Marbaniang, Domenic

Omniscience is an article of faith among people across various faiths that hold faith in the Supreme God. Omniscience baffles reason. How can God know all things beyond time: things that were, things that are, and things that will be? I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and [I know] the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but [are] a synagogue of Satan. Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw [some] of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. (Rev 2:9-10) The biggest challenge comes in the form of the objection: 1. Knowledge is cognizance of something that exists. 2. The future doesn’t exist yet. 3. Therefore, one cannot know the future. There have been various reactions to this and attempts to try to explain omniscience of future events. Some subscribing to the eternalist theory...

1. If God knew that He would create man, then His knowledge was either true or false. 2. If it was false, then God did not know; because knowledge is only knowledge if it is true; false knowledge is ignorance or deception. 3. If God's knowledge was true, then it's opposite (that He would not create man) was false. 4. In other words, God's knowledge of man's creation and the fact of man's creation are definite and coterminous. 5. In other words, the statement God knew He would not create man is false. 6. Consequently, it was true that God would create man, and it's opposite was false. 7. Therefore, the question "If God knew that man would sin, why create man?" is self-contradictory. Related Posts If God Knew That Man Would Sin, Why Create Man? Part-1 Arithmetic of Foreknowledge Aristotle’s Temporal Logic and the Problem of Foreknowledge in Jesus’ Prediction of Peter’s Denial Aristotelian Determinism: A Solution Does God Know the Future? Epistemic Concer...

In humans, the future exists as possibilities. The past exists as actualized (fulfilled) events. However, in God, the future is as real as the present and the past - as actualized; because, time is not independent of God, God holds all things together. But, while He holds all things together, He does not determine each thing; for to do that, He must exist prior to future; but, that is not the case because future, as both present and past, is coterminous with Him - "In Him we move, and live, and have our being." God is eternal. Therefore, God's foreknowledge is perfect and yet non-deterministic. In humans, future is not out there. Future is what becomes of the world and us; but, it is yet not out there. Which means that the future is non-existent at the moment. Then, how does God foreknow the non-existent? For God, the future is in Him because He holds space-time together in Him; but, He is neither determined by time nor determines it; God is not in the process of becoming...

From the Appendix of Epistemics of Divine Reality (2007, 2009), pp. 197-199. Divine foreknowledge refers to God’s possession of the knowledge of future. The problem is whether God’s omniscience entails that He actually knows our future free actions. Rational fideism sees that the paradox is because of the distinct lines of rational and empirical epistemics by which theologians approach the issue. For instance, Norman Geisler in the rationalist way, and appealing to transcendence and infinity, argues that “An infinite, eternal God knows what we know but not in the way we know it. As an eternal being, God knows eternally.’ This kind of an approach, however, bears no meaning for an empiricist, since it refers to a non-empirical way of knowing. On the other hand, in the empirical way, Gregory A. Boyd has argued that God does not foreknow future free actions because there is ‘nothing definite there for God to know’. In other words, knowledge entails a subject-object relation. However, since...

In his On Interpretations , chapter 9, Aristotle raises an important issue that relates to the application of the rules of bivalence and contradiction to statements about future. If the statement “there will be a sea fight tomorrow” is true now, then it implies that a sea fight is bound to happen tomorrow – though one may say that the statement is not the cause of the event, but only an assertion. Its contradictory statement “there will not be a sea fight tomorrow” would, therefore, be necessarily false.  Thus, necessity is predicated of both the statements: one is necessarily true while the other is necessarily false. This would mean that all events (past and future) are necessary and not fortuitous, meaning there were no unactualized possibilities. This went against Aristotle’s theory of potentiality and actuality; so, he considered propositions related to future as excepted from the rule of contradiction. If so, Jesus’ statement, “You will deny me thrice,” would not be subject to th...

If God foreknew that man was going to fall in sin , then why did He create the world? Answer # 1: The alternative positions to Christianity must be considered, first of all. Atheism. According to it God doesn’t exist; therefore, the problem of ‘why’ He created the world also doesn’t exist. However, the atheist must admit that ultimately ‘why’ the universe exists also is a meaningless question. Thus, lacking any eternal and absolute ground of existence, morality and justice are illusory concepts. In fact, the above question presupposes morality; for the question implies that God, by creating the world despite foreknowing its misery, appears to be evil rather than good. However, if an absolute such as morality doesn’t exist, then it would be meaningless to either convict or justify God. Thus, the question itself would be meaningless. In that sense, the atheist would have to rid himself absolutely of any moral obligation at all. Pantheism . According to it all is God and God is all;...