Critiquing: How Can God Not Know What He’s Chosen Not to Know?

June 5, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Knowledge Limitation — Incarnation Mystery — Human and Divine Natures — Free Will and Omniscience — Service to Jesus

---

Introduction

The content explores complex theological questions, including the nature of Jesus’ omniscience, the interplay between his divine and human natures, and the implications for open theism. This critique will assess the logical coherence of the arguments presented, identify unsubstantiated claims, and highlight any logical fallacies and cognitive biases.

Logical Inconsistencies and Coherence

Limiting Omniscience

One central topic is whether Jesus’ self-limitation of omniscience aligns with open theism. The content suggests:

“Isn’t the view that Jesus, as fully God, chose to limit one of his divine attributes? … How does God know everything, but he keeps himself from knowing everything? That doesn’t make any sense to me.”

This statement raises an internal inconsistency. If Jesus, as fully God, chose to limit his omniscience, it contradicts the notion of being fully omniscient. The argument lacks coherence because it does not reconcile how a being can simultaneously possess and limit omniscience. It posits a paradox without resolving it.

Unique Nature of Incarnation

The content acknowledges the complexity of Jesus’ dual nature:

“I think this is a difficult issue to kind of unwrap… we know that he didn’t know some things in his earthly body at that time. And all we could do is speculate as to how that works and its speculation.”

Admitting the speculative nature of this issue highlights a significant gap in the argument. While it’s understandable that the incarnation is unique, the content fails to provide a logically coherent explanation of how the divine and human natures coexist without contradiction. The assertion that it’s a “mystery” doesn’t suffice as a logical resolution.

Claims and Substantiation

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Several claims in the content are both unsubstantiated and dubious. For instance:

“Jesus did not at that time know the day or the hour… It’s an all-or-nothing kind of thing. It seems to me either he’s limited in some measure or he’s not limited at all.”

This dichotomy is presented without evidence or logical underpinning. The obligation to substantiate such claims is crucial, especially when discussing profound theological concepts. The argument relies on personal intuition (“it seems to me”) rather than empirical or logical evidence.

Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

Appeal to Mystery

The content often resorts to the appeal to mystery fallacy:

“I think it’s just a mystery and I don’t know how that whole works. And maybe some other people have worked this out more carefully, but I don’t think there’s any refuge here in this understanding of Jesus, this doctrine.”

While mysteries are a part of many theological discussions, relying on this appeal without attempting a logical explanation undermines the argument’s coherence. It suggests that because the issue is complex, it cannot be logically resolved, which is an evasion rather than an argument.

False Dichotomy

A false dichotomy is presented in the discussion of omniscience:

“It seems to me either he’s limited in some measure or he’s not limited at all.”

This oversimplifies the possibilities and ignores other potential explanations or nuances. The argument forces a choice between two extremes without considering intermediate or alternative positions, which is a logical fallacy.

Cognitive Biases

Confirmation Bias

The content displays confirmation bias by selectively interpreting theological concepts to fit pre-existing beliefs:

“Knowing that something is going to happen doesn’t cause it to happen period.”

This statement is used to dismiss challenges to the coherence of omniscience and free will without adequately addressing counterarguments. The argument is presented as a definitive truth, reflecting a bias towards confirming the existing belief in God’s omniscience.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

Method to Test Alleged Promises of God

The content makes numerous claims about divine attributes and actions without providing methods to test these claims. For instance:

“God knows everything, but the future is not a thing because the future hasn’t happened. Therefore, God doesn’t know what will happen.”

To substantiate such a claim, one could propose a method to test the knowledge of future events or the nature of omniscience. This would involve mapping belief to evidence and employing a more rigorous approach to theological assertions.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

The necessity of aligning one’s degree of belief with the available evidence is crucial. The content often fails to do this, relying on faith-based assertions without empirical support. For example:

“He had insight that others don’t have. And just like later, he spoke from his own authority. He was doing that even at 12 years old.”

Such claims require evidence beyond anecdotal or scriptural references. A more robust approach would involve evaluating historical, psychological, and sociological data to substantiate claims about Jesus’ self-awareness and knowledge.

Conclusion

The content presents a range of complex theological arguments, but it often lacks logical coherence and substantiation. It relies on speculative assertions and logical fallacies, such as appeals to mystery and false dichotomies, which weaken the overall argument. To strengthen the discussion, it is essential to provide empirical evidence, avoid cognitive biases, and ensure that claims are logically consistent and substantiated.

---

I invite further discussion on these arguments in the comments section to explore these concepts more deeply and address any questions or counterpoints.