All-knowing. Raised a good Christian, I have had this concept floating around me for as long as I can remember - after all isn't that one of the first things they tell you about God? My almost-nothing-knowing brain has a hard time understanding what that means because knowledge, to me, is not some tangible, finite mass of data that I can wrap a ribbon around and call complete. "Oh, that's where I left my omniscience!" On the contrary, when i think I know something in that finite way, it doesn't take me long to realize that I hadn't looked close enough - that there was more to the issue than black & white.
I feel like the more I seek to know the muddier my perception of truth becomes, and I realize the impossibility of seeing all sides of an issue and knowing a thing. So, while I may in actual fact be more knowledgable at 25 than I was at 15, my 15-year-old self would have been a lot more confident in his knowledge than the person writing this post. Why is there a difference between our self-perceived knowledge and our actual mastery of ideas? And if we cannot measure knowledge by our self-perception, what tools do we have to measure our growth? At what point could we ever say we've figured it all out? (look at all these questions!)
Does God have questions? And if he does, is he still all knowing? Could it be that an all-knowing God does not know everything, but rather has all answers available to Him?
I invite any insight you might have about the finity of knowledge and maybe we can have a conversation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting question. If we continue to learn into the eternities, then that would mean that God is still learning. I think we generally consider the pursuit of knowledge as a process of leaving imperfection. If we knew everything, we would be perfect. However, maybe after his mortal life, a lack of knowledge doesn't equate to a lack of imperfection.
ReplyDeleteGod might be "all-knowing" within the scope of our needs and still be learning in areas that don't affect us at all.
Mark, thanks for your insight. I like your definition of knowledge as "leaving imperfection."
ReplyDeleteI really think the base of my question really is, "Is there such thing as perfection (perfect knowledge)?" Because knowledge is a framework through which we see the world. It is the evidence of the experience and thoughts that we have had. Why do I want to increase my knowledge, because perhapse if I establish a *perfect* framework, that takes into consideration all of the contengencies involved, I can be the perfect decision maker, the perfect advice giver, and the perfect teacher.
But even with a perfect framework (referring to knowledge), we must face the unpredictability of time. So, even if our knowledge can be applied to past events, the perfect application of our knowledge may produce unanticipated results, and therefore we will learn more and our knowledge was not perfect.
here is the anser... drawn from the depths of my mind:
ReplyDeleteAs always the Answer to The Question About Life, The Universe, And Everything is:
...
...
...
Drumroll
...
...
...
...
...
Tadaaaa
Tadaaaa
42!
Tim's guide to the Galaxy, eh?
ReplyDeleteI think when we mortals start trying to understand the immeasurable things that God can measure, things like omniscience, eternity, and omnipotence, I am reminded of a 1 year old trying to understand quantum physics.
ReplyDeleteI think that you and I both know what Bruce R. thought about this. There is a very interesting strain of christian theology called "openness theology". I read a few really interesting books on the topic... the most moved mover, and the God who risks. Both excellent.
ReplyDeleteThe more I ponder eternal progression and eternity itself, the more I realize how much my linear-ly trained brain can not grasp that 'end' or 'final' does not exist. We are programmed from our youth to focus on results and to aim for something or some sort of signifier that our work is done.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I know: The words 'Finite' and 'Eternal' are completely opposite. Not only are they antonyms by definition, but in my opinion 'Finite' and 'Eternal' can not exist at the same time.
"Why is there a difference between our self-perceived knowledge and our actual mastery of ideas?" What a well-posed question. I don't know the answer. But it reminds me of our good friend T.S. Eliot who asked, "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" Why aren't the amount of information we have memorized and the amount of wisdom we have equal? Allow me to be a little bit scattered as I actively explore my ideas:
1st, 'Perfect' does not mean 'all-knowing.' Perfect is defined in the scriptures as 'whole.' What is whole? I don't know. But here is what I have decided is my opinion on this matter (so far): Finite and Eternal can not co-exist. God is as all-knowing as He needs to be to be my God, right now. And He is as perfect as is necessary pertaining to me and my current state. He is a participant in a Plan as much as he is the creator of ours.
2nd, I'm not sure I would define knowledge as the framework through which I see the world. Here's how Webster defined it:
A:
1. the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
2. acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
B:
1. the fact or condition of being aware of something
2. the range of one's information or understanding
C:
the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning
D: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned"
With EVERY one of these definitions as my defense, I believe that God is all-knowing when it comes to our mortal state and its related trials, triumphs, ills and elations. His knowledge is perfect (whole) pertaining to me.
But that wasn't your question. Your question was, does complete knowledge even exist? Is there ever a point where one can say that one has "arrived?"
Christ was a perfect decision maker, a perfect giver, and a perfect teacher. And He lived here! On earth! How the H did he do that?! I think the answer is similar to the one I already gave: perspective. Christ could do these things because He learned of and from The Father and he had the same perspective (eternal--no ending!!--infinite) as the Father. So even as a man, his knowledge was 'perfect' (once again pertaining to us).
So, God's knowledge is whole pertaining to us and our specific and current circumstances. Now,
In John 5:19-20 we learn that Heavenly Father has and will continue to teach Jesus marvelous things, and that He hasn't always known them. So someone must have taught them to The Father so that He may then teach them to the Son. And whoever taught it to The Father had to learn it somewhere, and so on. So, as long as at least one soul in the countless souls that exist in the fabric of eternity continues to progress, the 'Pyramid' grows, and with it new things come. Even the person at the top of a pyramid gets gain from those at the bottom.
So, let's say my Husband (a girl can hope right?) and I qualify to start creating our own worlds. Will we encounter something 'new' to the entire God and world-making community? I don't know.
We are (I am) getting too caught up in information and not caught up enough in wisdom. Knowledge is not the framework through which I see the world. Absolute truth is the framework through which I see the world. With that mindset I know everything. I mean that, despite certain circumstances or details, the framework through which I (should) see the world is one based solely on eternal doctrines, which are eternal, saving truths. So, I will never encounter something 'new' to the God and World-making community because despite the information, A perfect, whole being will govern and understand because of their wisdom, or framework of vision based on eternal, unchanging and absolute truths that are not made fuzzy by the tricky, misleading reasonings of the adversary.
Just like Webster defined knowledge as "the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning," I define complete knowledge as 'the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through the application of reasoning with absolute awareness and acceptance of the unchanging nature of eternal truths, laws, and their corresponding consequences (good or bad)'
So, Sam, could it be that you are looking at knowledge too finitely?
Wow Chaela. I am very impressed at the depth with which you approached this question. I REALLY like your idea of relative knowledge. Like, to a baby, I know EVERYTHING, but to Obama I know NOTHING ;) I'm being cute, but I do like the concept and it helps me to reconcile a little the conflicting ideas I had about knowledge.
ReplyDelete