-1

Standard teaching is that God is omniscient. But what does the word mean? To most, it means "One who knows everything". To me, it means "One who knows everything that there is to know". Some things are simply not there for anyone to know.

Enter quantum mechanics, the most successful physical theory ever devised, predicting things correctly to seven decimal places. It says that Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead, and only observation can bring one of these two possibilities into reality. Before observation, it is actually wrong to say "the cat is either alive or dead", because that statement leads to things different from what we observe in the laboratory. So even God does not "know" whether "the cat is alive or dead", because that knowledge is simply not there to be had.

So Rabbi Akiva's dictum, "Everything is foreseen and free will is given", means "Everything [that there is to foresee, namely the probabilities of occurrence of various outcomes,] is foreseen, and free will is given [because we can influence that outcome]".

As I see it, all the "infinity" attributes of God reflect the influence of Greek philosophy. They are not included in God's 13 attributes. The Rambam was careful to say, in his 10th principle of faith, that God knows what people are doing NOW, but adds nothing about their future:

The Tenth Foundation is that God, blessed be He, knows the actions of mankind and does not turn His eyes from them... "Great in counsel, and mighty in work; for your eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men; to give to every one according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings" (Jeremiah 32:19).

So, my question is: Where, in traditional sources ancient and modern, is the definition of "omniscience" discussed?

Maurice Mizrahi
  • 21,770
  • 3
  • 15
  • 57
  • 7 decimal places? I can predict my distance to you to way more than 7 decimal places. We are exactly 0.000000000000 exameters apart – Double AA Mar 03 '21 at 15:33
  • 1
    Why do you assume the cat is either dead or alive that God needs to know one of those two things? Why can't God know the cat is in a superposition of dead and alive? – Double AA Mar 03 '21 at 15:37
  • Exactly. As I mentioned, God "knows" the probabilities of each outcome because that's all there is to know. – Maurice Mizrahi Mar 03 '21 at 15:38
  • So what's the problem?? God doesn't know that my wall is red and God doesn't know that my wall is green. He does know that it is blue. This is the ordinary definition of omniscience. There's no need for you to redefine anything theological. – Double AA Mar 03 '21 at 15:39
  • 1
    Related: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/9735/reconciling-the-evidence-for-the-uncertainty-principle-with-belief-in-an-omnisci – Isaac Moses Mar 03 '21 at 16:46
  • 1
    I think I covered most of the philosophical rishonim here – Alex Mar 03 '21 at 19:29
  • By the way, Rambam does mention the future elsewhere. – Alex Mar 03 '21 at 19:34
  • Your title doesn't fit your question! Please change either. – Al Berko Mar 07 '21 at 15:49
  • IIRC, omniscience is a Christian concept originally attributed to God the father and allows distancing Him from the creation, making a place for a personal mini-god to emerge. To apply this in Judaism, one has to accept the Kabbalistic ideas of the existence of different emanations of God on different levels, and then omniscience can be attributed to א"ס, but not to lower ones, because that would completely invalidate the narrative of the Torah (where God is constantly surprised about the happenings), refute the prayers and the idea of judgment, either Yom Kippur or the final one. – Al Berko Mar 07 '21 at 16:08
  • @DoubleAA When one observes the cat, the cat is either dead or alive. So the omniscience question then becomes about G-d knowing an observation's outcome. To say "the probabilities of each outcome is all there is to know" would seem to be to deny that omniscience. [At least in interpretations of QM whose ontologies allow only a single outcome of an experiment (so e.g. not multiverse interepretation)] – user9806 Jul 06 '21 at 20:47
  • @user9806 I'm still not seeing any problem here. – Double AA Jul 06 '21 at 20:59
  • @DoubleAA I'm answering your question : "Why do you assume the cat is either dead or alive that God needs to know one of those two things?". If G-d is omniscient, then He should know whether the cat [will be, upon observation] dead or alive. – user9806 Jul 06 '21 at 21:11
  • @user that is not an answer to my question. God knows the cat is currently in a superposition, and He knows that in the future the cat will be, say, dead – Double AA Jul 06 '21 at 21:28
  • @DoubleAA If this is what you meant, that's fine, however it then contradicts MauriceMizrahi 's claim that G-d "knows the probabilities of each outcome because that's all there is to know". – user9806 Jul 06 '21 at 21:39
  • @user huh? That's all there is to know about now. Obviously there's also lots to know about the past and the future. I'm alive now and I know in the future I'll be dead. And yesterday I was alive. Etc – Double AA Jul 06 '21 at 21:47
  • @DoubleAA You just said 'God knows the cat is currently in a superposition, and He knows that in the future the cat will be, say, dead'. This contradicts the statement that 'probabilities of each outcome are all there is to know'. Knowing the cat's future definite state implies a greater level of knowledge than just knowing the probabilities. In other words, the probabilities are not all there is to know. – user9806 Jul 06 '21 at 22:16
  • @user9806 "the probabilities are not all there is to know" about the whole timeline (past, present, and future) but they are all there is to know about the present. – Double AA Jul 06 '21 at 23:14
  • @DoubleAA If G-d knows (by knowing the whole timeline) that the cat will be alive then that outcome is already pre-determined even before the box is opened. But the "probabilities are all there is to know" claim says that the actual observed state of the cat is not deterministic... as in, it's not pre-determined at all - it's inherently random [subject to probability constraints, which are the only things that can be known]. I suppose this reduces to the 'G-d's Omniscience/predestination vs free choice' conundrum. – user9806 Jul 07 '21 at 01:28
  • @user9806 "I suppose this reduces to the 'G-d's Omniscience/predestination vs free choice' conundrum." Exactly. Moreover, just as my being dead later doesn't change the fact that now I'm alive, so too the cat's being alive later doesn't change the fact that now it's in superposition of dead and alive. Even when a human observes the cat later and finds it alive, that doesn't retroactively change the past such that the cat was always only alive and not in a superposition of dead and alive. Just as you may know Ill choose FrostedFlakes over Kashi doesnt change the fact that I have free choice now – Double AA Jul 07 '21 at 01:34
  • your question is based on term "knowing" to include all knowledge that is known to man. Just because man doesn't know doesn't mean God doesn't know it. You're comparing God's "knowing" to a human being's "knowing". You cannot do that. – larry909 Jul 07 '21 at 10:33

2 Answers2

0

You're correct. Words such as omniscience and omnipresent are not in the bible. Maimonides writes that it is philosophically impossible to know anything at all about G-d, save negatives, such as G-d does not have a body, is neither male nor female, etc. Thus the idea that G-d is all-knowing may not be true.

Abraham ibn Ezra felt that G-d only knows the generalities, the rules of the laws of nature, but not the particular details. Ralbag, like many others, felt that Divine knowledge is not aware of all the details about people; G-d only knows what might occur. Some scholars even think the Rambam held this view also. For example, Rambam's 10th principle, as you write, says that "G-d knows what people are doing NOW, but adds nothing about their future." Is he saying that G-d does not know humans, people as individuals?

Maimonides writes that G-d cannot do everything. He cannot make a square-circle, for example. The first principle of faith:

G-d exists, is eternal, is perfect in every way and is the cause of all existence, but He cannot do impossible things such as turning a triangle into a square.

Many verses in Scripture seem to imply that G-d does know or is unaware of the situation. For example, after Noah's flood, we are told that “His heart was saddened.” This has caused some scholars to ask the question, “Does G-d regret?” Another example is the famed trial of Abraham in Genesis 22 (Akedah, the binding of Isaac). Why did G-d felt the need to test Abraham? Isn't He all-wise? Didn’t G-d know the outcome of the test? Isn't G-d all-knowing? What does the word test even mean? Rambam seems to say that G-d did not test Abraham, it was an internal struggle. “G-d tested Abraham” by the laws of nature.

Maimonides writes:

“The sole object of all the trials mentioned in Scripture is to teach man what he ought to do or believe…. This is the way how we must understand the accounts of trial; we must not think that G-d desires to examine us and to try us in order to know what He did not know before. Far be this from Him; He is above that which ignorant and foolish people imagine concerning Him, in the evil of their thoughts.”

He later quotes Rabbi Ishmael, “The Torah speaks in human terms.” Radak agreed:

“When it says that He ‘regretted,’ this is the Torah speaking in human terms, for in truth, ‘He is not human that He should change his mind [le-hinahem]’ (I Sam. 15:29), for in the Almighty there is no change of will.”

Al Berko
  • 25,936
  • 2
  • 22
  • 57
Turk Hill
  • 1,348
  • 7
  • 16
  • 3
    could you please provide the sources and not just the names? – Dov Mar 07 '21 at 16:11
  • Maimonides writes that it is philosophically impossible to know anything at all about G-d, save negatives, such as G-d does not have a body, is neither male nor female, etc. Where does Maimonides write this? – Alex Jul 04 '21 at 03:34
  • Thus the idea that G-d is all-knowing may not be true. In Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 2:9 he writes הוא יודע הכל ואין דבר נעלם ממנו. – Alex Jul 04 '21 at 03:34
  • Abraham ibn Ezra felt that G-d only knows the generalities, the rules of the laws of nature, but not the particular details. Where does Ibn Ezra say this? – Alex Jul 04 '21 at 03:35
  • Ralbag, like many others, felt that Divine knowledge is not aware of all the details about people; G-d only knows what might occur. Where does Ralbag say this? Who are the "many others" that feel this? – Alex Jul 04 '21 at 03:35
  • Some scholars even think the Rambam held this view also. Who are "some scholars?" – Alex Jul 04 '21 at 03:35
  • For example, Rambam's 10th principle, as you write, says that "G-d knows what people are doing NOW, but adds nothing about their future." In Hilchot Teshuva 5:5 he included knowledge of the future. – Alex Jul 04 '21 at 03:35
  • Is he saying that G-d does not know humans, people as individuals? Why would you think he is saying this? – Alex Jul 04 '21 at 03:35
  • *The first principle of faith:

    G-d exists, is eternal, is perfect in every way and is the cause of all existence, but He cannot do impossible things such as turning a triangle into a square.* I don't see this in the first principle of faith.

     – Alex Jul 04 '21 at 03:36
  • This has caused some scholars to ask the question, “Does G-d regret?” Who are "some scholars? – Alex Jul 04 '21 at 03:36
  • @Alex 1. See Rambam’s “negative theology.” 2. See Ralbag to Genesis 18:20. 3. See the ibn Ezra to Genesis 18:21, “The whole [G-d] knows the individual in a general manner rather than a detailed manner.” 4. Scholars include Dr. Yair Barkai’s essay “The L-rd and Regret.” Also, see Radak to I Sam. 15:29, and see Gerald Schroeder's chapter entitled a G-d who regrets (the flood of Noah) in his book called G-d According to G-d. – Turk Hill Jul 05 '21 at 19:53
  • @TurkHill What is Rambam’s “negative theology”? Is it a book he wrote? A book someone else wrote about him? Something else? And citations/references belong in the answer, not in comments. – Alex Jul 05 '21 at 20:45
  • @Alex Rambam's “negative theology” can be found in the Guide. You asked for sources so I replied in the comments. – Turk Hill Jul 05 '21 at 20:54
  • The Guide is a big place. I asked for sources because an answer without sources is not very valuable. If you reply in comments without editing the answer, it remains an answer without sources. – Alex Jul 05 '21 at 21:01
-2

Based on Rambam and sages' interpretation of Biblical passages, Divine omniscience means that:

For every event X in the Creation in time t, the statement
"God knew that X, in time t - t1" is true, for any positive t1.

Al Berko
  • 25,936
  • 2
  • 22
  • 57