How does God know he is omniscient? [Archive]

View Full Version : How does God know he is omniscient?

psychopath

March 28th 2003, 03:03 PM

BrianB

March 28th 2003, 03:08 PM

Hi psychopath,

Riddle me this, when you drop something heavy on your foot, how do you know that you feel pain?

Regards,
Brian

psychopath

March 28th 2003, 04:59 PM

I think I see what you are getting at: when I drop something on my foot, I know that I feel pain becuase I experience it; I don't need to prove to myself that the pain exists.

I guess this answer still doesn't satisfy me though. If God "experiences" his omniscience, how does he know that what he's experiencing isn't just all possible knowledge - 1 fact? How can he know that what he is experiencing as omniscience isn't just something ingrained in him by a "superGod," who is actually the omniscient one? I don't see how he could prove this wasn't the case.

Captain Ochre

March 28th 2003, 05:15 PM

If omniscience consists of all that may logically be known, then on what basis is it logically impossible that an omniscient being would know that it knows everything logically possible?

Let's put it this way: If the omniscient being is really omniscient, then it knows that it is omniscient if it is logically possible to do so.
If the omniscient being doesn't know that it is omniscient, then it is not logically possible to do so.
So: Whether the omniscient being knows that it is omniscient or not, it may well be omniscient.
Which brings us to the question--why do you ask?

Woman

March 28th 2003, 05:19 PM

How do WE know God is omniscient ?

Jaltus

March 28th 2003, 05:21 PM

Actually, the easy answer to this is:

He knows everything because He created everything. Creatio ex nihilo entails omniscience in some respect, as long as the Creator has exhaustive knowledge of the present.

Pilgrim

March 28th 2003, 05:28 PM

Today @ 03:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47250#post47250)
psychopath:

I think I see what you are getting at: when I drop something on my foot, I know that I feel pain becuase I experience it; I don't need to prove to myself that the pain exists.

I guess this answer still doesn't satisfy me though. If God "experiences" his omniscience, how does he know that what he's experiencing isn't just all possible knowledge - 1 fact? How can he know that what he is experiencing as omniscience isn't just something ingrained in him by a "superGod," who is actually the omniscient one? I don't see how he could prove this wasn't the case.

Ever read R.A.H.'s JOB: A Comedy of Justics? In it Heinlein has both God and Satan as squabbeling sibblings who are under a "super god" that is simply known as "The Chairman" It's a great book.

psychopath

March 28th 2003, 06:16 PM

CAPN OCHRE:
Which brings us to the question--why do you ask?

Mainly because I was thinking about it, and these are the kinds of things that interest me.

But also because I think the answer may have some implications. Many people define God as “the perfect being,” or “the most supreme being,” or something similar. But if God cannot demonstrate/know/prove those attributes which makes him perfect (such as omniscience), how can we call him the perfect/most supreme being, if it is hypothetically possible that another being exists which has all of God’s knowledge + 1, or all of God’s power + 1, etc.? Such a being would be more perfect and supreme than the being we call God.

NOTE: For the rest of this post I will assume the role of devil’s advocate.

If omniscience consists of all that may logically be known, then on what basis is it logically impossible that an omniscient being would know that it knows everything logically possible?

It would seem logically impossible because there is no way to rule out the possibility that some fact exists that this being does not know. How could such a being preclude that which he knows nothing about?

Let's put it this way: If the omniscient being is really omniscient, then it knows that it is omniscient if it is logically possible to do so.

Agreed, though I’m not sure it is logically possible.

If the omniscient being doesn't know that it is omniscient, then it is not logically possible to do so.
So: Whether the omniscient being knows that it is omniscient or not, it may well be omniscient.

Also agreed. If a being can’t establish its omniscience because it’s logically impossible to do so, it does not follow that this being is not omniscient. However, there may be other ramifications, which I described above.

JALTUS:
He knows everything because He created everything. Creatio ex nihilo entails omniscience in some respect, as long as the Creator has exhaustive knowledge of the present.

Well, how can God be absolutely certain that there isn’t some other universe that he, for some reason, isn’t privy to? That would make him not omniscient, and I don’t see how he could rule out this possibility.

PILGRIM:
Ever read R.A.H.'s JOB: A Comedy of Justics? In it Heinlein has both God and Satan as squabbeling sibblings who are under a "super god" that is simply known as "The Chairman" It's a great book.

I have not. I should check it though, it sounds like my cup of tea.

Woman

March 28th 2003, 07:15 PM

I remember that goofy best selling book Conversations with God that came out several years ago. Many praised it at the time, but I think it was the sequel, when it came out and at the end God says that there are Gods above him.

:help:

quetzalphoenix

March 29th 2003, 02:09 AM

Humbly, I would like to submit that the post asking about pain, whether consciously alluding to Wittgenstein or not, may hold some clue here. What does it mean to say that God 'knows"? According to Wittgenstein (drastically oversimplified), language comes from our "Lebensform" or form of life. Language is used in many ways, for different purposes (he calls these language-games). They come from our "complicated form of life," that is our nature as human beings, talking animals, and I would say, imagers of God. So...my question is, do we know what God's Lebensform is, in order to legitimately ask what the word "know" means to him?

Forgive my loose grasp of LW, but I think this may be what the previous post was driving at??

The other discussion, that of knowing vs experiencing pain, is found in Philosophical Investigations 246.

246: He says, "It can't be said of me at all (except as a joke) that I know I am in pain. What is that supposed to mean except that I am in pain?"

Of course, Richard Rorty writes that this argument is flawed (see, 'Wittgenstein, Privileged Access and Incommunicability') and I am not one to debate with him! Any thoughts on how this could apply?

It seems as if we would have to bring into account biblical, anthropomorphic language, and put it under some kind of criticism. However, I cannot recall an instance where God is ever said to "know" something about himself; rather, attributes are expressed and actions are rehearsed. Is this relevant?

Pate

March 29th 2003, 09:10 AM

If a being is omniscient, it's true by definition that he knows every true statement and believes no false statements. So, if God is omniscient, he knows that he is omniscient. But perhaps you are trying to ask whether it's possible that God is not omniscient but has mistakenly believes to be such. That's possible, but I don't think that we have any reason to think that's the case. We have no reason to suppose that there exists something that God has not created, other than God himself. In absence of such reason, we should accept the simpler hypothesis that there does not exist anything that God has not created, other than himself. Therefore, the point made by Jaltus has considerable force. And we can know that the creator of our universe must be at least very, very intelligent, based on the fine-tuning of the initial conditions. This being the case, the options are:

1) God is omniscient.
2) God is very knowledgeable but not omniscient.

Again, we should prefer the simpler hypothesis. Omniscience is arguably simpler, because "very high but not perfect knowledge" has a sense of arbitrariness in it, which would need an explanation. Therefore, the hypothesis of God's perfect knowledge is to be preferred.

AtheistArchon

March 31st 2003, 01:24 AM

- Ehhh this might be a bit off topic, but I'll poke a little bit:

- If god is truly omniscient by virtue of the fact that he created the universe, then it's safe to say that he knows everything that will happen in the universe. Yes? For example, I have a soda in front of me. I may finish it, I may not. Right now, it could go either way... I don't know yet which thing will happen. But god knows! In fact, he's known since the beginning of the universe.

- If this is true, then there is no action I can take which departs from what god knows (and has known). Let's say god knows that I'll be interrupted and I'll never finish the soda. Can I ever make the choice to finish it?

- Let's say I'm a single man (I'm not) and I'm deciding whether or not to pop the question to my girlfriend. God knows that I will ask her, and that we'll get married. Do I really have a choice? Can I possibly not ask her? Do I really have any choices?

- Do I really have any free will? Does any of us?

Captain Ochre

March 31st 2003, 12:59 PM

Today @ 05:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49064#post49064)
AtheistArchon:

- Ehhh this might be a bit off topic, but I'll poke a little bit:

- If god is truly omniscient by virtue of the fact that he created the universe, then it's safe to say that he knows everything that will happen in the universe. Yes?

Not exactly. The implication was that if God is self-existent and nothing else is, and God creates all else that exists, then there is simply no room for a meta-omniscient being that God wouldn't be aware of.

For example, I have a soda in front of me. I may finish it, I may not. Right now, it could go either way... I don't know yet which thing will happen. But god knows! In fact, he's known since the beginning of the universe.

That would seemingly follow from omniscience, not from the fact that God had created the universe--unless you assume causal determinism, of course.

- If this is true, then there is no action I can take which departs from what god knows (and has known). Let's say god knows that I'll be interrupted and I'll never finish the soda. Can I ever make the choice to finish it?

You will do what you will do regardless. Foreknowledge has no effect whatsoever on your freedom to choose. See the Powell/Jaltus debate in the TWeb Boxing Ring. I look forward to seeing you participate in the associated discussion thread (the Arena).

- Let's say I'm a single man (I'm not) and I'm deciding whether or not to pop the question to my girlfriend. God knows that I will ask her, and that we'll get married. Do I really have a choice? Can I possibly not ask her? Do I really have any choices?

- Do I really have any free will? Does any of us?

If you don't have free will, then you don't have a choice.
Simple enough? :smile:
Seeya in the TWeb Gym.

AtheistArchon

March 31st 2003, 03:29 PM

See the Powell/Jaltus debate in the TWeb Boxing Ring. I look forward to seeing you participate in the associated discussion thread (the Arena).

- Aha! Thanks, I will peek in on that. :smile:

John Powell

March 31st 2003, 03:29 PM

AtheistArchon:

- Ehhh this might be a bit off topic, but I'll poke a little bit:

- If god is truly omniscient by virtue of the fact that he created the universe, then it's safe to say that he knows everything that will happen in the universe. Yes?

POWELL:
Perhaps, but I don't think so since I don't think the future exists yet except as something in the minds of thinking entities of what might will be, so there's nothing to "know," only "imagine."

I would not argue that this means God cannot be omniscient, but that omniscient cannot mean "knows everything, even the future," but might mean "knows everything that logically can be known." This is similar to omnipotent not necessarily meaning "able to do anything, even what humans might think is impossible," but maybe meaing "able to do everything logically possible."

AtheistArchon:
For example, I have a soda in front of me. I may finish it, I may not. Right now, it could go either way... I don't know yet which thing will happen. But god knows! In fact, he's known since the beginning of the universe.

POWELL:
I would agree if God knows the future like many theists think. I think such knowledge would make free will impossible. I don't think an entity could really know this.

AtheistArchon:
- If this is true, then there is no action I can take which departs from what god knows (and has known). Let's say god knows that I'll be interrupted and I'll never finish the soda. Can I ever make the choice to finish it?

POWELL:
I would say no. In fact, if any entity really knew what you would do in the future then God Himself could not make you do otherwise. Even if you were told what you would do and commanded by God to do otherwise, you would not be able to obey God.

AtheistArchon:
- Let's say I'm a single man (I'm not) and I'm deciding whether or not to pop the question to my girlfriend. God knows that I will ask her, and that we'll get married. Do I really have a choice?

POWELL:
You might feel like you have a choice under normal conditions, although you really wouldn't. Of special interest is if the foreknowing entity tells you what you will do. At that point it should become apparent that you really don't have free will since it doesn't matter how hard you might try to do other than what that foreknowing entity revealed what you would do, you could not do otherwise.

AtheistArchon:
Can I possibly not ask her? Do I really have any choices?

POWELL:
I don't think so if an entity "foreknows" what you will do and "foreknow" is defined in the usual way, to know (with absolute certainty) what will happen beforehand.

AtheistArchon:
- Do I really have any free will? Does any of us?

POWELL:
I think we do have free will, although I can't explain it from a naturalistic theoretical point of view, but only from an observational one. I seem to have free will, so I think I have it.

As Capn Ochre suggests, perhaps you'd like to contribute to this topic in the Jaltus / Powell arena area. I can't post there until after Jaltus posts his final reply in our debate, but I would appreciate your assistance in my efforts to persuade some of these logically-minded theists to accept that their God can no more know the future than He can do the logically impossible.

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism,
Now an athe-ist or strong atheist.

chanceycat

April 2nd 2003, 01:21 AM

I'm not quite sure I understand how God knowing I wouldn't finish a can of soda takes away my free will. He just knows it...It doesn't change the fact that I chose not to continue drinking it. Is that too terribly simplistic?:no:

BrianB

April 2nd 2003, 05:47 PM

Kab594

April 2nd 2003, 10:12 PM

if GOD truly is omniscient than he knows he is omniscient and doesnt need to prove his own knowledge to himself.

Gavin

April 3rd 2003, 03:44 AM

My answer to the first post in this thread:

If God is truly omniscient, then of course he must know it, because by definition he knows everything, and knowledge of one's knowledge is certainly not exempt from "everything".

It is an interesting question but I think it has a relatively simple answer.

psychopath

April 7th 2003, 04:34 PM

I thank everyone for their responses. I found quetzalphoenix's response to be particularly intriguing, but maybe that's just me.

adam.naranjo

April 7th 2003, 05:02 PM

As far as I can see Jaltus is the only one who has understood the question, and answered it correctly.
However, Jaltus has not answer it completely. God not only has to have created everything, but he also must have done as the westminster confession says: "from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass"..."yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions"..."God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy. "

just throwin' that in for good measure.

Adam

Butters

April 7th 2003, 09:11 PM

Umm... Adam, did you just use Christian theology to refute chancycats idea that he had free will?

mikey123

November 3rd 2005, 09:35 AM

Hi i don't honestly think God needs to prove anything to us. Although if He chose, he could. thanks..mike

Duder

November 3rd 2005, 01:02 PM

Re:
http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=47250#post47250

Hi again psychopath,

Let me preface this with something I probably should have said in my first post.

I’m not claiming that I know how God knows he’s omniscient. I’m only trying to offer a possible explanation as to how it might be. The ‘mechanics’ of God’s mind are not accessible to us, so trying to say “this is really how it is” is probably an unwise thing to do, and I hope I didn’t give that impression. So, with that in mind, let me offer a few more comments.

Your understanding of my ‘riddle’ is right on. You know you are feeling pain because it is immediately accessible to you. If my suggestion on how God knows he is omniscient is anything like reality, then “how does God know what he’s experiencing isn’t what he thinks he’s experiencing” (my summary) is like asking “how do I know that the pain I’m experiencing isn’t what I’m actually experiencing.”

To me, it makes no sense to ask the question, because it makes no sense to say “I’m not experiencing what I’m experiencing.” It’s simply a contradiction, unless there’s some equivocation in terms going on.

In the same way, it wouldn’t make any sense to ask the same question of God, because the question is incoherent. If he really does experience omniscience, then that’s as far as the question can go.

Hope this helps a little,
Brian

Hello, Brain -

I'd like to interject this small, but possibly important, point. Experience and knowledge are not automatically the same. Take for example your drive to work this morning. As you prepared to change lanes on a certain freeway, you looked in the rearview mirror. There you saw the image of a red car following 300 feet behind you - but that car had no bearing on your lane change, so you took no notice of it. You had no reason to reflect upon the existence of that red car 300 feet back, so you never knew it was there, even though you experienced it.

To be aware of something - to be conscious of something - is to pay attention to one thing while ignoring other things. Awareness is as much a function of ignoring as it is of attending. The thing is known only insofar as you selectively ignore everything else while you attend to the object of your awareness.

You may argue that it is possible to think about more than one thing at a time. Maybe. But I would reply that if you are thinking about two things at once, you are only able to carry it off by grouping them together into a single set according to what they have in common, and holding them in awareness by ignoring what is not in that set. You attend to the two men having a heated discussion on the street corner by selectively ignoring the passing bus, the ambulance siren and the laughter coming from the sidewalk cafe. Even while you do experience these extraneous things that are not in the set of arguing men, they are not things that you know.

So it does make sense to experience pain without knowing it. The pain can be there, but it will not be an object of your knowledge if you do not attend to it. Ask anyone who uses meditation in pain control.

I can't claim to know what God-consciousness is like, but if it is anything at all like human consciousness, then God can experiece all of the facts in the whole universe, but if he does not attend to them, he does not know them. Conversely, if he does not ignore some things, he cannot know any things at all. To know is to attend, and to attent is to ignore what is unattended.

Captain Ochre

November 3rd 2005, 04:56 PM

As far as I can see Jaltus is the only one who has understood the question, and answered it correctly.

Jaltus is the bomb, that's for certain--but my answer on this one is better than his (maybe the one time ever).
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=47256&postcount=4

However, Jaltus has not answer it completely. God not only has to have created everything, but he also must have done as the westminster confession says: "from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass"..."yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions"..."God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy. "

just throwin' that in for good measure.

The "Detect Calvinist 10' Radius" spell seems to have caused a faint aura around you, sir.
:wink:

MysticSonic

December 3rd 2005, 05:00 PM

An omniscient deity would neccessarily be aware of his omniscience, as omniscience entails knowing everything that is logically possible to know.

Captain Ochre

December 3rd 2005, 05:05 PM

An omniscient deity would neccessarily be aware of his omniscience, as omniscience entails knowing everything that is logically possible to know.

Right, but the subtext of the OP seems to be that it is not possible to know that one is omniscient per se.

IMO, it's a moot point either way.

Doubting John

December 3rd 2005, 07:45 PM

For God to be omniscient he would also have to be omnipresent. He would have to be everywhere in the universe, and inside every brain of every creature.

I find problems of incoherence with the attribute of omnipresence. Relativity says that we are inside a particular time frame if we exist anywhere in this universe. God, by definition would be in every time frame. From our perspective on earth we may see the light from a distant star, since that light takes 10 billion years to reach us. But the star itself may no longer exist even though it appears to us as if it does. The question relativity poses is whether or not the star exists. The answer is that it depends upon our time framed perspective, and that's all it can say.

To say God is omnipresent means there is an absolute time frame for everything in the universe for God, and the only way to properly understand such a thing is to say he's outside of time. Now if he's outside of time then he cannot know what time it is as I'm typing this. I see no reason to think knowing what time it is as I'm typing this is logically impossible, so he just doesn't know. And he cannot enter our time to answer prayers, or atone for sins in Jesus either. From an absolute time frame perspective 2005 BC is the same time as 2005 AD. But it's not from our reality, and God wouldn't know when to come to our aid at 10 PM Eastern Standard time on December 25th, for instance, since it's all the same time to him.

It would also mean there is no human freedom since our whole experience on earth was created as a block all at once, from Adam to doomsday.

But there's more. God would have to be omnipresent outside of this universe too, in the great VOID. We know that the universe is expanding into the VOID. There is no reason to suppose that this VOID doesn't go on forever into infinity. But God must be there too to know evertything. If the VOID is nothing, then he must still be in it or else on the other side of nothing there might be something (another God and/or more universes?).

Omniscience is a strange concept. Omnipresence is even stranger.

MysticSonic

December 3rd 2005, 08:20 PM

Captain Ochre

December 3rd 2005, 09:40 PM

For God to be omniscient he would also have to be omnipresent. He would have to be everywhere in the universe, and inside every brain of every creature.

Why exactly would an omniscient flea in ear of your dog need to be omnipresent rather than in the ear of your dog?

If by "omnipresent" you mean that an omnipresent being has firsthand awarness of all of existence, then I agree ... but in that case is it even useful to make a distinction between the two?

I find problems of incoherence with the attribute of omnipresence.

We'll see.
It's an interesting claim if you attempt to back it up. I'd be surprised if you actually attempt to back the claim.

Relativity says that we are inside a particular time frame if we exist anywhere in this universe.

Are you using "universe" to mean the time-space continuum, or by "universe" do you mean all things that exist (or both at the same time)?

God, by definition would be in every time frame. From our perspective on earth we may see the light from a distant star, since that light takes 10 billion years to reach us. But the star itself may no longer exist even though it appears to us as if it does. The question relativity poses is whether or not the star exists. The answer is that it depends upon our time framed perspective, and that's all it can say.

Taking presentism for granted, that is.

To say God is omnipresent means there is an absolute time frame for everything in the universe for God, and the only way to properly understand such a thing is to say he's outside of time. Now if he's outside of time then he cannot know what time it is as I'm typing this.

(why not?)

I see no reason to think knowing what time it is as I'm typing this is logically impossible, so he just doesn't know.

That doesn't appear to make any sense at all. You haven't explained why a being outside of time would not know what time it is as you type. Your claim sees to contradict omniscience as it is normally understood among theologians (since you do not charge that the knowledge is impossible).

And he cannot enter our time to answer prayers, or atone for sins in Jesus either. From an absolute time frame perspective 2005 BC is the same time as 2005 AD. But it's not from our reality, and God wouldn't know when to come to our aid at 10 PM Eastern Standard time on December 25th, for instance, since it's all the same time to him.

All that's missing is the argument in support of your conclusion (which I've put in green).

It would also mean there is no human freedom since our whole experience on earth was created as a block all at once, from Adam to doomsday.

Non sequitur, as it implicitly assumes that free agents are not sharing in creation according to their relative positions in time.

But there's more.

Great!

God would have to be omnipresent outside of this universe too, in the great VOID. We know that the universe is expanding into the VOID. There is no reason to suppose that this VOID doesn't go on forever into infinity. But God must be there too to know evertything. If the VOID is nothing, then he must still be in it or else on the other side of nothing there might be something (another God and/or more universes?).

If God is out there in the void then what justifies the claim that there is nothing in the void (emphasized in green again)?

Apologia4JC18

December 4th 2005, 09:44 AM

Doubting John

December 4th 2005, 10:28 AM

"For God to be omniscient he would also have to be omnipresent. He would have to be everywhere in the universe, and inside every brain of every creature."

I don't see your reaseoning; what makes you think that an omniscient, supernatural being would not be able to be as such via a storehouse of a priori knowledge?

That's what some people think may be the case. But the idea is so stupid to me as to be undeserving of my time. If someone wants to show me how this is possible, then it might be worth debunking.

Captain Ochre

December 4th 2005, 11:01 AM

That's what some people think may be the case. But the idea is so stupid to me as to be undeserving of my time. If someone wants to show me how this is possible, then it might be worth debunking.

You're staying true to form, DJ!

DJ makes the claim that god would have to be outside of time, but rather than supporting his claim he simply flatly declares the alternative(s) beyond his exalted consideration.
When his claim is questioned, DJ takes the easy course: He shifts the burden of proof onto the person who questions his claim.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

:hehe:
I think I know what's going on.
DJ needs examples of various fallacies to use as teaching aids in his philosopy classes. Thus he goes around committing these outrageous fallacies intentionally so that he can use them to further the education of others.

Doubting John

December 4th 2005, 07:30 PM

You're staying true to form, DJ!

You are not worth my time either.

You are much too much a simpleton with an axe to grind.

You're a nincompoop. A picker of nits.

For instance, there are legitimate cases where someone can ask his debate opponent to offer up a case. If someone said the moon is made of green cheese I can simply sit by and wait for him to offer up an argument for this.

Likewise, with when someone suggests God innately knows everything. Give me an argument. Offer up some evidence, if there is any. To suggest something without offering either reasons or evidence for that suggestion is the proper time to ask him to lay out his case. He has the burden to put forth an argument, stupid.

And this is why I don't waste much time with you anymore. You're obtuse. You refuse to understand. You're unintelligent, even though you like to come across as knowing something. But you continue to show me your utter ignorance about logic.

In every stupid discussion I've had with you you eventually do this:

You wiggle and squiggle and you twist and turn;
You slither and slide and you crash and burn.
You skip and you hop and you perch from above;
With claws like an hawk you’re as mild as a dove.
But this prey of yours is too big to handle;
Just try to grab him, and you'll get mangled.
You're ignorant and pompous and stupid to boot;
You claim you're smart, and I say, "what a hoot!"
Like the ginger bread man, you say "catch me if you can."
Like the Cheshire Cat, you ask "can't see me?, here I am."
Like a spider you spin a web of deceit,
You backtrack and sidestep and in this you cheat.
Like arrogant lawmakers you redistrict for gain,
Because you'll never admit fault, you'll avoid the pain.
So I'm done with you, ya little poop,
You'll not drag me down, that low I won't stoop.

As I said before, YOU ARE NOT MY FRIEND.

And you couldn't understand the plain meaning of my words.

What a hoot! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Captain Ochre

December 4th 2005, 09:45 PM

You are not worth my time either.

Yet you replied.
:hehe:

You are much too much a simpleton with an axe to grind.

You're a nincompoop. A picker of nits.

And you're the nittiest!
:wink:

For instance, there are legitimate cases where someone can ask his debate opponent to offer up a case. If someone said the moon is made of green cheese I can simply sit by and wait for him to offer up an argument for this.

Likewise, with when someone suggests God innately knows everything. Give me an argument. Offer up some evidence, if there is any. To suggest something without offering either reasons or evidence for that suggestion is the proper time to ask him to lay out his case. He has the burden to put forth an argument, stupid.

On the contrary, you were the one who asserted that it might be logically possible yet in the next breath you declare it "stupid" and unthinkable.

If it's logically possible, then why not have it on the table?

And this is why I don't waste much time with you anymore. You're obtuse. You refuse to understand. You're unintelligent, even though you like to come across as knowing something. But you continue to show me your utter ignorance about logic.

And you're still unable to provide any concrete example in favor of any of your attacks.
Again, true to form.

In every stupid discussion I've had with you you eventually do this:

You wiggle and squiggle and you twist and turn;
You slither and slide and you crash and burn.
You skip and you hop and you perch from above;
With claws like an hawk you’re as mild as a dove.
But this prey of yours is too big to handle;
Just try to grab him, and you'll get mangled.
You're ignorant and pompous and stupid to boot;
You claim you're smart, and I say, "what a hoot!"
Like the ginger bread man, you say "catch me if you can."
Like the Cheshire Cat, you ask "can't see me?, here I am."
Like a spider you spin a web of deceit,
You backtrack and sidestep and in this you cheat.
Like arrogant lawmakers you redistrict for gain,
Because you'll never admit fault, you'll avoid the pain.
So I'm done with you, ya little poop,
You'll not drag me down, that low I won't stoop.

As I said before, YOU ARE NOT MY FRIEND.

And you couldn't understand the plain meaning of my words.

What a hoot! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I refuted your point here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1265895&postcount=168) where I explain that you obviously did not support your allegation that I failed to understand you.
You haven't dealt with my arguments, as ususal.
I don't think that we can count this reply to that post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1265957&postcount=170) as an effective rebuttal to my argument.

Doubting John

December 4th 2005, 11:10 PM

Given your repeated stupidity you are not in the position to ask, much less demand, anything of me.

If it's logically possible, then why not have it on the table?

Give me an argument then. We're talking about what is plausible, idiot!

And as far as you not being my "friend" goes, you have taken so many of my sentences and nitpicked them apart. Here's how you do it, and the link to "friend" you provided is a great example. There are anywhere from 3 to 7 or more dictionary definitions of any word. So you ignore the context and uncharitably attribute the definitions of the words I use to be something that's obviously not what I meant, because I'm an atheist, so I can't be right about anything. You can make me say most anything by your ignorant choices of the definitions to the words I use in a sentence. That's why I wrote the poem.

Link all you want. The problem with your links is that people who go there won't take the time to read the conversation up to the link you provided, or afterward. That's what you're hoping for anyway. And it's another example of how you pick and choose sentences, words, and posts out of context. And even less will they bother to see the total context of our conversations here at TWEB from the beginning.

You're a buffoon. A duffas. You have an axe to grind. You're unintelligent. And that's my final answer.

Go back and finish Junior High school this time...

You'll never get any respect from me, and I think that's what you want from me. But you keep digging a hole for yourself in the dung pile of your own feeces. Smell good?

I cannot carry an intelligent conversation with you because you are simply too dense to do so. You lack the needed hermeneutical and critical thinking skills necessary for anything above the Junior High School level (this is an exaggeration to make a point, which is something entirely legitimate in discourses such as this).

Captain Ochre

December 5th 2005, 12:40 AM

Given your repeated stupidity you are not in the position to ask, much less demand, anything of me.

Who's asking you for anything? I'm just observing that you fail to back up your assertions. I'm not demanding that you do so. If you want to make youself look bad consistently, please be my guest.

Give me an argument then. We're talking about what is plausible, idiot!

I've already pointed out that you are fallaciously shifting the burden of proof. Given that we are talking about an omnipotent being that can do anything logically possible, there is no sense in giving me the burden of proof for showing than an omnipotent being is capable of performing a task that you have apparently admitted as being logically possible.

The burden of proof is on you to suggest why it is implausible to suggest that an omnipotent being (such as the one described in the Bible) should be regarded as innately knowing all things.
You'll probably continue to say that the topic is unworthy of you, but it appears that your bluster is simply a cover for your lack of ability (or possibly inclination).
You've painted yourself into a corner by admitting that it is logically possible, in effect. I dare you to let your class see the exchange in which you have involved yourself. They'll be asking for tuition refunds, or at least a new instructor.

And as far as you not being my "friend" goes, you have taken so many of my sentences and nitpicked them apart. Here's how you do it, and the link to "friend" you provided is a great example.

Allegedly.
It sounds like you're going to try to support a claim that you've made. Hot diggity!

There are anywhere from 3 to 7 or more dictionary definitions of any word.

I'll let that pass.

So you ignore the context and uncharitably attribute the definitions of the words I use to be something that's obviously not what I meant, because I'm an atheist, so I can't be right about anything.

:rofl:
A whole plate of nonsense in merely one sentence!

I didn't ignore the context. I knew what you probably meant (between two definitions, possibly intending both of them). I explained that here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1265895&postcount=168

This is also relevant:
When I suggested that I was your friend, I did not do so in the context of the meaning that you (probably) intended.
I sincerely want the best for you.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1265823&postcount=166

An intelligent person would conclude that I was delivering the message that by some definitions of "friend" I was admittedly not your friend while by other definitions I would be your friend.
DJ apparently doesn't qualify with that type of intelligence. Instead, he jumps to the conclusion that his intent was misunderstood.

The comments DJ makes about being dismissed merely for being an atheist are truly not worthy of being addressed. My favorite non-Bible author is an atheist.

You can make me say most anything by your ignorant choices of the definitions to the words I use in a sentence. That's why I wrote the poem.

I didn't make you say anything.
I simply noted I might be your friend depending on the definition of the term.

Link all you want.

Thank you, I will link all I want. :smile:

The problem with your links is that people who go there won't take the time to read the conversation up to the link you provided, or afterward.

At least they can't use the excuse that they didn't know where to find the conversation. :smile:

That's what you're hoping for anyway.

It's true enough that I've got better things to do than cut and paste several lengthy exchanges into one post that isn't intended to be a huge time investment. It's not like people would be more likely to read the material if it were completely reproduced in the current post, anyway.
I provided the summary, and I provided the avenue to check on the accuracy of my summary. I believe that's the reasonable approach.
I'd be delighted if every interested party read the entire exchange to see the truth of the matter. That's why I make it as easy as possible by taking the time to locate the correct thread and linking the most relevant posts.

And it's another example of how you pick and choose sentences, words, and posts out of context.

No, it isn't. If you think I'm taking something out of context, then be specific.

And even less will they bother to see the total context of our conversations here at TWEB from the beginning.

You're a buffoon. A duffas. You have an axe to grind. You're unintelligent. And that's my final answer.

It's not surprising that's your final answer, since you apparently cannot produce a reasonable answer.

Go back and finish Junior High school this time...

You'll never get any respect from me, and I think that's what you want from me. But you keep digging a hole for yourself in the dung pile of your own feeces. Smell good?

:lol:
How many times do you think that you can substitute insult for reason before every reader realizes that you have no argument?

I cannot carry an intelligent conversation with you

Correct so far.

because you are simply too dense to do so.

The current thread argues against your conclusion.
You think that it is implausible that an omnipotent being could know all things innately while admitting that it is possible that all things could be known innately.
That's a counterintuitive position if it's not a flatly contradictory position.
Share it with your class. They're sure to see it if they're not imbeciles.

You lack the needed hermeneutical and critical thinking skills necessary for anything above the Junior High School level (this is an exaggeration to make a point, which is something entirely legitimate in discourses such as this).

Tell yourself that if it makes you feel better. The truth is that you expressed a stupid position and now you're trying to cover it up through the use of distractive fallacies.
You should be fired from your job for incompetence, if your work here at TWeb is representative.

For review: Did DJ support his assertion that I failed to understand what he meant by "friend"?
No, he did not.

Xelsorsior

December 5th 2005, 01:34 AM

I was just thinking about this question, and I really couldn't come up with an answer to my liking. How can God ever rule out the slight possibility that there is some fact X out there that he doesn't know of? Since he wouldn't know it, he can't postulate on this fact's existence or non-existence. Hypothetically speaking, can God prove his omniscience?

I AM THAT I AM does not need to prove to His Creation His ability to know all things. That is one of the main reasons why Lucifer is in his state of being. He questioned his Creators ability to know all things as well. He went further than you are able to go since he had and has more Power than you ever will. A much greater influence as well, since he is the father of all lies. A very pursuasive entity. Your question is simplististically the same question that Lucifer posed to Beelzubub while serving his duty covering the Glory of God (His Brightness).
I am a shield for God, why does God need a shield, I'm above God, I must know more than God, I am vain, thinking that I have knowledge, when infact my knowledge has come from God, He is my Creator. I will disregard this fact and pursue my own agenda. I know things that He doesn't know, I must, He can't know everything, even though he is the Creator of all things visible and invisible. I will find a flaw in His infinite knowledge. I will gain a following and become stronger than God, I will be a better God than God Himself. I will introduce to His mortal Creation the Will of Evil.
The knowledge of this world is as foolishness to God as cited in The New Testament.
Here is the answer to your foolish question. God is omniscient because you are not.

C. D. Ward

December 5th 2005, 03:54 PM

To bring this discussion back on point, it seems to me that in order to know that he's omniscient, God would need to "step outside of himself" to see whether or not in fact what He knows is everything that there is to know.

Anything else involves a "leap of faith" involving the set of facts that God can know of His own existence. In whatever existence was in place before God "decided" to create the universe, how was God to know that He was all that existed? IOW, how could God know that right next to His left ear was a parallel existence completely separate from Him which was impervious to any means He might use to detect it? Of course, the assumption of omniscience precludes such a possibility, but it certainly doesn't prove that it isn't so.

It's an epistemological question of the difference between knowledge and belief: God may believe Himself to be omniscient, but how can He prove this fact to Himself? It's simple: He can't. "Does He need to?" is a different question, of course. I think most Christians would argue "no", and assert that God's knowledge is of a direct kind (sort of like BrianB did on the previous page and as Plantinga does in his exchange with Patrick Grim, referenced below); that God has direct knowledge of the "completeness" of his knowledge. But this type of "knowledge" really isn't precisely analogous to any class of knowledge humans have or can possess. Even experiential knowledge, such as BrianB argues, isn't exactly the same. We know the experience of pain by distinguishing it from non-pain. This can't be true in any case for God. It seems to me that this is more in the nature of an apophatic rather than an analytic claim. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, but it falls far short of "proof".

If we take the classical definition of "knowledge" as "justified, true, belief", we have before us the question of "justification". What justifies God's belief that He is omniscient? Humans don't possess any equivalent, wholly internal forms of justification (save for a priori or analytic truths, and the realm of reality does not consist solely of analytic truths). How do we posit such a mechanism for God without special pleading?

As an aside, classical (Cantorian) set theory would also seem to offer a reasonable proof against there being a "set of all truths" such that God's omniscience could not constitute "knowledge of all truths":

Suppose there were a set T of all truths, and consider all
subsets of T --all members of the power set T. To each element
of this power set will correspond a truth. To each set of the
power set, for example, a particular truth T1 either will or will
not belong as a member. In either case we will have a truth:
that T1 is a member of that set, or that it is not.
There will then be at least as many truths as there are
elements of the power set T. But by Cantor's power set theorem
we know that the power set of any set will be larger than the
original. There will then be more truths than there are members
of T, and for any set of truths T there will be some truth left
out. There can be no set of all truths.
From here (http://www.sunysb.edu/philosophy/faculty/pgrim/exchange.txt).

Doubting John

December 5th 2005, 04:20 PM

Let me try one more time (albeit fruitlessly) to show you what an idiot you are, or at least since you'll never admit you're wrong, let me show it to others here who has a High School or better level of understanding.

I've already pointed out that you are fallaciously shifting the burden of proof. Given that we are talking about an omnipotent being that can do anything logically possible, there is no sense in giving me the burden of proof for showing than an omnipotent being is capable of performing a task that you have apparently admitted as being logically possible.

The burden of proof is on you to suggest why it is implausible to suggest that an omnipotent being (such as the one described in the Bible) should be regarded as innately knowing all things.

You'll probably continue to say that the topic is unworthy of you, but it appears that your bluster is simply a cover for your lack of ability (or possibly inclination).
You've painted yourself into a corner by admitting that it is logically possible, in effect. I dare you to let your class see the exchange in which you have involved yourself. They'll be asking for tuition refunds, or at least a new instructor.
The current thread argues against your conclusion.
You think that it is implausible that an omnipotent being could know all things innately while admitting that it is possible that all things could be known innately.
That's a counterintuitive position if it's not a flatly contradictory position.

It's logically possible that the moon is made of green cheese too, even though we've visited the moon and experientially found out that it isn't, you moron! It's logically possible that there is a meteorite or a planet in another galaxy that is made of green cheese too, or that Elvis is still alive. Logically possible doesn't show anything about what is actually the case. You're a maroon. :duh: This is "counterintuitive" to whom? To you? Then maybe you ought not trust your intuitions because they are way our in la la land. And where exactly is the "flat out contradiction," duffas? Oh, that's right, you said "...if not..." before you suggested this, didn't you. But how can this be an escape for you, since you're at least claiming it's close to one?

I merely asked that the person who believes God knows everything innately should have the burden to make a case for it. Can you understand the difference? I know of no way anyone can know everything innately. It probably isn't even logically possible, although in the absence of an argument, I granted it might be. But I have yet to see a case that this is even logically possible. But when it comes to the plausibility of this, there must be a cause for that knowledge, and since knowledge of events in history are either based upon experiencing these events, or concluding from investigating the evidence, then the person who makes such an assertion must at least offer up an argument.

That's all I asked for....an argument. Where did this burden of proof stuff come in? Show me by quoting from what I said in this thread that I asked for anything other than an argument.

Besides, there is a legitimate debate over who has the burden of proof when it comes to the existence of God. In the absence of a tie-breaker the debate opponents will switch to who has the burden of proof. Philosophy scholar Athony Flew has previously argued that the presumption is in favor of atheism (his present deism notwithstanding, since his change is irrelevant to the point I'm making), and he argued that the theist has the burden of proof. But little Captain Yellow, who doesn't have a High School education, will be quick to say such reasoning is fallacious. But Flew knows more logic than you will ever understand, and so do I. Do you really think he made a 7th grade error on logic when he argued for this?

You really do not understand the informal fallacies...you really don't, even though you go parading around here like you do. And you hate it when I point out your stupidity. You don't understand when they apply and when they don't, nor do you know that even informal fallacies can carry persuasive weight, and some meager evidence too. But we've been down that road before, to no avail.

You are the proverbial nincompoop who has a beginner knowledge of a subject and who claims to know the depths of that subject. The reason I rail on you is just because of this. You claim to know, but what you show is ignorance. Then you maintain your ignorance, and that's what galls me, because you'll never listen to me. It will only be when someone you know and trust tells you, but you don't know anyone who can tell you, and you don't read anything on a deeper level than the old 1st-2nd grade "See Spot Run" type of books, as far as I can tell.

As far as the burden of proof goes, I didn't ask for that. You cannot even read what I write, much less evaluate it. I only asked for an argument. It is YOU who are shifting the burden of proof on me, and by your own standards that's fallacious thinking.

The burden of proof. Every position has its own burden of proof, even if the word "proof" there is a misnomer, since barely anything can be proved.

Hey brain-dead, I suggest you just leave me alone from now on, and we'll both be better off.

Doubting John

December 5th 2005, 04:38 PM

Meh_Gerbil

December 5th 2005, 04:48 PM

The claim is the G_d is omniscient.

If you doubt the claim then the obvious thing to do is produce a factoid of which G_d is unaware.

Until you do so, the claim stands.

Doubting John

December 5th 2005, 05:01 PM

The claim is the G_d is omniscient.

If you doubt the claim then the obvious thing to do is produce a factoid of which G_d is unaware.

Until you do so, the claim stands.

Where's Captain Orchre now when we trully need him?

What informal fallacy is this, oh wise one?

Hint, according to you, in other contexts anyway, it starts with the words "Burden of...."

Oh, but this is coming from someone you agree with, isn't it? Fallacies only apply to those you disagree with, eh? What logical fallacy is the lack of consistency, Mr. Yellow? Name it! :lol:

But I've already met this burden of proof (sorry, Captain, I just didn't think with your level of intelligence you'd guess it) in the aformentioned thread.

C. D. Ward

December 5th 2005, 05:03 PM

The claim is the G_d is omniscient.

If you doubt the claim then the obvious thing to do is produce a factoid of which G_d is unaware.

Until you do so, the claim stands.
But that's exactly what's being done in the OP and the subsequent discussion:

P1) The statement "God is omniscient" is true.
P2) If God is omniscient, then he knows the truth-value of the statement "God is omniscient".
P3) But God cannot know the truth-value of the statement "God is omniscient" (that's the claim made in the OP and subsequent discussion).
C1) Therefore, God cannot be omniscient (by material implication of P2 & P3).
C2) Therefore, the statement "God is omniscient" is both true and not true (by P1 & C1).
C3) Therefore, the statement "God is omniscient" is not true (by reductio ad absurdam).

Doubting John

December 5th 2005, 05:08 PM

Meh_Gerbil

December 5th 2005, 05:11 PM

Where's Captain Orchre now when we trully need him?

What informal fallacy is this, oh wise one?

Hint, according to you, in other contexts anyway, it starts with the words "Burden of...."

Oh, but this is coming from someone you agree with, isn't it? Fallacies only apply to those you disagree with, eh? What logical fallacy is the lack of consistency, Mr. Yellow? Name it! :lol:

But I've already met this burden of proof (sorry, Captain, I just din't think you'd get it) in the aformentioned thread.

If I committed an informal fallacy, so be it.
I can live with that.

Meh_Gerbil

December 5th 2005, 05:21 PM

But that's exactly what's being done in the OP and the subsequent discussion:

P1) The statement "God is omniscient" is true.
P2) If God is omniscient, then he knows the truth-value of the statement "God is omniscient".
P3) But God cannot know the truth-value of the statement "God is omniscient" (that's the claim made in the OP and subsequent discussion).
C1) Therefore, God cannot be omniscient (by material implication of P2 & P3).
C2) Therefore, the statement "God is omniscient" is both true and not true (by P1 & C1).
C3) Therefore, the statement "God is omniscient" is not true (by reductio ad absurdam).

P3 fails.

The inability of logic to express the nature of G_d is a limitation of logic and not a limitation of the G_d it seeks to describe.

You see, reductio ad absurdam is merely where the ability of human reason to comprehend drops off. Things can be absurd for two reasons: 1: Because the human mind can comprehend the argument and it is actually self-contradictory 2: Because the human mind doesn't have the ability to understand and the argument appears self-contradictory and self-defeating.

There are many skeptics arguments that run this way -- they rely on the skeptic's implied claim that he understands the nature of G_d so thoroughly that he can reduce it to a logical syllogism. What the skeptic fails to acknowledge is:

a: There isn't a theologian alive that claims to have G_d pegged in this manner.
b: That the G_d of the Bible has already declared that He is beyond this type of comprehension.

Despite A & B, the skeptic continues foward.

I tell you what, noobie -- you describe in purely logical terms the concept of 'love' or 'bravery' and when you get a human attribute down in purely logical/syllogism terms you can tackle the nature of G_d.

Really, your sophistry fails to even be amusing anymore.

Doubting John

December 5th 2005, 05:27 PM

The aforementioned link I provided didn't work, so try it again if you want to:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=64782

C. D. Ward

December 5th 2005, 05:47 PM

P3 fails.
That may indeed be, however your previous post was that no such attempt had even been made (i.e., no "factoid" had been presented). My post was to demonstrate that, in fact, it had.
The inability of logic to express the nature of G_d is a limitation of logic and not a limitation of the G_d it seeks to describe.

You see, reductio ad absurdam is merely where the ability of human reason to comprehend drops off. Things can be absurd for two reasons: 1: Because the human mind can comprehend the argument and it is actually self-contradictory 2: Because the human mind doesn't have the ability to understand and the argument appears self-contradictory and self-defeating.

There are many skeptics arguments that run this way -- they rely on the skeptic's implied claim that he understands the nature of G_d so thoroughly that he can reduce it to a logical syllogism. What the skeptic fails to acknowledge is:

a: There isn't a theologian alive that claims to have G_d pegged in this manner.
b: That the G_d of the Bible has already declared that He is beyond this type of comprehension.

Despite A & B, the skeptic continues foward.
If you're content to accept that you can not (and need not) understand the concept, that's fine. I've no problem with that and in fact I would argue it's very likely the best way to approach the "God issue". Apophacy has a long and venerable history in the Christian tradition (and other faiths as well).

However, for those that wish to follow the "natural theology" tradition or engage in discussions in the philosophy of religion, apophacy is a non-tenable approach. And there certainly are theologians that eschew that approach, utilizing the very type of arguments we're using in this thread (IOW, to have God "pegged" in the manner you claim they don't). They use the term "omniscient" which I (and many others) would argue must have a particular meaning. Therefore, they are by the use of that term "pegging" God to a particular meaning. Any serious debate or discussion about God's attributes therefore necessarily involves an analytic, rather than an apophatic methodology for this very reason. You can't seriously expect to win a logical argument simply by saying "is so, nyaa, nyaa!", can you? :wink:

I would argue that "faith" is what it is because it's a leap beyond pure logic. But philosophy isn't about debating faith; it's about logic.
I tell you what, noobie -- you describe in purely logical terms the concept of 'love' or 'bravery' and when you get a human attribute down in purely logical/syllogism terms you can tackle the nature of G_d.
"noobie?" How do I qualify for that appellation? I'm a charter member here, and I've been around internet forums for a good deal longer than that. I've studied philosophy, rhetoric, and religion at the university level. My argument was unquestionably valid (if certainly questionably sound). How is that somehow deserving of "noobie?"

And we're not talking about "love" or "bravery". We're discussing "omniscience" and what characteristics that implies. I don't have to have a rigorous definition of any other characteristics in order to discuss this particular one.
Really, your sophistry fails to even be amusing anymore.
Please :ahem: I've not said anything that a reasonably disinterested person would define as "sophistry". The fact that you don't agree doesn't make the line of argument deceptive. This is a very real issue in the philosophy of religion, and the arguments I've limned appear in numerous journals and essays, penned by both theists and non-theists alike. If you're not interested in the debate, so be it, but please be kind enough to leave the discussion to those that are...

Meh_Gerbil

December 5th 2005, 06:01 PM

If you're content to accept that you can not (and need not) understand the concept, that's fine. I've no problem with that and in fact I would argue it's very likely the best way to approach the "God issue". Apophacy has a long and venerable history in the Christian tradition (and other faiths as well).

I'm not induldging in apophacy.

The difference is put very well by Hank Hanagraaf when he says that we can apprehend G_d but not comprehend G_d. The concept of 'omniscience' is something that does have definition and is very meaningful in a very rational way.

The concept of omniscience is apprehended in a very meaningful and concrete way -- however, your attempts to comprehend the term are ridiculous from the very start.

I'm not regulating truth about G_d to some mystical zone of incomprehension nor am I going to reduce truth about G_d to mere logical syllogisms. One form of abuse makes G_d unapproachable and the other makes him absurd. Both are wrong as both are senseless extremes.

It is your approach that destroys the subject matter -- it is your approach that not only makes G_d unknowable but even impossible. Your approach results in more apophatic approach than I could ever hope to achieve - and reducing what may be known to nothing is the very definition of sophistry. It all sounds good but in the end it is just piddle.

Read that again: Because you cannot know it all you reduce it so that nothing can be known.

Captain Ochre

December 5th 2005, 10:23 PM

Let me try one more time (albeit fruitlessly) to show you what an idiot you are, or at least since you'll never admit you're wrong, let me show it to others here who has a High School or better level of understanding.

FWIW, I've already refuted your supposition that I will never admit that I am wrong.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1265766&postcount=72

CO:
I've already pointed out that you are fallaciously shifting the burden of proof. Given that we are talking about an omnipotent being that can do anything logically possible, there is no sense in giving me the burden of proof for showing than an omnipotent being is capable of performing a task that you have apparently admitted as being logically possible.

The burden of proof is on you to suggest why it is implausible to suggest that an omnipotent being (such as the one described in the Bible) should be regarded as innately knowing all things.

You'll probably continue to say that the topic is unworthy of you, but it appears that your bluster is simply a cover for your lack of ability (or possibly inclination).
You've painted yourself into a corner by admitting that it is logically possible, in effect. I dare you to let your class see the exchange in which you have involved yourself. They'll be asking for tuition refunds, or at least a new instructor.
The current thread argues against your conclusion.
You think that it is implausible that an omnipotent being could know all things innately while admitting that it is possible that all things could be known innately.
That's a counterintuitive position if it's not a flatly contradictory position.

It's logically possible that the moon is made of green cheese too, even though we've visited the moon and experientially found out that it isn't, you moron!

So how would you make the analogy relevant without somehow empirically confirming that God does not innately know all things, apart from using scriptural supports as I have already suggested you might do?

It's logically possible that there is a meteorite or a planet in another galaxy that is made of green cheese too, or that Elvis is still alive. Logically possible doesn't show anything about what is actually the case.

Well it does, actually. Something that is not logically possible is necessarily not the actual case.
You proclaimed that it wasn't the case and that it was "stupid" but you never offered any reason for your judgement, AFAICS, other than personal incredulity.

You're a maroon. :duh:

DJ seems to have difficulty supporting his claims without relying almost entirely on name-calling.

This is "counterintuitive" to whom? To you?

"This" being your claims that innate omniscience is both possible and implausible, yes it's counterintuitive to me--and to most others with a basic or better concept of logic.

Then maybe you ought not trust your intuitions because they are way our in la la land. And where exactly is the "flat out contradiction," duffas? Oh, that's right, you said "...if not..." before you suggested this, didn't you. But how can this be an escape for you, since you're at least claiming it's close to one?

I'm allowing that you might clarify your position.
It's not exactly unknown for you to botch your presentation with large swaths of ambiguity.

Suppose we have an omnipotent being.
Suppose that omnipotent being is also omniscient.

Given that innate omniscience is possible, how could it be implausible for an omnipotent being to possess innate intelligence?
An omnipotent being is able to do anything logically possible by definition. There are no implausibilities by the conventional use of the term, at least within the set of those things that it is agreed God might do (such as know all things).

I merely asked that the person who believes God knows everything innately should have the burden to make a case for it.

Baloney. You said that it was "stupid" and "implausible."
Too late to change your story, kiddo.

Can you understand the difference?

Sure--but I'm not going to let you get away with revising history like that. I'll laugh at you for having attempted it, however.

I know of no way anyone can know everything innately.

But you know how one could know everything? And you know how one could be omnipotent?

Sorry, DJ, but the appeal to personal incredulity just isn't a strong logical appeal.

It probably isn't even logically possible, although in the absence of an argument, I granted it might be.

You don't seem to have provided any support whatever for your judgement that it "probably isn't even logically possible."

But I have yet to see a case that this is even logically possible.

You're positioned perfectly for the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium ... will you take the plunge?

But when it comes to the plausibility of this, there must be a cause for that knowledge, and since knowledge of events in history are either based upon experiencing these events, or concluding from investigating the evidence, then the person who makes such an assertion must at least offer up an argument.

Not really. We're making mental models of possible worlds in which an omnipotent being exists, and we're looking at the plausibility of innate omniscience given the ability to do anything logically possible.
The burden of proof is on you, DJ, to show that innate omniscience on the part of an omniscient being is "stupid," "implausible," or even "probably isn't even logically possible."
Thus far, you have supported none of those propositions unless we generously count the appeal to personal incredulity.

I can't believe that we could count personal incredulity as sufficient logical justification for your claims, FWIW.
:smile:

That's all I asked for....an argument.

Thus fallaciously shifting the burden away from yourself.

Where did this burden of proof stuff come in?

It came in when you asserted out of the blue that innate omniscience was "stupid," "implausible," and then "probably not even logically possible."
The burden of proof is on the one who asserts something (though unusual claims tend to draw the burden of proof over commonly accepted claims).

It is unusual to claim that something logically possible is implausibly accomplished by an omnipotent being.

Show me by quoting from what I said in this thread that I asked for anything other than an argument.

Red herring. You need not have asked for anything. The problem is your refusal to back up your claims, along with asking others to prove your claims wrong (fallaciously shifting the burden of proof).

Besides, there is a legitimate debate over who has the burden of proof when it comes to the existence of God.

Red herring.
We're not debating the existence of God.
You'll just embarrass yourself further if you try to get out of the pickle you're in by trying to tie your claim to the issue of whether or not God exists.
That would be a truly pathetic strategem on your part.
I almost hope you go through with it.

In the absence of a tie-breaker the debate opponents will switch to who has the burden of proof.

Red herring. We're not engaged in a formal debate.
You made assertions that you haven't supported. When challenged on those claims, you shifted the burden of proof fallaciously.

Philosophy scholar Athony Flew has previously argued that the presumption is in favor of atheism (his present deism notwithstanding, since his change is irrelevant to the point I'm making), and he argued that the theist has the burden of proof. But little Captain Yellow, who doesn't have a High School education, will be quick to say such reasoning is fallacious.

Not necessarily. My view is that the burden of proof rests on the person who wants somebody else to agree with him. If Flew wasn't interested in getting people to agree with his atheism, then he wouldn't bear a burden of proof.
OTOH, in a society where the majority accepts theism, the position of strong atheism is the controversial position and would be more appropriate as the affirmative position in a formal debate.
In a predominantly atheistic society we could expect the positions to be reversed.

But Flew knows more logic than you will ever understand, and so do I. Do you really think he made a 7th grade error on logic when he argued for this?

You have made such an error by introducing such a farcical red herring to the conversation.

You really do not understand the informal fallacies...you really don't, even though you go parading around here like you do.

There's yet another claim that you haven't supported.
Should I be surprised?
There's your cue to resort to name-calling again.
:hehe:

And you hate it when I point out your stupidity.

You have yet to "point out" my supposed stupidity. You merely assert it repeatedly minus any shred of reasonable evidence. Instead, you repeatedly embarrass yourself by presenting poor arguments on your own behalf.

You don't understand when they apply and when they don't, nor do you know that even informal fallacies can carry persuasive weight,

Huh. More revisionist history from DJ.

Fallacies do not carry logical weight. They may have some efficacy in persuasion, however.
http://www.nku.edu/~garns/165/ppt3_2.html

An attack on a person may be part of an strong inductive argument without being a fallacy. Such an argument remains an attack on the person (ad hominem) but is not fallacious.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1227949&postcount=10

and some meager evidence too.

But not meager evidence that justifies inferring the proffered conclusion.
You're selling snake-oil with your response, DJ.

But we've been down that road before, to no avail.

Right, because I already knew the topic better than you did, judging from argument you gave in that other thread. You didn't like that, so you tried to present your own knowledge as if it contradicted what I had written. Failing that, you abandoned the thread, only to refer to it now, inaccurately, in your post.

You are the proverbial nincompoop who has a beginner knowledge of a subject and who claims to know the depths of that subject.

I make no such claims regarding my knowledge of the "depths" of philosophical knowledge, so you're simply lying.
I do know that you make frequent mistakes and that you rely mostly on fallacies in your arguments with me, however.

The reason I rail on you is just because of this. You claim to know, but what you show is ignorance.

How ironic, since you claim to know that I'm ignorant yet you repeatedly fail to show it.

Then you maintain your ignorance, and that's what galls me, because you'll never listen to me.

Perhaps you should try supporting your claims with non-fallacious support? Who knows? It could make a difference.

It will only be when someone you know and trust tells you, but you don't know anyone who can tell you, and you don't read anything on a deeper level than the old 1st-2nd grade "See Spot Run" type of books, as far as I can tell.

I'd have an easy time accepting claims that were supported with either logic or expert sources ... two things that you've avoided like the plague in your replies to me.

As far as the burden of proof goes, I didn't ask for that.

Asking is not required in order for burden of proof to be assigned. If you refuse to bear your burden, then you have no legitimate expectation that anyone will accept your assertion that innate omniscience is "stupid," "implausible," or "probably not even logically possible."
If you can live with that, then the problem is resolved ... though of course along with that you'll have to face the fact that you're not being taken seriously.

You cannot even read what I write, much less evaluate it.

For example?
Or are you simply piling on new evidence is support of my suggestion that you do not support your assertions?

I only asked for an argument.

By doing so, you shifted the burden of proof away from yourself. You alleged that innate omniscience that "stupid" and "implausible" and then you challenged others to prove you wrong.
That's the classic pattern of shifting the burden of proof.

[box]Shifting the burden of proof is a specialized form of the argumentum ad ignorantiam. It consists of putting forward an assertion without justification, on the basis that the audience must disprove it if it is to be rejected. Normally we take it that the new position must have supporting evidence or reason adduced in its favour by the person who introduces it. When we are required instead to produce arguments against it, he commits the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.[/quote]
http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000656.php

The parallel to your approach in this thread is obvious.

It is YOU who are shifting the burden of proof on me, and by your own standards that's fallacious thinking.

:ahem:

The burden of proof. Every position has its own burden of proof, even if the word "proof" there is a misnomer, since barely anything can be proved.

(fallacy of equivocation. it's not a misnomer since "proof" has extensive latitude of meaning)

Hey brain-dead, I suggest you just leave me alone from now on, and we'll both be better off.

You wouldn't be wasting my time with your stupidity, and you won't be at quite so high a risk of losing your job over philosophical and logical incompetence.

You may be right. :hehe:

Don't worry about me--I'm rationing the time I spend on you. :teeth:

Doubting John

December 6th 2005, 01:04 AM

FWIW, I've already refuted your supposition that I will never admit that I am wrong.

It was an exaggeration, buffoon, and you felt it necessary to refute an exaggeration, eh? Desperate aren't we? And since I had originally read your admission in the link you provided, what did you think?....that I forgot?

D'ya know that this is as far as I read of you post?

You're not even worthy of a good read anymore.

And do you notice no one else gets involved in our disputes?

Because they're not interested.

And neither am I.

Go away.

No, No, No, better yet, I'll say you win, yes, that's right. You win. Now will you stop revealing yourself to be the moron that you are?

Oh, and in the future you'll also refer to this post where I admitted (albeit sarcastically) that you won, just to show 'em won't you?

So be it, moron.

Get a job.

Get an education.

Get a life.

I just don't know why I even bother with you.

One more time:

You wiggle and squiggle and you twist and turn;
You slither and slide and you crash and burn.
You skip and you hop and you perch from above;
With claws like an hawk you’re as mild as a dove.
But this prey of yours is too big to handle;
Just try to grab him, and you'll get mangled.
You're ignorant and pompous and stupid to boot;
You claim you're smart, and I say, "what a hoot!"
Like the ginger bread man, you say "catch me if you can."
Like the Cheshire Cat, you ask "can't see me?, here I am."
Like a spider you spin a web of deceit,
You backtrack and sidestep and in this you cheat.
Like arrogant lawmakers you redistrict for gain,
Because you'll never admit fault, you'll avoid the pain.
So I'm done with you, ya little poop,
You'll not drag me down, that low I won't stoop.

Captain Ochre

December 6th 2005, 01:34 AM

It was an exaggeration, buffoon, and you felt it necessary to refute an exaggeration, eh?

Not necessary but canny, given that you haven't anything against me that isn't exaggeration.

Desperate aren't we?

I'm not.
Maybe you are.

And since I had originally read your admission in the link you provided, what did you think?....that I forgot?

No, I figured that you might think that the average reader of this thread hadn't read that other thread, so you figured you could get in an insinuated character attack.

D'ya know that this is as far as I read of you post?

Like it matters. You don't address what I say anyway.

You're not even worthy of a good read anymore.

Your current post is well worth reading by anybody who once took you seriously.
They'll be shaking their heads over how pathetic your responses have been.

And do you notice no one else gets involved in our disputes?

Because they're not interested.

I get some comments sent my way that indicate that some are interested.
You keep replying even after telling me that you're done with me, so you can't be entirely disinterested.
:smile:

And neither am I.

Go away.

No, thank you.

No, No, No, better yet, I'll say you win, yes, that's right. You win.

You don't sound sincere.
:smile:

Now will you stop revealing yourself to be the moron that you are?

Fallacy of the complex question.
You've never provided any support for the claim that I am a moron (nor any of the other epithets you've used to substitute for argument).

Oh, and in the future you'll also refer to this post where I admitted (albeit sarcastically) that you won, just to show 'em won't you?

Probably not.
Unless I need an example of you writing something that doesn't sound sincere, of course.

So be it, moron.

Get a job.

Get an education.

Get a life.

I just don't know why I even bother with you.

You sound like a candidate for Dianetics auditing. :hehe:
Something to do with engrams, maybe.

One more time:

You wiggle and squiggle and you twist and turn;
You slither and slide and you crash and burn.
You skip and you hop and you perch from above;
With claws like an hawk you’re as mild as a dove.
But this prey of yours is too big to handle;
Just try to grab him, and you'll get mangled.
You're ignorant and pompous and stupid to boot;
You claim you're smart, and I say, "what a hoot!"
Like the ginger bread man, you say "catch me if you can."
Like the Cheshire Cat, you ask "can't see me?, here I am."
Like a spider you spin a web of deceit,
You backtrack and sidestep and in this you cheat.
Like arrogant lawmakers you redistrict for gain,
Because you'll never admit fault, you'll avoid the pain.
So I'm done with you, ya little poop,
You'll not drag me down, that low I won't stoop.

I've previously addressed that attempt at cleverness here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1265653&postcount=70

Doubting John

December 6th 2005, 01:42 AM

You've never provided any support for the claim that I am a moron (nor any of the other epithets you've used to substitute for argument).

You're not a moron, stupid. I exaggerate, and yet you continue to argue that you aren't a moron. :lol:

This is just too funny! :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

Captain Ochre

December 6th 2005, 02:04 AM

You're not a moron, stupid. I exaggerate, and yet you continue to argue that you aren't a moron. :lol:

There's no need for me to argue that I am not a moron. For me to do so would presume that I have a burden of proof for doing so.
My point is that you persist in failing to provide support for your claims, and it matters not that you use "moron" in a hyperbolic sense because you do not support the charge in any weaker sense, either.

This is just too funny! :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

It's funny that you would continue to so consistently support the charge that I make against you: that you do not support your claims.

C. D. Ward

December 6th 2005, 12:09 PM

[/i]The concept of omniscience is apprehended in a very meaningful and concrete way -- however, your attempts to comprehend the term are ridiculous from the very start.
Well that's rather odd, because it seems to me that the definition of "omniscience" I'm using is the same one employed by theologians and philosophers. As I noted, the argument I've limned is not original to me. It's one that theologians and philosophers (Alvin Plantinga, no less) take very seriously.
I'm not regulating truth about G_d to some mystical zone of incomprehension nor am I going to reduce truth about G_d to mere logical syllogisms. One form of abuse makes G_d unapproachable and the other makes him absurd. Both are wrong as both are senseless extremes.
Well no, it seems to me that you want to use both extremes against the middle. IOW, to assert that you can know things about God, but when questioned about exactly what you can know, you want to retreat to ineffability.
It is your approach that destroys the subject matter -- it is your approach that not only makes G_d unknowable but even impossible. Your approach results in more apophatic approach than I could ever hope to achieve - and reducing what may be known to nothing is the very definition of sophistry. It all sounds good but in the end it is just piddle.
And this is exactly what I mean. You seem to be rather upset that anyone would attempt to rigorously define one of God's alleged attributes, but simultaneously balk at the notion that such attributes cannot be rigorously defined. Which is it?
Read that again: Because you cannot know it all you reduce it so that nothing can be known.
IOW, you know what you mean when you say that God is "omniscient", but heaven forbid that anyone else should try to figure it out. And woe betide anyone interested in figuring out what it means because you'll attack them and their "piddle" with scorn and insults.

"Knowing it all" has nothing whatever to do with the case. What do we mean when we say that God is "omniscient"? We're talking about the definition and applicability of a word. If we cannot understand what that word means, then we cannot meaningfully apply that word to any existent, let alone God.