(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 contraryunless 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.
