Omniscience Argument Revisited

[Freedom of thought]

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.

What if there is knowledge that he doesn't know about?

[Ryantology]

As a slight aside, how does omniscience indicate a willingness to always do what is good and right? Omniscience has been used by some of our local Christroaches to justify mass homicide (every time God kills a person, it is just, because he knows everything that person will do and all the effects their continued existence might have). How does knowing everything preclude the possibility of committing evil?

[Rational AKD]

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

then maybe you should specify your claim to "some Christian apologists" since it obviously doesn't apply to all.

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.

you missed the point entirely. my whole point is that the bible doesn't say God is omniscient, and therefore your claim that God is being dishonest is false. if I were to show that God is omniscient, it wouldn't be with the bible.

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.

something is possibly true given other truths. if you can't determine if there is a greater being than God, then you can't determine if it's possible for him to know that or not since if there's not. it would be impossible if there wasn't a greater being then God. you can't say it's possible something is impossible since according to axiom S5 of modal logic that would simply reduce to "it's impossible." and if you don't believe me, i'll prove it with modal logic terms. "if there is at least one possible world (definition of possible) that X is not true in any possible world (definition of impossible) then there is no possible world where X is true."

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.

i'm not getting mad at the hypothetical. i'm saying you can't determine if the hypothetical is true or not, and the possibility of God to have that knowledge is contingent upon whether the hypothetical is true or not. if it's true, then it's possible. if it's false, then it's impossible.

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).

I never once made that claim. I merely claimed that it would be impossible for him to know that he was created by a higher power if he wasn't. since you can't show that he was, you can't show that it's possible since you can't rule out the possibility of it being impossible.

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

i'm afraid this question is getting whether I believe this or not is irrelevant to the argument at hand, whether it is possible God is omniscient. we both agree that it is possible he is, and we both agree it would be impossible for him to definitively know that he is. it seems that we're no longer in disagreement on this topic.

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.

so you're now arguing that because there are an infinite amount of numbers on both sides of zero, there are an infinite amount of problems that can be formed from them. there's only one problem, however... this doesn't make an infinite amount of knowledge. you can actually store all that mathematical knowledge on a very small device... a calculator. with it, you can instantly find the answer to any mathematical problem of basic operations. and yes, I know there are more operations than just the basic ones you find on calculators... but the amount of operations aren't infinite, so it's not inconceivable to know the answer to every mathematical problem with only a finite amount of knowledge. if calculators can do it, why can't God?

[MindForgedManacle]

then maybe you should specify your claim to "some Christian apologists" since it obviously doesn't apply to all.

Okay.

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.

you missed the point entirely. my whole point is that the bible doesn't say God is omniscient, and therefore your claim that God is being dishonest is false. if I were to show that God is omniscient, it wouldn't be with the bible.

No I didn't, because you're impugning something on me that I didn't say. I specifically said (and you ignored) that I made no mention of the Bible claiming God is omniscient, I said regardless of whether or not it was God saying it about himself or humans saying it about God, it's not rationally affirmable.

something is possibly true given other truths. if you can't determine if there is a greater being than God, then you can't determine if it's possible for him to know that or not since if there's not. it would be impossible if there wasn't a greater being then God. you can't say it's possible something is impossible since according to axiom S5 of modal logic that would simply reduce to "it's impossible." and if you don't believe me, i'll prove it with modal logic terms. "if there is at least one possible world (definition of possible) that X is not true in any possible world (definition of impossible) then there is no possible world where X is true."

You've got it backwards. The fact that God cannot determine that means God can't rule it out. And I DIDNT say it was 'possible that it was impossible', period. I said it's possibly the case that it impossible to know given certain factors (in this case, the impossibility of rhe contrary). It's like saying it's possible that it's not possible for humans to do a particular thing, given certain limitations.

Okay, that's a rather stupid use of modal logic, much like Plantinga's MOA. Of course if you say that there is a possible world wherein X is not true in any possible world (that is, false in all of them), it is therefore not true in any possible world. That's just a tautology, it's meaningless.

Further, an attempt to use modal logic that way betrays a misunderstanding many religious apologists have and you seem to share: a confusion between epistemic possibility and metaphysical possibility.

i'm not getting mad at the hypothetical. i'm saying you can't determine if the hypothetical is true or not, and the possibility of God to have that knowledge is contingent upon whether the hypothetical is true or not. if it's true, then it's possible. if it's false, then it's impossible.

Hence, God cannot rule it out. If it's possible, then God can know it if that being allows him to. If not, it's not possible, but God doesn't know that, and can't.

I never once made that claim. I merely claimed that it would be impossible for him to know that he was created by a higher power if he wasn't. since you can't show that he was, you can't show that it's possible since you can't rule out the possibility of it being impossible.

That creates an interesting problem for your theism. After all, it's impossible for me to know I was created by a higher power if there is none, but clearly you think there is. However, that somewhat misses the point. Neither God nor I can rule out having been created by some higher being, yet you have to make a strange distinction atheists' and non-Christians' epistemological situation, and God's epistemology on an a priori basis, i.e God can't assess if he was created but WE can.

i'm afraid this question is getting whether I believe this or not is irrelevant to the argument at hand, whether it is possible God is omniscient. we both agree that it is possible he is, and we both agree it would be impossible for him to definitively know that he is. it seems that we're no longer in disagreement on this topic.

Actually, it's VERY relevant. I don't recall saying it's possible for him to to be omniscient, I'm pretty sure I was talking about this argument not seeking to establish that.

Further, you seem to be trying to weasel out of actually trying to tell me how you know he's omniscient (if you do). And I have a feeling the reason you're doing such is because if it's possible for you to establish God's omniscience through reasoning, then clearly God could do so too, but you've already agreed that's not possible. This makes you loose already flawed arguments like ontological arguments.

so you're now arguing that because there are an infinite amount of numbers on both sides of zero, there are an infinite amount of problems that can be formed from them. there's only one problem, however... this doesn't make an infinite amount of knowledge. you can actually store all that mathematical knowledge on a very small device... a calculator. with it, you can instantly find the answer to any mathematical problem of basic operations. and yes, I know there are more operations than just the basic ones you find on calculators... but the amount of operations aren't infinite, so it's not inconceivable to know the answer to every mathematical problem with only a finite amount of knowledge. if calculators can do it, why can't God?

Did you miss the part where I explicitly said I was referring to a different argument when talking about the mathematical bit?
Further, calculators fon't have knowledge, and they certainly don't STORE information. They PERFORM operations, and even then ALL computational devices have operational limits. This is why performing calculations that result in infinities will cause calculators to output an error.

[Rational AKD]

No I didn't, because you're impugning something on me that I didn't say. I specifically said (and you ignored) that I made no mention of the Bible claiming God is omniscient, I said regardless of whether or not it was God saying it about himself or humans saying it about God, it's not rationally affirmable.

excuse me, I misinterpreted you when you said this:

certainly if it is supposedly stated by God himself. God can only assume his omniscience, he could never know it, even in principle.

You've got it backwards. The fact that God cannot determine that means God can't rule it out.

yes, but he can't rule it in either. it would not be possible or impossible knowledge, it would be what they call indeterminate.

And I DIDNT say it was 'possible that it was impossible', period.

thus was something I took from one of your positions. let me see if I can lay it out for you.
1. a. you claim it is possible God is the greatest being, and b. it is possible he is not.
2. if he is not the greatest being then it is possible for him to know of this being.
3. if he is the greatest being then it is impossible for him to know whether he is the greatest being.
4. 1b combined with 2 equates to "it is possibly possible God knows..." 1a combined with 3 equates to "it is possibly impossible God knows..."
5. therefore 1a and 1b can't both be true.

Okay, that's a rather stupid use of modal logic, much like Plantinga's MOA. Of course if you say that there is a possible world wherein X is not true in any possible world (that is, false in all of them), it is therefore not true in any possible world. That's just a tautology, it's meaningless.

it's axiom S5 of modal logic used to reduce redundancies of modal operators. just because it seems apparent to you doesn't mean it's not useful.

Further, an attempt to use modal logic that way betrays a misunderstanding many religious apologists have and you seem to share: a confusion between epistemic possibility and metaphysical possibility.

so you're saying you can't use epistemic possibility to find metaphysical possibility?

Hence, God cannot rule it out.

or in. if God can't determine one way or the other, then whether the knowledge is possible for him to know or impossible for him to know is indeterminate. it's not automatically possible.

That creates an interesting problem for your theism. After all, it's impossible for me to know I was created by a higher power if there is none, but clearly you think there is. However, that somewhat misses the point. Neither God nor I can rule out having been created by some higher being, yet you have to make a strange distinction atheists' and non-Christians' epistemological situation, and God's epistemology on an a priori basis, i.e God can't assess if he was created but WE can.

there are several differences between our situation and God's.
1. we know our limitations, God knows none.
2. we know we're going to die.
3. we have no control over the world, God has unlimited control over the world.
and no, I didn't say "God can't access if he was created..." I said "God can't access if he wasn't created." it is impossible for God to know if there is or is not a greater being than he if there isn't one.

I don't recall saying it's possible for him to to be omniscient, I'm pretty sure I was talking about this argument not seeking to establish that.

right, I forgot you took a skeptical position on this matter.

Further, you seem to be trying to weasel out of actually trying to tell me how you know he's omniscient (if you do). And I have a feeling the reason you're doing such is because if it's possible for you to establish God's omniscience through reasoning, then clearly God could do so too, but you've already agreed that's not possible.

there's a more indirect method of determining his omniscience, though I know bringing it up will start a huge tangent so i'm refraining from bringing it up.

This makes you loose already flawed arguments like ontological arguments.

whether he knows he is omniscient or not does not mean he is not, so this doesn't go against the ontological argument.

Further, calculators fon't have knowledge, and they certainly don't STORE information.

the information is preprogrammed. the don't store new information, but that doesn't mean the don't have information.

They PERFORM operations, and even then ALL computational devices have operational limits. This is why performing calculations that result in infinities will cause calculators to output an error.

they would compute for an answer, which would be similar to us thinking about the answer to a test question. and yes, I already stated that there are advanced operations that calculators can't do. but because there aren't an infinite amount of operations, it shouldn't be difficult to conceive how God could know all of them.

[MindForgedManacle]

excuse me, I misinterpreted you when you said this:

certainly if it is supposedly stated by God himself. God can only assume his omniscience, he could never know it, even in principle.

Completely skipped the 'certainly if' bit again? As I've said for the 3rd time, I'm saying that it doesn't matter WHO said it, even if it was God, they cold not be rational in affirming that he's omniscient.

yes, but he can't rule it in either. it would not be possible or impossible knowledge, it would be what they call indeterminate.

And did I not say he would have to be agnostic about it?:

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.

thus was something I took from one of your positions. let me see if I can lay it out for you.
1. a. you claim it is possible God is the greatest being, and b. it is possible he is not.
2. if he is not the greatest being then it is possible for him to know of this being.
3. if he is the greatest being then it is impossible for him to know whether he is the greatest being.
4. 1b combined with 2 equates to "it is possibly possible God knows..." 1a combined with 3 equates to "it is possibly impossible God knows..."
5. therefore 1a and 1b can't both be true.

1. I don't recall saying God could have been created by a 'greater' being, but a higher one in the sense that it's existence is causally prior to God's. After all, humans have the potential to (and have actualized, in fact) create things far greater than themselves, i.e advanced machines.

2. What I said was it's possible that God's potential creator created God in such a way as not to realize his limitations and such, like the existence and whereabouts of his creator, unless said creator allowed for such to happen. After all, we can impose limitations on our computational creations despite them outstripping our capacities in many ways.

3. This seems right.

However, I see where you're going wrong with the rest. What I'm saying is that if my #1 is true (and the possibilty is not denied, I presume?), then it follows with #2 that God could have been created in such a way as to be unaware of his inability to know particular things (such as that he was created) unless his potential creator allowed him to. So in other word (to repeat myself), I'm not merely saying it's simply impossible, but impossible from a certain perspective, i.e God's.

it's axiom S5 of modal logic used to reduce redundancies of modal operators. just because it seems apparent to you doesn't mean it's not useful.

I'm aware of what it is. Vinny and I had a 6 or 7 page long discussion on it in the Religion section. My point was it's meaningless in something like this. It's exactly equivalent to saying "If something is not true in any possible state of affairs, then it's not true in any possible state of affairs". Woop de doo, HOW do you know it's not possible in any possible state of affairs is what's in question when trying to apply modal logic in this way.

so you're saying you can't use epistemic possibility to find metaphysical possibility?

Epistemic possibility is just 'as far as I know, X is possible' while metaphysical possible is 'what is actually possible'. The unavoidable error in things like Plantinga's MOA - which Plantinga himself notes is why his argument doesn't establish God's existence - is that it trades on epistemic possibility alone. After all, I can craft a valid modal argument for the truth of metaphysical naturalism (and have in fact in that thread with Vinny) yet I'm still only using epistemic possibility.

It's only when X has been demonstrated to be the case that metaphysical possibility can even enter the fray (and even then, there are potential problems). But if you could demonstrate God's existence is the case, why would you need an ontological argument? The process here is entirely backwards.

or in. if God can't determine one way or the other, then whether the knowledge is possible for him to know or impossible for him to know is indeterminate. it's not automatically possible.

I'm quite sure I didn't say it was.

there are several differences between our situation and God's.
1. we know our limitations, God knows none.

Yes he does, and you've admitted one: He knows that he can't know he is omniscient. Further, he has other limitations:

-He knows he cannot sin
-He knows he cannot not be God
-Depending on your theology, he cannot know the future
-He cannot (or refuses to) infringe on our free will (again, depending on your theology)

There are all sorts of limitations God has.

2. we know we're going to die.

How does God know he's not going to die - or the equivalent of it - fade from existence? Do you think God has perfect knowledge of the future?

3. we have no control over the world, God has unlimited control over the world.

We have some degree of control over the world, not total of course. But then again, the limitations I mentioned earlier limit God's control over the world (can't usurp free will, etc.)

and no, I didn't say "God can't access if he was created..." I said "God can't access if he wasn't created." it is impossible for God to know if there is or is not a greater being than he if there isn't one.

What I mean is you have to make a strange epistemic distinction between we and God. To make this clear: How does God know it is absolutely the case that he wasn't created?

right, I forgot you took a skeptical position on this matter.

It's cool.

---

Further, you seem to be trying to weasel out of actually trying to tell me how you know he's omniscient (if you do). And I have a feeling the reason you're doing such is because if it's possible for you to establish God's omniscience through reasoning, then clearly God could do so too, but you've already agreed that's not possible.

---

there's a more indirect method of determining his omniscience, though I know bringing it up will start a huge tangent so i'm refraining from bringing it up.

I hope it's not Plantinga's ontological argument? And I likewise hope it isn't abduction, because that used improperly can result in clear question-begging.
I don't mind you bringing it up, because it's very much in line with this discussion.

whether he knows he is omniscient or not does not mean he is not, so this doesn't go against the ontological argument.

If you or God can't even establish God's omniscience as knowledge, then I think that creates more problems for ontological arguments, which they don't need any more of.

the information is preprogrammed. the don't store new information, but that doesn't mean the don't have information.

No, it isn't. Again, calculator's don't store all the mathematical information they output to you, they PERFORM the operations you input. Otherwise, you're essentially saying both calculator have infinite (mathematical) information, and so do humans. We don't have all that information, we perform the necessary operations to complete the equation input.

they would compute for an answer, which would be similar to us thinking about the answer to a test question. and yes, I already stated that there are advanced operations that calculators can't do. but because there aren't an infinite amount of operations, it shouldn't be difficult to conceive how God could know all of them.

There ARE an infinite amount of possible operations. The number of natural numbers alone is infinite, and there are even greater infinities than that. An interesting example is that there are more ways to climb an infinite staircase than there are stairs in that staircase. These kinds of infinites drove the mathematician George Cantor insane. So again, unless you think actual infinities exist, God cannot have all mathematical knowledge (no computer does, to be sure).

[Rational AKD]

Completely skipped the 'certainly if' bit again? As I've said for the 3rd time, I'm saying that it doesn't matter WHO said it, even if it was God, they cold not be rational in affirming that he's omniscient.

yes, as I said I misinterpreted it.

1. I don't recall saying God could have been created by a 'greater' being, but a higher one in the sense that it's existence is causally prior to God's. After all, humans have the potential to (and have actualized, in fact) create things far greater than themselves, i.e advanced machines.

first, that's really a side issue rather than the big point of the argument. second, if the being who created God is capable of giving him all his knowledge, then he must have all that knowledge plus more making him greater. third, calling advanced machines greater things than the humans that designed them is a matter of opinion and value, not fact. biology shows we are more complex than the machines we build.

2. What I said was it's possible that God's potential creator created God in such a way as not to realize his limitations and such, like the existence and whereabouts of his creator, unless said creator allowed for such to happen. After all, we can impose limitations on our computational creations despite them outstripping our capacities in many ways.

I thought that's what you've said all along. but again, you can't say that's a possibility or an impossibility due to the conclusions of the argument. God either exists as the greatest being and it is impossible for him to know it for sure, or he exists with a being who created him, and it is possible for him to know this via interaction which would have to be intended by this said creator. one says it's possible knowledge and the other says it's impossible, it can't be both so the existence of said creator must be determined before you say this knowledge is possible for God.

So in other word (to repeat myself), I'm not merely saying it's simply impossible, but impossible from a certain perspective, i.e God's.

yes, but that doesn't go against God's omniscience or his existence. God could still be omniscient, you have not made a case that omniscience is impossible as defined in the argument. God can still be a necessary being rather than a created one, you haven't made against that. you're simply saying God can't truly know whether he is omniscient, which I agree with.

I'm aware of what it is. Vinny and I had a 6 or 7 page long discussion on it in the Religion section. My point was it's meaningless in something like this. It's exactly equivalent to saying "If something is not true in any possible state of affairs, then it's not true in any possible state of affairs". Woop de doo, HOW do you know it's not possible in any possible state of affairs is what's in question when trying to apply modal logic in this way.

the point of axiom S5 was to fit into the argument I made a little later. it can't be possible for God knowledge for God to know if there's a higher being who created him if it's possible it doesn't exist.

Epistemic possibility is just 'as far as I know, X is possible' while metaphysical possible is 'what is actually possible'. The unavoidable error in things like Plantinga's MOA - which Plantinga himself notes is why his argument doesn't establish God's existence - is that it trades on epistemic possibility alone. After all, I can craft a valid modal argument for the truth of metaphysical naturalism (and have in fact in that thread with Vinny) yet I'm still only using epistemic possibility.

i'm not here to discuss the MOA as I will probably discuss it in more detail at a different time in a different place. but I do think modal logic discusses more than just epistemic possibility. modal logic can show certain things impossible and thus their negations necessary, not just epistemically, but metaphysically (such as square circles are impossible, thus non-square circularity is necessary for all things). if things can be shown impossible and necessary metaphysically, then some things based off them can be shown possible metaphysically (such as circularity is possible for some things). in the case of God, there is a separate argument for his metaphysical possibility which I will not be discussing here.

It's only when X has been demonstrated to be the case that metaphysical possibility can even enter the fray (and even then, there are potential problems). But if you could demonstrate God's existence is the case, why would you need an ontological argument? The process here is entirely backwards.

there is another way, but again this is off topic.

Yes he does, and you've admitted one: He knows that he can't know he is omniscient. Further, he has other limitations:

that's not what I would call a limitation. logical absurdities only exist as nonsense in speech. to say "God can't create a square circle therefore that's a limit" is nonsense since a square circle isn't a thing it's just a pair of words with no meaning when put together in that form. the same when applied to knowledge of a higher creator. it would be impossible for God to know he is omniscient if he is, so that's not a limitation.

-He knows he cannot sin
-He knows he cannot not be God
-Depending on your theology, he cannot know the future
-He cannot (or refuses to) infringe on our free will (again, depending on your theology)

1 is shown not a limit as seen above. 2 is not true, he knows he can but he can't know he is. 3 I disagree with, and I don't know any theology that would agree. 4 is a self limitation he imposes on himself thus would count as a limit on his ability. it's no more than a limit on God than a person playing touch football. they don't tackle because they choose not to, not because they can't.

How does God know he's not going to die - or the equivalent of it - fade from existence?

God doesn't know he is going to die, we do. that's the big difference.

Do you think God has perfect knowledge of the future?

certainly of his planned future of his creation. he can't know his fate if he has one.

We have some degree of control over the world, not total of course. But then again, the limitations I mentioned earlier limit God's control over the world (can't usurp free will, etc.)

as I said before, that's a self imposed limit not a limit in ability. God could create us without free will but chooses not to.

What I mean is you have to make a strange epistemic distinction between we and God. To make this clear: How does God know it is absolutely the case that he wasn't created?

it doesn't matter. God does know it is absolutely the case he created us and the world we live in. that's all that really matters unless this said higher creator actually involves himself with us and God.

I hope it's not Plantinga's ontological argument? And I likewise hope it isn't abduction, because that used improperly can result in clear question-begging.
I don't mind you bringing it up, because it's very much in line with this discussion.

I would like to bring it up more formally on a different thread. I like to present new arguments in their own threads, I can inform you when it's up so you can be aware of what argument can confirm his omniscience.

If you or God can't even establish God's omniscience as knowledge, then I think that creates more problems for ontological arguments, which they don't need any more of.

first, the MOA argues for a maximally great being, MGB, which is not necessarily the Christian God. second, you haven't made a case against the possibility of omniscience, so P1 of the MOA stands. it doesn't create any problem to the argument.

No, it isn't. Again, calculator's don't store all the mathematical information they output to you, they PERFORM the operations you input. Otherwise, you're essentially saying both calculator have infinite (mathematical) information, and so do humans. We don't have all that information, we perform the necessary operations to complete the equation input.

I would say capability to know something counts as knowledge of it. I may not know what 5^8 is, but with some simple mental math I can tell you it's 390625. so I still have knowledge of it, it just take me a bit to think what it is. as they would say "I know the answer just give me a moment."

There ARE an infinite amount of possible operations. The number of natural numbers alone is infinite, and there are even greater infinities than that.

no, there aren't. there may be an infinite number of operations applied to numbers all together, but if you took one number like 1 you have a limited number of operations you can perform with just the number 1. in simple math it's multiplication, division, subtraction, and addition. you get more with higher maths, exponents, logarithms, sin, cos, tan etc. but the number is still limited.

An interesting example is that there are more ways to climb an infinite staircase than there are stairs in that staircase. These kinds of infinites drove the mathematician George Cantor insane.

yes, with an infinite number of stairs and more than one way to climb one stair, there would be infinite plus ways to climb the staircase all together. I know the paradox, but i'm saying there's a limited number of operators, not operations. in comparison, i'm saying there's a limited number of ways to climb each stair so the ways to climb up one stair is finite. same for 2, 3 etc. the paradox thus only applies to operations, not operators.

So again, unless you think actual infinities exist, God cannot have all mathematical knowledge (no computer does, to be sure).

already answered, see above.