Thomas Aquinas shows that he agrees with the concept omniscient. He suggested that God has knowledge because knowledge is not physical so he has non-physical knowledge of himself and everything that he created which includes humans. Knowledge being non-physical is important as it means that God, who is immaterial, still can have knowledge.
However, this view creates issues for the free will of humanity. If God is omniscient, this implies that God knows what I will be doing at every point of life. According to Boethius, God takes in all of history in a single glance. This suggests that God knows what I am doing at 10.30 and God knows what decisions I will make even before it has happened at 10.45. This view shows God is omnipotent. If this view is true, then humanity doesn’t have free choice as God already knows what they will do. So, if God can see into the future, then this questions God’s omnibenevolent. Boethius questions whether it is fair to reward or punish if God knows how we will react. The Bible often shows God as distributing rewards or punishments for human actions, such as in Genesis 3, where Adam and Eve are eternally punished for their disobedience. Surely a good, loving God would not do this if they had no control over their actions.
Also, if God can interfere with the world but chooses not to, allowing us our free will, he is logically responsible for evil and so can neither blame nor punish us. This is the same as if I saw a man about to rape a woman, and I possessed sufficient force to stop him, but chose to not act saying that both the man and the woman had to learn the extent of their free will and choose to be good like me. He chose not to help us, and gives us an unproductive punishment in Hell which doesn’t make him omnibenevolent.
However, Luis de Molina would argue that God does not interfere with human decisions. Instead, he simply observes all of the possible outcomes of our decisions. If this is the case than it seems fair that God would reward or punish as it shows that humans have free choice in what their actions are. And Aquinas agrees with this view, suggesting that God's omniscience is similar to the vision of a man standing on a mountain, in that he can witness the various paths our lives may take, but chooses not to influence them, and so avoiding conflict with free will.
In contrast, Richard Swinburne believes that God is everlasting and progress through time. So, if God is everlasting then his omniscience can’t include knowledge of a future that does not yet exist so punishing and rewarding seems understanding as these actions are done by humans choice. But for Richard Swinburne omniscience is not to know everything but knowledge of everything that is logically possible to know which makes God’s omnipotent questioned by many philosophers. Therefore as the future has not yet happened, it can be logically be known. And so God’s knowledge may include all future events that are predictable by physical laws but leave aside free will choices. Swinburne suggests that omniscience may even leave room for God’s free choices e.g. to respond to people’s prayers.
However, Boethius comes to the conclusion that if past, present and future exist simultaneously for God, he can watch but not change things as they are already happening all at once. But, this causes problems to how God can punish, reward or answer prayers without responding to events that are all happening as they all happen at once.
Process theologians believe God is within in time along with humans. This implies that God isn’t omniscient as he lives in the present. God isn’t all knowing so this effect the belief of free will-God is in time with us. So, God is not omniscient as he lives in the present with us, therefore he can’t have foreknowledge but only about the past and present so God should be able punish and reward humans as God doesn’t know their actions.
On the other hand, there are still issues with the idea of an interventionist God who rewards and punishes as it may be seen to conflict with the simple, immutable view of God that we often find in the scriptures of the world religions.
In contrast, John Calvin believes in predestination so God determines your future and knows the actions of humans, so, this states that humans have no free will as God has destined our future. So, John Calvin agrees with the term omniscient which means that he knows the past, present and future. So, the future actions or beliefs follow according to God. Christians follow God and they accept God alone decides eternal destination to each person without regards to man’s choice. This view suggests that God has the right to punish and reward even with having the knowledge of what humans actions will be in the future.
Overall, while it may be fair of God to punish and reward our actions, it is not necessarily possible as the idea of God intervening in our world is not coherent when we consider the other qualities described in the scriptures of world religions. The argument for God’s omniscience is a strong one and seems to rule out human freedom and this would only be the case if God’s foreknowledge were in time. But, Boethius solutions suggests God is timeless is the only hope of preserving the goodness of god. Despite other philosophical theories, it is coherent and means that God does not affect or determine our actions. The actions are our own and we can be rewarded or punished for them.
by
nhossain (student)
