When the topic of omniscience is written about or discussed, it is usual for people to focus specifically on the concept of divine foreknowledge or the alleged "logical impossibility" or "incomprehensibility" of omniscience. Of course, there is no internal contradiction in the concept of omniscience and nothing impossible about comprehending the ramifications of such a thing, but these are still important issues to understand in a theological context. The largely fixed focus on them still keeps other truths about or sides of omniscience from coming to light privately or collectively.
One such truth is that an omniscient being, by nature of knowing all things, would know by default that it is omniscient to the point of never having to inquire into the matter introspectively. Inquiry requires ignorance. To have the need to inquire into an issue with the light of reason and introspection (omniscience still hinges on reason and introspection, just without any epistemological limitations), one must lack certain knowledge that can be obtained through uncovering newly discovered truths. Omniscience inherently excludes the need to ever inquire and the very ability to discover something new.
Thus, if someone even has to question whether they are omniscient, they already have proven that they are not all-knowing! No omniscient being has to even wonder if its senses (if it has any) convey accurate perceptions, if its memories are accurate, if someone else is trying to deceive it, or if there is more to any aspect of reality than what it already knows and perceives. The truths about these and all other matters would already be constantly before its mind. Furthermore, since omniscience entails having all knowledge about all things, one would also know the fact that one is indeed omniscient.
Anyone who would be surprised to hear that someone who seemed to genuinely care about them cared only for manipulating them or anyone who even has the slightest lapse of immediate logical proof of any matter at all is by necessity a being that must intentionally reason out specific truths without already knowing them beforehand. Now, omniscience still requires that one rely on reason, but there is no way for an omniscient being to reason out newly discovered logical truths (I will write more about this soon). The fact remains that an omniscient being could never learn of new logical truths.
Among the things I can know with absolute certainty is that I am not omniscient. I do not know if all of my sensory perceptions, memories, or moral preferences correspond to any particular aspect of reality beyond my consciousness. I do not know the full identity of the uncaused cause or even know if I am the uncaused cause. Moreover, I do not know if such a thing as atoms or quarks exist, if there are elementary particles, if matter exists when it is not perceived, or how long non-eternal existents like matter and time (as opposed to logic and space) have existed. Realizing that I am not omniscient is only the inverse side of realizing that I cannot know some truths.
No comments:
Post a Comment