Does anyone else besides me suspect that all the omni-references regarding god were basically just hyperbola of the times? I don't think applying logic and semantics to what amounted to verbal hand waving makes any sense.

I have a feeling they were. I've called users like Genkaus and Apophenia know-it-alls, but if only those statements survived some cataclysm, would it be rational for survivors to believe there were two people who actually knew everything?

(December 10, 2013 at 1:33 am)whateverist Wrote: Does anyone else besides me suspect that all the omni-references regarding god were basically just hyperbola of the times? I don't think applying logic and semantics to what amounted to verbal hand waving makes any sense.

Yup, every time I hear someone go on about how great and all powerful/loving/etc their god is, it just reminds me of being a kid and hearing "Yeah? Well my dad's better than your dad because my dad can [insert spurious claim here]"

Interesting. My only problem with this is, isn't a being that is omniscient by definition without any unknown knowledge?

As far as I can tell, any sort of sophisticated attempt at arguing for God will define omniscience as having all possible knowledge, not having all knowledge period. Part of the problem with the latter definition is that it entails knowing that you're omniscient, which is incoherent.

(December 10, 2013 at 1:28 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Unlike Christian apologists, I won't stick with flawed arguments. After all, my interest in philosophy is not to defend to death my preconceived notions of what I think is (or ought be) the case. Likewise, thanks for demonstrating your inability to be charitable or thorough.

you need not stereotype me. I don't use arguments or information that have been shown faulty or false.

Quote:I actually already realize what this changes in the argument, but seeing as there's a time limit on edits, I can't really alter the OP to reflect this.

i'm glad.

Quote:I can easily grant that. After all, it logically follows from my statement (which you ignored in your haste earlier). However, unless you're a rather novel kind of Christian, you have to give up any sort of basis for affirming God's omniscience, certainly if it is supposedly stated by God himself. God can only assume his omniscience, he could never know it, even in principle.

it's funny how little you know of the bible. God doesn't actually claim to be omniscient in the bible. in fact, the bible doesn't say there is nothing he doesn't know, or that he knows everything. is says in psalms that his understanding is beyond measure (which is also tricky passage BTW since the word translated to "beyond measure" or "infinite" actually means number), it says in Isaiah that his understanding is unsearchable, it says he knows the future or "the end from the beginning" as he puts it, it says in acts that he knows the hearts of all. it is put many ways in the bible, but it is never said "there is nothing he doesn't know" or "he knows everything." God never himself claims it either, so even if you have sources of people claiming this it means nothing if it doesn't come from the God of the bible.

Quote: In the part of my post you "conveniently" left out, I demonstrated that there is possible knowledge that God could never BY HIMSELF learn, but is nevertheless possible in principle.

no, you demonstrated how there is a KU, being knowledge of UU's, which is impossible to have. as you said in premise 2:

you Wrote:No conscious being can rule out having UUs due to the impossibility of the contrary

unless you would like to claim you also made a mistake here...

Quote:Go ahead, reread the part of my post you dishonestly ignored for examples. It is indeed quite amusing how poor your reading comprehension and honesty are.

what you listed was not possible knowledge, it was impossible knowledge. "How does God know that he wasn't created by an even greater being" he couldn't know unless that being revealed himself to him, which could only happened if there was one. "He can't, and to say otherwise is to pretend to have defeated solipsism" i'm glad we agree he can't know that, so stop pretending it's possible knowledge. "(I doubt you'd make that claims)" and you're obviously wrong, but as I've said all this doesn't prove anything on your side. "Yet, God COULD learn of this higher being's existence if that higher being wanted to" déjà vu. and of course that would presume one exists, and if not then it would be absolutely impossible for him to know that. it still doesn't prove anything. "so it's a UU for God until such time as he is aware of the question, which then becomes an (unanswered) KU (known unknown)" that's assuming he doesn't know. and if he does, then it's a KU, but the unknown part is still an impossible one to know. did I miss anything?

Quote:Has God EVER claimed to be omniscient?

no, as I've answered above.

Quote:In regards to other arguments against omniscience, I would tend to stake my lot with those that use other common apologetic positions to undermine that attribute, such as the oft-held 'there can be no actual infinite' position that is necessary for, among other things, the Kalam Cosmological argument.

funny, if there's no actual infinite then what makes you think omniscience presumes infinite knowledge? that would only be the case if you assumed there is infinite knowledge, which I don't.
omniscience only means he has all (possible) knowledge, infinity needs not to be interjected.

(December 11, 2013 at 7:30 am)Rational AKD Wrote: funny, if there's no actual infinite then what makes you think omniscience presumes infinite knowledge? that would only be the case if you assumed there is infinite knowledge, which I don't.
omniscience only means he has all (possible) knowledge, infinity needs not to be interjected.

Is there actually a meaningful difference between "infinite knowledge" and "all possible knowledge?" In other words, how does the idea that an omniscient god that only knows everything it is possible to know actually help you deal with the contentions and problems with the concept of omniscience?

(December 11, 2013 at 7:46 am)Esquilax Wrote: Is there actually a meaningful difference between "infinite knowledge" and "all possible knowledge?" In other words, how does the idea that an omniscient god that only knows everything it is possible to know actually help you deal with the contentions and problems with the concept of omniscience?

because I think the amount of possible worlds are finite, which would also make the knowledge of them finite. though I think such knowledge is vast, it is still finite. again, that means infinity needs not to be interjected.

One of the interesting questions that gets raised by theists is the "Well what's it all for? If there is no God."

The interesting thing about this is that we could equally well apply it to God himself. What is the function of God's existence? Is there one? If there isn't for him why can't there be one for us? If there is for him, and if we assume he doesn't have a higher authority to get it from why can't there be for us?

Can God know what its all for?

(December 11, 2013 at 7:30 am)Rational AKD Wrote: you need not stereotype me. I don't use arguments or information that have been shown faulty or false.

I'm not actually talking about you. More like apologists who use ridiculous arguments like the (Craigian) moral argument or the Kalam.

Quote:it's funny how little you know of the bible. God doesn't actually claim to be omniscient in the bible. in fact, the bible doesn't say there is nothing he doesn't know, or that he knows everything. is says in psalms that his understanding is beyond measure (which is also tricky passage BTW since the word translated to "beyond measure" or "infinite" actually means number), it says in Isaiah that his understanding is unsearchable, it says he knows the future or "the end from the beginning" as he puts it, it says in acts that he knows the hearts of all. it is put many ways in the bible, but it is never said "there is nothing he doesn't know" or "he knows everything." God never himself claims it either, so even if you have sources of people claiming this it means nothing if it doesn't come from the God of the bible.

Please tell me where I said that the Bible says God is omniscient. Go on. I specifically said that you have to give up any basis for claiming God is omniscient, "certainly if God said so himself". In other words, even if God said so, it wouldn't change the impossibility of rationally affirming that about himself.

Quote:no, you demonstrated how there is a KU, being knowledge of UU's, which is impossible to have. as you said in premise 2:

you Wrote:No conscious being can rule out having UUs due to the impossibility of the contrary

unless you would like to claim you also made a mistake here...

That's not the part I was talking about. I was talking about the part where I brought up other knowledge that God cannot obtain by his own power.

[quote
what you listed was not possible knowledge, it was impossible knowledge. "How does God know that he wasn't created by an even greater being" he couldn't know unless that being revealed himself to him, which could only happened if there was one. "He can't, and to say otherwise is to pretend to have defeated solipsism" i'm glad we agree he can't know that, so stop pretending it's possible knowledge. "(I doubt you'd make that claims)" and you're obviously wrong, but as I've said all this doesn't prove anything on your side. "Yet, God COULD learn of this higher being's existence if that higher being wanted to" déjà vu. and of course that would presume one exists, and if not then it would be absolutely impossible for him to know that. it still doesn't prove anything. "so it's a UU for God until such time as he is aware of the question, which then becomes an (unanswered) KU (known unknown)" that's assuming he doesn't know. and if he does, then it's a KU, but the unknown part is still an impossible one to know. did I miss anything?[/quote]

You're not quite getting it. The fact that God can't rule it out, yet it's still POSSIBLY TRUE and knowable, God has to remain agnostic on this issue. And you can't really get mad at this hypothetical, seeing as, as far as I'm concerned, we're already engaged in a hypothetical even discussing God's existence in the first place.
Further, it's self-evidently absurd (especially in your worldview) to say that it's NOT possible to have been created by a higher power without realizing it, especially considering you have to believe that is true of me and all other atheists (that we were created by a higher power but just don't realize it).

Quote:no, as I've answered above.

Then my next question is, is God omniscient? And if [you think] so, how do you know that?

Quote:funny, if there's no actual infinite then what makes you think omniscience presumes infinite knowledge? that would only be the case if you assumed there is infinite knowledge, which I don't.
omniscience only means he has all (possible) knowledge, infinity needs not to be interjected.

If one sees mathematical knowledge as knowledge applicable here (annd it certainly seems to be), it would seem that God would have to have infinite knowledge since any particular mathematical problem is at least possibly answerable. Which means that apologists who are against actual infinites have a real problem holding both positions.