Creativity and Omniscience

[Tenure]

Look, I'm not just preaching to the choir here. I know any kind of anti-God sentiment here is going to have little trouble gaining traction in the mind of readers here. However, I felt it was an important situation to bring to the table, because I believe the hypothetical of God, as an omniscient being, can help us better understand, in analogous terms, what knowledge means to man, and what creativity means. I'd also like to explain that as much as I'd like to take pride in saying this is all my own doing, I originally heard the basic hypothesis - Omnipotence stifles creativity - from a friend of mine.

Now with that out of the way, let's begin by looking at what it means to be God. Now there are all sorts of characteristics ascribed to God (one very frustrating one is the claim that he can 'defy logic'), but the one I wish to focus on is the idea that he is omniscient, that is, all knowing. He knows everything that has, does and will happen. He knows exactly when a molecule of water will be drawn up out of a sweat gland, evaporated and exactly where all the components of that molecule will go. So, He knows everything as a concrete fact. Vis a vis, everything that will happen, is what he knows. This is what you could call, "God's Plan" and it's a very important aspect of omniscience.

Humans are not omniscient. Whilst for a human, when we say we know something, we are not making a claim to omniscience, but making a claim to the totality of our knowledge. We are able to make mistakes and rightly so, we call these 'Errors of Knowledge' - the facts presented to you lead you to one conclusion, but due to you missing a vital fact or piece of data, you missed the more logical conclusion. Like Dr Gregory House giving the wrong diagnosis, because he doesn't know that the patient has pigeon's shitting in their water-tank (sorry if I've spoilt that episode for you).

God, on the other hand, can make no errors of knowledge. He doesn't just have access to an Encyclopedia written at the end of the universe, covering all history of everything. He doesn't have access to lots and lots of data about everyone. He knows intrinsically, instinctively, the past, present and future of the universe. If he knows something, it's an instrinsic fact of reality. If he knows that Dita Von Teese will whisk me away to a photo shoot with her tomorrow, then it's going to happen!

The thing is, is that it's the collorary fact of omniscience that limits God's ability to create. It forces God into the state where he doesn't so much create, as he just 'makes', or even less, he just follows a set mould, just following the motions. He knows exactly how everything will turn out, so he just sets everything off in motion, knowing exactly where it'll lead and exactly what will happen. The fact that he knows something, means it will never change, and the knowledge he had from the beginning will dictate everything.

Now I just want to lay down these fundamentals, because I want to make this all fundamentally clear. God is all about the known. Let's go back to animals and humans now. Animals have intrinsic knowledge of survival (keep this clear now, were talking about the fact that they already know what to do), where as man must learn how to do everything, especially how to use his mind effectively, if he wishes to survive. Another important difference, is that animals can hold only percepts, whilst men can hold percepts and concepts.

For example, an animal can see a tree. It can see the tree big and brown and green and leafy. And so can we. We can both see it, feel it, taste it, smell it, hear it (unless it falls and we're not around ). This is what's called the 'percept' of a tree, coming from the word 'perception'.

What animals lack however, is the ability to conceive; they have no conception; they cannot form concepts. A concept in this example, would be the concept of a tree as potential firewood, or of 100s of trees as forest. You might say that an animal can't see the forest for the trees.

So basically, when we form a concept of something, it's based around 'meaning' or 'function'. What do 100s of trees mean to us? A forest. What does some dry wood mean to us? Timber. Timber doesn't actually exist in nature. Trees do, of course, but the concept of a tree as timber, is something uniquely human. Another example might be that a wheel does not actually exist in nature. Large, round stones might exist, but 'wheels' don't actually exist. We imagine what function we could apply to a round object, and we apply it, and by jingo, it works!

What does this mean for God? It means God is unable to create, if he is omniscient. Whilst he can only form percepts, we can form concepts. He can form the percept of a tree, knowing intrinsically what a tree is and what it'll do. Only a human can actually give that tree any meaning, and give it the concept of 'firewood', or chop it down and use it as a rudimentary 'wheel'. Only a human has the ability to choose his own meaning for that tree, which allows him to create, and which gives him the great upper hand over Nature.

But it's even more than this simple matter of concepts - it's the matter of knowledge that's really important. Creation requires an absence of knowledge. You might think that creation occurs when a man puts a stick and rock together and makes a rudimentary hammer - no, it happens when he creates that idea in his head. It's when there was this concept which didn't exist before, which he formed in his own mind.

Creativity feeds off of the unknown. It's our application of order to chaos. It's when we see unconnected facts, a half-coconut and a river, and we create the concept of a container, of a vessel of water. Creativity is when there is something unknown which we make known. There's an effect, I forget the name, but camouflage experts reverse it to their advantage - it's where the human mind is so adept at conceptualisation, that we often see things that aren't really there. A strange groove in the wood or an odd shape in a burnt piece of toast, suddenly looks like a face.

As humans, everything is unknown to us when we are born. Our parents are making these odd noises. We learn that those noises have meaning. We get skilled as we grow up, at identifying different sounds and inflections, tones, speeds and patterns within those chaotic noises, which form a language. This develops, as far as I know, at the same rate as our rational faculty develops. We create this meaning out of, what to any other creature, are meaningless sounds.

Every work of art is just paint on a canvas. Every sculpture is just moulded earth or metal. Every car is just a bizarre formation of bizarre materials put together in an equally bizarre way. None of it has any meaning, not to an omniscient being. An omniscient being can't discover meaning, can't learn it, can't create it. It knows that things are there, but you can't know a meaning. You can't know a concept, as a concrete fact. It's the reason education is so difficult! You can't force someone to accept that differentiation works - they have to figure it out for themselves.

God has no use for science, for art, for learning. I've been told before, that our rational faculty, that everything good in man, is just a gift of God. But that's not possible. God could never dream of such a thing, because God can't dream. God can't imagine. God can't make up what isn't really there, because he knows everything that exists. Nothing's potential for him, so he can't turn the potential into the real, like humans do when they create. All he can do is know. God is a very lonely, unimaginitive being when you look at him for who he is.

And man isn't. Man, at his best, is strong, resourceful, cunning, powerful, clear-headed and right. At his worst, he's weak, infantile, impotent, wrong - and he wants to destroy anyone who's better than him. No wonder God destroys the tower of Babel... if God's just a matter of internal, mental projection, then it makes sense that the sort of people who believe in him so strongly, who accept him and the underlying philosophy it entails... no wonder they'd rejoice at the falling of the Tower.

Edited July 17, 2007 by Tenure

[DavidOdden]

Like Dr Gregory House giving the wrong diagnosis, because he doesn't know that the patient has pigeon's shitting in their water-tank (sorry if I've spoilt that episode for you).

Bastard!

The thing is, is that it's the collorary fact of omniscience that limits God's ability to create. It forces God into the state where he doesn't so much create, as he just 'makes', or even less, he just follows a set mould, just following the motions.

I don't follow, at least yet. Suppose we consider beavers who instinctively V twig nests in ponds to raise their spawn: V is some verb. Create? Build? Make? It seems to me that the word "create" is extensionally synonymous with "make". I would argue that the words "create" and "creativity", which are historically related, do have genus commonalities, but as different concepts they do have species differentia.

So basically, when we form a concept of something, it's based around 'meaning' or 'function'.

I feel that a line must be drawn in the sand. So let me ignore this god and creativity stuff, and focus on concepts. A concept is an integration of two or more units, measurement omitted. The "meaning" of a concept is the referents (existents) denoted by the concept. The motivation for forming a concept may (usually does) consider whether there is a funcational reason to form the particulat concept (e.g. you probably don't have a 'all-white reindeer' concept, because nobody does reindeer things even way up in Chester-le-Street).

Timber doesn't actually exist in nature.

Well, timber does actually exist, and if something actually exists, it actually exists in nature. You can argue that something exists but the stuff doesn't "exist as timber". Were I to (counterfactually) grant you that, then you will get nailed aon the claim that

Trees do, of course, but the concept of a tree as timber, is something uniquely human.

Because the concept of tree as distinct from flower or fumarole (okay, no fumaroles in the UK I suppose) is also something distinctly human. All concepts are distinctly human.

Mercy, I do gotta work on that paper 'o mine some tonight, so I can't go further. Barring death or skrelling attack, I'll see if I can return to this soon.

[lex_aver]

[God] knows everything that has, does and will happen.

...

The thing is, is that it's the collorary fact of omniscience that limits God's ability to create. It forces God into the state where he doesn't so much create, as he just 'makes', or even less, he just follows a set mould, just following the motions. He knows exactly how everything will turn out, so he just sets everything off in motion, knowing exactly where it'll lead and exactly what will happen. The fact that he knows something, means it will never change, and the knowledge he had from the beginning will dictate everything.

The concept of God knowing everything that will be implies determinism. That means God, as well as man, doesn't have volition. Therefore, God cannot practice art (in Aristotle's sense of the word). Neither can man, because everything he does is also predetermined by past events, even if he doesn't know them. So talking about God as volitional yet omniscient being doesn't make sense.

Now I just want to lay down these fundamentals, because I want to make this all fundamentally clear. God is all about the known. Let's go back to animals and humans now. Animals have intrinsic knowledge of survival (keep this clear now, were talking about the fact that they already know what to do), where as man must learn how to do everything, especially how to use his mind effectively, if he wishes to survive. Another important difference, is that animals can hold only percepts, whilst men can hold percepts and concepts.

If you are talking about primitive animals like bugs, then they cannot have any knowledge, because knowledge is conceptual; they don't even have memory, all their behaivior is predefined by their instincts.

Complex animals like mammals that have memories, can hold experience, which they use as to perform specific tasks (like cats opening doors). Although experience is not conceptual, such animals use abstracts (otherwise, they couldn't have used their memories to do anything).

Only man, who uses concepts and have volition, can have knowledge.

Edited July 22, 2007 by lex_aver

[Praxus]

The concept of God knowing everything that will be implies determinism. That means God, as well as man, doesn't have volition. Therefore, God cannot practice art (in Aristotle's sense of the word). Neither can man, because everything he does is also predetermined by past events, even if he doesn't know them. So talking about God as volitional yet omniscient being doesn't make sense.

God would not be bound by Aristotle's first principle, he could do an infinite variety of contradicting actions, have volition and be determined, exist and not exist; there are no bounds, natural or otherwise, beyond which he could not go.

The idea of an omnipotent and omniscient God necessarily implies contradiction.

[Tenure]

I just want to say, as a place holder, that I've been swamped over the past few days, and I won't be free till this weekend really. I've got some things I want to do, including a short piece of fiction I want to post up. I'm gonna reply here then, address Mr Odden and Lex's replies.

I just want to say in advance - some of my comments were incorrect and actually founded, I only realise after reading ITOE, in a Analytic-Synthetic dichotomy. Not the thrust of my argument, just a few ancillary (I learnt a word on this forum) points. I would like to go back and redress this issue with my new knowledge of concept formation too.

[Tenure]

I don't follow, at least yet. Suppose we consider beavers who instinctively V twig nests in ponds to raise their spawn: V is some verb. Create? Build? Make? It seems to me that the word "create" is extensionally synonymous with "make". I would argue that the words "create" and "creativity", which are historically related, do have genus commonalities, but as different concepts they do have species differentia.

I wouldn't call a Beaver's instinctual behaviour 'creation', not in the same way that a man creates a motor. I just wanted to be clear, that it is often thought logically possible that an omniscient being could be capable of 'Intelligent Design' and the Universe is also often called, 'All Of Creation', implying that it was some creative venture. My point however is to differentiate, and to show how in fact, omniscient stifles creativity, because creativity is intrinsically linked to the unknown.

To put it more technically, when we create things, our knowledge of what we are going to do is entirely epistemological. It is all based on the totality of our knowledge - we create based on our experience and our previous knowledge, not on what is intrinsically known to us (that is, creativity isn't like a muse mystically pouring knowledge into our head). The act of creativity is initself an act of discovery. It is the process of seeing a ton of possibilites, and selecting one - moving from the realm of hypothetical abstractions, to actual conrete representations.

A director might believe that a camera mounted to the front of a Harley might be the perfect opening for a film, but as he watches it, he might see something he hadn't thought about, and so he'll try something new, maybe filming from a helicopter instead. He chose the best possible angle he could think of, and when he saw he over looked something, he went for an even better angle - his entire approach is grounded in the naturally scientific nature of man.

My point is, is that God could never create, in the way that an artist or an engineer creates and that furthermore, Art and Science are useless to God. All he would be doing would be following an instinctual, instrinsic knowledge. He would be metaphysically bound to do what he knew would happen, and his work could never be judged as good or bad, because it was what had to happen, and he had no chance to correct it. His creation is 'perfect'.

I feel that a line must be drawn in the sand. So let me ignore this god and creativity stuff, and focus on concepts. A concept is an integration of two or more units, measurement omitted. The "meaning" of a concept is the referents (existents) denoted by the concept. The motivation for forming a concept may (usually does) consider whether there is a funcational reason to form the particulat concept (e.g. you probably don't have a 'all-white reindeer' concept, because nobody does reindeer things even way up in Chester-le-Street).

I apologise for this. I wrote this, and then a few hours later, recieved my Objectivism research CD-ROM. The first thing I read in full (besides skimming through tons of stuff, like a kid trying all the sweets in a shop), was the Analytic-Synthetic dichotomy. My comments weren't meant to say that concepts aren't 'real', however, what I meant was that when a man thinks of something he wants to invent or create or try or explore, it is a hypothetical - and that a hypothetical is something impossible to an omniscient being, because 'potential' knowledge is no use, since it will never be acted on. All that needs be known is what is, was and will be.

Well, timber does actually exist, and if something actually exists, it actually exists in nature. You can argue that something exists but the stuff doesn't "exist as timber". Were I to (counterfactually) grant you that, then you will get nailed on the claim that [timber exists but not a tree - timber is a uniquly human concept] Because the concept of tree as distinct from flower or fumarole (okay, no fumaroles in the UK I suppose) is also something distinctly human. All concepts are distinctly human.

Again, aplogies. I've corrected that mistake my inner logic, but I don't want to amend my first post - I'd rather just say that I understand now, otherwise the flow of the thread will make no sense.

But it does bring about another quick point I want to make: that God could never hold a concept. To God, everything is a concrete. Everything that has, will and does happen is known to him as an omniscient fact. God has no use for learning, and at a more fundamental level, no use for conceptualisation. Conceptualisation is how we attach attributes and characteristics to nature, so that we may conquer it. But for God, everything is automatic and instinctual - just like an animal.

Mercy, I do gotta work on that paper 'o mine some tonight, so I can't go further. Barring death or skrelling attack, I'll see if I can return to this soon.

A paper, eh? Are we expecting to see some work of the great Mr Odden posted here sometime? I'd love to see some analysis of language by you sometime.

-Rory

The concept of God knowing everything that will be implies determinism. That means God, as well as man, doesn't have volition. Therefore, God cannot practice art (in Aristotle's sense of the word). Neither can man, because everything he does is also predetermined by past events, even if he doesn't know them. So talking about God as volitional yet omniscient being doesn't make sense.

Exactly my point! Volition is tied instriniscally to creativity. Creativity is about seeing a thousand different ways to cross a valley, and picking the most logical, most suited one. If your idea was a bridge, then it's knowing a thousand ways to build a bridge, and picked the most suited one. If it's a steel bridge, it's about knowing the best way to arrange that steel to make a sturdy bridge. On and on it goes. My point is that creativity involves trying an option, without knowing - metaphysically - what the result will be.

That's why a creative act of man is applaudable, because he didn't know if it was going to work till he sees this bridge stretching out in front of him. He can laugh because he has finally seen it built. For God on the otherhand, he knows - like a man knows what his shoes look like or that his front door is blue, because he's seen it as thousand times for - what will happen, and it isn't some great act, it was simply something which had to happen and which he had seen the result of before it even began.

Only man, who uses concepts and have volition, can have knowledge.

Animals do have knowledge. Remember, an instinct is, "automatic, unerring knowledge". What they don't have is conceptual knowledge. They can see things and learn from them, but they can't form a concept from them. A cat opening a door has learnt from its experience that pushing at a door opens it. It is capable of memory - what it is not capable of is volitional knowledge of that memory. It wants to go to the other side a door, and it'll push against the door. It can't sit there and think about opening doors however, and thinking about a better way to open a door or why a door acts like a door.

I hope that explains it better - otherwise ask David there to explain it. I'm sure he can do a better job than me.

[fletch]

My point is that creativity involves trying an option, without knowing - metaphysically - what the result will be.

Does not an artist begin with a blank canvas and a mental image? Could not the same be said of God when He went about designing the universe? Because He knew how His creation would turn out does not mean that He did not actually create it. I think knowing in advance whether or not something would work would be quite a benefit. What kind of God would He be if He screwed up fifty times before finally getting something right. Omniscience may make the act of creating easy, but it is still creating. It is, however, the equivalent of peaking at the answer key in the back of the book. Creating without omniscience often requires perseverance and/or genius and is indeed more praiseworthy.

[y_feldblum]

Could not the same be said of God

Of whom? I've never seen that fellow, nor seen any real evidence of him. Folks have been talking of him for years, without, like me, ever seeing him or seeing any evidence of him; the phenomenon seems to me somewhat strange.

when He went about designing the universe?

So, per Kant, do we all design our own universe? Or is this "God" fellow I've never seen someone special? Oh wait, why am I asking you, when you've never seen him either?

[Tenure]

Omniscience may make the act of creating easy, but it is still creating. It is, however, the equivalent of peaking at the answer key in the back of the book. Creating without omniscience often requires perseverance and/or genius and is indeed more praiseworthy.

Think about omniscience. It's not just knowing a lot of stuff. It isn't thinking, "Right, Planet X will go here, it will orbit Star Y here, and why don't I put its axis on a tilt Z? Yeah, that's cool." That's what a human does when he creates - he looks at a problem, and if he has a complete blank canvas, he just tries things out, sees what they look like. A guru at solar-system planning would have lots of knowledge about what would be good, and what wouldn't and could make more informed choices. But God isn't just a really smart guy - he's omniscient. And when we're talking omniscience, omniscience doesn't just mean, "Know a lot", it means knowing everything, that is, what you know is determined to happen. You know what will happen, not just what'll happen to the best of your knowledge.

It's less like peaking at the answers at the back of the book, as it is flipping a coin and knowing when it'll land heads or tails. Why even bother to flip it? You know what'll happen. You do it simply because you know you'll do it - you do it because your knowledge led you to do it... what was the definition of instinct again?

Creativity isn't smply a matter of needing to be really smart - it's the fact that to create, one must first have nothing from which one must work with. One must be able to apply ones own strange abstractions onto a chaotic mess, to make something new. Omniscience means knowing exactly what that mess will form - not what it should form, but what it will become. There's a reason great artists don't just sit about doing reproductions of their work - it's because they know that they could create that piece that, before they created it, they didn't know if it was possible. They saw something possible, and they made it real. That's why they are praiseworthy. God sees what is and makes it so - where's the glory?

[DavidOdden]

I wouldn't call a Beaver's instinctual behaviour 'creation', not in the same way that a man creates a motor.

There are two differences relevant for distinguishing these acts: volitionality and conceptuality, and novelty. The invention of a motor is an act of creation, but that doesn't tell us whether "creating" implies novelty. So I would call the beaver's dam action "creating", but acts of creation can be firther distinguished, so that "invention" is a cspecial kind of creating, as is "discovery"; and, "copying" is a kind of creation (you create copies of an original). Just because you can distinguish two kinds of act does not mean that the acts also cannot be subsumed under one concept (such as "creating").

I just wanted to be clear, that it is often thought logically possible that an omniscient being could be capable of 'Intelligent Design' and the Universe is also often called, 'All Of Creation', implying that it was some creative venture.

Well, an onmiscient being would not try to create the universe, because he would know that it was impossible, and he would know that he doesn't exist, so it would be futile to make the effort. An omnipotent being might give it a go, however, since they are not as clever as the omniscient ones. But also, lemme emphasize the importance of not getting too etymological in understanding concepts. "Create" and "creative" are derived historically from Latin creare, but their meanings have diverged. A person who creates things is not necessarily creative, although there is a sense to "creative" where you could say that there was a "creative force", meaning "force which creates", without the necessary implication of novelty that is attached to the common meaning of "creative". So I agree that god can't be creative in creating the universe, just as a man mindlessly cranking out motors on an assembly line isn't being creative when he is creating these goods to sell. In other words, creativity is linked to the unknown, but creating isn't. The word "creative" has gotten specialized in meaning, and therefore the fact that god cannot be creative does not preclude his creating i.e. making, bringing into existence, the universe.

But it does bring about another quick point I want to make: that God could never hold a concept. To God, everything is a concrete.

Well, god would not benefit from concepts because he can hold all facts in his mind as a concrete. But god also would not need pants, yet I don't see that we can conclude that he cannot have pants.

I'd love to see some analysis of language by you sometime.

I'd be curious to see if that opportunity arises in the normal course of things for you. That's not to be expected, I suppose, since I'm on the other side of the fence from the York staff, but still I don't have any idea what their program is like.

[lex_aver]

I honestly can't understand how can you theorize on the omniscience, Tenure. It is flawed concept.

1) Being is omniscient

2) Being knows the future

3) Being is not volitional, as volition would contradict future's absolute predictability

4) Being can't have knowledge

5) Being can't know the future <-- Contradiction!!!

Seriously, Tenure, all your talk here doesn't make sense, and it cannot possibly make sense: you discuss how non-omniscient being is better in art then omniscient one, yet non of your test subjects can possibly practice art and none of your subjects can know the future or anything! This contradiction persists in all your posts in the topic, it's inherent in any elaboration on the omniscient God.

Finally, when you are talking about creativity, you forget that creativity requires free will, and even if we ignore the contradiction above, it is still impossible to be creative if omniscient God exists, because if he exists than you don't have free will and therefore you can't be creative.

[Tenure]

There are two differences relevant for distinguishing these acts: volitionality and conceptuality, and novelty. The invention of a motor is an act of creation, but that doesn't tell us whether "creating" implies novelty. So I would call the beaver's dam action "creating", but acts of creation can be firther distinguished, so that "invention" is a cspecial kind of creating, as is "discovery"; and, "copying" is a kind of creation (you create copies of an original). Just because you can distinguish two kinds of act does not mean that the acts also cannot be subsumed under one concept (such as "creating").

Agreed.

I agree that god can't be creative in creating the universe, just as a man mindlessly cranking out motors on an assembly line isn't being creative when he is creating these goods to sell. In other words, creativity is linked to the unknown, but creating isn't.

Ok, and that's a fundamental distinction we need to keep clear. Because I got involved in a debate using the same terms, and the person felt I was being too picky about 'words' and that I was just avoiding the word 'create' just to be fecitious - the truth was, and I tried to explain, that God could create in the 'novelty' sense of the word.

Well, god would not benefit from concepts because he can hold all facts in his mind as a concrete. But god also would not need pants, yet I don't see that we can conclude that he cannot have pants.

Because form follows function - one does not possess something one does not, or has never (I'm preparing for the rebuttal, "But the appendix!") needed.

I'd be curious to see if that opportunity arises in the normal course of things for you. That's not to be expected, I suppose, since I'm on the other side of the fence from the York staff, but still I don't have any idea what their program is like.

That would be rather cool, but I just meant more generally, I'd love to see your written work.

I honestly can't understand how can you theorize on the omniscience, Tenure. It is flawed concept.

1) Being is omniscient

2) Being knows the future

3) Being is not volitional, as volition would contradict future's absolute predictability

4) Being can't have knowledge

5) Being can't know the future <-- Contradiction!!!

Woah, woah, woah, when did I make point 4 or point 5? I've said that point 3 isn't my concern here, although yes, obviously, point 3 is true, I just want to show the importance of non-omniscience in man. People always complain about how man isn't omniscient, and he can't know the right result from the start. They also marvel at the wonder of a being who knows all - which they translate as meaning, "Knows what's best" (again, the father-figure projection"). However, they forget the true meaning of omniscience, and in fact, why their limitations are so helpful.

I wish to shatter that idea of God. As an artist, following the Romantic Realist trend, I wish to show the world as I think it should be and can be. To do that, I need to show why the lack of omniscience which men complain about, is actually a good thing. The first steps in my process, are intellectual. I want to formluate these ideas and make sure that I'm strictly correct in what I'm saying (hence my posting it on here for dissection).

Seriously, Tenure, all your talk here doesn't make sense, and it cannot possibly make sense: you discuss how non-omniscient being is better in art then omniscient one, yet non of your test subjects can possibly practice art and none of your subjects can know the future or anything! This contradiction persists in all your posts in the topic, it's inherent in any elaboration on the omniscient God.

My point is not that a literal omniscient being is worse, since obviously, such a being cannot exist. I am taking omniscience for what it is - a derivative concept of 'science' or more accurately, 'knowledge'. I am then showing why the original form, the 'totality of our knowledge' is better than the omniscient knowledge, and why in fact, it is the only logical possibility.

Finally, when you are talking about creativity, you forget that creativity requires free will, and even if we ignore the contradiction above, it is still impossible to be creative if omniscient God exists, because if he exists than you don't have free will and therefore you can't be creative.

I'm not talking about my creativity in a world where God exists; I'm talking about the capablities of God as an omniscient being and the capabilities of a Human as a Human - and that latter concept can only exist in a universe without a God anyway. That is one of the other logical conclusions of this argument - God is often credited with blessing man with a mind, but you see, God can't make a Human Mind, because God couldn't have any use for science.

Think of this as stuff which is obvious to you or I, but is not so much to an agnostic, a general atheist or a Christian. I'm posting this stuff here, because I want to popularise Objectivism through Art, but without losing logical consistancy - hence me wanting to check my ideas frivolously here. I know God is impossible, omniscient beings can't exists, etc etc, I know that I'm talking about a contradictary being! I'm just asking you to... suspend disbelief, as it were, so as to understand more about ourselves as humans.

[lex_aver]

Ah, you should have specified your intentions earlier (or was it I who doesn't read well). Your endaevor is certainly noble, and I wish you success.

Still, I think that you should pay more attention to what omniscience is, if you want to be consistent while exposing it in fiction. I suggest leaving absolute knowledge of the future out of the definition of omniscience, that would allow you to portray omniscient being that is volitional.

Another thing that concerns me is whether omniscience truly limits imagination and capability of creating art. I God knows everything that exists, I don't think that it limits his capability of imagining what is possible, and Romantic Realist Art portrays world as it can and should be. You suggest that knowing all disallows being to form concepts. That is wrong, however, because knowledge, as opposed to awareness, is conceptual. So you basically refer to the being that is aware of everything in the Universe, but cannot hold concepts, and, because of that, is no smarter than urchin. I think you should elaborate more on why such being cannot form concepts, and, more importantly, why call such being omniscient, if it doesn't know anything, but only is aware of everything.

[DavidOdden]

I think the problem of equating creation and creativity is insurmountable; whereas, an argument based on volition vs. omniscience is a productive line of thought. I agree that the ability to discover things is an outstanding state of affairs that man enjoys, and I pity poor god because of his inability to discover anything. To pursue an argument (to the effect that god is a contradictory concept) based on the presumption (if it is made) that god is volitional, you need to start by examining the concept of volition. Alexei's thread about free will is one place to start harvesting ideas. I find free will threads to be often unenlightening because they tend to get bogged down in mechanists on the one side saying that all action is pre-determined, and thus the discussions veer towards the false dichotomy of hard determinism vs. random action. I've come to understand that a lot of the "plenty of heat and no light" problem comes from not laying out what it means to be volitional. For example, I know that I'm gonna go take a shower, just as god must have known that he was going to create the earth. I don't see a contradiction between the fact that I know that I'm gonna go take a shower and the fact that I can choose to go take a shower.

[Tenure]

David - you're certain you're going to take a shower. It's what you want to do, and you don't think anything else is going to come up, like a wolverine bursting through the window. You're certain of your knowledge. However, you don't know, as a metaphysical fact, that nothing will happen. It takes omniscience to know whether or not you'll trip on a bar of soap before even getting into the shower.

What I want to show is why that certainty, that ignorance of stray bars of soap and potential-canines, is better than knowing with metaphysical omnisciece that you will or will not take your shower. There's no contradiction for a man to know he will do something and then to go do it. Similarly, there's no contradiction as to why a God who knows everything couldn't take action - it's just that he wouldn't be volitional in that action. It's for that reason that I don't think God could be 'creative' or imagine any other possibilites other than what will happen, because the whole idea of 'possibility' arises from men recognising their own lack of omniscience.