Assertions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-09-2013, 11:50 PM
RE: Assertions
(12-09-2013 10:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(12-09-2013 07:26 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  God cannot be both all powerful and omniscience because as the thought experiment shows, Omnipotence precludes omniscience.

...

No it doesn't?

If an entity claims or perceives itself to be all-powerful and/or all-knowing, it may be deceived.

If it actually is, it can't be deceived.


The problem is, there is no way of god knowing if it is being deceived. If he 'knows' he is all knowing, and is actually being deceived, then he would not be able to tell that he is in fact not all knowing (the deception being his perceived omniscience). Being all knowing (true omniscience), and perceiving that you are all knowing while being deceived (perceived omniscience), are from a being capable of self verifying their own omniscience, identical states of being.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 12:07 AM
RE: Assertions
An omnipotent but not omniscient god could simply MAKE itself omniscient.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
13-09-2013, 12:12 AM
RE: Assertions
But believers insist that there is no "rub"

Aye, there's the rub.

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
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
13-09-2013, 12:31 AM
RE: Assertions
(13-09-2013 12:07 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  An omnipotent but not omniscient god could simply MAKE itself omniscient.

But the core problem with omniscience is that it is unverifiable, it cannot be validated by an outside source, and so this same being who is deceived and only has perceived omniscience would also only have perceived omnipotence.

The paradox remains, as omniscience is being used to verify the omnipotence.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 12:44 AM
RE: Assertions
I don't think there is any way a conscious being can know if they are truly conscious of reality or if they are merely a brain in a vat.

Also a conscious all knowing creature can't know what it's like to be unconscious

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 10:02 AM
RE: Assertions
(12-09-2013 06:30 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(12-09-2013 06:20 PM)Impulse Wrote:  While creative, that doesn't hold true. True omniscience means a god would know he is the true god.

The word was 'powerful'.

Omni potent
not
Omni scient

The 'assertion' holds if it's the former without the latter.

I know this.

For I am god.

Dodgy
True enough (except for you being god Tongue ), and I recognized that when I wrote it, but I have never known anyone that claimed god to be all powerful (i.e., omnipotent) and not also claimed god to be omniscient, which is why I made the leap.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 10:32 AM
RE: Assertions
And then there is the great conundrum that God is all good, and therefore cannot lust, but if he doesn't know the feeling of lust, then how can be all-knowing?

AND how can he judge someone for that lust if he doesn't know it at all and what it takes to overcome it?

But of course these conundrums make the obvious point that all of this is just silliness..... I'm thinking about finding some better ways to spend my time, this stuff just doesn't carry any weight with me anymore. Big Grin

Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're an incredible slouch.

Martin Luther was the "father" of two movements - The Reformation and Nazism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 11:55 AM
RE: Assertions
(12-09-2013 11:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The problem is, there is no way of god knowing if it is being deceived.

There is, if you include that knowledge as falling under the remit of "all-knowing"; there is then a difference between "I think myself to be all-knowing", and "I know myself to be all-knowing, and I know it".
Tongue

(12-09-2013 11:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If he 'knows' he is all knowing, and is actually being deceived, then he would not be able to tell that he is in fact not all knowing (the deception being his perceived omniscience).

Sure.

(12-09-2013 11:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Being all knowing (true omniscience), and perceiving that you are all knowing while being deceived (perceived omniscience), are from a being capable of self verifying their own omniscience, identical states of being.

Ah, but that's the contradiction, depending on how true omniscience is defined!

I grant you this is all semantics.
Thumbsup

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
13-09-2013, 12:23 PM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2013 12:49 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Assertions
(13-09-2013 11:55 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(12-09-2013 11:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Being all knowing (true omniscience), and perceiving that you are all knowing while being deceived (perceived omniscience), are from a being capable of self verifying their own omniscience, identical states of being.

Ah, but that's the contradiction, depending on how true omniscience is defined!

I grant you this is all semantics.
Thumbsup

Agreed. The point I was getting at is that a being with omniscience would not be able to verify if it really had true omniscience because it would only be able to verify it's omniscience with it's own omniscience. Hence it's a circular argument and the omniscient being would be unable to truly know if it was omniscient or not, because the being will think it's omniscient under either condition. Thus realizing this and admitting that it cannot truly know if it is omniscient or not because it cannot trust it's own omniscience, and is thus not-omniscient by default. Thus true omniscience can never be substantiated, thus it can never be known, and thereby true omniscience is impossible outside of pure fiat. True omniscience can be claimed, but never proven or verified.

Think of it like the scientific method. A claimed omniscient being (or something close to omniscience) would have to be able to test it's omniscience, and the claim could be tested in such a way as to be falsifiable. Make a wrong prediction or something similar, and the claim to omniscience would be false. But just like everything else in science, we would never be able to prove that the said being was actually omniscient. All we would be able to do is show that we had failed to falsify the claim no matter how hard we tried; that we had shown it to be substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt but never proven.

Wow, and can you believe that some people take this shit seriously enough to think these logic exercises actually describe an objective fact of reality? That somehow speculative armchair apologetics can prove god? Blink

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 12:37 PM
RE: Assertions
(13-09-2013 10:32 AM)Skippy538 Wrote:  And then there is the great conundrum that God is all good, and therefore cannot lust, but if he doesn't know the feeling of lust, then how can be all-knowing?

AND how can he judge someone for that lust if he doesn't know it at all and what it takes to overcome it?
...

The hidden assertion (re-rail) in your premise is that lust = not good.

Which is, of course, bollocks!

LUST = Love U Short Time.
Nothing wrong with that.

Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: