Yeah, I know how this will sound but I think the foundation of knowledge/understanding relies on semi-pragmatism. The fact that 2+2=4 is understood as true is because it has not only been true in every past instance but because we can receive consistent and reliable results.
and i think that's a good approach to science from what i've seen, but the downside is that it doesn't leave any room for criticizing the existence of God or "actuals" from its own standpoint because "absolute truth" isn't really even taken into account. everything could possibly change and consistency, while preferred, isn't ontologically necessary.... it's only methodologically preferred.
BUT going back to the main argument, supposing there is a God, his justification for knowing wouldn't be based in that sort of semi pragmatic approach, but even still, all sorts of "knowing", even "knowing" with semi-pragmatic justification, is rooted outside of the knowing itself. If I know something, I don’t know it only because I know it; I know it because there is a thing to know. knowing is rooted in the thing being known whether it's the actual thing (or idea), a shadow of the thing, or just the experience based on a “semi-pragmatic” justification.
But true is a flexible term, such in the likes of a paradox in which both things can be true but still inconsistent. Still even more when it comes to things like"God" which is in the least a metaphysical question, the term "truth" is a questionable position to have because it can not be of scientific nature.
well, we aren't really discussing science, and science wasn't ever really suited for discovering "truth" in an "actual" sense.
also, i don't think actual paradoxes exist. . . . . which neither of us will be either to prove whether they actually do or do not. still, why should we assume that they do?
but anyway, how does that change the definition of "knowledge"?
i was explaining how i meant "knowing" in the explanation i gave, and the explanation could be narrowed to just God's knowing, and it's impossible for God to know something that isn't true. . . . . but when i say "knowing" generally i also mean it as a true justified belief.
God must be all-knowing to be all-powerful. Knowledge of something must be had in order to change it. I cannot change the channel on the television without knowing that there is a television. So if God is All-powerful he must be all-knowing.
gotcha.
Yes basically. Omniscience is knowing everything. This includes past, present, and future. This means that God knew everything about anything before it happened ever since He first existed. When you say that events have to occur for God to know something, that eliminates his abilities to know the future as it has not happened yet.
that doesn't follow... how does that eliminate his ability to know the future? tell me why. show me the contradiction.
i disagree.... for all the reasons stated above before this post that haven't really been dealt with yet. i hate going in circles.
also, you haven't yet taken into account 2 from my first post. if God is transcendent, all temporal references in relation to his transcendent self are meaningless.
Yeah I'm missing your point in this. Just to put it simply how can an all-knowing being still be such if he can only know things after they happen and not before.
i never said that omniscience only knows things "after" and not "before". regardless of when something happens, omniscience is simply knowing of it.
ok. i'll try to do a better job explaining.
As far as the definitions for omniscient and knowledge are concerned, I think I’ve shown clearly that knowledge must always come from the something outside of knowledge itself, such as an actual thing, experience, a decuction, ect… as well, I think we both agree that omniscience Is “knowing everything past present and future”. So, from those two points, it’s reasonable to conclude that omniscience is knowing everything past present and future, and what’s known is determined by the thing being known not by mere “knowing” itself.
So, that “is” what an all knowing being means. . . . as far as the “is” is concerned, if omniscience is real, then it is possible to know something regardless of when it happens in relation to knowing of it.
as to “how” it happens (which was your question), I’ve already given an explanation of how it might happen in number 2 of my first post, that God transcends our experience based understanding of time. All that we know of time is limited completely to our experience. We don’t know anything other than a linear progression of time (which is extremely annoying, because I can’t think of any reason why it should be), and we don’t know anything “outside” of time. Our language isn’t even suited to discuss “outside” of time because, trapped by our experience, we can’t understand it. For all we know, time could be a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff (yes, I’m a fan too). . . . . SO, most theologians and philosophers who endorse free-will also accept that God transcends the “physical” universe and the constraints of its properties including time. . . . . and, basically, terms like before, prior, after… all temporal references become meaningless. All that’s left is cause and effect. Anyway, regardless of whether or not all that is true or not, it is a possible “how” to supplement the “is”.
Here’s my main problem with the argument. It assumes that knowledge of a future event means that free-will cannot exist when free-will is simply defined as the ability to act without coercion. . . . Which just isn’t correct logically for reasons I’ve shown. . . . If God knows that you’re going to act in a certain way, that doesn’t mean that he somehow made you do it. As for the “how”, as with transcendence, he could have simply witnessed the event before it happened so to speak. If he simply just witnessed the event before it happened, then his foreknowledge doesn’t mean that he made you do it. It’s a false paradox.
Wants or needs simply is in contradiction with perfection. When you have something that you yet to gain, even if that something is a perfect want, you are not perfect simply because you are incomplete as a perfect being.
right but not all wants and needs are "something you have yet to gain". not all wants and needs necessitate a lack. a perfect being
needs to be perfect in order to be perfect. a perfect being
wants to be himself because he is himself.
Perfect being needs to be perfect, a perfect being would already fulfill this and hence would not have this as a need anymore.
i disagree. i think you're oversimplifying the definition and excluding a crucial concept. needs are essential, and i agree that God doesn't have any
external needs. . . . . but to say that God doesn't need to be perfect is entirely false. to say that God doesn't need to be God is entirely false.
i don't see why need and want necessitate a lack in whatever/whoever is needing and wanting. take the "lack" out of the definition of need and want.
God can need to be himself and want to be himself to others.... and not because he lacks of himself but because he is himself perfectly. the real argument you're posting here is that:
1. If God exists, then he[2] is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. A perfect being lacks nothing.
4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some lack.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist
and when you look at it in this sense that you're explaining it, i disagree with number 4. when you look at it in terms of want and need, of course, i disagree with 3 because i honestly don't see how want and need always necessitate a lack.
the argument also presupposes that "lack" is the only possible motivation for any action, which is also false.
Unless God wants what he already has?
now you're getting there. God needs to be himself. God wants to be himself. he doesn't lack himself. who is "himself"? God is love. does God lack love? no. does God want to share himself? yes. does he want to share himself because he lacks someone to share it with? no. he wants to share himself because that's who he is. he is perfect in himself.