Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Infinity Problem of God's Omniscience?

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 9:48:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It seems a lot of people have a problem with God's omniscience being that it leads to an infinity of the type most theologians don't agree with in God's mind. Craig even, I think, comes up with a whole new strange way of looking at omniscience that's supposed to solve the problem, though I can't remember the details.

I don't see how it's a problem though. We ourselves, believe it or not, know an infinite amount of things. We know what any number plus 1 is equal to ad infinitum. If someone asked you if you knew what one septillion plus one was equal to, you wouldn't say you only just learned what it was equal to after thinking about it. You would say you always knew but just had never consciously thought about it. Not all knowledge has to be conscious. We know many things that we've never consciously thought of. We don't have to be conscious of them to know them. It might be a problem if God were consciously aware of an infinite amount of things, but that's not necessary for omniscience. I'd say the most reasonable way to look at omniscience would be to say that God has access to any knowable proposition. Thus God knows many things without actually having experienced them or thought about them. So God knows what shampoo you'll use in the shower tomorrow, how long you'll stay in and what deodorant you'll put on afterwards without having actually visualized it/thought about it just as we know what answers to mathematical problems without having thought about them. I think on top of solving the problem, it also makes God out to be a little less creepy.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 9:53:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 9:48:43 PM, phantom wrote:
I think on top of solving the problem, it also makes God out to be a little less creepy.

Finally, someone has solved the age-old theological problem of Divine Creepiness.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Chase200mph
Posts: 332
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 10:59:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 9:53:48 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 3/20/2013 9:48:43 PM, phantom wrote:
I think on top of solving the problem, it also makes God out to be a little less creepy.

Finally, someone has solved the age-old theological problem of Divine Creepiness.

Well I don"t think it was intended tp solve the Christian god"s creepiness, a match and a can of gas can solve god"s creepiness in the bible, but the damaged minds that still believe is going to take a lot more work.
God" creepiness, "love me or I will kill and or torture you for eternity."
"You have freewill (unconditional will) but don"t do this or else."

"I raped a 12 year old girl so I could be born and commit suicide and save you from the sins I made Adam and Eve fall victim to."
Maybe creepy isn"t thee right word"" but since this forum has a dirty word filter"well, you get the picture.
)
While an otherwise educated intelligent person may still believe in the bible, that person would have no educated or intellectual reason to do so.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 11:13:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 10:59:54 AM, Chase200mph wrote:
At 3/20/2013 9:53:48 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 3/20/2013 9:48:43 PM, phantom wrote:
I think on top of solving the problem, it also makes God out to be a little less creepy.

Finally, someone has solved the age-old theological problem of Divine Creepiness.

Well I don"t think it was intended tp solve the Christian god"s creepiness, a match and a can of gas can solve god"s creepiness in the bible, but the damaged minds that still believe is going to take a lot more work.
God" creepiness, "love me or I will kill and or torture you for eternity."
"You have freewill (unconditional will) but don"t do this or else."

"I raped a 12 year old girl so I could be born and commit suicide and save you from the sins I made Adam and Eve fall victim to."
Maybe creepy isn"t thee right word"" but since this forum has a dirty word filter"well, you get the picture.
):

14 years old not 12.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 11:19:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 9:48:43 PM, phantom wrote:
It seems a lot of people have a problem with God's omniscience being that it leads to an infinity of the type most theologians don't agree with in God's mind. Craig even, I think, comes up with a whole new strange way of looking at omniscience that's supposed to solve the problem, though I can't remember the details.

I don't see how it's a problem though. We ourselves, believe it or not, know an infinite amount of things. We know what any number plus 1 is equal to ad infinitum. If someone asked you if you knew what one septillion plus one was equal to, you wouldn't say you only just learned what it was equal to after thinking about it. You would say you always knew but just had never consciously thought about it. Not all knowledge has to be conscious. We know many things that we've never consciously thought of. We don't have to be conscious of them to know them. It might be a problem if God were consciously aware of an infinite amount of things, but that's not necessary for omniscience. I'd say the most reasonable way to look at omniscience would be to say that God has access to any knowable proposition. Thus God knows many things without actually having experienced them or thought about them. So God knows what shampoo you'll use in the shower tomorrow, how long you'll stay in and what deodorant you'll put on afterwards without having actually visualized it/thought about it just as we know what answers to mathematical problems without having thought about them. I think on top of solving the problem, it also makes God out to be a little less creepy.

I think you are mixing colloquial and formal terminology here, so I'm going to have to ask you to define how you are using the term "knowledge" here.
Chase200mph
Posts: 332
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 11:22:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 11:13:11 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/22/2013 10:59:54 AM, Chase200mph wrote:
At 3/20/2013 9:53:48 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 3/20/2013 9:48:43 PM, phantom wrote:
I think on top of solving the problem, it also makes God out to be a little less creepy.

Finally, someone has solved the age-old theological problem of Divine Creepiness.

Well I don"t think it was intended tp solve the Christian god"s creepiness, a match and a can of gas can solve god"s creepiness in the bible, but the damaged minds that still believe is going to take a lot more work.
God" creepiness, "love me or I will kill and or torture you for eternity."
"You have freewill (unconditional will) but don"t do this or else."

"I raped a 12 year old girl so I could be born and commit suicide and save you from the sins I made Adam and Eve fall victim to."
Maybe creepy isn"t thee right word"" but since this forum has a dirty word filter"well, you get the picture.
):

14 years old not 12.

Well nooooo, possibly 14 or 16 or 12 like I said".rape is rape in this case.
While an otherwise educated intelligent person may still believe in the bible, that person would have no educated or intellectual reason to do so.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 11:23:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 11:22:06 AM, Chase200mph wrote:
At 3/22/2013 11:13:11 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/22/2013 10:59:54 AM, Chase200mph wrote:
At 3/20/2013 9:53:48 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 3/20/2013 9:48:43 PM, phantom wrote:
I think on top of solving the problem, it also makes God out to be a little less creepy.

Finally, someone has solved the age-old theological problem of Divine Creepiness.

Well I don"t think it was intended tp solve the Christian god"s creepiness, a match and a can of gas can solve god"s creepiness in the bible, but the damaged minds that still believe is going to take a lot more work.
God" creepiness, "love me or I will kill and or torture you for eternity."
"You have freewill (unconditional will) but don"t do this or else."

"I raped a 12 year old girl so I could be born and commit suicide and save you from the sins I made Adam and Eve fall victim to."
Maybe creepy isn"t thee right word"" but since this forum has a dirty word filter"well, you get the picture.
):

14 years old not 12.

Well nooooo, possibly 14 or 16 or 12 like I said".rape is rape in this case.:
Prove it!Gl!
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 7:23:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 10:59:54 AM, Chase200mph wrote:
At 3/20/2013 9:53:48 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 3/20/2013 9:48:43 PM, phantom wrote:
I think on top of solving the problem, it also makes God out to be a little less creepy.

Finally, someone has solved the age-old theological problem of Divine Creepiness.

Well I don"t think it was intended tp solve the Christian god"s creepiness, a match and a can of gas can solve god"s creepiness in the bible, but the damaged minds that still believe is going to take a lot more work.
God" creepiness, "love me or I will kill and or torture you for eternity."
"You have freewill (unconditional will) but don"t do this or else."

"I raped a 12 year old girl so I could be born and commit suicide and save you from the sins I made Adam and Eve fall victim to."
Maybe creepy isn"t thee right word"" but since this forum has a dirty word filter"well, you get the picture.
)

How do you rape someone yet she still remains a virgin??
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 9:15:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 7:23:39 PM, medic0506 wrote:
How do you rape someone yet she still remains a virgin??

For starters: It can happen in -

i) Some peoples fanciful imaginations!
ii) Some peoples ideological insanity!
iii) Some people's preferred Story book!
iv) Some peoples beliefs based upon similar events in Pagan mythology! (Whether they be entirely True or False comparisions regardless!)

Your vindicated mentor, 50 year successful Cult busting personal successful literal Saviour, moi!
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 9:53:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
We humans can't really "know" infinity, as we are finite except in our imagination. So the best we can do is imagine infinity, and then imagine that we are experiencing it.

This gets into that whole big gray and fascinating area that develops between what we think, what we imagine, and what we think/imagine that we "know".
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 12:30:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 11:19:38 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/20/2013 9:48:43 PM, phantom wrote:
It seems a lot of people have a problem with God's omniscience being that it leads to an infinity of the type most theologians don't agree with in God's mind. Craig even, I think, comes up with a whole new strange way of looking at omniscience that's supposed to solve the problem, though I can't remember the details.

I don't see how it's a problem though. We ourselves, believe it or not, know an infinite amount of things. We know what any number plus 1 is equal to ad infinitum. If someone asked you if you knew what one septillion plus one was equal to, you wouldn't say you only just learned what it was equal to after thinking about it. You would say you always knew but just had never consciously thought about it. Not all knowledge has to be conscious. We know many things that we've never consciously thought of. We don't have to be conscious of them to know them. It might be a problem if God were consciously aware of an infinite amount of things, but that's not necessary for omniscience. I'd say the most reasonable way to look at omniscience would be to say that God has access to any knowable proposition. Thus God knows many things without actually having experienced them or thought about them. So God knows what shampoo you'll use in the shower tomorrow, how long you'll stay in and what deodorant you'll put on afterwards without having actually visualized it/thought about it just as we know what answers to mathematical problems without having thought about them. I think on top of solving the problem, it also makes God out to be a little less creepy.

I think you are mixing colloquial and formal terminology here, so I'm going to have to ask you to define how you are using the term "knowledge" here.

I suppose I'm not using it in its typical form of use. By saying God knows x, I'm saying the truth of x exists in his understanding. So God may have never consciously thought about what the president will eat tomorrow, but knowledge of what the president will eat does exist within his understanding. He just needs to think of the fact. In the same way, the answer to an infinite amount of simple mathematical propositions exists within my understanding, but I've only ever been conscious of a small section of them. Once I think about one of them, I know it. I don't learn new truths because they always existed within my understanding.

This might raise the question of whether I'm positing someone would know complex problems they've never worked out but could if they tried. I don't think my reasoning would necessarily entail that. If someone asked my the square root of 298, I'd have to think about it for a while and the knowledge of the answer only comes after working the problem out. However, when someone asks me what one tredecillion plus one equals, I know the answer instantaneously. The answer is before me as soon as the problem enters my awareness.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 1:49:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This could actually solve a lot more problems. Maybe god's allowed to screw up sometimes given that a lot of her knowledge is dormant. Could solve the various problems of "the world really doesn't look like it was created by a perfect being" kind.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 6:35:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 1:49:54 PM, Kinesis wrote:
This could actually solve a lot more problems. Maybe god's allowed to screw up sometimes given that a lot of her knowledge is dormant. Could solve the various problems of "the world really doesn't look like it was created by a perfect being" kind.

I'm not sure that would be great theodicy. It would maybe be a good excuse for a few things but the question of whether this world would have as much unnecessary evil as it does (or hypothetically does) would be something God should have unexcusably known.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 9:12:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 12:30:43 PM, phantom wrote:
At 3/22/2013 11:19:38 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/20/2013 9:48:43 PM, phantom wrote:
It seems a lot of people have a problem with God's omniscience being that it leads to an infinity of the type most theologians don't agree with in God's mind. Craig even, I think, comes up with a whole new strange way of looking at omniscience that's supposed to solve the problem, though I can't remember the details.

I don't see how it's a problem though. We ourselves, believe it or not, know an infinite amount of things. We know what any number plus 1 is equal to ad infinitum. If someone asked you if you knew what one septillion plus one was equal to, you wouldn't say you only just learned what it was equal to after thinking about it. You would say you always knew but just had never consciously thought about it. Not all knowledge has to be conscious. We know many things that we've never consciously thought of. We don't have to be conscious of them to know them. It might be a problem if God were consciously aware of an infinite amount of things, but that's not necessary for omniscience. I'd say the most reasonable way to look at omniscience would be to say that God has access to any knowable proposition. Thus God knows many things without actually having experienced them or thought about them. So God knows what shampoo you'll use in the shower tomorrow, how long you'll stay in and what deodorant you'll put on afterwards without having actually visualized it/thought about it just as we know what answers to mathematical problems without having thought about them. I think on top of solving the problem, it also makes God out to be a little less creepy.

I think you are mixing colloquial and formal terminology here, so I'm going to have to ask you to define how you are using the term "knowledge" here.

I suppose I'm not using it in its typical form of use. By saying God knows x, I'm saying the truth of x exists in his understanding. So God may have never consciously thought about what the president will eat tomorrow, but knowledge of what the president will eat does exist within his understanding. He just needs to think of the fact. In the same way, the answer to an infinite amount of simple mathematical propositions exists within my understanding, but I've only ever been conscious of a small section of them. Once I think about one of them, I know it. I don't learn new truths because they always existed within my understanding.

This might raise the question of whether I'm positing someone would know complex problems they've never worked out but could if they tried. I don't think my reasoning would necessarily entail that. If someone asked my the square root of 298, I'd have to think about it for a while and the knowledge of the answer only comes after working the problem out. However, when someone asks me what one tredecillion plus one equals, I know the answer instantaneously. The answer is before me as soon as the problem enters my awareness.

I disagree that your ability to simply repeat a mathematical term and add "one" at the end constitutes even an awareness or conceptualization of what it is your are saying. Indeed, I'm sure I could train my 4 year old to repeat that request, but he would have no understanding of what I was saying and it wouldn't count as knowledge.

As another example, I can tell you what "one tredecillion plus one equals" and that is "one tredecillion one." Yet I don't have this knowledge because I don't know what number "one tredecillion" is.

I also disagree that it is "instantaneous" so rather than a qualitative difference of kinds, it is simply a matter of degrees, which opens a pandora's box of example how long it takes in order to qualify as knowledge.

I also think there is a confusion here between knowing how to solve a class of problems and knowing the answer to all problems who are a member of that class.

Given that there is no way to distinguish your non-conscious knowledge from me simply not knowing, I'm not sure I can agree with your assessment that non-conscious knowledge exists.

Furthermore, conscious awareness is a state specifically tied to having an organic brain, which God does not have, so I'm not sure how that can even be applied to God.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 9:02:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 9:12:59 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/23/2013 12:30:43 PM, phantom wrote:
At 3/22/2013 11:19:38 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/20/2013 9:48:43 PM, phantom wrote:
It seems a lot of people have a problem with God's omniscience being that it leads to an infinity of the type most theologians don't agree with in God's mind. Craig even, I think, comes up with a whole new strange way of looking at omniscience that's supposed to solve the problem, though I can't remember the details.

I don't see how it's a problem though. We ourselves, believe it or not, know an infinite amount of things. We know what any number plus 1 is equal to ad infinitum. If someone asked you if you knew what one septillion plus one was equal to, you wouldn't say you only just learned what it was equal to after thinking about it. You would say you always knew but just had never consciously thought about it. Not all knowledge has to be conscious. We know many things that we've never consciously thought of. We don't have to be conscious of them to know them. It might be a problem if God were consciously aware of an infinite amount of things, but that's not necessary for omniscience. I'd say the most reasonable way to look at omniscience would be to say that God has access to any knowable proposition. Thus God knows many things without actually having experienced them or thought about them. So God knows what shampoo you'll use in the shower tomorrow, how long you'll stay in and what deodorant you'll put on afterwards without having actually visualized it/thought about it just as we know what answers to mathematical problems without having thought about them. I think on top of solving the problem, it also makes God out to be a little less creepy.

I think you are mixing colloquial and formal terminology here, so I'm going to have to ask you to define how you are using the term "knowledge" here.

I suppose I'm not using it in its typical form of use. By saying God knows x, I'm saying the truth of x exists in his understanding. So God may have never consciously thought about what the president will eat tomorrow, but knowledge of what the president will eat does exist within his understanding. He just needs to think of the fact. In the same way, the answer to an infinite amount of simple mathematical propositions exists within my understanding, but I've only ever been conscious of a small section of them. Once I think about one of them, I know it. I don't learn new truths because they always existed within my understanding.

This might raise the question of whether I'm positing someone would know complex problems they've never worked out but could if they tried. I don't think my reasoning would necessarily entail that. If someone asked my the square root of 298, I'd have to think about it for a while and the knowledge of the answer only comes after working the problem out. However, when someone asks me what one tredecillion plus one equals, I know the answer instantaneously. The answer is before me as soon as the problem enters my awareness.

I disagree that your ability to simply repeat a mathematical term and add "one" at the end constitutes even an awareness or conceptualization of what it is your are saying. Indeed, I'm sure I could train my 4 year old to repeat that request, but he would have no understanding of what I was saying and it wouldn't count as knowledge.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Anyone who knows basic mathematics has an easy understanding of an infinite amount of mathematical problems. I'm both aware of what all the digits mean as well as what it means to add one to another.

As another example, I can tell you what "one tredecillion plus one equals" and that is "one tredecillion one." Yet I don't have this knowledge because I don't know what number "one tredecillion" is.

Your objection can be easily solved by using digits. I don't know what one tredicillion stands for, but if I wrote it out in digits (1,000,000,000....) I would understand all concepts in play.

Plus it matters not that you don't know what one tredicillion means. You do still know the fact that adding one to it makes one tredicillion and one. You don't have complete knowledge but you have some knowledge, and the same thing goes for all other numbers. As long as we have some knowledge in an infinite amount of mathematical propositions, we know an infinite amount of things.

I also disagree that it is "instantaneous" so rather than a qualitative difference of kinds, it is simply a matter of degrees, which opens a pandora's box of example how long it takes in order to qualify as knowledge.

Well I'd agree that it's not literally instantaneous. But it is essentially so and once you're completely aware of the equation, you know the answer.

But even if it is important, we can just say it's a human limitation that need not apply to God. It's completely fair to say it could be instantaneous for God even if not for us.

I also think there is a confusion here between knowing how to solve a class of problems and knowing the answer to all problems who are a member of that class.

Clarify.

Given that there is no way to distinguish your non-conscious knowledge from me simply not knowing, I'm not sure I can agree with your assessment that non-conscious knowledge exists.

What do you mean? How am I supposed to distinguish my non-conscious knowledge from your "not knowing"?

Furthermore, conscious awareness is a state specifically tied to having an organic brain, which God does not have, so I'm not sure how that can even be applied to God.

Why? God's very often considered to be an omnipotent immaterial mind. I've never seen someone say he's not conscious. How could he not have conscious awareness?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
KingDebater
Posts: 687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:57:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 9:48:43 PM, phantom wrote:
I don't see how it's a problem though. We ourselves, believe it or not, know an infinite amount of things. We know what any number plus 1 is equal to ad infinitum.
We don't know an infinite amount of things, we know how to work out an infinite amount of things. God knows an infinite amount of things.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 1:54:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:57:56 PM, KingDebater wrote:
At 3/20/2013 9:48:43 PM, phantom wrote:
I don't see how it's a problem though. We ourselves, believe it or not, know an infinite amount of things. We know what any number plus 1 is equal to ad infinitum.
We don't know an infinite amount of things, we know how to work out an infinite amount of things. God knows an infinite amount of things.

So when presented with the question, "what does 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, + 1 equal?" you only learn the truth after thinking about? (assuming you've never thought about that particular equation) I'd say you always knew the truth. You just had never visualized the equation. It always existed within your understanding. That's why you intuitively know the answer as soon as your mind grasps the equation.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 2:21:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 9:02:10 PM, phantom wrote:

I disagree that your ability to simply repeat a mathematical term and add "one" at the end constitutes even an awareness or conceptualization of what it is your are saying. Indeed, I'm sure I could train my 4 year old to repeat that request, but he would have no understanding of what I was saying and it wouldn't count as knowledge.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Anyone who knows basic mathematics has an easy understanding of an infinite amount of mathematical problems. I'm both aware of what all the digits mean as well as what it means to add one to another.

I think it's only useful to speak of this problem in generalities, rather than referencing your knowledge specifically.

As another example, I can tell you what "one tredecillion plus one equals" and that is "one tredecillion one." Yet I don't have this knowledge because I don't know what number "one tredecillion" is.

Your objection can be easily solved by using digits. I don't know what one tredicillion stands for, but if I wrote it out in digits (1,000,000,000....) I would understand all concepts in play.

If you don't know what one tredicllion stands for, then how do you know how many zeros to write?

Plus it matters not that you don't know what one tredicillion means. You do still know the fact that adding one to it makes one tredicillion and one. You don't have complete knowledge but you have some knowledge, and the same thing goes for all other numbers. As long as we have some knowledge in an infinite amount of mathematical propositions, we know an infinite amount of things.

Really? And what if tredecillion isn't even a number, or any mathematical concept at all? What if "one tredicllion one" is meaningless drivel? What is my knowledge then?

I also disagree that it is "instantaneous" so rather than a qualitative difference of kinds, it is simply a matter of degrees, which opens a pandora's box of example how long it takes in order to qualify as knowledge.

Well I'd agree that it's not literally instantaneous. But it is essentially so and once you're completely aware of the equation, you know the answer.

Can I know something that is beyond my comprehension?


But even if it is important, we can just say it's a human limitation that need not apply to God. It's completely fair to say it could be instantaneous for God even if not for us.

I also think there is a confusion here between knowing how to solve a class of problems and knowing the answer to all problems who are a member of that class.

Clarify.

I know how to solve all simply connected mazes: place your hand one a wall, and follow that wall without taking your hand off until you reach the end of the maze.

However, that does not mean that I, at this moment, have knowledge of the solutions to all simply connected mazes. If you placed a map of one down in front of me, I could not tell you the solution until I actually worked it out through application of the above rule, at which point I would know it.

This is true for your addition scenario. I know how to add, but I don't know the solution to any equation until I work it out. Now, while I understand that the use of the word "knowledge" in the colloquial sense leads to ambiguities, I don't think its appropriate in a more rigorous epistemic sense.

Given that there is no way to distinguish your non-conscious knowledge from me simply not knowing, I'm not sure I can agree with your assessment that non-conscious knowledge exists.

What do you mean? How am I supposed to distinguish my non-conscious knowledge from your "not knowing"?

Sorry, I switched pronouns on you. Let me rephrase: Given that there s no way to distinguish non-conscious knowledge from simply not knowing, I'm not sure I can agree that non-conscious knowledge exists.

Furthermore, conscious awareness is a state specifically tied to having an organic brain, which God does not have, so I'm not sure how that can even be applied to God.

Why? God's very often considered to be an omnipotent immaterial mind. I've never seen someone say he's not conscious. How could he not have conscious awareness?

Because conscious awareness is a state specifically tied to having an organic brain.
Chase200mph
Posts: 332
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 2:29:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:57:56 PM, KingDebater wrote:
At 3/20/2013 9:48:43 PM, phantom wrote:
I don't see how it's a problem though. We ourselves, believe it or not, know an infinite amount of things. We know what any number plus 1 is equal to ad infinitum.
We don't know an infinite amount of things, we know how to work out an infinite amount of things. God knows an infinite amount of things.

Then your idea of god is someone that cannot be taught....
While an otherwise educated intelligent person may still believe in the bible, that person would have no educated or intellectual reason to do so.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 2:37:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 2:21:56 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/26/2013 9:02:10 PM, phantom wrote:

I disagree that your ability to simply repeat a mathematical term and add "one" at the end constitutes even an awareness or conceptualization of what it is your are saying. Indeed, I'm sure I could train my 4 year old to repeat that request, but he would have no understanding of what I was saying and it wouldn't count as knowledge.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Anyone who knows basic mathematics has an easy understanding of an infinite amount of mathematical problems. I'm both aware of what all the digits mean as well as what it means to add one to another.

I think it's only useful to speak of this problem in generalities, rather than referencing your knowledge specifically.

Even if it only applies to one person in the universe, my point is served.

As another example, I can tell you what "one tredecillion plus one equals" and that is "one tredecillion one." Yet I don't have this knowledge because I don't know what number "one tredecillion" is.

Your objection can be easily solved by using digits. I don't know what one tredicillion stands for, but if I wrote it out in digits (1,000,000,000....) I would understand all concepts in play.

If you don't know what one tredicllion stands for, then how do you know how many zeros to write?

I mean we could do away with names altogether and just write it out as a proper mathematical expression instead. So forget what "tredicillion" means.

Plus it matters not that you don't know what one tredicillion means. You do still know the fact that adding one to it makes one tredicillion and one. You don't have complete knowledge but you have some knowledge, and the same thing goes for all other numbers. As long as we have some knowledge in an infinite amount of mathematical propositions, we know an infinite amount of things.

Really? And what if tredecillion isn't even a number, or any mathematical concept at all? What if "one tredicllion one" is meaningless drivel? What is my knowledge then?

Fair enough. My point still stands though as using proper numbers instead of names would alleviate such doubt.

I also disagree that it is "instantaneous" so rather than a qualitative difference of kinds, it is simply a matter of degrees, which opens a pandora's box of example how long it takes in order to qualify as knowledge.

Well I'd agree that it's not literally instantaneous. But it is essentially so and once you're completely aware of the equation, you know the answer.

Can I know something that is beyond my comprehension?

I'm not sure where you're going with this. No number is beyond comprehension.


But even if it is important, we can just say it's a human limitation that need not apply to God. It's completely fair to say it could be instantaneous for God even if not for us.

I also think there is a confusion here between knowing how to solve a class of problems and knowing the answer to all problems who are a member of that class.

Clarify.

I know how to solve all simply connected mazes: place your hand one a wall, and follow that wall without taking your hand off until you reach the end of the maze.

However, that does not mean that I, at this moment, have knowledge of the solutions to all simply connected mazes. If you placed a map of one down in front of me, I could not tell you the solution until I actually worked it out through application of the above rule, at which point I would know it.

This is true for your addition scenario. I know how to add, but I don't know the solution to any equation until I work it out. Now, while I understand that the use of the word "knowledge" in the colloquial sense leads to ambiguities, I don't think its appropriate in a more rigorous epistemic sense.

No. The whole thing is you don't need to work it out. Once you're aware of what's being asked, you intuitively know the answer. You know it based upon your intuition because it already exists in your understanding. You don't need to work it out, just grasp it.

But I already said anyway that, "even if it is important, we can just say it's a human limitation that need not apply to God. It's completely fair to say it could be instantaneous for God even if not for us."

Given that there is no way to distinguish your non-conscious knowledge from me simply not knowing, I'm not sure I can agree with your assessment that non-conscious knowledge exists.

What do you mean? How am I supposed to distinguish my non-conscious knowledge from your "not knowing"?

Sorry, I switched pronouns on you. Let me rephrase: Given that there s no way to distinguish non-conscious knowledge from simply not knowing, I'm not sure I can agree that non-conscious knowledge exists.

Why can't we distinguish it? Knowledge of mathematics entails an infinite amount of things, so we can gather that anyone who has a basic understanding of math, also has an understanding of an infinite amount of problems even if they are non-conscious. And of course, my argument follows that an infinite amount of them could be constituted as knowledge.

Furthermore, conscious awareness is a state specifically tied to having an organic brain, which God does not have, so I'm not sure how that can even be applied to God.

Why? God's very often considered to be an omnipotent immaterial mind. I've never seen someone say he's not conscious. How could he not have conscious awareness?

Because conscious awareness is a state specifically tied to having an organic brain.

But why do you say that?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 7:53:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 2:37:27 PM, phantom wrote:

I think it's only useful to speak of this problem in generalities, rather than referencing your knowledge specifically.

Even if it only applies to one person in the universe, my point is served.

Except you don't illustrate your point.

I mean we could do away with names altogether and just write it out as a proper mathematical expression instead. So forget what "tredicillion" means.

That hardly solves the problem. You're simply substituting one collection of symbols for another. If I train an ape to write "1,000,000,001" whenever he sees "1,000,000,000 + 1" does that, itself, convey knowledge?

Really? And what if tredecillion isn't even a number, or any mathematical concept at all? What if "one tredicllion one" is meaningless drivel? What is my knowledge then?

Fair enough. My point still stands though as using proper numbers instead of names would alleviate such doubt.

And my point stances that there is more to knowledge than simply reciting the answer to a question.

Well I'd agree that it's not literally instantaneous. But it is essentially so and once you're completely aware of the equation, you know the answer.

Can I know something that is beyond my comprehension?

I'm not sure where you're going with this. No number is beyond comprehension.

Irrational ones are. But even sufficiently large numbers are ones which are, essentially, meaningless in terms of understanding what they represent.

This is true for your addition scenario. I know how to add, but I don't know the solution to any equation until I work it out. Now, while I understand that the use of the word "knowledge" in the colloquial sense leads to ambiguities, I don't think its appropriate in a more rigorous epistemic sense.

No. The whole thing is you don't need to work it out. Once you're aware of what's being asked, you intuitively know the answer. You know it based upon your intuition because it already exists in your understanding. You don't need to work it out, just grasp it.

No I don't. I would need to work it out. I am not intuitively aware of it.

But I already said anyway that, "even if it is important, we can just say it's a human limitation that need not apply to God. It's completely fair to say it could be instantaneous for God even if not for us."

The time period is irrelevant, the fact is, until I work it out, regardless of the amount of time it takes, I don't "know" the answer.

Given that there is no way to distinguish your non-conscious knowledge from me simply not knowing, I'm not sure I can agree with your assessment that non-conscious knowledge exists.

What do you mean? How am I supposed to distinguish my non-conscious knowledge from your "not knowing"?

Sorry, I switched pronouns on you. Let me rephrase: Given that there s no way to distinguish non-conscious knowledge from simply not knowing, I'm not sure I can agree that non-conscious knowledge exists.

Why can't we distinguish it? Knowledge of mathematics entails an infinite amount of things, so we can gather that anyone who has a basic understanding of math, also has an understanding of an infinite amount of problems even if they are non-conscious. And of course, my argument follows that an infinite amount of them could be constituted as knowledge.

Ok. You present a math problem to two people. Both give the correct answer. One gives the answer because he understands the math problem being given. The other gives the answer because he was simply taught to write down a specific answer in response to a specific problem a la my ape scenario above, but doesn't understand the math involved. The former is an example of your "unconscious" knowledge. The other is not an example of any sort of knowledge. How do you distinguish between the two?

Furthermore, conscious awareness is a state specifically tied to having an organic brain, which God does not have, so I'm not sure how that can even be applied to God.

Why? God's very often considered to be an omnipotent immaterial mind. I've never seen someone say he's not conscious. How could he not have conscious awareness?

Because conscious awareness is a state specifically tied to having an organic brain.

But why do you say that?

Because there aren't any conscious awarenesses not tied to having organic brains.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:27:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 7:53:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/27/2013 2:37:27 PM, phantom wrote:

I think it's only useful to speak of this problem in generalities, rather than referencing your knowledge specifically.

Even if it only applies to one person in the universe, my point is served.

Except you don't illustrate your point.

I'm saying I don't need to speak of it in generalities as you say.

I mean we could do away with names altogether and just write it out as a proper mathematical expression instead. So forget what "tredicillion" means.

That hardly solves the problem. You're simply substituting one collection of symbols for another. If I train an ape to write "1,000,000,001" whenever he sees "1,000,000,000 + 1" does that, itself, convey knowledge?

No, but an ape doesn't understand what what "1,000,000,000 +1" means. There's an obvious difference so I don't know why you bring it up.

Really? And what if tredecillion isn't even a number, or any mathematical concept at all? What if "one tredicllion one" is meaningless drivel? What is my knowledge then?

Fair enough. My point still stands though as using proper numbers instead of names would alleviate such doubt.

And my point stances that there is more to knowledge than simply reciting the answer to a question.

Indeed. That's compatible with my stance.

Well I'd agree that it's not literally instantaneous. But it is essentially so and once you're completely aware of the equation, you know the answer.

Can I know something that is beyond my comprehension?

I'm not sure where you're going with this. No number is beyond comprehension.

Irrational ones are.

Let's stick with the positive integers.

But even sufficiently large numbers are ones which are, essentially, meaningless in terms of understanding what they represent.

What do you take as "large". There's no important difference in meaning for a small number and a large number. 10 represents 10 individual numbers. 1 trillion represents 1 trillion individual numbers. They both have meaning.

This is true for your addition scenario. I know how to add, but I don't know the solution to any equation until I work it out. Now, while I understand that the use of the word "knowledge" in the colloquial sense leads to ambiguities, I don't think its appropriate in a more rigorous epistemic sense.

No. The whole thing is you don't need to work it out. Once you're aware of what's being asked, you intuitively know the answer. You know it based upon your intuition because it already exists in your understanding. You don't need to work it out, just grasp it.

No I don't. I would need to work it out. I am not intuitively aware of it.

Let's take a more simpler equation that I wish I used in the beginning. Every number is equal to itself. So 1 is equal to 1 and 2 to 2 and so on. That surely requires no need to work out. What's the difference between knowing 12 is equal to 12 and 939,383,234,668,239 (which is assumed is a number you've never thought of) is equal to 939,383,234,668,239? You always knew that 939,383,234,668,239 was equal to 939,383,234,668,239. You don't learn it only after having worked it out.

But I already said anyway that, "even if it is important, we can just say it's a human limitation that need not apply to God. It's completely fair to say it could be instantaneous for God even if not for us."

The time period is irrelevant, the fact is, until I work it out, regardless of the amount of time it takes, I don't "know" the answer.

Grasping the equation and working it out are two different things but grasping it is all that's needed to have knowledge so there's no need for working it out. Once you know what the equation is, you intuitively know the answer. You don't need to work it out.

Given that there is no way to distinguish your non-conscious knowledge from me simply not knowing, I'm not sure I can agree with your assessment that non-conscious knowledge exists.

What do you mean? How am I supposed to distinguish my non-conscious knowledge from your "not knowing"?

Sorry, I switched pronouns on you. Let me rephrase: Given that there s no way to distinguish non-conscious knowledge from simply not knowing, I'm not sure I can agree that non-conscious knowledge exists.

Why can't we distinguish it? Knowledge of mathematics entails an infinite amount of things, so we can gather that anyone who has a basic understanding of math, also has an understanding of an infinite amount of problems even if they are non-conscious. And of course, my argument follows that an infinite amount of them could be constituted as knowledge.

Ok. You present a math problem to two people. Both give the correct answer. One gives the answer because he understands the math problem being given. The other gives the answer because he was simply taught to write down a specific answer in response to a specific problem a la my ape scenario above, but doesn't understand the math involved. The former is an example of your "unconscious" knowledge. The other is not an example of any sort of knowledge. How do you distinguish between the two?

It's easy to distinguish. The former has the concepts at play already in his understanding, while the latter does not. The first person clearly has a basic understanding of math while the second clearly does not.

Furthermore, conscious awareness is a state specifically tied to having an organic brain, which God does not have, so I'm not sure how that can even be applied to God.

Why? God's very often considered to be an omnipotent immaterial mind. I've never seen someone say he's not conscious. How could he not have conscious awareness?

Because conscious awareness is a state specifically tied to having an organic brain.

But why do you say that?

Because there aren't any conscious awarenesses not tied to having organic brains.

I know you think that. But I dot see why you think that, especially as theists usually believe our minds are immaterial. Neither of us are theists so we're speaking hypothetically and no theist that I know ofwould say God isn't conscious.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 1:59:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
God's Omniscience is refuted by the Uncertainty Principle. With subatomic particles, certain pairs of properties (e.g. position and velocity) are mutually exclusive. The more accurately you measure one, the more undefined the other is. This is not a failure of measurement, the other property actually occupies multiple values and behaves as such. It doesn't matter if you're omniscient, you cannot know both the exact position and exact velocity of a particle because the uncertainty is an innate part of their nature. And because you don't know that, you're not omniscient.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 2:30:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 1:59:51 AM, APB wrote:
God's Omniscience is refuted by the Uncertainty Principle. With subatomic particles, certain pairs of properties (e.g. position and velocity) are mutually exclusive. The more accurately you measure one, the more undefined the other is. This is not a failure of measurement, the other property actually occupies multiple values and behaves as such. It doesn't matter if you're omniscient, you cannot know both the exact position and exact velocity of a particle because the uncertainty is an innate part of their nature. And because you don't know that, you're not omniscient.

Kind of irrelevant to the purpose of this thread but I'd agree.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)