Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-09-2013, 01:02 PM
RE: Assertions
(13-09-2013 12:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

BUT. I could say that if it's true it needn't be verified, being self-evident by nature...

It's circular regardless, because omniscience is not a coherent concept. No more than omnipotence! And people have known that quite a while. Could an all-powerful being create something beyond its power, and all that.

(13-09-2013 12:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

If it has to be tested, it, ipso facto, is not already known, and around and around we go; wheels within wheels...
Big Grin

(13-09-2013 12:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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

Well, you know what they say. Apologetics doesn't convince people, it reassures people.

... 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, 04:30 PM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2013 04:35 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Assertions
(13-09-2013 12:31 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(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.

Actually, no. It's being verified by omnipotence. If you know that you have a 100% foolproof guaranteed never-fails method of doing something, and you use that method, then it works, and you never need to check.

Of course, such methods don't actually exist, and you can start questioning whether that supposed omnipotence is really omnipotence, but that was one of the givens of the conversation, so nyeh.

So another way of thinking of omnipotence is that it implies the ability to create omniscience, but you can start doubting the omnipotence as well, so the "how am I sure?" paradox makes omnipotence impossible too.

EDIT: Reread what you said, we agree on everything except the hypotheticals being assumed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 02:28 PM
RE: Assertions
Quote:To the religious folks, can you take an honest look at what you present as truth and perhaps acknowledge that they might well simply be assertions?

Yes, that is a reasonable person's priority, to see if they have a reasonable doubt, to question the validity of their assertions, and see if there is any empirical data to support their assertions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: