User:Shadow451

Omniscience is a separate attribute and is self contained by it's very nature. Neither can it be parceled out into separate knowledges and remain omniscience, as "omni" means "total' and "science" is defined as "knowledge" in English. An entity possessing this attribute need neither be omnipotent nor omnipresent, and in the same sense being omniscient does not preclude other attributes that do not pertain to "knowing". Neither should the subject of "omniscience" be (here), treated in aspects of theology, as that would taint the issue with outside implication before defining what is omniscience. Even the thought of a being possessing omniscience gives preconceived notions to our thinking. An entity that is omniscient could, by logic, allow randomness. This issue of randomness, (often capsulized as free-agency, but in reality, must include randomness in all aspects, even in "uncertainty"), is derived only after a false conclusion is made that randomness versus omniscience. Omniscience does not preclude randomness. As an example, let us suppose we can traverse time in any direction and that we have the capacity to observe and recollect all events and event outcomes. There is nothing in this supposition that would cause any event to lack randomness due to the knowing of the event and outcome. Knowledge of outcomes, in and of itself, is not causal in any event, or even casual of the existence of the event. Omni knowledge would also include all possible events and all possible outcomes. The example used is to demonstrate free-agency is not precluded by omniscience. As to an omniscient entity being able to lay aside that attribute, then the entity is at that moment not omniscient and cannot be defined as that entity, because the definition of an entity is an entities' attributes. (God, for instance, cannot be less than God and remain God. That also would exclude the attribute of immutability, or "impossible to change".)