God Is But A Machine? Can A All Knowing God Change His Mind?

[Kaiser01]

So I was reading “the God delusion” (after all this time got off my lazy but and bought it) and I ran across a interesting statement…

 

Can omniscient God, who

Knows the future, find

The omnipotence to

Change his future mind?

 

If God is all knowing and knows his future decisions does he have anyway to change them? If he couldn’t wouldn’t this make God some kind of machine. I think this almost makes God a constant of physics if he existed because he has no choice since he knows his future choice he is a total constant who can make no decisions but only follows through what is already defined.

 

Also would this mean that God is a subject of his own knowledge? Would this mean that God is actually controlled by something and if God has no choice then is he really a personal God?

[mcdaddy]

So I was reading “the God delusion” (after all this time got off my lazy but and bought it) and I ran across a interesting statement…

 

Can omniscient God, who

Knows the future, find

The omnipotence to

Change his future mind?

 

If God is all knowing and knows his future decisions does he have anyway to change them? If he couldn’t wouldn’t this make God some kind of machine. I think this almost makes God a constant of physics if he existed because he has no choice since he knows his future choice he is a total constant who can make no decisions but only follows through what is already defined.

 

Also would this mean that God is a subject of his own knowledge? Would this mean that God is actually controlled by something and if God has no choice then is he really a personal God?

 

"his ways are higher than ours"

[SusanStoHeli]

In a way....

 

Ever read Dune, all the way through to God, Emperor?

 

A person gains enough insight, intelligence, etc. that he effectively is god. Being able to see all possible futures, he sees the one that is best for humanity as a whole, and that is the one that he is then locked into - he's not a machine, but if you care, you have to go with the option with the best long term outcome.

 

Now - if I take this as applying to god - it still cannot be true that every event is meaningful. Most people will not be a key to change history - that's just how it is. If I let Einstein or Hitler die as a baby, the world would be dramatically different. If I let John Doe 38472394583 die as a baby - the world will be no different, except to his immediate family. So there'd still be room for some choices, but if you are compassionate, or heck, merely not callously indifferent, you'd of course have to save everyone who did not absolutely have to die to have a good outcome to history. It wouldn't require prayer for you to do so. This would of course be part of whatever calculations were made initially to have the best possible outcome to the universe.

 

So god is still locked in. Technically he could choose to save John Doe 3342983904723 rather than John Doe 548902830483, if there's only space in his optimal path for one more living baby - but realistically there are no neutral choices, even if it's by a small degree, one of the baby John Does will be a slightly better person to those around him.

[Guest Valk0010]

So I was reading “the God delusion” (after all this time got off my lazy but and bought it) and I ran across a interesting statement…

 

Can omniscient God, who

Knows the future, find

The omnipotence to

Change his future mind?

 

If God is all knowing and knows his future decisions does he have anyway to change them? If he couldn’t wouldn’t this make God some kind of machine. I think this almost makes God a constant of physics if he existed because he has no choice since he knows his future choice he is a total constant who can make no decisions but only follows through what is already defined.

 

Also would this mean that God is a subject of his own knowledge? Would this mean that God is actually controlled by something and if God has no choice then is he really a personal God?

 

"his ways are higher than ours"

The argument from ignorance fallacy got to love it. We don't know god, therefore there is a god. Hehe, I love the absurdity.

 

This is a great example to me, of how fake religion is personally. Its a great comfort to say god knows everything and all all that, but it makes being a functional being impossible. If you know the future you can't change it, otherwise you don't know it. It also means that those people living it out can't change, otherwise it would change for god. That is the same regardless of how humans go about choosing. It just contradictory. Either god is this, big powerful person, or he isn't. If he is, then ain't omniscient, and if he isn't then he is not god.

[mwc]

Also would this mean that God is a subject of his own knowledge? Would this mean that God is actually controlled by something and if God has no choice then is he really a personal God?

Well, I've made the argument here any number of times before that this type of god would be capable of a grand total of one original thought. At that point it is locked into whatever was contained within that thought for all time (a system of time relative to this god not us).

 

In the case of being "personal" that isn't impossible. It would just be somewhat of an "illusion" depending on your perspective. If you feel a relationship exists, and is personal, then it is. If you later find out it was totally scripted then you may feel cheated but how could you discover this? And is it really "scripted" if it was within the "though" or an imagined/desired reality that this god forced to exist? It apparently wanted a relationship and this "thought" is the only way it would ever have to have such a thing. Working within its own limitations to have a relationship with you isn't a fraud anymore than the relationship I have with a pet. We both have ways of expressing ourselves and whether my cat is just "faking" it somehow within it's limits that's of no real concern to me as long as I'm getting something out of the relationship. This is why a relationship with imaginary friends, or Santa, or actual "gods" works for people.

 

The problem I see overall is that this type of god would have to be able to be aware of all these things before "thinking" anything of note into existence or making any real choices because that would essentially set them into stone with no way to alter them ever. I don't know how this could ever happen since it would never have a chance to "learn" but would have just "be" with all the information needed and tapping into this information to make decisions would be enough to ruin everything. What I'm getting at is that it would have to be like the Big Bang. All the untapped information would have to be there and in one "Big Bang" moment this inert god would have to have a single thought and the rest just follows on.

 

mwc

[Guest wester]

Brian Greene has some interesting flights of thought regarding this in his book "Hidden Reality" where he wonders about the implications of this all being a program run on a computer somewhere. Then what kind of computer - an old one, a broken one? - or if that computer is a simulation of another computer? or if the computer is actually in a higher dimension reflecting its "shadows" down into three dimensions.

 

This is an interesting idea you raise. You might find some of the mathematical concepts introduced by George Cantor interesting as he describes how to work with infinity - see his Set Theory.

 

Cheers and keep up the good work.

[TrailBlazer]

Is it more likely then, that God is not omnipotent? (gasp)

Does this suggest that we have drawn incorrect conclusions about who/what "God" is to human life?

Blasphemy.