About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-10-2013, 02:12 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
The love child of Barney and WLC... Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
25-10-2013, 02:32 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(25-10-2013 01:34 AM)Chippy Wrote:  But if something only has a conceptual existence then there is nothing more to know about it once the concept has been exhausted. We can learn everything there is to know about ewoks by reading everything that has been written on them. There is nothing more to learn about them because they exist only on paper, in film and in the imaginations of people. Why would God not simply avail Himself of that same knowledge? God need only know what has been written on ewoks to preserve His omniscience because there is nothing more substantive to know.

I like your analysis Chippy. I think it is well thought out and presented clearly. Let me respond.

Premise 2: God knows all that can possibly be known.

Total Omniscience isn't something that I made up. If God stopped with just the conceptual knowledge of Ewoks, He would be violating premise 2 because He could potentially know more about Ewoks then just the concept. Doesn't total omniscience demand that God knows everything that can be known?....Including everything beyond a concept? By not creating a physical manifestation of a concept isn't God choosing to limit his omniscience(this is called inherent omniscience)?


(25-10-2013 01:34 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Also, since no one has provided a complete specification of an ewok God must be filling in the gaps Himself, e.g. cardiac morphology, neurology, in which case isn't God making up his own ewok-like-thing rather than making an ewok as such. If He is supplying the details then what is He actually learning--assuming that an omniscient being can learn? This too doesn't make sense. God would know the result because He is supplying the details that contribute to the final product.

Anything we conceive, I think God would have conceived of it first. I'm not sure it would be possible for a human being to conceive of something before God did. I don't think of it as learning but rather as the creation of knowledge.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 02:36 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(25-10-2013 12:57 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(25-10-2013 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Wait, can someone (who is not the OP) explain why omniscience and imagination are limited by nonexistence? I can imagine things that don't exist, without them necessarily existing; so why is this a stumbling block for a all-knowing god?

The OP--HJ--believes that without creating what is imagined (by humans) God will not have real/authentic/complete knowledge of that thing imagined. I don't think that this makes sense and may entail that humans can control God's actions by causing Him to create things.

Cool, I get it, but there's no reason at all to think that it's true. Good thing for the OP too, as I can imagine a universe without a god (which looks suspiciously similar to this one) or something to destroy a god, which by the OP's reasoning, he would be required to create. God being required to create a godless existence and a god killing machine, just so he can maintain his perfect knowledge about such things.. Imagine that, I know I can! Laughat

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
25-10-2013, 02:36 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(25-10-2013 02:10 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  4 it is 4 am and I have wasted hours waiting for you to make a valid point. You have not done so. This thread is no longer amusing to me now that you tell me I cannot live in a world with sexy super powers so I am done. Goodnight

Raptor Jesus thinks he is God, ask him to give you Sexy Super powers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 02:43 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(25-10-2013 01:11 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(25-10-2013 12:59 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Yes that is what EK is saying. By creating a new concept you have begun to think about something which hitherto no one else had thought about.

He said you could have a thought about something and that thought not be a concept....which is ludicrous. When you begin to think about something hitherto no one else has thought about, you create a concept. Initially it might not be fully formed or "fleshed out"....but it is a concept the moment it comes into existence.

Stawman much?

(25-10-2013 12:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also, we can think of things that don't yet exists as concepts; it's the how we create new ideas and concepts. Drinking Beverage

I'm sorry, where do you get me claiming 'you could have a thought about something and that thought not be a concept'?

Chippy managed to distill what I said rather succinctly, but rather than getting it and moving on, you appear to simply be required to maintain your position in the face of all opposition and rationality. You are smart enough (I hope) to get what I said, but rather than getting it and attempting to argue against it, you have to distort it in an attempt to argue against something I did not say in an effort to maintain your position rather than evaluating it critically.

You are a shinning example of a complete lack of intellectual honesty.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 02:49 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(25-10-2013 01:40 AM)Chippy Wrote:  The premise that an omniscient person would need to realise a concept to learn all that can be known about it. What you are describing is a process of learning. An omniscient person--by definition--doesn't learn.

I don't think it is learning but rather creating new knowledge. Learning requires the pre-existence of what is being learnt.

(25-10-2013 01:40 AM)Chippy Wrote:  There may be a conceptually exhaustive ensemble of alterantive universe but they wouldn't need to exist to create the deitiy's omniscience. An omniscient person would know everything that could be known reagrdless of such a ensemble of universes.

Inherent Omniscience allows a deity to pick and choose what will be knowable. It seems this is the view of Omniscience you are taking. For you premise 2 would be "God knows everything He chooses to know and can be known." If that is the case, then the conclusion does not follow.

What do you think is the better premise?

A) God knows everything he choose to know and can be known
B) God knows everything that can be known

If you choose B as the more reasonable premise then I think your critique falls apart.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 02:55 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(25-10-2013 02:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Cool, I get it, but there's no reason at all to think that it's true. Good thing for the OP too, as I can imagine a universe without a god (which looks suspiciously similar to this one) or something to destroy a god, which by the OP's reasoning, he would be required to create. God being required to create a godless existence and a god killing machine, just so he can maintain his perfect knowledge about such things.. Imagine that, I know I can! Laughat

A God killing machine would be a logical impossibility. It would mean that God is an immortal/mortal being....which is nonsensical. Now you can conceive of something logically impossible but God can only create the logically possible. I'm sorry but your concept remains a concept.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 03:11 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(25-10-2013 02:32 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Premise 2: God knows all that can possibly be known.

Total Omniscience isn't something that I made up. If God stopped with just the conceptual knowledge of Ewoks, He would be violating premise 2 because He could potentially know more about Ewoks then just the concept.

Yes but you are the origin of the idea that He needs to actualise an idea to achieve perfect knowledge and that idea is inconsistent with omniscience. Yahweh, Allah and the Father (part of of the Trinity) are supposed to be immutable and immaterial so they cannot--by definition--experience any sort of process. An immaterial thing--because it is not composed of parts--does not experience any process a fortiori an explicitly immutable thing.

Quote:Doesn't total omniscience demand that God knows everything that can be known?....Including everything beyond a concept?

Yes but nowhere in the concept of omniscience is the idea that God has to realise concepts to gain exhaustive knowledge of them. You are implying that God has to undergo a process of learning and that idea contradicts the concept of omniscience as well as of immateriality and immutability.

Quote:By not creating a physical manifestation of a concept isn't God choosing to limit his omniscience(this is called inherent omniscience)?

No. Any process, any change, undermines the immateriality and immutability of God.

Quote:Anything we conceive, I think God would have conceived of it first. I'm not sure it would be possible for a human being to conceive of something before God did. I don't think of it as learning but rather as the creation of knowledge.

Ok, fair enough but the above still holds. An immaterial being is not composed of parts. If something is not constituted by parts then no conceivable process of change is possible. Any sort of change entails one or more of a loss of a part, the addition of a part or a rearrangement of existing parts. It is impossible to conceive of change apart from these fundamental relationships between the parts of a thing and the whole of the thing. Learning is a process that entails some sort of change; if a God is learning then it is necessarily changing which would violate its omniscience in the first place but it would also violate its immutability and immateriality.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 03:12 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(25-10-2013 02:55 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(25-10-2013 02:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Cool, I get it, but there's no reason at all to think that it's true. Good thing for the OP too, as I can imagine a universe without a god (which looks suspiciously similar to this one) or something to destroy a god, which by the OP's reasoning, he would be required to create. God being required to create a godless existence and a god killing machine, just so he can maintain his perfect knowledge about such things.. Imagine that, I know I can! Laughat

A God killing machine would be a logical impossibility. It would mean that God is an immortal/mortal being....which is nonsensical. Now you can conceive of something logically impossible but God can only create the logically possible. I'm sorry but your concept remains a concept.
Concepts can become realityThumbsup

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 03:16 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(25-10-2013 02:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also, we can think of things that don't yet exists as concepts; it's the how we create new ideas and concepts. Drinking Beverage

I'm sorry, where do you get me claiming 'you could have a thought about something and that thought not be a concept'?

That part where you said "we can think of things that don't yet exists as concepts" is what messed me up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: