Omnipotence / Omniscience Conflict?

Question

I've seen it posted a few times that there's some kind of conflict between Omnipotence and Omniscience residing in the same being. Can anyone expand on that for me? It sounds interesting.

I don't know what the conflict is, that's why I asked. I saw it mentioned here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqvdeeLZKbP_Z0LlLpLy2i_d7BR.?qid=20070528191233AA37nxy and I've seen it elsewhere and I'm curious.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, you don't have to "answer", you know.

Answer 1

Omniscience logically conflicts with omnipotence. An omniscient entity would know everything, including what course future events would take. However, knowing the course of the future renders the entity unable to do anything to change that future, as it would then be incorrect as to its predictions and therefore not omniscient — but this inability to change events means that the entity cannot be omnipotent. Additionally, omnipotence would imply a complete lack of knowledge of what it feels like to be unable to do something, and thereby conflicts with omniscience. Both of these examples represent a contradiction between the two powers.

Answer 2

Because He is omniscient, he powerfully acts according to knowledge. Because He is omnipotent, He knowingly acts according to His power. He is eternal, therefore outside time. His knowledge and power behave at once forever. And no, this is nothing like the big rock thing. God cannot do what is impossible. He can't do something He can't do. It is a nonesense question. It's like asking, if God can do anything, can he make square circles? Of course not. God is all powerful, but that doesn't mean he can do illogical things. Omnipotent is not the same as "can do anything." Clearly, He can do all that can be done.

Answer 3

Do you mean a conflict between being "All powerful" and "All Knowing"? Good question ...

A famous Christian (he has a brother in politics) in Australia stuggled with that after tsunamis (tidal waves) killed so many. He thought either God didn't know it was going to happen, or couldn't stop it from happening, or just didn't love us enough to interfer. (He may have resolved that himself since then, I'm not sure)

From my understanding, God created us to have a heartistic relation with us as parent to children. The parent would like the child to follow what's right, but can't FORCE us to "clean our rooms" without us slipping from a son/daughter role to a robot's role.

Likewise, He can give us the understanding that if you live on the coast in an earthquake area, there are some natural phenomena you have to be wary of and be able to read the signs He gives us (Rom 1:20).

A parent doesn't want their child to break their arm tripping over the mess in their bedroom, but if the child's free will takes an irresponsible path, He respects our poor decision.

When the Californian fault line finally cracks, will that be seen as a disarster that is "an act of God" or will the death toll be seen as the irresponsibility of Town Planners, Real Estate developers, etc (I heard that schools and fire stations are built over the fault itself)

Answer 4

Okay, to get it down to a smaller scale than omniscience and omnipotence, let's say you know everything, including something really trivial like the milk is going to be spilled at breakfast. Since you know this is going to happen, you decide to take steps to prevent it, and just do without milk at breakfast. The milk therefore doesn't spill, and your omniscience just went out the window.

On the other hand, you do have the power to stop the milk from being spilled by not taking it out of the fridge, but since you didn't know it was going to happen, you did take it out, and it spilled in spite of your power to prevent it, because you don't know everything.

Hurts the head after a while.

Answer 5

I too have heard it and it looks like Kalth detailed it well. The problem is he is wrong.

Quite often we see, as being free-willed, self-aware, self-determined creatures, that there is always seems to be a fork in the road when it comes to events. There is a NATURAL course and outcome. We all know whats going to happen to a glass milk pitcher if it is dropped from the kitchen counter. Now whether it is by sheer accident or someone got pissed and threw it, the natural course is for the thing to hit the floor and break.

There is also an INTERVENED course and outcome. For instance, if I was having an argument with my wife and I saw based on her body language that she was going to break the thing, that would give me a list of options. I could diffuse the situation so she doesnt throw it. I could try to catch it before it broke. Or I could just let nature run its coarse and let happen what was going to happen despite my intervention.

God views our history as a painting on the wall. He can see the beginning, middle, and the end. He has provided the general parameters, but has otherwise let humanity paint the thing. But whenever he does a miracle, or perhaps sends his wrath, he is making a change both based on his omnipotence (ability to change it) and his forknowledge (ability to see whats happening)

If you saw your child about to fall from a ladder and prevented it, would you really conclude afterward since the child came to no harm, that he was never in any danger?

People like Kalth are trying to argue and emphasize just one aspect of his deity and trying to make them conflict when there is no conflict to begin with.

Answer 6

Okay... here is where the answer from "kaltharion" goes WRONG...

"Omniscience logically conflicts with omnipotence. An omniscient entity would know everything, including what course future events would take."

===So far so good... here it comes, however....

"However, knowing the course of the future renders the entity unable to do anything to change that future, as it would then be incorrect as to its predictions and therefore not omniscient — but this inability to change events means that the entity cannot be omnipotent."

===THERE you have the wrong assumption!! This assumes that the "being" is UNABLE to change that future... WRONG!! There is a HUGE difference between being UNABLE and UNWILLING to change that future. The OMNIPOTENT being IS ABLE to change that future... AND that being (being OMNISCIENT) ALSO knows just exactly HOW that future will be changed BY its change. This person's argument does not include the fact that an omnipotent/omniscient being has a WILL, and can CHOOSE to change or not to change the future. The rest of the argument then falls to pieces, because it again presumes the inability to change the future, rather than an UNWILLINGNESS to do so. Here... see:

"Additionally, omnipotence would imply a complete lack of knowledge of what it feels like to be unable to do something, and thereby conflicts with omniscience. Both of these examples represent a contradiction between the two powers."

===Again, the "OMNI" being IS ABLE to change the future IF it so desires (WILL). Therefore, the omnipotent being does have a knowledge of what it ... um.. "feels like"???... because it CAN do something but chooses NOT to.

So, there IS NO conflict between omnipotence and omniscience, because there is WILL involved, NOT just "ability."

To cut/paste from "GotQuestions.org"...

Scriptures that describe God apparently “changing His mind” are human attempts to explain the actions of God. God was going to do something, but instead did something else. To us, that sounds like a change. But to God, who is omniscient and sovereign, it is not a change. God always knew what He was going to do. God also knew what He needed to do to cause humanity to do what He wanted them to do. God threatened Nineveh with destruction, knowing that it would cause Nineveh to repent. God threatened Israel with destruction, knowing that Moses would intercede. God does not regret His decisions, but is saddened by some of what humanity does in response to His decisions. God does not change His mind, but rather acts consistently to His Word in response to our actions.

There... NO conflict.

Answer 7

What conflict?

"That God is one, and that there is a conjunction of charity and faith" (Soul and Body n. 20).

Also, "This only One and very Self is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. This also every Christian acknowledges from his doctrine and every gentile from his religion. In consequence, wherever he is, a man thinks that God is there and that he prays to God at hand; thinking and praying so, men cannot but think that God is everywhere, that is, omnipresent [in all places at all times]; likewise omniscient [all knowing] and omnipotent [all powerful]. Everyone praying to God, therefore, implores Him from the heart to lead him because He can lead him; thus he acknowledges the divine omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence, doing so in turning his face to the Lord; thereupon the truth flows in from the Lord" (Divine Providence n. 157).

Also, "There are three essentials of the church: acknowledgment of the divine of the Lord, acknowledgment of the holiness of the Word [Bible], and the life which is called charity" (Divine Providence n. 259[3]).

Also, "Every man [or woman] can be saved, and those are saved who acknowledge God and live rightly" (Divine Providence n. 325).

Answer 8

This comes up often from those who attempt to understand an infinite God with an unbelieving, closed, finite mind.
They always want an answer, but refuse to listen.

Answer 9

There is no conflict between the two. Some people make it conflioct .
jtm

Answer 10

well actually those two terms are not anywhere in the bible ... some things are implied .. but trying to find a conflict between two terms that are never used in the bible to describe God is pointless ...