An omniscient god cannot be intelligent

[brewer]

What if God's a giant quantum computer whose job it was to design and kick off "this" universe with the aim of eventually creating life.

Praise God, the super computer!

I'm gods nano virus?

[robvalue]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

A being with true omniscience cannot have free will. It can only do what it has foreseen that it will do. If it did otherwise, that would prove it is not truly omniscient. Also at odds with omnipotence, if you can't even get out of your own prophecies, you're not truly omnipotent.

It actually becomes even more serious (for theists). If God exists as described, then humans can't have free will, either.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

That God is omniscient only makes intelligence unnecessary.  The problem comes in that reasoning to a conclusion is always less efficient than appealing to something already known.  Because God is perfect, he would never appeal to his ability to reason rather than his omniscience.  So his ability to reason is rendered unnecessary by his perfection, but that doesn't rule it out, either.  All we can say is that God doesn't employ his intelligence and is thus indistinguishable from an automaton which simply chooses the best available option based on his knowing what that option is at every moment.  This doesn't rule out an intelligent God, but it does mean that no natural theological argument can prove the Judeo-Christian God because intelligence is a requirement of that God, and no fact can demonstrate that any effect of God required intelligence (as I pointed out to Steve in The Absurdity Of God thread).  So it takes a whole lot of theist arguments off the board, including the Kalam cosmological argument, as well as Aquinas' five ways.

However, if a god was omniscient but unintelligent, how would you be able to tell he was unintelligent?

[robvalue]

Hmm... maybe being able to access all the facts doesn't imply the ability to properly understand or make use of them?

[brewer]

From what I can tell all gods seen to have their failings. Why is that?

[Anomalocaris]

Hmm... maybe being able to access all the facts doesn't imply the ability to properly understand or make use of them?

Able to assess but unable to understand is not normally considered “knowing” any more than standing in a library makes you learned in all the subject its books cover.

[Angrboda]

That God is omniscient only makes intelligence unnecessary.  The problem comes in that reasoning to a conclusion is always less efficient than appealing to something already known.  Because God is perfect, he would never appeal to his ability to reason rather than his omniscience.  So his ability to reason is rendered unnecessary by his perfection, but that doesn't rule it out, either.  All we can say is that God doesn't employ his intelligence and is thus indistinguishable from an automaton which simply chooses the best available option based on his knowing what that option is at every moment.  This doesn't rule out an intelligent God, but it does mean that no natural theological argument can prove the Judeo-Christian God because intelligence is a requirement of that God, and no fact can demonstrate that any effect of God required intelligence (as I pointed out to Steve in The Absurdity Of God thread).  So it takes a whole lot of theist arguments off the board, including the Kalam cosmological argument, as well as Aquinas' five ways.

However, if a god was omniscient but unintelligent, how would you be able to tell he was unintelligent?

Well, that was my point. You wouldn't be able to do so. Thus the consequences for natural theological arguments.

[robvalue]

I thought I'd address a point brought up about omniscience somewhere else. It was claimed that an omniscient being makes perfect decisions.

This is a reasonable statement, but only once you consider that it must be perfect for some purpose. A decision can't be perfect in all regards, that doesn't make any sense. For example, I might make a decision which is perfect for maximizing my own happiness. That doesn't mean it's perfect for anyone else's happiness, nor for achieving any other goal you could think of.

Even if you include multiple goals, some sort of weighting between them must still be given; and it's presumably impossible to achieve two contradictory goals, even if you're omnipotent.

[Angrboda]

I thought I'd address a point brought up about omniscience somewhere else. It was claimed that an omniscient being makes perfect decisions.

This is a reasonable statement, but only once you consider that it must be perfect for some purpose. A decision can't be perfect in all regards, that doesn't make any sense. For example, I might make a decision which is perfect for maximizing my own happiness. That doesn't mean it's perfect for anyone else's happiness, nor for achieving any other goal you could think of.

Even if you include multiple goals, some sort of weighting between them must still be given; and it's presumably impossible to achieve two contradictory goals, even if you're omnipotent.

Yes. I've attacked the concept based upon the arbitrariness of God possessing specific values here and there about the forum. As Dostoevsky said, "If everything on earth were rational, nothing would happen." Actions are driven by values, not by reason and knowledge alone. Having one set of values is no more rational than having another set of values. As you note, what God is perfect for in regards to purpose is ultimately based on values, so there is no one solution to the question of what makes a God perfect, as seems to be assumed by traditional theology. The bible speaks of God being perfect, but primarily with respect to moral values. It has been an assumption that God is morally perfect, but values go far beyond questions of morals. The whole values question is a lacuna in traditional theology.

(You might also be interested in the post I wrote questioning why God would have values at all, here.)