About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-10-2013, 11:55 PM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
Ok, I can accept the possibility that there are atheists who accept the possibility of an omniscient/omnipotent god but I am not one of them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 11:56 PM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(24-10-2013 11:39 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I find that position to be nonsensical

I find your theory to be nonsensical, and your supporting argument to be full of silliness.
Let us play a little game of Q&A

For sake of argument lets say there is a god.

What is this god?
What does it mean to be god?
What are all of the gods powers?
What does it mean to be all powerful?
What does it mean to be all knowing?
What are all the things this god knows?
Compare and contrast this god to human beings.
Are there things about this god that are completely beyond our grasp of reality?

If you can answer these for me, maybe I can help you understand why your theory doesn't make sense to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 12:01 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(24-10-2013 11:39 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The only conclusion I reached is if an atheist is willing to accept the possibility of and omniscient and omnipotent God, then they should also be willing to accept the possibility of the Christian God(or any other God for that matter). Some atheist will claim that it is possible for God to exist, but that it is impossible for the Christian God to exist. I find that position to be nonsensical if we are talking about an omniscient and omnipotent God.

Yes, so it's logically possible that the triune God of Christianity exists; it is also logically possible that unicorns exist. So what?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chippy's post
25-10-2013, 12:04 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(25-10-2013 12:01 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Yes, so it's logically possible that the triune God of Christianity exists; it is also logically possible that unicorns exist. So what?
[i]logically[i] hehehe
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 12:17 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(24-10-2013 11:55 PM)Chippy Wrote:  No it doesn't and the contrary represents a compromise of omniscience. The omni-max God (Trinity, Yahweh, Allah) just knows. He is supposed to be immaterial so materialist considerations, e.g. making something so that he can gain full knowledge of it, do not apply. If this God needs to create whatever He is to have knowledge of then it implies that He must experience learning, if He experiences learning then He is not omniscient.

I'm not limiting myself to the Trinity, Yahweh, Allah.

Learning is the acquisition of knowledge via experience, study, or being taught. Creating what He conceives doesn't imply learning knowledge but rather it is the creation of knowledge. Why can't an omnipotent/omniscient being create new knowledge?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 12:21 AM (This post was last modified: 25-10-2013 12:35 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
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?

I have knowledge about Star Wars and the Forgotten Realms. I have knowledge about the Astral Plane and the Lord of Battles, Tempus. I have knowledge about the Jedi Code and the ecology of Tatooine. What is it about this knowledge that necessitates existence?

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
25-10-2013, 12:22 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(24-10-2013 11:04 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Premise 1: God exists.
Premise 2: God knows all that can possibly be known.
Premise 3: A concept is different then something physical.
Premise 4: Knowledge about a concept is not the same as knowledge about a physical manifestation of that concept.
Premise 5: If God knows something as concept and that concept could be something which is physical, God can create a physical manifestation of that concept.

Conclusion: To know all that can possibly be known, God must have created physical manifestations of all concepts which can be something physical.

What??? Even if I accepted all your premises (which I don't) how do we move from the "could" in premise 5 to the "must" in your conclusion?

Does anyone have some weed, maybe, just maybe, if I smoked up I could make sense of this. I mean just because you know how to put letters together to form words and words together to make sentences doesn't mean you have to share the resulting word jumble.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Andrew_Njonjo's post
25-10-2013, 12:28 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
(25-10-2013 12:22 AM)Andrew_Njonjo Wrote:  
(24-10-2013 11:04 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Premise 1: God exists.
Premise 2: God knows all that can possibly be known.
Premise 3: A concept is different then something physical.
Premise 4: Knowledge about a concept is not the same as knowledge about a physical manifestation of that concept.
Premise 5: If God knows something as concept and that concept could be something which is physical, God can create a physical manifestation of that concept.

Conclusion: To know all that can possibly be known, God must have created physical manifestations of all concepts which can be something physical.

What??? Even if I accepted all your premises (which I don't) how do we move from the "could" in premise 5 to the "must" in your conclusion?

Does anyone have some weed, maybe, just maybe, if I smoked up I could make sense of this. I mean just because you know how to put letters together to form words and words together to make sentences doesn't mean you have to share the resulting word jumble.

How's life in Kenya?

Anyways "could" in premise 5 is in the conclusion...as "can".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 12:28 AM
RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
I think your reasoning sucks balls.

By your reasoning, anything, and I mean anything I could possibly conceive of in my mind, must exist somewhere, in some alternate universe, for this god to exist.

Bollocks to the highest order. And I'm not even british.

This is completely ontological. I know that you know that Anselm's argument isn't even worth going over. I hope what you're cooking up is more than that, because I have better things to do.

I see that you've left out omnibenevolence. Are you a calvanist?

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 12:29 AM
Rainbow RE: About God and Knowledge and its nasty implications
Can someone please just tell me if unicorns now exist or not? I have no idea what the fuck is going on. Can they run on rainbows? Can a potion made out of the ground powder of a unicorn horn extend your life by hundreds of years?

...I just don't know what to believe anymore...

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: