god has no free will

[JonDarbyXIII]

So God is omniscient because he knows everything that he knows. I could use that logic and make a similar claim that I know everything that is knowable. If I don't know it, then that knowledge doesn't exist (for me). Even if you claim that there is someone else that does know it, I don't know that knowledge indeed exists. Maybe the sky was destined to be blue whether God wanted it to be or not, but God didn't know that until he chose that.

Negative JonDarby

The set of all that is knowable is not necessary the same as the set of knowing everything one knows. I know many things, but I do not know all that is knowable. You have made a straw man argument.

That's not straw man. You're saying that God only has to know what is knowable, and you are assuming that 'what is knowable' can be defined as 'what God knows.' You have not, however, shown that the knowledge can't exist outside of God. To the frog in the well, the well is the entire world. If there were a knowledge base outside your god, then he could still think he knew everything that was able to be known, but he would be just as limited as we are. My point is that I can make that claim (even if it implies arrogance). God makes that claim, and you call it divine.

[dyresand]

Negative JonDarby

The set of all that is knowable is not necessary the same as the set of knowing everything one knows. I know many things, but I do not know all that is knowable. You have made a straw man argument.

That's not straw man. You're saying that God only has to know what is knowable, and you are assuming that 'what is knowable' can be defined as 'what God knows.' You have not, however, shown that the knowledge can't exist outside of God. To the frog in the well, the well is the entire world. If there were a knowledge base outside your god, then he could still think he knew everything that was able to be known, but he would be just as limited as we are. My point is that I can make that claim (even if it implies arrogance). God makes that claim, and you call it divine.

well from what i just read he is saying god only needs to know some things not everything. yet in the bible it says god knows everything. so he just said god is imperfect because a perfect god needs to know everything even useless things.

[Heywood]

Negative JonDarby

The set of all that is knowable is not necessary the same as the set of knowing everything one knows. I know many things, but I do not know all that is knowable. You have made a straw man argument.

if you say or the bible says god is omniscient he knows everything. so he has to know everything. so your saying he doesn't need to know everything doesn't that mean god is imperfect.

I am saying that to be able to know something requires that something to have the potential to be known.

[JonDarbyXIII]

well from what i just read he is saying god only needs to know some things not everything. yet in the bible it says god knows everything. so he just said god is imperfect because a perfect god needs to know everything even useless things.

Indeed - I just think the argument fails either way

---

I am saying that to be able to know something requires that something to have the potential to be known.

But that's a cop-out for God. If God doesn't know something, it is reasoned away with, "Oh, well that couldn't be known anyway." When we lack the potential for knowledge, theists defer that knowledge to God. So my question is, if God lacks the potential for knowledge about something, why do we not likewise defer to the next higher authority?

Actually, the question is rhetorical. The answer is that the process would go on ad infinitum.

[Heywood]

Negative JonDarby

The set of all that is knowable is not necessary the same as the set of knowing everything one knows. I know many things, but I do not know all that is knowable. You have made a straw man argument.

That's not straw man. You're saying that God only has to know what is knowable, and you are assuming that 'what is knowable' can be defined as 'what God knows.' You have not, however, shown that the knowledge can't exist outside of God. To the frog in the well, the well is the entire world. If there were a knowledge base outside your god, then he could still think he knew everything that was able to be known, but he would be just as limited as we are. My point is that I can make that claim (even if it implies arrogance). God makes that claim, and you call it divine.

It is a straw man because I never made the assumption that what is knowable is defined as what God knows. You made that up so that you would have an easier time trying to defeat my argument. Textbook straw manning.

[dyresand]

That's not straw man. You're saying that God only has to know what is knowable, and you are assuming that 'what is knowable' can be defined as 'what God knows.' You have not, however, shown that the knowledge can't exist outside of God. To the frog in the well, the well is the entire world. If there were a knowledge base outside your god, then he could still think he knew everything that was able to be known, but he would be just as limited as we are. My point is that I can make that claim (even if it implies arrogance). God makes that claim, and you call it divine.

It is a straw man because I never made the assumption that what is knowable is defined as what God knows. You made that up so that you would have an easier time trying to defeat my argument. Textbook straw manning.

Its still not a straw man re read it.

[Heywood]

It is a straw man because I never made the assumption that what is knowable is defined as what God knows. You made that up so that you would have an easier time trying to defeat my argument. Textbook straw manning.

Its still not a straw man re read it.

It is a strawman because he is assuming things I never said then citing those things as reasons for why my argument is bad. He changed my argument to something that he could then knock down....classic strawmanning.

I never even said God was omniscient. I don't know what God knows and I don't know the contents of the set of all knowable things so I am not in a position to make the claim that God is omniscient even if I wanted too.

[robvalue]

God can't even do simple sums. He's thick as shit.

[JonDarbyXIII]

It is a strawman because he is assuming things I never said then citing those things as reasons for why my argument is bad. He changed my argument to something that he could then knock down....classic strawmanning.

I didn't assume anything from what you said. What I did was to draw what you said out by extension to another logical conclusion to demonstrate that the argument fails.

I never even said God was omniscient. I don't know what God knows and I don't know the contents of the set of all knowable things so I am not in a position to make the claim that God is omniscient even if I wanted too.

You had said that, in creation, the knowledge of whether or not the sky would be blue did not exist until God made that decision, and omniscience covered this in that God would still know all potential knowledge. No, you did not use the phrase 'I believe this to be the case,' but if you are saying that God might not be omniscient, then my initial argument (that omniscience would prohibit God from being 'creative') stands.

[Heywood]

You had said that, in creation, the knowledge of whether or not the sky would be blue did not exist until God made that decision, and omniscience covered this in that God would still know all potential knowledge. No, you did not use the phrase 'I believe this to be the case,' but if you are saying that God might not be omniscient, then my initial argument (that omniscience would prohibit God from being 'creative') stands.

Your argument does not stand because the version of omniscience you are using as one of your premises is nonsensical.