Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"God's knowledge is limited" refutation

Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 8:47:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Some will try to argue that God (Christian) doesn't know everything because he is immaterial therefore he lacks knowledge of how humans feel. This argument is false for the following.

Terms:

Omniscience - state of knowing everything

Human - the person as a whole with the thoughts, feelings, heart, will, etc.

Knowledge - Sum of what is known either or both through experience or reason

Trinity - God exists eternally in three persons:Father, son, and Holy Spirit

P1: Jesus is part of the Trinity (part of God)
P2: Therefore he does what's in his nature (save man)
P3: Jesus was incarnated into a human
P4: Jesus gained knowledge from human perspective
P5: God knew this would happen from the beginning
C1: God is fully omniscient

As you can see, this particular argument fails to work with Christianity. It might however work with other religions such as Islam.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 10:49:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 8:47:43 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Some will try to argue that God (Christian) doesn't know everything because he is immaterial therefore he lacks knowledge of how humans feel. This argument is false for the following.

Terms:

Omniscience - state of knowing everything

Human - the person as a whole with the thoughts, feelings, heart, will, etc.

Knowledge - Sum of what is known either or both through experience or reason

Trinity - God exists eternally in three persons:Father, son, and Holy Spirit

P1: Jesus is part of the Trinity (part of God)
P2: Therefore he does what's in his nature (save man)
P3: Jesus was incarnated into a human
P4: Jesus gained knowledge from human perspective
P5: God knew this would happen from the beginning
C1: God is fully omniscient


Wtf. This isn't even remotely logically valid.

Fail.

As you can see, this particular argument fails to work with Christianity. It might however work with other religions such as Islam.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 8:17:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If God is all powerful then he has the power to create another God. We'll call him God 2.

God 1 creates another plain of existence where only he can go. We'll call this heaven 2.

God 1 then creates God 2 and gives God 2 all of God 1's knowledge and power with the only exception being the knowledge of God 1's existence, and the knowledge of heaven 2.

God 1 then vanishes into heaven 2, leaving God 2 to go on as the self proclaimed omniscient creator and ruler of universe, completely unaware that he was actually created by God 1.

So my question is: How does God know that he is not God 2?

Answer: He doesn't, therefore his knowledge is limited.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 11:01:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 8:17:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
If God is all powerful then he has the power to create another God. We'll call him God 2.

God 1 creates another plain of existence where only he can go. We'll call this heaven 2.

God 1 then creates God 2 and gives God 2 all of God 1's knowledge and power with the only exception being the knowledge of God 1's existence, and the knowledge of heaven 2.

God 1 then vanishes into heaven 2, leaving God 2 to go on as the self proclaimed omniscient creator and ruler of universe, completely unaware that he was actually created by God 1.

So my question is: How does God know that he is not God 2?

Answer: He doesn't, therefore his knowledge is limited.

According to the Scriptures, God can't create another God beside him or otherwise he would cease to be God. There's two types of heavens: the skies and atmosphere then there's his abode, which one are you speaking of?
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 11:05:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 8:54:23 PM, Raisor wrote:
But Jesus never had sex, so G_d doesn't know what sex feels like.

Good point i'll get back to that answer, but one way to reconcile that is that God understands our sufferings through Jesus so that we may know him personally and fully. God doesn't need to experience sex because he has no equal and needs no one. He knows how Adam feels because Adam is made in the image of God (his son).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 11:35:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 8:17:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
If God is all powerful then he has the power to create another God. We'll call him God 2.

God 1 creates another plain of existence where only he can go. We'll call this heaven 2.

God 1 then creates God 2 and gives God 2 all of God 1's knowledge and power with the only exception being the knowledge of God 1's existence, and the knowledge of heaven 2.

God 1 then vanishes into heaven 2, leaving God 2 to go on as the self proclaimed omniscient creator and ruler of universe, completely unaware that he was actually created by God 1.

So my question is: How does God know that he is not God 2?

Answer: He doesn't, therefore his knowledge is limited.

What makes you think God could create another God? Two distinct entities with omnipotence could lead to inconsistencies and is therefore not possible...neither would truly possess "omnipotence", since their actions would be mutually displacing.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 1:29:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 11:01:39 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 10/1/2014 8:17:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
If God is all powerful then he has the power to create another God. We'll call him God 2.

God 1 creates another plain of existence where only he can go. We'll call this heaven 2.

God 1 then creates God 2 and gives God 2 all of God 1's knowledge and power with the only exception being the knowledge of God 1's existence, and the knowledge of heaven 2.

God 1 then vanishes into heaven 2, leaving God 2 to go on as the self proclaimed omniscient creator and ruler of universe, completely unaware that he was actually created by God 1.

So my question is: How does God know that he is not God 2?

Answer: He doesn't, therefore his knowledge is limited.

According to the Scriptures, God can't create another God beside him or otherwise he would cease to be God. There's two types of heavens: the skies and atmosphere then there's his abode, which one are you speaking of?

There is nothing about creating another God that changes anything about God. That's nonsense. And if he is all powerful then he certainly could do it.

I was speaking of a separate plain of existence. Don't overcomplicate it.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 1:34:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 1:29:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/5/2014 11:01:39 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 10/1/2014 8:17:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
If God is all powerful then he has the power to create another God. We'll call him God 2.

God 1 creates another plain of existence where only he can go. We'll call this heaven 2.

God 1 then creates God 2 and gives God 2 all of God 1's knowledge and power with the only exception being the knowledge of God 1's existence, and the knowledge of heaven 2.

God 1 then vanishes into heaven 2, leaving God 2 to go on as the self proclaimed omniscient creator and ruler of universe, completely unaware that he was actually created by God 1.

So my question is: How does God know that he is not God 2?

Answer: He doesn't, therefore his knowledge is limited.

According to the Scriptures, God can't create another God beside him or otherwise he would cease to be God. There's two types of heavens: the skies and atmosphere then there's his abode, which one are you speaking of?

There is nothing about creating another God that changes anything about God. That's nonsense. And if he is all powerful then he certainly could do it.

I was speaking of a separate plain of existence. Don't overcomplicate it.

If God is all-powerful then he cannot create another being that is just as powerful as he is or otherwise, he would admit that he is not all-powerful.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 1:36:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 11:35:19 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/1/2014 8:17:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
If God is all powerful then he has the power to create another God. We'll call him God 2.

God 1 creates another plain of existence where only he can go. We'll call this heaven 2.

God 1 then creates God 2 and gives God 2 all of God 1's knowledge and power with the only exception being the knowledge of God 1's existence, and the knowledge of heaven 2.

God 1 then vanishes into heaven 2, leaving God 2 to go on as the self proclaimed omniscient creator and ruler of universe, completely unaware that he was actually created by God 1.

So my question is: How does God know that he is not God 2?

Answer: He doesn't, therefore his knowledge is limited.

What makes you think God could create another God? Two distinct entities with omnipotence could lead to inconsistencies and is therefore not possible...neither would truly possess "omnipotence", since their actions would be mutually displacing.

If you believe God is all powerful then there is nothing logically inconsistent with him creating another being just as powerful as he is. This is the same thing as administrative privileges on a computer that have the ability to create another administrator with all of the same authority, including the authority to wipe out the first administrator.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 1:48:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 8:17:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
If God is all powerful then he has the power to create another God. We'll call him God 2.

God 1 creates another plain of existence where only he can go. We'll call this heaven 2.

God 1 then creates God 2 and gives God 2 all of God 1's knowledge and power with the only exception being the knowledge of God 1's existence, and the knowledge of heaven 2.

God 1 then vanishes into heaven 2, leaving God 2 to go on as the self proclaimed omniscient creator and ruler of universe, completely unaware that he was actually created by God 1.

So my question is: How does God know that he is not God 2?

Answer: He doesn't, therefore his knowledge is limited.

Yeah, God2's all-knowing was limited by God1. You haven't made any case as to whether the God of this universe is a God1 type or a God2 type.

and actually argument is rather deceptive. Becuase if the defining characteristic of God is to be all knowing, all you have done is have the real God (God1) create a creation (God2) that thinks it is God. But God2 is clearly 1. created 2. limited in knowledge.

you are really asking how does a created God know that he is not a real God? oh he doesn't so a created God is not all knowing.

But this obvious logic is obscured by the implication of how do we know the God we know of, is the real God or a the created God2?

God is all knowing. God's knowledge is not limited. your scenerio has done nothing to address this quality of God other than to obscure it and confuse the issue with what mankind can know or discern between all-powerful, knowing-all-of-the-universe beings.

Could we be mistaking a universally knowledgeable omnipresent being that is as powerful as the entire universe put together as a God. certainly and realistically that would be a lower limit to a God, and functionally would make no difference to us.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 1:49:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 1:34:02 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 10/5/2014 1:29:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/5/2014 11:01:39 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 10/1/2014 8:17:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
If God is all powerful then he has the power to create another God. We'll call him God 2.

God 1 creates another plain of existence where only he can go. We'll call this heaven 2.

God 1 then creates God 2 and gives God 2 all of God 1's knowledge and power with the only exception being the knowledge of God 1's existence, and the knowledge of heaven 2.

God 1 then vanishes into heaven 2, leaving God 2 to go on as the self proclaimed omniscient creator and ruler of universe, completely unaware that he was actually created by God 1.

So my question is: How does God know that he is not God 2?

Answer: He doesn't, therefore his knowledge is limited.

According to the Scriptures, God can't create another God beside him or otherwise he would cease to be God. There's two types of heavens: the skies and atmosphere then there's his abode, which one are you speaking of?

There is nothing about creating another God that changes anything about God. That's nonsense. And if he is all powerful then he certainly could do it.

I was speaking of a separate plain of existence. Don't overcomplicate it.

If God is all-powerful then he cannot create another being that is just as powerful as he is or otherwise, he would admit that he is not all-powerful.

Define all powerful, then tell me what part of the definition changes by God creating another God.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 1:55:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 1:48:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/1/2014 8:17:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
If God is all powerful then he has the power to create another God. We'll call him God 2.

God 1 creates another plain of existence where only he can go. We'll call this heaven 2.

God 1 then creates God 2 and gives God 2 all of God 1's knowledge and power with the only exception being the knowledge of God 1's existence, and the knowledge of heaven 2.

God 1 then vanishes into heaven 2, leaving God 2 to go on as the self proclaimed omniscient creator and ruler of universe, completely unaware that he was actually created by God 1.

So my question is: How does God know that he is not God 2?

Answer: He doesn't, therefore his knowledge is limited.

Yeah, God2's all-knowing was limited by God1. You haven't made any case as to whether the God of this universe is a God1 type or a God2 type.

and actually argument is rather deceptive. Becuase if the defining characteristic of God is to be all knowing, all you have done is have the real God (God1) create a creation (God2) that thinks it is God. But God2 is clearly 1. created 2. limited in knowledge.

you are really asking how does a created God know that he is not a real God? oh he doesn't so a created God is not all knowing.

But this obvious logic is obscured by the implication of how do we know the God we know of, is the real God or a the created God2?

God is all knowing. God's knowledge is not limited. your scenerio has done nothing to address this quality of God other than to obscure it and confuse the issue with what mankind can know or discern between all-powerful, knowing-all-of-the-universe beings.

Could we be mistaking a universally knowledgeable omnipresent being that is as powerful as the entire universe put together as a God. certainly and realistically that would be a lower limit to a God, and functionally would make no difference to us.

You didn't address a word I said. Read my analogy again. It says nothing about what mankind thinks.

I am not asking about what God 2 knows, I am asking you how God 1 knows he is not God 2. You can tell me all you want that God is defined as all knowing, that doesn't address the question of whether that is actually possible.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 1:55:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 1:36:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/5/2014 11:35:19 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/1/2014 8:17:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
If God is all powerful then he has the power to create another God. We'll call him God 2.

God 1 creates another plain of existence where only he can go. We'll call this heaven 2.

God 1 then creates God 2 and gives God 2 all of God 1's knowledge and power with the only exception being the knowledge of God 1's existence, and the knowledge of heaven 2.

God 1 then vanishes into heaven 2, leaving God 2 to go on as the self proclaimed omniscient creator and ruler of universe, completely unaware that he was actually created by God 1.

So my question is: How does God know that he is not God 2?

Answer: He doesn't, therefore his knowledge is limited.

What makes you think God could create another God? Two distinct entities with omnipotence could lead to inconsistencies and is therefore not possible...neither would truly possess "omnipotence", since their actions would be mutually displacing.

If you believe God is all powerful then there is nothing logically inconsistent with him creating another being just as powerful as he is. This is the same thing as administrative privileges on a computer that have the ability to create another administrator with all of the same authority, including the authority to wipe out the first administrator.

Yes there is. There can't be two omnipotent beings, because each would be limited by the other and therefore not omnipotent.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 2:04:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 1:55:34 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/5/2014 1:48:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/1/2014 8:17:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
If God is all powerful then he has the power to create another God. We'll call him God 2.

God 1 creates another plain of existence where only he can go. We'll call this heaven 2.

God 1 then creates God 2 and gives God 2 all of God 1's knowledge and power with the only exception being the knowledge of God 1's existence, and the knowledge of heaven 2.

God 1 then vanishes into heaven 2, leaving God 2 to go on as the self proclaimed omniscient creator and ruler of universe, completely unaware that he was actually created by God 1.

So my question is: How does God know that he is not God 2?

Answer: He doesn't, therefore his knowledge is limited.

Yeah, God2's all-knowing was limited by God1. You haven't made any case as to whether the God of this universe is a God1 type or a God2 type.

and actually argument is rather deceptive. Becuase if the defining characteristic of God is to be all knowing, all you have done is have the real God (God1) create a creation (God2) that thinks it is God. But God2 is clearly 1. created 2. limited in knowledge.

you are really asking how does a created God know that he is not a real God? oh he doesn't so a created God is not all knowing.

But this obvious logic is obscured by the implication of how do we know the God we know of, is the real God or a the created God2?

God is all knowing. God's knowledge is not limited. your scenerio has done nothing to address this quality of God other than to obscure it and confuse the issue with what mankind can know or discern between all-powerful, knowing-all-of-the-universe beings.

Could we be mistaking a universally knowledgeable omnipresent being that is as powerful as the entire universe put together as a God. certainly and realistically that would be a lower limit to a God, and functionally would make no difference to us.

You didn't address a word I said. Read my analogy again. It says nothing about what mankind thinks.

I am not asking about what God 2 knows, I am asking you how God 1 knows he is not God 2. You can tell me all you want that God is defined as all knowing, that doesn't address the question of whether that is actually possible.

I addressed totally your analogy. If God1 is a God2, then that God1 is not a real God and therefore does not have all-knowledge.

You have not suggested anything to how God could not be all knowing! no you created an imaginary super powerful being named it "God2" and said ha ha God might not be an all-knowing god if he were a God2.

The possibility of having a God2 REQUIRES an all-powerful all-knowing real GOD.

So your own analogy requires and postulates depended on there being a God that is all-knowing. Exactly what do you think you have refuted? what does your analogy rebuff?

Functionally such a god would make no difference to us and the things existing in this universe.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 4:19:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 2:04:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/5/2014 1:55:34 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/5/2014 1:48:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/1/2014 8:17:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
If God is all powerful then he has the power to create another God. We'll call him God 2.

God 1 creates another plain of existence where only he can go. We'll call this heaven 2.

God 1 then creates God 2 and gives God 2 all of God 1's knowledge and power with the only exception being the knowledge of God 1's existence, and the knowledge of heaven 2.

God 1 then vanishes into heaven 2, leaving God 2 to go on as the self proclaimed omniscient creator and ruler of universe, completely unaware that he was actually created by God 1.

So my question is: How does God know that he is not God 2?

Answer: He doesn't, therefore his knowledge is limited.

Yeah, God2's all-knowing was limited by God1. You haven't made any case as to whether the God of this universe is a God1 type or a God2 type.

and actually argument is rather deceptive. Becuase if the defining characteristic of God is to be all knowing, all you have done is have the real God (God1) create a creation (God2) that thinks it is God. But God2 is clearly 1. created 2. limited in knowledge.

you are really asking how does a created God know that he is not a real God? oh he doesn't so a created God is not all knowing.

But this obvious logic is obscured by the implication of how do we know the God we know of, is the real God or a the created God2?

God is all knowing. God's knowledge is not limited. your scenerio has done nothing to address this quality of God other than to obscure it and confuse the issue with what mankind can know or discern between all-powerful, knowing-all-of-the-universe beings.

Could we be mistaking a universally knowledgeable omnipresent being that is as powerful as the entire universe put together as a God. certainly and realistically that would be a lower limit to a God, and functionally would make no difference to us.

You didn't address a word I said. Read my analogy again. It says nothing about what mankind thinks.

I am not asking about what God 2 knows, I am asking you how God 1 knows he is not God 2. You can tell me all you want that God is defined as all knowing, that doesn't address the question of whether that is actually possible.

I addressed totally your analogy. If God1 is a God2, then that God1 is not a real God and therefore does not have all-knowledge.

You're not paying attention. My question has nothing to do with God 2. I am specifically talking about the actual, real, first, "all-knowing" God. And my question about that God asks: How does he know that he is not God 2? How does he know that there was never a more powerful being that created him to think that he was the actual God?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 4:58:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Are you just going to ignore my point? Unless you can explain how there's "enough room" for two beings to be omnipotent, you don't have an argument. For instance, "God" 1 cannot paint the moon blue if "God" 2 paints it red (which are both possible actions). Thus, each God's choices would necessarily be limited by the actions of the other, and neither can be described as truly omnipotent, which is a contradiction.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 8:00:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 4:19:48 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/5/2014 2:04:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/5/2014 1:55:34 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/5/2014 1:48:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/1/2014 8:17:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
If God is all powerful then he has the power to create another God. We'll call him God 2.

God 1 creates another plain of existence where only he can go. We'll call this heaven 2.

God 1 then creates God 2 and gives God 2 all of God 1's knowledge and power with the only exception being the knowledge of God 1's existence, and the knowledge of heaven 2.

God 1 then vanishes into heaven 2, leaving God 2 to go on as the self proclaimed omniscient creator and ruler of universe, completely unaware that he was actually created by God 1.

So my question is: How does God know that he is not God 2?

Answer: He doesn't, therefore his knowledge is limited.

Yeah, God2's all-knowing was limited by God1. You haven't made any case as to whether the God of this universe is a God1 type or a God2 type.

and actually argument is rather deceptive. Becuase if the defining characteristic of God is to be all knowing, all you have done is have the real God (God1) create a creation (God2) that thinks it is God. But God2 is clearly 1. created 2. limited in knowledge.

you are really asking how does a created God know that he is not a real God? oh he doesn't so a created God is not all knowing.

But this obvious logic is obscured by the implication of how do we know the God we know of, is the real God or a the created God2?

God is all knowing. God's knowledge is not limited. your scenerio has done nothing to address this quality of God other than to obscure it and confuse the issue with what mankind can know or discern between all-powerful, knowing-all-of-the-universe beings.

Could we be mistaking a universally knowledgeable omnipresent being that is as powerful as the entire universe put together as a God. certainly and realistically that would be a lower limit to a God, and functionally would make no difference to us.

You didn't address a word I said. Read my analogy again. It says nothing about what mankind thinks.

I am not asking about what God 2 knows, I am asking you how God 1 knows he is not God 2. You can tell me all you want that God is defined as all knowing, that doesn't address the question of whether that is actually possible.

I addressed totally your analogy. If God1 is a God2, then that God1 is not a real God and therefore does not have all-knowledge.

You're not paying attention. My question has nothing to do with God 2. I am specifically talking about the actual, real, first, "all-knowing" God. And my question about that God asks: How does he know that he is not God 2? How does he know that there was never a more powerful being that created him to think that he was the actual God?

What are you suggesting?

No god2 would not know it was not a God1. From our perspective and from god2's perspective there would be no way of knowing. Functionally there would be no difference.

All you have done is interject doubt about a theist god's omniscient nature by resorting to infinite regression. A doubt injected but better to be rejected by the application of Occam's razor.

If you really wanted to make a point you would justify the doubt with some reasoning, you would make a reasonable case to why the doubt is to be considered as factual. but in Atheist style you let your imagination dictate reality, hold firm to a skeptical view based on unfounded doubt.

You don't offer any thinking that benefits or expands an investigation.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 8:37:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 8:00:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
You're not paying attention. My question has nothing to do with God 2. I am specifically talking about the actual, real, first, "all-knowing" God. And my question about that God asks: How does he know that he is not God 2? How does he know that there was never a more powerful being that created him to think that he was the actual God?

What are you suggesting?

No god2 would not know it was not a God1. From our perspective and from god2's perspective there would be no way of knowing.

Are you kidding me? Please tell me that was a typo. If not then read what I just wrote and try again. Harder.

All you have done is interject doubt about a theist god's omniscient nature by resorting to infinite regression. A doubt injected but better to be rejected by the application of Occam's razor.

If you really wanted to make a point you would justify the doubt with some reasoning, you would make a reasonable case to why the doubt is to be considered as factual.

I just did. Try reading what I wrote.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 8:43:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 8:37:25 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/5/2014 8:00:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
You're not paying attention. My question has nothing to do with God 2. I am specifically talking about the actual, real, first, "all-knowing" God. And my question about that God asks: How does he know that he is not God 2? How does he know that there was never a more powerful being that created him to think that he was the actual God?

What are you suggesting?

No god2 would not know it was not a God1. From our perspective and from god2's perspective there would be no way of knowing.

Are you kidding me? Please tell me that was a typo. If not then read what I just wrote and try again. Harder.

All you have done is interject doubt about a theist god's omniscient nature by resorting to infinite regression. A doubt injected but better to be rejected by the application of Occam's razor.

If you really wanted to make a point you would justify the doubt with some reasoning, you would make a reasonable case to why the doubt is to be considered as factual.

I just did. Try reading what I wrote.

the claims I made were

1. The theist God is an all-knowing being... you conjecture relies on there being such a being to make a god2.

2. the God theist worship could be a god2 as you prepose but Occam's razor suggests we not make such assumptions.

3. infinite regressions are stopped at the point of functionality or observation. meaning even if the god2 were the God theist worship in this universe it would be functionally the same as if it were a God1.

4. making your analogy intellectually mute. Everyone can hide in Descartes methods of doubt. If you are stating the God a theist worship IS a god2.. what reasoning do you have for such? none. and having none the heuristic rules apply.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 9:47:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 8:43:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/5/2014 8:37:25 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/5/2014 8:00:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
You're not paying attention. My question has nothing to do with God 2. I am specifically talking about the actual, real, first, "all-knowing" God. And my question about that God asks: How does he know that he is not God 2? How does he know that there was never a more powerful being that created him to think that he was the actual God?

What are you suggesting?

No god2 would not know it was not a God1. From our perspective and from god2's perspective there would be no way of knowing.

Are you kidding me? Please tell me that was a typo. If not then read what I just wrote and try again. Harder.

All you have done is interject doubt about a theist god's omniscient nature by resorting to infinite regression. A doubt injected but better to be rejected by the application of Occam's razor.

If you really wanted to make a point you would justify the doubt with some reasoning, you would make a reasonable case to why the doubt is to be considered as factual.

I just did. Try reading what I wrote.

the claims I made were

1. The theist God is an all-knowing being... you conjecture relies on there being such a being to make a god2.

2. the God theist worship could be a god2 as you prepose but Occam's razor suggests we not make such assumptions.

3. infinite regressions are stopped at the point of functionality or observation. meaning even if the god2 were the God theist worship in this universe it would be functionally the same as if it were a God1.

4. making your analogy intellectually mute. Everyone can hide in Descartes methods of doubt. If you are stating the God a theist worship IS a god2.. what reasoning do you have for such? none. and having none the heuristic rules apply.

Copied and pasted from the other thread...

You still haven't yet read a damn thing I said. I repeated myself at least 2 if not three times now that my question and point had absolutely nothing to do with a God 2. Why is this so hard for you? By this point I am doubting that you are serious.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 8:41:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 1:49:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/5/2014 1:34:02 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 10/5/2014 1:29:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 10/5/2014 11:01:39 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 10/1/2014 8:17:14 PM, Double_R wrote:
If God is all powerful then he has the power to create another God. We'll call him God 2.

God 1 creates another plain of existence where only he can go. We'll call this heaven 2.

God 1 then creates God 2 and gives God 2 all of God 1's knowledge and power with the only exception being the knowledge of God 1's existence, and the knowledge of heaven 2.

God 1 then vanishes into heaven 2, leaving God 2 to go on as the self proclaimed omniscient creator and ruler of universe, completely unaware that he was actually created by God 1.

So my question is: How does God know that he is not God 2?

Answer: He doesn't, therefore his knowledge is limited.

According to the Scriptures, God can't create another God beside him or otherwise he would cease to be God. There's two types of heavens: the skies and atmosphere then there's his abode, which one are you speaking of?

There is nothing about creating another God that changes anything about God. That's nonsense. And if he is all powerful then he certainly could do it.

I was speaking of a separate plain of existence. Don't overcomplicate it.

If God is all-powerful then he cannot create another being that is just as powerful as he is or otherwise, he would admit that he is not all-powerful.

Define all powerful, then tell me what part of the definition changes by God creating another God.

All-powerful is a bit hard to define, but basically, it's that God can do everything as long as it does not contradict his moral nature. The state of omnipotence is where God is supreme over everything in power. By God creating another God, he is acknowledging that he is no supreme, but rather there is another one like him which contradicts Deut. 4:35 "He showed you these things so you would know that the LORD is God and there is no other."
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 9:39:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 8:47:43 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Some will try to argue that God (Christian) doesn't know everything because he is immaterial therefore he lacks knowledge of how humans feel. This argument is false for the following.

Terms:

Omniscience - state of knowing everything

Human - the person as a whole with the thoughts, feelings, heart, will, etc.

Knowledge - Sum of what is known either or both through experience or reason

Trinity - God exists eternally in three persons:Father, son, and Holy Spirit

P1: Jesus is part of the Trinity (part of God)
P2: Therefore he does what's in his nature (save man)

Logically invalid. If x is part of k, henceforth x wants to do y. Apart from this, this is invalid from your definitions. All propositions presented in a logical argument needs to be analytical of previous definitions, or proven propositions.

P3: Jesus was incarnated into a human
P4: Jesus gained knowledge from human perspective

Again, I echo my huge criticism against this argument; they have to be analytical from definitions or proven propositions

P5: God knew this would happen from the beginning

Logically invalid.

C1: God is fully omniscient

As you can see, this particular argument fails to work with Christianity. It might however work with other religions such as Islam.

This is a circular argument. Its a non-sequitor. Its a caricature of Syllogistic reasoning.
praise the lord Chin Chin
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 9:47:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 9:39:33 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 9/30/2014 8:47:43 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Some will try to argue that God (Christian) doesn't know everything because he is immaterial therefore he lacks knowledge of how humans feel. This argument is false for the following.

Terms:

Omniscience - state of knowing everything

Human - the person as a whole with the thoughts, feelings, heart, will, etc.

Knowledge - Sum of what is known either or both through experience or reason

Trinity - God exists eternally in three persons:Father, son, and Holy Spirit

P1: Jesus is part of the Trinity (part of God)
P2: Therefore he does what's in his nature (save man)

Logically invalid. If x is part of k, henceforth x wants to do y. Apart from this, this is invalid from your definitions. All propositions presented in a logical argument needs to be analytical of previous definitions, or proven propositions.

P3: Jesus was incarnated into a human
P4: Jesus gained knowledge from human perspective

Again, I echo my huge criticism against this argument; they have to be analytical from definitions or proven propositions

P5: God knew this would happen from the beginning

Logically invalid.

C1: God is fully omniscient

As you can see, this particular argument fails to work with Christianity. It might however work with other religions such as Islam.

This is a circular argument. Its a non-sequitor. Its a caricature of Syllogistic reasoning.

What's x and what's y? You didn't explain why it's invalid. You say it's logically invalid but don't give reasons. It's not a circular argument because you took it out of context and i said it might work with other religions.
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 9:56:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 9:47:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 10/6/2014 9:39:33 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 9/30/2014 8:47:43 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Some will try to argue that God (Christian) doesn't know everything because he is immaterial therefore he lacks knowledge of how humans feel. This argument is false for the following.

Terms:

Omniscience - state of knowing everything

Human - the person as a whole with the thoughts, feelings, heart, will, etc.

Knowledge - Sum of what is known either or both through experience or reason

Trinity - God exists eternally in three persons:Father, son, and Holy Spirit

P1: Jesus is part of the Trinity (part of God)
P2: Therefore he does what's in his nature (save man)

Logically invalid. If x is part of k, henceforth x wants to do y. Apart from this, this is invalid from your definitions. All propositions presented in a logical argument needs to be analytical of previous definitions, or proven propositions.

P3: Jesus was incarnated into a human
P4: Jesus gained knowledge from human perspective

Again, I echo my huge criticism against this argument; they have to be analytical from definitions or proven propositions

P5: God knew this would happen from the beginning

Logically invalid.

C1: God is fully omniscient

As you can see, this particular argument fails to work with Christianity. It might however work with other religions such as Islam.

This is a circular argument. Its a non-sequitor. Its a caricature of Syllogistic reasoning.

What's x and what's y? You didn't explain why it's invalid. You say it's logically invalid but don't give reasons. It's not a circular argument because you took it out of context and i said it might work with other religions.

Do I really have to? Do the star test. Check it yourself. You will see that each proposition does not follow with each other. For example

P1. I am amazing
C. I am God

That is exactly what you did in a different context

If you have read logic, you would easily know what x and y meant. x and y are terms that are to be predicated. I'm going to use your argument, and show the world how the Flying Spaghetti Monster is omniscient.

D1: The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a trinity; the pirates, the spaghetti, and the spaghetti sauce

D2: Omniscience is quality of all knowing

D3: The Trinity of the FSM is to save man from impending destruction

P1: Pirates is part of the Trinity (part of God)
P2: Therefore he does what's in his nature (save man)
P3: Pirates were reincarnated from the FSM to humans
P4: Pirates gained a worldwide human perspective
C. FSM is fully omniscient

So, via your argumentation, I have proven that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is omniscient. Will you now finally join pastafarianism?

Btw P4 and C are none logical. C is based upon the fact that P1 was true. I will say no further.
praise the lord Chin Chin
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 9:58:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 9:56:21 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 10/6/2014 9:47:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 10/6/2014 9:39:33 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 9/30/2014 8:47:43 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Some will try to argue that God (Christian) doesn't know everything because he is immaterial therefore he lacks knowledge of how humans feel. This argument is false for the following.

Terms:

Omniscience - state of knowing everything

Human - the person as a whole with the thoughts, feelings, heart, will, etc.

Knowledge - Sum of what is known either or both through experience or reason

Trinity - God exists eternally in three persons:Father, son, and Holy Spirit

P1: Jesus is part of the Trinity (part of God)
P2: Therefore he does what's in his nature (save man)

Logically invalid. If x is part of k, henceforth x wants to do y. Apart from this, this is invalid from your definitions. All propositions presented in a logical argument needs to be analytical of previous definitions, or proven propositions.

P3: Jesus was incarnated into a human
P4: Jesus gained knowledge from human perspective

Again, I echo my huge criticism against this argument; they have to be analytical from definitions or proven propositions

P5: God knew this would happen from the beginning

Logically invalid.

C1: God is fully omniscient

As you can see, this particular argument fails to work with Christianity. It might however work with other religions such as Islam.

This is a circular argument. Its a non-sequitor. Its a caricature of Syllogistic reasoning.

What's x and what's y? You didn't explain why it's invalid. You say it's logically invalid but don't give reasons. It's not a circular argument because you took it out of context and i said it might work with other religions.

Do I really have to? Do the star test. Check it yourself. You will see that each proposition does not follow with each other. For example

P1. I am amazing
C. I am God

That is exactly what you did in a different context

If you have read logic, you would easily know what x and y meant. x and y are terms that are to be predicated. I'm going to use your argument, and show the world how the Flying Spaghetti Monster is omniscient.

D1: The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a trinity; the pirates, the spaghetti, and the spaghetti sauce

D2: Omniscience is quality of all knowing

D3: The Trinity of the FSM is to save man from impending destruction

P1: Pirates is part of the Trinity (part of God)
P2: Therefore he does what's in his nature (save man)
P3: Pirates were reincarnated from the FSM to humans
P4: Pirates gained a worldwide human perspective
C. FSM is fully omniscient

So, via your argumentation, I have proven that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is omniscient. Will you now finally join pastafarianism?

Btw P4 and C are none logical. C is based upon the fact that P1 was true. I will say no further.

I can't tell whether you are being logical or simply mocking me...
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 10:03:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 9:58:28 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 10/6/2014 9:56:21 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 10/6/2014 9:47:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 10/6/2014 9:39:33 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 9/30/2014 8:47:43 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Some will try to argue that God (Christian) doesn't know everything because he is immaterial therefore he lacks knowledge of how humans feel. This argument is false for the following.

Terms:

Omniscience - state of knowing everything

Human - the person as a whole with the thoughts, feelings, heart, will, etc.

Knowledge - Sum of what is known either or both through experience or reason

Trinity - God exists eternally in three persons:Father, son, and Holy Spirit

P1: Jesus is part of the Trinity (part of God)
P2: Therefore he does what's in his nature (save man)

Logically invalid. If x is part of k, henceforth x wants to do y. Apart from this, this is invalid from your definitions. All propositions presented in a logical argument needs to be analytical of previous definitions, or proven propositions.

P3: Jesus was incarnated into a human
P4: Jesus gained knowledge from human perspective

Again, I echo my huge criticism against this argument; they have to be analytical from definitions or proven propositions

P5: God knew this would happen from the beginning

Logically invalid.

C1: God is fully omniscient

As you can see, this particular argument fails to work with Christianity. It might however work with other religions such as Islam.

This is a circular argument. Its a non-sequitor. Its a caricature of Syllogistic reasoning.

What's x and what's y? You didn't explain why it's invalid. You say it's logically invalid but don't give reasons. It's not a circular argument because you took it out of context and i said it might work with other religions.

Do I really have to? Do the star test. Check it yourself. You will see that each proposition does not follow with each other. For example

P1. I am amazing
C. I am God

That is exactly what you did in a different context

If you have read logic, you would easily know what x and y meant. x and y are terms that are to be predicated. I'm going to use your argument, and show the world how the Flying Spaghetti Monster is omniscient.

D1: The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a trinity; the pirates, the spaghetti, and the spaghetti sauce

D2: Omniscience is quality of all knowing

D3: The Trinity of the FSM is to save man from impending destruction

P1: Pirates is part of the Trinity (part of God)
P2: Therefore he does what's in his nature (save man)
P3: Pirates were reincarnated from the FSM to humans
P4: Pirates gained a worldwide human perspective
C. FSM is fully omniscient

So, via your argumentation, I have proven that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is omniscient. Will you now finally join pastafarianism?

Btw P4 and C are none logical. C is based upon the fact that P1 was true. I will say no further.

I can't tell whether you are being logical or simply mocking me...

To say it in a nice way; your arguments simply do not follow.

To say it in a not so nice way; join pastafarianism. I have proved that He is omniscient.
praise the lord Chin Chin
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 11:10:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 10:03:38 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 10/6/2014 9:58:28 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 10/6/2014 9:56:21 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 10/6/2014 9:47:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 10/6/2014 9:39:33 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 9/30/2014 8:47:43 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Some will try to argue that God (Christian) doesn't know everything because he is immaterial therefore he lacks knowledge of how humans feel. This argument is false for the following.

Terms:

Omniscience - state of knowing everything

Human - the person as a whole with the thoughts, feelings, heart, will, etc.

Knowledge - Sum of what is known either or both through experience or reason

Trinity - God exists eternally in three persons:Father, son, and Holy Spirit

P1: Jesus is part of the Trinity (part of God)
P2: Therefore he does what's in his nature (save man)

Logically invalid. If x is part of k, henceforth x wants to do y. Apart from this, this is invalid from your definitions. All propositions presented in a logical argument needs to be analytical of previous definitions, or proven propositions.

P3: Jesus was incarnated into a human
P4: Jesus gained knowledge from human perspective

Again, I echo my huge criticism against this argument; they have to be analytical from definitions or proven propositions

P5: God knew this would happen from the beginning

Logically invalid.

C1: God is fully omniscient

As you can see, this particular argument fails to work with Christianity. It might however work with other religions such as Islam.

This is a circular argument. Its a non-sequitor. Its a caricature of Syllogistic reasoning.

What's x and what's y? You didn't explain why it's invalid. You say it's logically invalid but don't give reasons. It's not a circular argument because you took it out of context and i said it might work with other religions.

Do I really have to? Do the star test. Check it yourself. You will see that each proposition does not follow with each other. For example

P1. I am amazing
C. I am God

That is exactly what you did in a different context

If you have read logic, you would easily know what x and y meant. x and y are terms that are to be predicated. I'm going to use your argument, and show the world how the Flying Spaghetti Monster is omniscient.

D1: The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a trinity; the pirates, the spaghetti, and the spaghetti sauce

D2: Omniscience is quality of all knowing

D3: The Trinity of the FSM is to save man from impending destruction

P1: Pirates is part of the Trinity (part of God)
P2: Therefore he does what's in his nature (save man)
P3: Pirates were reincarnated from the FSM to humans
P4: Pirates gained a worldwide human perspective
C. FSM is fully omniscient

So, via your argumentation, I have proven that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is omniscient. Will you now finally join pastafarianism?

Btw P4 and C are none logical. C is based upon the fact that P1 was true. I will say no further.

I can't tell whether you are being logical or simply mocking me...

To say it in a nice way; your arguments simply do not follow.

To say it in a not so nice way; join pastafarianism. I have proved that He is omniscient.

It's not to prove God is omniscient, it's to refute the claim that God is not omniscient because he has never experienced human suffering from a human's perspective.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 7:06:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 8:41:33 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 10/5/2014 1:49:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
Define all powerful, then tell me what part of the definition changes by God creating another God.

All-powerful is a bit hard to define, but basically, it's that God can do everything as long as it does not contradict his moral nature. The state of omnipotence is where God is supreme over everything in power. By God creating another God, he is acknowledging that he is no supreme, but rather there is another one like him which contradicts Deut. 4:35 "He showed you these things so you would know that the LORD is God and there is no other."

Whether God creating another God contradicts the bible is irrelevant. That doesn't address the problem the question poses.

God's nature and how Gods nature compares to every other being in the universe are two completely different things. There is nothing contradictory about Gods nature if he created another just as powerful God. It may contradict how you describe him in relation to every other being, but that is again irrelevant to the question.
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 1:48:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 11:10:50 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 10/6/2014 10:03:38 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 10/6/2014 9:58:28 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 10/6/2014 9:56:21 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 10/6/2014 9:47:52 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 10/6/2014 9:39:33 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 9/30/2014 8:47:43 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Some will try to argue that God (Christian) doesn't know everything because he is immaterial therefore he lacks knowledge of how humans feel. This argument is false for the following.

Terms:

Omniscience - state of knowing everything

Human - the person as a whole with the thoughts, feelings, heart, will, etc.

Knowledge - Sum of what is known either or both through experience or reason

Trinity - God exists eternally in three persons:Father, son, and Holy Spirit

P1: Jesus is part of the Trinity (part of God)
P2: Therefore he does what's in his nature (save man)

Logically invalid. If x is part of k, henceforth x wants to do y. Apart from this, this is invalid from your definitions. All propositions presented in a logical argument needs to be analytical of previous definitions, or proven propositions.

P3: Jesus was incarnated into a human
P4: Jesus gained knowledge from human perspective

Again, I echo my huge criticism against this argument; they have to be analytical from definitions or proven propositions

P5: God knew this would happen from the beginning

Logically invalid.

C1: God is fully omniscient

As you can see, this particular argument fails to work with Christianity. It might however work with other religions such as Islam.

This is a circular argument. Its a non-sequitor. Its a caricature of Syllogistic reasoning.

What's x and what's y? You didn't explain why it's invalid. You say it's logically invalid but don't give reasons. It's not a circular argument because you took it out of context and i said it might work with other religions.

Do I really have to? Do the star test. Check it yourself. You will see that each proposition does not follow with each other. For example

P1. I am amazing
C. I am God

That is exactly what you did in a different context

If you have read logic, you would easily know what x and y meant. x and y are terms that are to be predicated. I'm going to use your argument, and show the world how the Flying Spaghetti Monster is omniscient.

D1: The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a trinity; the pirates, the spaghetti, and the spaghetti sauce

D2: Omniscience is quality of all knowing

D3: The Trinity of the FSM is to save man from impending destruction

P1: Pirates is part of the Trinity (part of God)
P2: Therefore he does what's in his nature (save man)
P3: Pirates were reincarnated from the FSM to humans
P4: Pirates gained a worldwide human perspective
C. FSM is fully omniscient

So, via your argumentation, I have proven that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is omniscient. Will you now finally join pastafarianism?

Btw P4 and C are none logical. C is based upon the fact that P1 was true. I will say no further.

I can't tell whether you are being logical or simply mocking me...

To say it in a nice way; your arguments simply do not follow.

To say it in a not so nice way; join pastafarianism. I have proved that He is omniscient.

It's not to prove God is omniscient, it's to refute the claim that God is not omniscient because he has never experienced human suffering from a human's perspective.

Do you read your own arguments?
praise the lord Chin Chin