Understanding the World: Thoughts On Omniscience and Omnipotence
Exploring the Logical and Linguistic Limits of Ultimate Concepts
Note: This essay was prepared with the research assistance and ghostwriting of ChatGPT 4.0. No LLMAI were harmed in the process.
Author’s Preface
Introduction to Omniscience and Omnipotence
In 1970, I took a course in the philosophy of religion at university. In it, I learned about the ideas of omniscience and omnipotence, and how these concepts were debated by theologians in the Middle Ages and still seem to be debated by theologians in modern times. That is, if you consider 1970 the modern age. But I don't imagine much has changed.
Every now and then, I've reflected on the idea of omniscience in connection with epistemological issues and used it as a bit of a thought experiment. However, in the process, I’ve come to realize even more deeply the silliness of the notion of omniscience and the absurdity of its twin, omnipotence.
In any case, we could probably extend this reflection to omnipotent beings, considering what they can do. But I’m not satisfied with any take that assumes it’s realistic to talk about omnipotent or omniscient beings.
Language's Role in Understanding Limitations
One question that occurred to me when I was discussing the limitations of humanity and large language models, AI or any other AI, in terms of understanding the world, was the issue of language.
I think we have to understand the role of language in shaping our understanding of these words, but that is a deep topic and mostly out of scope. The issue here is language itself and its inadequacies. Any language tries to impose order on the world, giving meaning, and understanding. These are great mysteries, much discussed by scholars of various types but not understood. There's no coherent or satisfying theory of understanding, meaning, or language.
But all of these are limitations—limitations in our sensorium, our perceptual abilities, and our intelligence. I suspect that any questions on omniscience and omnipotence are ill-posed because the language is inadequate, making words up that mean nothing. We’ve invented a couple of words, a couple of concepts that are incoherent at best—ill-defined and absurd ideas. We don’t have a clear idea of what it would mean to be omniscient or omnipotent.
Can a Being Be Both Omniscient and Omnipotent?
This was a topic of great debate for theologians. It turns out the answer is no. Omniscient beings, knowing everything that was, is, or will be, cannot, therefore, change anything.
Listing Characteristics from a Human Perspective
So, I guess we could list the characteristics of an omniscient or an omnipotent being. I’m sure it would make no sense at all. It would all be done from our human perspective, with our very limited understanding of the universe, with our inadequate language for expressing anything that is not human-scaled.
Persistent Discussions of Omniscience and Omnipotence
We should go back far enough in time to really explain the origins of these ideas, and it may be that we can't know that history before a cetain time, but we should discuss the origins. These are not new ideas, nor are they restricted to one culture or religion.
Discussions and beliefs about the reasonableness of omnipotence and omniscience apparently persist to this day, though the context and focus of these discussions have evolved over time. These ideas continue to be debated in modern theological, philosophical, and even scientific circles.
What Can an Omniscient Being Do?
Can they understand everything that was, is now, or will be in the future? Every atom, every bit of space, time, matter, and energy, every thought, every action? Are there any limits?
What Can an Omnipotent Being Do?
Can they control every single electron of matter, every particle of light, every bit of gravity? Can they redefine the rules of the universe? Can they create universes? Can they destroy them? Can they extend that to multiverses?
Do omniscience and omnipotence both imply no limits?
The Question of Qualia and Language for an Omniscient Being
What language, if any, does an omnipotent being think in or speak? Well, presumably, any. Could it be none? Could it be a totally ill-posed question?
But if we come to the issue of an omnipotent or omniscient being, we not only have the issue of whether they have qualia, but also: Are they conscious? Do they use language? Which language? Which language do they use for their thoughts?
If we play with the thought experiment, presumably, omniscient beings could use any language they chose. Why would they choose one or another? This again brings out the absurdity of it all in light of the severe limitations of language that any human being has and its inadequacy for describing anything other than certain aspects of the universe—mostly the concrete and immediate, with some technological extensions to infinitely big, infinitely small; infinitely deep time; and infinitely fast, infinitely slow.
However, I might be mistaken in all of this, so caveat lector1.
Introduction
Omniscience and omnipotence are central concepts in many religious traditions, particularly within Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. These ideas describe beings that are either all-knowing (omniscient) or all-powerful (omnipotent), often ascribed to the monotheistic God in theological discourse. For centuries, theologians and philosophers have attempted to reconcile these attributes with logic, morality, and the human experience of free will. However, a closer examination reveals that these concepts are not only difficult to reconcile with each other but are fundamentally incoherent when viewed through the lens of human logic and language.
This essay will delve into the absurdity of omniscience and omnipotence, examining how language shapes our understanding of these concepts, the logical contradictions they present, and why, ultimately, they collapse under scrutiny.
Language and the Limits of Understanding
The first significant hurdle in discussing omniscience and omnipotence is language itself. Human language is inherently limited, designed to describe finite experiences in a tangible world. Language attempts to impose order on chaotic and complex realities, but when it comes to describing concepts like omniscience or omnipotence, language becomes inadequate.
Williamson (2000) argues that even the most developed theories of knowledge have inherent limits. Human cognition simply cannot grasp the totality of knowledge—much less the idea of knowing everything. The very concept of omniscience is self-defeating because it presupposes a being who can know not only the present but also every possible future event, without leaving room for contingency. This problem is compounded when we realize that human language is incapable of expressing such boundless knowledge. We simply lack the words and structures to adequately explain what it means for a being to "know everything" (Williamson, 2000).
Similarly, in theological discussions, Aquinas (2006) attempted to address the limitations of human language when describing omnipotence. In his Summa Theologica, Aquinas posited that God’s omnipotence must be understood in terms of logical consistency—God can do anything, but not things that are logically impossible, such as creating a square circle. Even with this caveat, the concept remains problematic. We are still using language that evolved to describe human-scale experiences to define something that, by definition, transcends those experiences.
Plantinga (1983), in his work God, Freedom, and Evil, explored the relationship between omnipotence and free will. He introduced the idea of "middle knowledge," wherein God knows not only what will happen but also what could happen in any given circumstance. While this might seem like a solution to the tension between omnipotence and omniscience, it still doesn’t address the core absurdity of these concepts. Omnipotence and omniscience, when scrutinized, are not just difficult to reconcile; they are mutually exclusive in any meaningful sense.
Logical Contradictions in Omniscience and Omnipotence
The most glaring issue with omniscience and omnipotence is the inherent logical contradictions. Omniscience, the ability to know everything, implies that all future events are already determined. If a being knows everything that will happen, then the future is set in stone. However, if the future is predetermined, how can an omnipotent being change anything? To change the future would mean altering something already known, which creates a contradiction: either the being is not truly omniscient (because they can change their knowledge) or they are not omnipotent (because they are powerless to change the future). This paradox has been a topic of debate among theologians for centuries, and it remains unresolved (Kretzmann, 1966).
Similarly, omnipotence itself leads to paradoxes. The classic question—"Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even they cannot lift it?"—illustrates the inherent absurdity of omnipotence. If the being can create such a stone, then they are not omnipotent because they cannot lift it. If they cannot create the stone, they are also not omnipotent because there is something they cannot do. This paradox shows that omnipotence, when scrutinized, collapses under the weight of its own contradictions (Mackie, 1955).
The Absurdity of Human Perspective
What makes these concepts even more absurd is that they are based on human perspectives and limitations. When we try to describe an omnipotent or omniscient being, we are essentially extrapolating from our limited experiences. Our language is built on human-scale interactions with time, space, and matter, so when we attempt to describe something that transcends all of these, we fail. We can list characteristics of omniscience or omnipotence, but they are all framed within the constraints of human perception and language, making them inadequate and ultimately meaningless in describing anything truly infinite.
If we take omniscience, for example, we might describe it as the ability to know everything that has happened, is happening, or will happen. But this description falls apart because it assumes a linear progression of time, something that is a purely human way of thinking. Similarly, describing omnipotence as the ability to control every particle of matter or bend the laws of physics assumes that these laws exist outside the control of such a being, which introduces yet another contradiction. The more we try to define these concepts, the more we see that they are human inventions—absurd attempts to explain what we cannot comprehend.
Summary
Omniscience and omnipotence are not just challenging concepts; they are fundamentally incoherent. The limitations of language, the inherent logical contradictions, and the absurdity of trying to describe infinite concepts using finite human experience all point to the conclusion that these ideas are not just difficult to understand—they are impossible to reconcile with reason. Theologians and philosophers may continue to debate these attributes, but such discussions ultimately reveal the absurdity of the concepts themselves. Omniscience and omnipotence exist only as abstract, human-invented terms that crumble when subjected to serious scrutiny.
References
Aquinas, T. (2006). Summa Theologica. Christian Classics. Retrieved from https://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.html
(Thomas Aquinas provides a foundational exploration of divine attributes, including omniscience and omnipotence. His attempt to reconcile these attributes with logical consistency illustrates the inherent difficulties in discussing these concepts using human language.)
Kretzmann, N. (1966). Omniscience and Immutability. The Journal of Philosophy, 63(14), 409–421. https://philpapers.org/rec/KREOAI
(Kretzmann examines the paradoxes of omniscience, particularly the problem of divine immutability and its implications for free will. His analysis highlights the logical contradictions involved in ascribing these attributes to a single being.)
Mackie, J. L. (1955). Evil and Omnipotence. Mind, 64(254), 200–212. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2251467
(Mackie’s classic argument against the coherence of omnipotence, particularly in relation to the problem of evil, provides a strong critique of the logical foundations of divine omnipotence.)
Plantinga, A. (1983). God, Freedom, and Evil. Eerdmans Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.ca/God-Freedom-Evil-Alvin-Plantinga/dp/0802817319
(Plantinga explores the problem of reconciling God’s omnipotence and omniscience with human free will, introducing the idea of "middle knowledge" as a potential solution. While influential, his arguments still reveal the inherent difficulties in maintaining both attributes simultaneously.)
Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/knowledge-and-its-limits-9780199256563
(Williamson’s work on epistemology explores the boundaries of human knowledge, raising questions about whether omniscience is a coherent concept. His analysis of the limits of knowledge is relevant to understanding the absurdity of omniscience.)
Caveat Lector in light of this discussion can be understood as a warning to the reader: "Let the reader beware." It serves as a reminder that the views expressed by the author, as well as the outputs generated by LLM AI, are subject to the limitations of human reasoning and language, particularly when dealing with abstract and inherently paradoxical concepts like omniscience and omnipotence.
In this context, caveat lector includes several important cautions:
Author’s Views:
The author's reflections on omniscience and omnipotence are deeply skeptical and critical. They highlight the incoherence and absurdity of these concepts, particularly in how they have been debated over time. However, readers should be aware that the author's views are informed by personal experience and philosophical reasoning, which may not align with traditional theological perspectives. These opinions are not presented as universal truths but rather as one individual's grappling with difficult metaphysical questions.LLM AI Output:
The contributions of LLM AI (such as the language model used here) are based on patterns in vast datasets, drawing from sources across literature, philosophy, and theology. While the AI can assist in generating structured arguments, summaries, and responses, it does not "understand" the content in the way humans do. The AI's output is constrained by its training data and algorithms, meaning it may inadvertently reinforce or reflect biases inherent in the data. It is not capable of forming beliefs or opinions and lacks the ability to critique or question the philosophical concepts it discusses.Philosophical and Linguistic Limitations:
Both the author and AI are working within the bounds of human language and conceptual frameworks that are fundamentally inadequate to fully capture or explain abstract, infinite concepts like omniscience and omnipotence. The discussion is limited by the tools available—words and logic that are built for human-scale thinking and not designed for describing ultimate or boundless realities.
Conclusion
As such, caveat lector applies here as a double caution:
Beware of personal biases and limitations in the author's critique, as these are shaped by personal philosophical inquiry.
Be mindful of the limitations of LLM AI output, which, while valuable in structuring and assisting discourse, does not provide definitive answers or independent critical thinking.
In engaging with the essay, readers should critically assess the arguments presented and recognize the inherent limitations in any discussion of these complex, abstract topics.