature of the self, arising on the complete annihilation of the obstructive veils, is called omniscience."[6]

Jainism views infinite knowledge as an inherent capability of every soul. Arihanta is the word used by Jains to refer to those human beings who have conquered all inner passions (like attachment, greed, pride, anger) and possess Kevala Jnana (infinite knowledge). They are said to be of two kinds:[7]

  1. Sāmānya kevali – omniscient beings (Kevalins) who are concerned with their own liberation.
  2. Tirthankara kevali – human beings who attain omniscience and then help others to achieve the same.[7]

Omniscience and free will

[edit]
Omniciencia, mural by José Clemente Orozco
See also: Determinism, Free will, and Argument from free will

Whether omniscience, particularly regarding the choices that a human will make, is compatible with free will has been debated by theologians and philosophers. The argument that divine foreknowledge is not compatible with free will is known as theological fatalism. It is argued that if humans are free to choose between alternatives, God could not know what this choice will be.[8]

A question arises: if an omniscient entity knows everything, even about its own decisions in the future, does it therefore forbid any free will to that entity? William Lane Craig states that the question subdivides into two:

  1. If God foreknows the occurrence of some event E, does E happen necessarily?[9]
  2. If some event E is contingent, how can God foreknow E's occurrence?[10]

However, this kind of argument fails to recognize its use of the modal fallacy. It is possible to show that the first premise of arguments like these is fallacious.[11][12]

Omniscience and the privacy of conscious experience

[edit]

Some philosophers, such as Patrick Grim, Linda Zagzebski, Stephan Torre, and William Mander have discussed the issue of whether the apparent exclusively first-person nature of conscious experience is compatible with God's omniscience. There is a strong sense in which conscious experience is private, meaning that no outside observer can gain knowledge of what it is like to be me as me. If a subject cannot know what it is like to be another subject in an objective manner, the question is whether that limitation applies to God as well. If it does, then God cannot be said to be omniscient since there is then a form of knowledge that God lacks access to.

The philosopher Patrick Grim[13] most notably raised this issue. Linda Zagzebski[14] argued against this by introducing the notion of perfect empathy, a proposed relation that God can have to subjects that would allow God to have perfect knowledge of their conscious experience. William Mander[15] argued that God can only have such knowledge if our experiences are part of God's broader experience. Stephan Torre[16] claimed that God can have such knowledge if self-knowledge involves the ascription of properties, either to oneself or to others.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Omniscience

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Omniscience is the attribute of possessing complete, perfect, and exhaustive , typically ascribed to in monotheistic theologies, encompassing all true , actual and possible events, past, present, and future realities, without any false beliefs or limitations. In philosophical terms, it is often defined propositionally as a being knowing every true proposition p p is true, while believing no falsehoods. This concept holds central importance in the and , where it forms one of the core divine perfections alongside and . Rooted in sacred texts across Abrahamic traditions—such as the Bible's assertion in 46:10 that declares "the end from the beginning" and Psalm 147:5 describing His understanding as limitless, or the 's emphasis on as 'Alim (the All-Knowing) who knows the unseen (Quran 6:59)—omniscience underscores divine sovereignty and providence. Medieval theologians like further elaborated it as intuitive and eternal knowledge, grasped in a single, non-discursive act without sequence or change, distinct from human discursive reasoning. Key debates surrounding omniscience center on its compatibility with human and the nature of divine foreknowledge. Philosophers and theologians grapple with whether God's timeless knowledge of future choices precludes genuine freedom, leading to solutions like Boethius's view of God in an "eternal present," Molinism's middle knowledge of counterfactuals, or contemporary open theism's restriction of foreknowledge to what is knowable. These discussions also explore non-propositional dimensions, such as experiential or relational knowing, challenging purely propositional models and incorporating perspectives from that emphasize emotional and care-based knowledge. Overall, omniscience remains a foundational yet contested , influencing understandings of , , and .

Definition and Etymology

Definition

Omniscience is the property of possessing complete or maximal knowledge, encompassing all true propositions about past, present, and future events, thoughts, possibilities, and necessities. This attribute is formally defined in philosophical terms as: for any subject S, S is omniscient if and only if, for every true proposition p, S knows that p. Such knowledge is not merely extensive but exhaustive, including not only factual truths but also an understanding of their interconnections and implications, without limitation by time, space, or contingency. While often grouped with other divine perfections, omniscience is distinct from related attributes such as omnipotence, which denotes infinite power or the ability to actualize any logically possible state of affairs. Omniscience concerns the scope and perfection of knowing what is true, whereas omnipotence involves causal efficacy. Philosophers distinguish several types of omniscience. Essential omniscience holds that complete knowledge is an inherent and necessary aspect of the being's nature, inseparable from its essence. In contrast, acquired omniscience suggests that such knowledge could be attained through processes like perception or learning, though this raises questions about whether it truly qualifies as maximal if not timeless. A further category is middle knowledge, which involves awareness of counterfactuals—what would occur under hypothetical conditions, such as free choices in alternate scenarios—enabling a nuanced understanding of possibilities without determining them. The concept of omniscience emerged in ancient thought as a hallmark of divine or ultimate perfection, evolving from early reflections on maximal being in Greek philosophy to more systematic formulations in medieval perfect being theology. For instance, it gained prominence through Anselm of Canterbury's ontological argument, where God is defined as that than which nothing greater can be conceived, implying necessary omniscience as a supreme attribute. This development marked omniscience as integral to conceptions of an ideal knower in Western philosophy.

Etymology

The term "omniscience" originates from Medieval Latin omniscientia, formed by combining omnis ("all" or "every") with scientia ("knowledge"), denoting the capacity for complete or infinite knowledge of all things. This compound reflects a theological emphasis on divine attributes, where scientia implies not mere awareness but profound, systematic understanding. The adjective omniscient entered English usage around the 1610s, with omniscience as a noun appearing shortly thereafter, initially in theological writings such as those of Puritan divine Thomas Taylor in 1612. Precursors to the concept appear in , where discussions of the divine intellect's perfect —though lacking a direct equivalent term—laid foundational ideas; for instance, described the in the Timaeus as possessing wisdom encompassing the eternal forms, while Aristotle's in the Metaphysics engages in eternal self-contemplation as the highest form of knowing. In later Hellenistic and Neoplatonic traditions, terms like pantognōsia (παντογνωσία, "all-") emerged to articulate similar notions of universal . Across languages, the term has varied translations that capture its essence in religious and philosophical texts. In Hebrew, it corresponds to phrases like yodea kol ("knower of all") or yedi'at ha-kol (" of "), used in biblical descriptions of divine awareness. In Arabic, Islamic employs al-'alīm ("the All-Knowing") or constructs like al-'ilm al-kullī ("universal "), one of Allah's 99 names emphasizing exhaustive comprehension. In Sanskrit, Hindu scriptures use ("all-knowing"), applied to deities like to signify boundless wisdom beyond human limits. By the , "omniscience" evolved from its primarily theological roots to broader philosophical and secular applications, appearing in epistemological debates about maximal knowledge and in to denote an all-seeing voice that transcends character limitations. This shift reflects growing interest in cognitive and universality outside religious frameworks.

Philosophical Perspectives

Ancient and Medieval Views

In , early conceptions of a divine or cosmic possessing comprehensive emerged among the Presocratics. introduced nous (mind or ) as an infinite, unmixed, and self-ruling principle that initiates cosmic motion and separation from the primordial mixture, ruling over all things with supreme power and complete judgment about everything. This nous is present wherever things are, knowing and directing the entire without being affected or mingled with it, suggesting an early proto-omniscience that orders the through perfect awareness. Plato developed this idea further in his cosmology, portraying the in the Timaeus as a benevolent divine craftsman with complete knowledge of the eternal Forms, using them as an unchanging model to impose order on chaotic matter and create the as perfectly as possible. The 's intellect grasps the intelligible structure of , ensuring the reflects the ideal patterns of the Forms in its teleological , though limited by the imperfect nature of the receptacle it works upon. Aristotle shifted emphasis to a more abstract divine principle, describing as pure actuality and "thought thinking itself" (noûs noêseôs noêseôs), an eternal, unchanging activity of self-contemplation that knows only necessary truths and its own essence, without engagement with contingent or changing particulars. This implies a perfect but restricted omniscience, focused on immutable objects of thought, as knowledge of the temporal world would introduce passivity or change into the divine intellect, which Aristotle deems impossible. In , these Greek ideas were synthesized with monotheistic frameworks. addressed the tension between divine foreknowledge and human freedom by positing God's omniscience as timeless , where God perceives all events in a single, eternal present rather than sequential foreknowledge, thus knowing future contingents without necessitating them. In his Consolation of Philosophy, argues this atemporal perspective resolves apparent incompatibilities, allowing divine knowledge to encompass all time without implying predetermination. Thomas Aquinas integrated Aristotelian thought with , maintaining that God's omniscience includes knowledge of free human acts through divine causation and eternal vision, where contingent events are known as they are in themselves without altering . In the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas distinguishes the necessity of the divine knower from the contingency of the known, asserting that God's non-discursive comprehends all causes—necessary and free—simultaneously. In Islamic philosophy, Avicenna (Ibn Sina) advanced an essentialist approach, where God knows particulars universally through their complete causes and essences, grasping all existents in a timeless, unchanging manner without direct attention to temporal changes. This view posits that divine knowledge of individuals derives from essential properties and causal chains, maintaining God's immutability while encompassing the multiplicity of creation.

Modern and Contemporary Views

In the Enlightenment period, René Descartes integrated the concept of omniscience into his foundational epistemology through the cogito argument, positing that God's perfect nature, perceived via clear and distinct ideas, guarantees the truth of such perceptions, including divine knowledge of all things. Descartes argued that the idea of God as an infinitely perfect being, encompassing omniscience, is innate and indubitable, serving as the guarantor against deception in human cognition. John Locke, advancing empiricism, challenged Cartesian innate ideas by asserting that all human knowledge derives from sensory experience, thereby questioning claims of direct, innate access to divine omniscience while still affirming God's existence through rational demonstration from empirical ideas. Locke's framework implied limitations on human comprehension of divine knowledge, emphasizing that God's omniscience transcends empirical bounds but cannot be fully grasped without revelation or reason applied to experience. In 20th-century , defended a robust form of divine omniscience through the concept of middle knowledge, which posits that God knows not only all true propositions about what is and what will be but also counterfactuals of creaturely —what free agents would do in any possible circumstance. This approach, rooted in Molinist theology, reconciles omniscience with human libertarian by placing middle knowledge logically between God's natural knowledge of possibilities and free knowledge of actualities. proposed a scaled version of omniscience, limiting it to knowledge of all logically possible truths at any given time, thereby avoiding paradoxes arising from future contingent events while preserving divine . Swinburne's model emphasizes that an omniscient being knows everything it is logically possible to know, excluding inherently unknowable future free actions, thus rendering omniscience coherent within a temporal framework. Contemporary philosophical discussions often model omniscience using epistemic logic, defining it as the state of knowing all true propositions across possible worlds, where knowledge operators capture necessity and relations. This formal approach addresses the logical omniscience problem—wherein ideal knowers infer all logical consequences—by refining models to include resource-bounded agents, though divine omniscience remains idealized as maximal propositional knowledge without such limits. Feminist critiques have challenged traditional propositional models of omniscience, arguing they embody patriarchal biases by prioritizing detached, totalizing knowledge over relational and embodied epistemologies, likening divine omniscience to invasive that undermines , particularly for marginalized subjects. Scholars like and others in advocate redefining omniscience to include empathetic, contextual knowing, critiquing it as a for hierarchical control that mirrors gendered power structures. In secular contexts, particularly AI ethics, debates extend omniscience analogies to machine intelligence, questioning whether advanced systems could approximate "god-like" knowledge through vast data processing while highlighting inherent limits like algorithmic biases and incompleteness in predictive models. Philosophers argue that AI's pursuit of comprehensive knowledge raises ethical concerns about and , paralleling critiques of divine omniscience but grounded in technological feasibility rather than metaphysics. These discussions underscore that true omniscience remains unattainable for machines, as they lack the holistic understanding and attributed to divine , prompting reflections on human-AI relations in an era of .

Religious Perspectives

Abrahamic Traditions

In , God's omniscience is affirmed through scriptural depictions of divine foreknowledge, as in 46:9-10, where declares, "I am , and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.’" This attribute underscores God's transcendence and unity, with the and Prophets portraying Him as searching hearts and knowing secrets, as seen in 17:10: "I the search the heart and test the mind." Medieval philosopher , in his rationalist framework, conceptualized divine omniscience as non-propositional and beyond human analogy, emphasizing that God's knowledge encompasses universals and particulars without implying change or division in the divine essence, thereby preserving God's incorporeality and immutability. In , omniscience finds biblical foundation in passages such as Psalm 147:5, which states, "Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure," and 4:13, affirming that "no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account," along with Psalm 33:13-15, which describes how "From heaven the Lord looks down and sees all mankind" and that God is "he who forms the hearts of all and considers everything they do," and Proverbs 15:3, which affirms that "The eyes of the Lord are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good." These passages emphasize God's intimate observation of humanity's actions and inner thoughts, reinforcing the doctrine of exhaustive divine knowledge. Early Church Father Augustine developed this through the notion of an eternal present, where God perceives all temporal events—past, present, and future—simultaneously in an unchanging act of knowledge, transcending time itself to reconcile divine foreknowledge with human agency. During the , debates intensified around , with viewing God's omniscience as tied to His sovereign decree, where foreknowledge follows divine election without dependence on human will, emphasizing monergistic grace. In contrast, argued for conditional predestination based on God's prior foreknowledge of free human responses enabled by grace, thus integrating omniscience with synergistic human responsibility. In , the vividly describes God's omniscience in Surah Al-Baqarah 2:255 (Ayat al-Kursi): "He knows what is ahead and behind them, but no one grasps His except what He wills," portraying it as all-encompassing the heavens and without fatigue or limitation. Theological schools diverged on its implications for human actions: the Mu'tazilites, emphasizing , held that God's omniscience includes free human choices without predetermining them, viewing divine as responsive to human liberty to uphold justice. Conversely, the Ash'arites maintained that God's eternal fully encompasses all events, including human acts, which occur through divine will yet allow for human acquisition, reconciling omniscience with moral . Across , , omniscience manifests as a core divine attribute implying immutability—God's remains eternal and unchanging—and , enabling and providential governance without alteration in the divine nature. This shared emphasis highlights God's unrivaled , where comprehensive of all realities underscores His transcendence and role as ultimate judge.

Indian Traditions

In Indian traditions, omniscience is conceptualized not as an absolute divine attribute but as a soteriological attainment linked to liberation from the cycle of karma and rebirth. In , omniscience, termed sarvajña (all-knowing), is a core attribute of , the described in the as the transcendent source of all knowledge and the themselves. For instance, the Chhandogya Upanishad portrays as possessing effortless omniscience, from which the Rig-Veda and other scriptures emanate without study or effort, emphasizing its role as the cause of the world and preserver of cosmic order across cycles of creation. Similarly, the depicts as the revealer of supreme knowledge (Brahma-vidya), distinguishing it from inferior Vedic sciences and underscoring its profound, all-encompassing awareness. Within Hinduism, avatars like Krishna exhibit varying degrees of omniscience, manifesting Brahman's qualities in human form to guide devotees toward dharma and liberation. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna declares himself the source of all spiritual and material worlds, embodying cosmic consciousness and omniscience as he reveals his universal form to Arjuna, stating, "I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me." This partial expression of omniscience serves soteriological purposes, instructing on selfless action (karma yoga) and devotion (bhakti) to overcome ignorance and karmic bondage, rather than implying total factual knowledge at all times. In , the Buddha's omniscience, known as sabbaññu, centers on penetrative insight into dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda), the causal chain of suffering and its cessation, rather than exhaustive knowledge of all facts. texts, such as the Majjhima Nikaya (MN 71 and MN 90), describe this as threefold knowledge: recollection of past lives, understanding rebirth according to karma, and discernment of defilements' destruction, rejecting simultaneous omniscience of all phenomena as incompatible with liberation. The Buddha's silence on metaphysical questions, as in the Cūḷamāḷuṅkya Sutta (MN 63), reflects pedagogical focus on experiential truths leading to enlightenment, not speculative totality. traditions, by contrast, elevate the Buddha's omniscience to a more transcendent, cosmic scale, portraying him as a metaphysical entity with supernatural attributes in texts like the , where his knowledge encompasses skillful means (upāyakausalya) for universal salvation, diverging from 's emphasis on human-achieved wisdom. Jainism posits kevala jñāna as perfect, unobstructed omniscience attained by liberated souls (siddhas or jīvas), enabling direct cognition of all substances and modes in the without mediation. This supreme marks the culmination of spiritual progress, freeing the from karmic influx and achieving mokṣa. The Tattvārtha Sūtra outlines a 14-stage progression of virtues (guṇasthānas), from partial to omniscient purity: the first four stages involve right and amid subtle , stages five through seven refine partial omniscience (kevala avagrah), and the final seven culminate in kevala jñāna at the 12th stage, where all karmic veils are shed for infinite perception. This path underscores omniscience as the reward of ethical conduct and , integral to where souls evolve through karmic purification toward eternal bliss. Across these traditions, omniscience is intrinsically bound to enlightenment and the transcendence of karma, representing the soul's or mind's perfection rather than an external divine possession. Unlike Western conceptions of God's unchanging, absolute knowledge, Indian views allow graded realizations— from partial insights in avatars or arhats to full attainment in liberated beings—prioritizing soteriological efficacy over ontological totality.

Other Traditions

In the Bahá'í Faith, God is described as Al-'Alim, the All-Knowing or Omniscient, possessing complete and infinite awareness of all creation and events. This attribute underscores God's role in guiding humanity through progressive revelation, where divine knowledge is progressively disclosed via Manifestations such as Abraham, , , Christ, , and Bahá'u'lláh, adapting to the spiritual capacity of each age. The , the central text revealed by Bahá'u'lláh, affirms this omniscience through phrases such as "He, verily, is the Omniscient, the All-Informed," particularly in contexts prescribing ordinances like those on and . In , , the supreme reality, is portrayed as omniscient, with intimate knowledge of all thoughts, deeds, and the inner workings of creation as described in the . Verses emphasize that perceives every action and , recording deeds for ultimate , as in the line "The True Lord knows and all deeds will be recorded." This omniscience coexists with human responsibility, where individuals exercise under divine (command or will), fostering ethical living without predetermining outcomes. East Asian traditions conceptualize cosmic knowledge differently from personal omniscience. In , () represents an all-encompassing moral and natural order, embodying comprehensive awareness of human affairs and the universe's harmony, serving as the source of ethical mandates without anthropomorphic attributes. Daoism, through , implies an intuitive, non-interventional cosmic awareness realized via (effortless action), where alignment with the Dao grants profound insight into existence's flow, though not exhaustive propositional knowledge of . Indigenous traditions, such as those among Native American peoples, often depict the (or equivalents like in Lakota) as a holistic, relational force permeating all creation, knowing through interconnected bonds rather than detached observation. This emphasizes participatory , where the 's awareness arises from mutual relations among humans, animals, and the land, fostering communal harmony and ecological stewardship over abstract, all-seeing .

Theological and Philosophical Implications

Omniscience and Free Will

The paradox of divine omniscience and human , often termed theological , posits that if an omniscient being infallibly knows all human actions, those actions must be necessary and thus incompatible with genuine freedom. This tension arises because infallible foreknowledge fixes the : once a divine belief about a future act exists in the , the necessity of the implies that act cannot occur otherwise, eliminating alternate possibilities required for libertarian . Philosopher Nelson Pike formalized this argument in 1965, arguing that God's past beliefs transfer necessity to future events, rendering human choices unfree. One early solution, proposed by in the , reconciles the through divine timelessness: God exists outside of time and perceives all moments simultaneously, so divine "foreknowledge" is not a temporal but an eternal present , avoiding any causal determination of human actions. This view influenced later thinkers, including , who argued in the 13th century that God's eternal knowledge does not impose necessity on contingent events, as transcends temporal sequence. Compatibilist approaches maintain that omniscience and can coexist. , developed by in the 16th century, introduces "middle knowledge," whereby knows all counterfactuals of creaturely freedom—what free agents would do in any possible circumstance—allowing divine foreknowledge without predetermining choices. Similarly, (4th-5th century) viewed as compatible with liberty, asserting that God's foreknowledge encompasses voluntary acts without coercing the will, as human freedom operates within . Incompatibilist critiques reject such reconciliations. , advanced in modern works like Pinnock et al. (1994), holds that knows all possibilities and present realities but not future free acts, as the future remains partly open and indeterminate, preserving libertarian at the cost of exhaustive foreknowledge. , in his 1983 essay, argues that divine foreknowledge logically entails , as the truth of past divine beliefs necessitates future outcomes, making alternate possibilities impossible and thus illusory. Medieval debates highlighted these tensions, with Aquinas emphasizing an intellectualist view where the will follows rational judgment, aligning free choices with divine omniscience through eternal causation. In contrast, John Duns Scotus (13th-14th century) adopted a voluntarist stance, positing the will's independent of the , ensuring contingency in actions despite God's and challenging Aquinas's integration of foreknowledge with necessity. Modern resolutions, such as those in compatibilist Frankfurt-style cases, further explore without alternate possibilities, while ongoing discussions in continue to refine these positions.

Omniscience and Privacy of Consciousness

The philosophical problem of omniscience and the privacy of consciousness centers on whether an omniscient being can fully access subjective conscious experiences, known as —the "what it is like" aspect of phenomena, such as the felt quality of seeing red or feeling pain. Thomas Nagel's seminal argument posits that objective descriptions of physical processes, no matter how complete, fail to capture the subjective character of experience, as illustrated by the bat's echolocation, which remains inaccessible to human understanding despite full scientific knowledge of bats. Extending this to omniscience, philosophers like Patrick Grim argue that first-person (de se) knowledge is inherently private and indexical, such that an omniscient cannot know what a particular individual knows about their own experience without becoming that individual, rendering full omniscience incompatible with distinct conscious subjects. A related challenge arises from Frank Jackson's , adapted to divine cognition in the "Mary's room" : suppose an omniscient possesses all propositional facts about human neurology and physics but lacks direct experiential acquaintance with ; upon "experiencing" for the first time, would new be gained, implying a limit to omniscience? This highlights a potential gap between knowing that something is the case (propositional ) and knowing what it is like (), suggesting that may elude even divine comprehension. Theological responses address this tension by reinterpreting divine knowledge. maintains that God knows all things, including individual and singular events, through His own immutable , which contains the similitudes of analogically rather than univocally or exhaustively in their subjective mode; thus, God comprehends the nature of conscious experiences as effects of His causation without participating in their first-person privacy. In contrast, , as articulated by thinkers like , proposes that God self-limits omniscience to respect creaturely freedom and subjectivity, knowing only "public" or objective facts while allowing the intrinsic privacy of subjective prehensions (momentary experiences) to remain inaccessible, thereby preserving relational dipolarity without contradiction. Modern extensions amplify these concerns through and . In , the privacy of manifests in "undecidable" brain states, where mapping neural activity to encounters Gödel-like incompleteness—certain experiential properties cannot be algorithmically derived from physical data, akin to unprovable truths in formal systems, complicating any exhaustive decoding even for an omniscient observer. Jean-Paul Sartre's further critiques omniscience by portraying as a "nothingness" that is pre-reflectively transparent to itself but radically opaque to external gazes, including a divine one; the "Look" of the Other objectifies the self, but the for-itself's freedom ensures an irreducible subjective interiority that defies total penetration. The core distinction lies between propositional knowledge—all true facts about the world, which omniscience fully encompasses—and experiential or non-propositional , such as the first-person feel of or sensations, which may not require divine instantiation to affirm maximal , as argued by Linda Zagzebski's concept of "omnisubjectivity," where God empathetically grasps perspectives without experiential identity. This framework reconciles omniscience with privacy by confining it to comprehensive factual awareness, leaving subjective as privileged domains of finite .

Omniscience and Theodicy

Theodicy addresses the apparent tension between divine omniscience and the existence of , as an all-knowing possesses complete foreknowledge of all and wrongdoing yet permits them to occur without intervention. This foreknowledge raises profound questions about why a benevolent would allow such events, given the capacity to foresee and potentially avert them. Traditional formulations of the problem highlight that omniscience entails not only awareness of but also the divine to actualize a containing it, thereby implicating in its permission. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's influential reconciles this by positing that God's enables the selection of the "best " from infinite conceivable alternatives, where evil is a necessary component for achieving maximal , variety, and . In this framework, apparent evils contribute to greater goods—such as arising from overcoming adversity or the contrast that enhances appreciation of goodness—that could not exist in a world devoid of moral challenges. Leibniz argues that divine foreknowledge ensures this optimal arrangement, as God comprehends all possible outcomes and chooses the one maximizing overall , even if human understanding perceives imbalances. Skeptical theism offers another response, emphasizing human cognitive limitations in grasping the full scope of an omniscient God's justifications for permitting . Philosopher Stephen Wykstra argues that our inability to discern reasons for does not imply their absence, as divine omniscience encompasses reasons far beyond human epistemic access; thus, apparent gratuitous do not undermine the probability of God's . Wykstra's (Condition Of Reasonable Epistemic Access) principle underscores that about inferring divine non-existence from evil is warranted, given the vast disparity between finite human perspectives and infinite divine knowledge. Alternative approaches include John Hick's elaboration of the Irenaean soul-making , which portrays the world as a developmental environment where omniscience guides the process of human maturation from self-centered existence to empathetic, God-responsive persons. Here, foreknowledge allows God to orchestrate challenges that cultivate virtues like and resilience, essential for spiritual growth that a pain-free world could not foster. Complementing this, Alvin Plantinga's free will defense maintains that omniscience does not compel God to cause human choices, enabling the creation of free agents whose potential for moral good outweighs the risk of , with divine knowledge simply apprehending rather than determining outcomes. Critiques of these positions, notably J.L. Mackie's logical , assert that omniscience combined with and perfect goodness renders any instance of evil—especially gratuitous suffering without compensating greater goods—logically incoherent. Mackie contends that God's foreknowledge of pointless evils implies a failure to prevent them, contradicting benevolence, as an omnipotent being could actualize a world with freedom but without such unnecessary pain. This argument challenges theodicies by questioning whether claimed greater goods truly justify divine permission of foreseeable horrors.

References

  1. https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2161&context=faithandphilosophy
  2. https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2022/empathy-and-divine-omniscience
  3. https://www.trinitycollege.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/TheologyR.pdf
  4. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omniscience/
  5. https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/on-the-foreknowledge-of-god
  6. https://iep.utm.edu/omnisci/
  7. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
  8. https://www.etymonline.com/word/omniscience
  9. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omniscient
  10. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/omniscience_n
  11. https://hebrew4christians.com/Meditations/Yediat_Hakkol/yediat_hakkol.html
  12. https://myislam.org/99-names-of-allah/al-alim/
  13. https://www.shabdkosh.com/dictionary/english-sanskrit/Omniscience/Omniscience-meaning-in-sanskrit
  14. https://sanskritdictionary.com/?q=sarvaj%25C3%25B1a
  15. https://iep.utm.edu/anaxagoras/
  16. https://utppublishing.com/doi/pdf/10.3138/uram.12.4.248
  17. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/
  18. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0180
  19. https://iep.utm.edu/aristotle-metaphysics/
  20. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/
  21. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11346382/
  23. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09608788.2021.2007845
  24. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/
  25. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/
  26. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
  27. https://iep.utm.edu/locke-ep/
  28. https://iep.utm.edu/middlekn/
  29. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/divine-omniscience/middle-knowledge-truth-makers-and-the-grounding-objection
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373735872_Swinburne%27s_views_on_the_temporality_and_omniscience_of_God_an_attempt_at_criticism
  31. https://etsjets.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/files_JETS-PDFs_36_36-3_36-3-pp357-362_JETS.pdf
  32. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-epistemic/
  33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297700999_Defining_Omniscience_A_Feminist_Perspective
  34. https://philpapers.org/archive/BYLAAT.pdf
  35. https://cbhd.org/dignitas-articles/ai-and-human-futures-what-should-christians-think
  36. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+46%3A9-10&version=ESV
  37. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/tje/o/omniscience-of-god.html
  38. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maimonides/
  39. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+147%3A5%3B+Hebrews+4%3A13%3B+Psalm+33%3A13-15%3B+Proverbs+15%3A3&version=ESV
  40. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-augustine/gods-eternal-knowledge-according-to-augustine/CE84416EAFF7100BA811AD10E661AB1F
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390503667_God%27s_sovereignty_in_the_teachings_of_Calvin_and_Arminius_implications_for_the_doctrine_of_judgment_-_Part_II
  42. https://quran.com/2/255
  43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333224013_The_Quranic_View_of_Omniscience_and_Human_Freedom
  44. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-jewish-philosophy/divine-omnipotence-omniscience-and-human-freedom/DA8822185FC8EFE0A9383FAD82B1F6B4
  45. https://libsysdigi.library.illinois.edu/oca/Books2007-07/originalsanskrit/originalsanskrit03muir/originalsanskrit03muir.pdf
  46. https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/ojes/article/download/36360/28364/105287
  47. https://doi.org/10.3126/ojes.v11i0.36360
  48. https://ir.uwest.edu/files/original/28a74c0ca673f586a9d5a53af23fb32f6ce951a8.pdf
  49. https://ir.uwest.edu/files/original/8aa308268670017993fcef53615103203f3a5b85.pdf
  50. https://www.academia.edu/49793744/Omniscience_in_Indian_Philosophy_of_Religion
  51. https://bahai-library.com/writings/bahaullah/aqdas/aqdas.html
  52. https://iep.utm.edu/freewi-m/
  53. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omniscience/#OmnKnoDeSe
  54. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/
  55. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1014.htm#article5
  56. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011373912980
  57. https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/consciousness-as-a-godel-sentence
  58. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre/#BeingNoth
  59. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omniscience/#AddFeaDivKno
  60. https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2020/god-s-propositional-and-non-propositional-knowledge
  61. https://courses.edx.org/c4x/MITx/24.00x/asset/MackieonEvil.pdf
  62. https://philpapers.org/archive/WYKAST.pdf
  63. http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/4351/1/52.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.