Sample Answer for 'God's Omniscience makes no sense’ Discuss.

As God is perfect, so should his attributes, however, this leads to incompatibility regarding free will, immutability, and God's attributes. Whilst theologians have attempted to resolve this issue, the use of human language is not sufficient enough along with the lack of human knowledge to explain these attributes, limiting theologians massively. Therefore because of these limitations, I will be arguing that God's omniscience makes no sense as we will never be able to comprehend God's attributes or his position within time.

Bestbins, a classic theologian, was considered a martyr for Christianity. Writing much of his work from prison, including "The consolidation of Philosophy," before he was executed. Betbius argued for an eternal God and believed that God was unaffected by time. God lives in a "simultaneous present" meaning he knows everything in the present, there is no past or future just a present. For Bestbius this meant that God must have no concept of time, being transcendent means that our free will is protected as God does not force us to act in a particular way and he is still omnipresent.

Norman Keetzoans offers a different and more plausible argument for the omniscience of God, he argued that a perfect God had to be unchanging and timeless however a perfect God would have to know everything and a God who knows everything would have a concept of time this means that God is changing and therefore not perfect.

Norman believes that God cannot be immutable and omniscient as a "perfect" God must have some knowledge of time.

Furthermore, if God Indeed does understand time, the reason Norman says he must change is that if time changes, God would also be subject to a change in perspective. Whilst a classic theologian such as Beethis would contradict this by saying that even if God did know time it doesn't mean he would make he would also be subject to change.

Yet, this is strongly limited as even though there may not be any significant change, change is still clearly present as God would have a different perspective on the world regardless, of whether meaningful change is imposed. The argument that God cannot be immutable and transcendent is strong because, through the attributes of God, it is clear that a perfect, all-knowing God would have the concept of time meaning God cannot be transcendent if we are talking about a transcendent being, being God not influenced by time.

This will create a barrier between humans and God and put into question the impact on time for humans as well. Overall Betbiy's view on the simultaneous present proves that omniscience makes no sense as, as Norman proved, omniscience and immutability are clearly incompatible and Bertbius has failed to deliver a convincing argument.

Saint Anselm develops the view of Beatbius, also believing that God is timeless and eternal, living in a simultaneous present. He develops BRetbiys's view into his four dinessionalish approach which argues that all of time is equally existent, to God time is simply another dimension. In regards to the issue of free will and omniscience which is seen as incompatible. Saint Anselm says that the fact that humans have chosen to do the right thing proves that we do have free will if we did not have free will we could not choose the right action because it wouldn't be the right action as we haven't chosen to do it.

Anselm uses the idea of Saint Augustine, arguing that evil is only the privation of good and therefore we do not choose to do evil, we do nothing. Anselm makes it clear that when trying to understand the attributes of God we are pushing the human language to the edge of its meaning.

This, I completely agree with as although I do not support the argument attempting to preserve free will, I believe that as humans we are constrained by time and therefore, we will never have the same capacity for knowledge and abilities as God as we are only limited rational beings.

Anselm's view of free will, I believe although stronger than Bestbius' still fails to solve the issue of free will and omniscience, as although through our timeline we may believe we have free well due to our limitations. If God doesn't know everything it does not matter if we believe this because there is a higher power that dictates our future without us knowing. His belief of us only choosing to do the right thing is absurd as it categorizes normal actions such as drinking and eating with actions such as murder.

A murderer chooses to kill someone, and it is difficult to believe otherwise, with all the suffering in the world and some undermines its effects and impacts. In our everyday lives, we do many things that aren't considered good but we also do many things that aren't considered evil so what are these things categorized as? Overall, Anselm clearly fails to make omniscience make sense as his argument for free will has no practical value and commits a huge leap in logic. As Anselm mentions, the fact we are pushing our human language to the very edge of their meaning means that his argument is significantly undermined and its flaws are evident through the lack of coherence between freedom and omniscience.

Swinburne is another theologian who comments on the debate surrounding omniscience. Arguing that God only knows the logically possible which for Swinburne does not include the future as that is illogical as it hasn't happened yet. For Swinburne, this preserves his omniscience as if he does not know the future he cannot interfere with the future, and the future is not predestined meaning free will is preserved. God therefore has no implications in the future yet he is still able to know everything that is logically possible as the future does not exist yet, omniscience is therefore protected along with free will.

This view does indeed protect free will however it only does so under false pretences this point of view therefore does not justify or preserve God's omniscience. God however then does not know the future and therefore does not have divine foreknowledge which raises even more issues. In the Bible, God is presented as a fully omniscient being, Swinburne is therefore going against the views of the Bible. The only thing he does in his argument is change the definition of omniscience to fit his argument and supposedly solve the problems of free will and God's omniscience.

The literal definition of omniscience is all knowing and if he does not know everything then he cannot be omniscient as knowing the future falls into this category. Furthermore, not only does Swinburne fail to solve the issue he reduces God to human characteristics, anthropomorphizing God and undermining his power and influence significantly. Met o-dynes Swinburne reduces God's characteristics to human potential, but he also makes God seem less worthy of our worship. Why should we worship a God who is similar to us humans if God has the same potential? Overall, Swinburne fails significantly to make omniscience make sense as he only changes the definition to suit his argument, his views are not convincing or logical.