Didymos Thomas wrote:
If an omnipotent being must be everything, why does this mean there is nothing? I don't see how this follows. If anything, if the omnipotent being is everything, then there is only one thing; if your first true premises are true, monism seems to be the result.
This is a very interesting argument. I only have one question: how can the future be knowledge, something to know, if it has not happened? Continuing with the monism theme, if the omnipotent being is everything, he would know everything at any given moment, and we assume would have memory, thus knowing everything in the past. By virtue of being everything, anything that happens he will know - anything the future contains, he will contain, and will know it when it happens.
I guess the underlying questions here is:
Must an omnipotent being know the future?
I dont think one must; as the future has not happened, there is nothing to know about it. If he is omnipotent, he will know what happens when it happens, and know what has happened.
Though, being omnipotent, perhaps he could know the future, in that he plans the future?
That could hold *if* we regard the future as something that hasn't happened.
If, however, we regard the future as already happening, as just a part of an alternate reality in existence...then what?
If every possible reality is simultaneously occurring in our universe, and every possible reality is simultaneously occurring in every other universe, then every thing is simultaneously occurring in a universe. Now, if something is omniscient and knows EVERYTHING, that would encompass all of this, completely defying our perception of time.
"It" would know it's knowing that it knows, not only in the present, but the past and future. "It" would even know that it knows it knows it knows, not only in the present, but in the past and future. Also, this would occur in all universes.
Not to mention, there are an infinite amount of "things" that come into existence at any given point in time, so every passing moment, it would know even more. But at the same time it wouldn't know any more because there is no perception of time. It wouldn't even be able to relate to "more", "less", "past", "present", "future". It would be every time, every place, every thing.
The point is, we may not even have the capacity to fathom all of this, and even when you believe you are close to something enlightening, you may soon realize you have missed something. We approach everything searching for concrete reasoning, when there really may not even be such a thing. We must choose where we want to stop, and where to start believing. And that's a choice noone should make for you.