About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-10-2013, 12:26 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(29-10-2013 11:24 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Heywood, I understand that you're trying to run another "thought experiment" here. They are fun and all, but this one seems to have run ashore.

I got a question for you. No thought experiment, but seriously....do you believe that your God is omniscient?

You really should define omniscience first before asking a question like this. But to answer your question, I don't believe God has to be omniscient to be God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 04:02 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(29-10-2013 01:29 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(29-10-2013 06:01 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  So let's follow your logic through, Heywood.
1. An omniscient god exists.
...
7. Therefore god's morality no matter how good doesn't necessarily apply to us. In seeking out the perfect universe he's willing to let the optimum slide for these little side-universes. Even his direct interactions with each universe are likely to be somewhat random and chaotic in nature reflecting alternative ways to nudge a universe towards some optimal point rather than being "good" or aligned to his morality in any fundamental way.
8. Therefore, divine command theory is a sham.
Your argumentation is a sham. I never talked about God's morality or some quest to create the perfect universe. What is the point in having a conversation with you if you just make stuff up? Come back when you decide to be intellectually honest.
So where do you think this argument ends up? That God isn't really omniscient and therefore not all realities necessarily exist, or that God's interactions with the universe really are or at least could be just and idle thought or model, and are thus in no sense either good or evil in any meaningful sense? I'm just following your argument to its conclusion. Do you find it ends at a different conclusion? If so, what conclusion?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2013, 05:45 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(24-10-2013 06:38 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  In order to have knowledge about something, that something must exist. For instance in order to have knowledge about unicorns....unicorns must exist.
...
You don't have knowledge about unicorns because unicorns don't exist. What you have knowledge about is the concept of unicorns. Unicorns don't exist so there isn't any knowledge about them. The concept of unicorns exists so there is knowledge about that...and you might be privy to it.
....
For God to have knowledge about anything, that thing must.
...
If they do not exist, God can't know about them, He can only know about the concept of unicorns because the concept of unicorns exists.

If God knows all that is knowable, then in order for Him to have knowledge about Unicorns....God must create them.

I have heard many atheist claim that God is possible, but the Christian God is not. Well in order for God to know about a world governed by the rules of the Christian God, God has create a world and govern it as the Christian God.

It could be that this world is indeed governed by the Christen God even though you see no evidence for it. Why? Because in order for God to have knowledge about a world which is governed by the rules of Christianity, yet has no evidence of the veracity of Christianity, God has to create it.

This is your 1=0 moment (that is, the point where your arguement fails). God does NOT have to create such a world, only the CONCEPT of such a world. You've already said god can know of the concept of something without said something existing (unicorns). Therefore everything not in our universe exists only as a concept NOT as a real thing. Quantum multi-worlds is BS. It's a reification of a mathematical construct and a fun piece of SF.

Otherwise god must create all things that can be conceptualized because even if they can't exist in THIS world they could exist in SOME world. Thus there would be an infinite number of worlds and so an infinite number of worlds in which there is no god. There is also no way outside of direct or inferential evidence to decide if we are in a world that had a god or not. If this second option is true, then yes those atheists who accept a god MIGHT exist must also accept they could go to hell IF and ONLY IF the god ACTUALLY exists, which is unproven. They must also accept that anything we can conceive of is potentially real as well as the total of all things that might be conceived of at, be it thought of by humans, god, turtles, strange energy formations that cannot exist in this universe but could conceivably exist in some other.

... So what? This does not inform us about anything happening in THIS universe. It is not a useful line of thinking. It leads to nothing you couldn't get from getting high on narcotics. It's the stoner comment from one of the Revenge of the Nerds movies: "What if 'C A T' really spells 'dog'?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OddGamer's post
20-11-2013, 11:05 AM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2013 11:08 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(20-11-2013 05:45 AM)OddGamer Wrote:  
(24-10-2013 06:38 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  In order to have knowledge about something, that something must exist. For instance in order to have knowledge about unicorns....unicorns must exist.
...
You don't have knowledge about unicorns because unicorns don't exist. What you have knowledge about is the concept of unicorns. Unicorns don't exist so there isn't any knowledge about them. The concept of unicorns exists so there is knowledge about that...and you might be privy to it.
....
For God to have knowledge about anything, that thing must.
...
If they do not exist, God can't know about them, He can only know about the concept of unicorns because the concept of unicorns exists.

If God knows all that is knowable, then in order for Him to have knowledge about Unicorns....God must create them.

I have heard many atheist claim that God is possible, but the Christian God is not. Well in order for God to know about a world governed by the rules of the Christian God, God has create a world and govern it as the Christian God.

It could be that this world is indeed governed by the Christen God even though you see no evidence for it. Why? Because in order for God to have knowledge about a world which is governed by the rules of Christianity, yet has no evidence of the veracity of Christianity, God has to create it.

This is your 1=0 moment (that is, the point where your arguement fails). God does NOT have to create such a world, only the CONCEPT of such a world. You've already said god can know of the concept of something without said something existing (unicorns). Therefore everything not in our universe exists only as a concept NOT as a real thing. Quantum multi-worlds is BS. It's a reification of a mathematical construct and a fun piece of SF.

Otherwise god must create all things that can be conceptualized because even if they can't exist in THIS world they could exist in SOME world. Thus there would be an infinite number of worlds and so an infinite number of worlds in which there is no god. There is also no way outside of direct or inferential evidence to decide if we are in a world that had a god or not. If this second option is true, then yes those atheists who accept a god MIGHT exist must also accept they could go to hell IF and ONLY IF the god ACTUALLY exists, which is unproven. They must also accept that anything we can conceive of is potentially real as well as the total of all things that might be conceived of at, be it thought of by humans, god, turtles, strange energy formations that cannot exist in this universe but could conceivably exist in some other.

... So what? This does not inform us about anything happening in THIS universe. It is not a useful line of thinking. It leads to nothing you couldn't get from getting high on narcotics. It's the stoner comment from one of the Revenge of the Nerds movies: "What if 'C A T' really spells 'dog'?"

God creating a world where He doesn't exists is as nonsensical as God creating a movable/unmovable rock. God could create a world where He plays no other role other than that as a prime mover.

If God is an eternal creator, then why shouldn't He have created and infinite number of worlds? Does the idea of God sitting around for infinity number of years and then out of the blue deciding to make earth and the universe it is contains make any sense? God creating every conceivable world makes more sense. Every conceivable world includes a world exactly like ours except the that it includes an afterlife and the terms of that afterlife are determined by the rules of the Christian God.

So yeah....if God is possible....so is the Christian God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2013, 11:33 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(24-10-2013 06:38 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You don't have knowledge about unicorns because unicorns don't exist. What you have knowledge about is the concept of unicorns. Unicorns don't exist so there isn't any knowledge about them. The concept of unicorns exists so there is knowledge about that...and you might be privy to it.
Same thing goes for the concept of god.
There's this Christian thing, If you have knowledge of the Christian god then you must believe otherwise Hell awaits.
But no unbeliever has knowledge of any god, all they have is knowledge of someone's concept of god.

(24-10-2013 06:38 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I have heard many atheist claim that God is possible...
How would anyone know that a god is possible? Some invisible thing made of nothing that can perform magic....
I think maybe you have misunderstood the weak atheist position.
The position is that they cannot prove that gods are impossible. This does not mean that gods are possible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2013, 02:49 PM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(20-11-2013 11:33 AM)Stevil Wrote:  How would anyone know that a god is possible? Some invisible thing made of nothing that can perform magic....
I think maybe you have misunderstood the weak atheist position.
The position is that they cannot prove that gods are impossible. This does not mean that gods are possible.

No, I understood their positions well enough. They don't think God exists but nevertheless acknowledge that God could exist.

I don't think 9 foot tall human beings exist, but I acknowledge that they could exist. I don't think 50 foot tall humans beings exist, and I believe they could not exist.

As a theist, I believe God exist, but I acknowledge that He might not exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2013, 05:55 PM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2013 05:58 PM by Hafnof.)
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
I am not convinced any god does exist.
I am not convinced that any god can exist.

Both cases need to me made on their own merits with evidence to back them.

I'm not convinced that 50 foot tall human beings can exist either. There are structural problems that would need to be overcome, especially to maintain a high brain mass to body mass ratio typical of intelligence. I'm not sure what results from the process could fairly be called "human". Genus homo, sure... but homo sapien? Show me the evidence.

You're still mischaracterizing a weak atheist position. It should be: I do not accept any god claim, but neither do I make any claim of no gods.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2013, 10:39 PM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(20-11-2013 05:55 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  You're still mischaracterizing a weak atheist position. It should be: I do not accept any god claim, but neither do I make any claim of no gods.

The position I am characterizing is one that goes like this: There is a slim possibility that God exists, but there is no possible way the Christian God exists. What do you call that position if it isn't weak atheism?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2013, 10:59 PM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(24-10-2013 06:38 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If you acknowledge that God might be possible, you have to acknowledge that it might be possible you are on the road to hell.

...and you have to also "acknowledge the possibility" that monkeys will fly out of my butt.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
20-11-2013, 11:19 PM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2013 11:25 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
Here is my knowledge about 'god'...


Tempus
Lord of Battles, Foehammer

[Image: 240px-Tempus_p72.jpg]

Fighter 20, Cleric 10, Barbarian 10
Medium Sized Outsider (Chaotic)
Divine Rank: 17
Hit Dice: 20d8+200 (outsider) plus 20d10+200 (fighter)plus 10d8+100 (clerci) plus 10d12+100 (barbarian) ~1160HP
Initiative: +11 (+7 Dex, +4 Improved Initiative)
Speed: 70ft.
AC: 80 (+1 Dex, +17 Divine, +30 Naturla, +13 Armor[+5 Heavy Fortification Fullplate], +9 Deflection)
Attack: +3 Chaotic Keen Speed Battleaxe +85/+85/+80/+75/+70 melee, or spell +77 melee touche or +64 ranged touch
Damage: +3 Chaotic Keen Speed Battleaxe 1d8+52/18-20/x3, or by spell
Special Qualities: Divine Aura (17 miles, DC 36), divine immunities, Damage Resistance 69/+5, fast movement, fire resistance 37, godly realm (100 miles Outer Plane, 1700ft. Material Plane), plane shift at will, Rage 3/day, remote communication 17 miles, spontaneous casting of divine spells, Spell Resistance 49, teleport without error at will, understand, speak, and read all languages and speak directly to all beings within 17 miles.
Saves: Fortitude +59, Reflex +56, Will +58



"Tempus does not win battles, he helps the deserving warrior win battles. War is fair in that it oppresses and aids all equally and that in any given battle, a mortal may be slain or become a great leader among his or her companions. It should not be feared, but seen as a natural force, a human force, the storm that civilization brings by its very existence. Arm all for whom battle is needful, even foes. Retreat from hopeless fights but never avoid battle. Slay one foe decisively and halt a battle quickly rather than rely upon slow attrition or the senseless dragging on of hostilities. Remember the dead that fell before you. Defend what you believe in, lest it be swept away. Disparage no foe and respect all, for valor blazes in all regardless of age, sex, or race. Tempus looks with favor upon those that acquit themselves honorably in battle without resorting to such craven tricks as destroying homes, family, or livestock when a foe is away or attacking from the rear (except when such an attack is launched by a small band against foes of vastly superior numbers). Consider the consequences of the violence of war, and do not wage war recklessly. The smooth-tongued and fleet of feet that avoid all strife and never defend their beliefs wreak more harm than the most energetic tyrant, raider, or horde leader."
— Tempuran liturgy



What's Jesus again? A Lv10 Monk, Lv5 Cleric, Lv5 Ranger? Pretty sure Tempus would kick his ass... Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: