Universal Uncertainty Principle

[thesunisout]

I have shown that it is logically possible to know that you know everything. It doesn't matter how much smarter than me God is, it is impossible to know everything. Knowing that there is nothing that you are unaware of is logically impossible.

I think you've shown it is logically impossible for a temporal creature to know everything, but not an eternal God. God is the only reason we have reliable rules like the laws of logic in the first place. God actually transcends the laws of logic. Take the Holy Trinity, for instance. The law of contradiction says that P cannot be non-P yet God is both 3 and 1 at the same time.

 

[zippy2006]

The crux of your retort seems to rest on this, so let's tackle this before covering a hundred points at once.

Knowledge and awareness are not defined anthropomorphically. How we attain knowledge and awareness, yes. But that is very different than knowledge and awareness in and of themselves. My best guess is that you are conflating those two things, but I can't be sure.

The only thing we know about knowledge and awareness is related to human knowledge and awareness. The connections between various knowledge, the recall via memory, the relation of premises to conclusions, the human senses, human perception--all of these things are intimately related to the human way of being.

Like my example of sight and sound. These are senses we have so we can relate to them. God, if He exists, certainly has other "senses" (if you would even call them that). So by imagining that we can't hear, have never heard, and have never had hearing explained to us, we can imagine that there are ways to become aware of things that we have no knowledge of and that we can't even conceptualize. We can imagine those things exist without being able to actually conceptualize them in any relatable way.

Sure, there are likely truths that humans have no knowledge of. So what? What do you think this has to do with God?

 

[Pilgrim]

Then I guess I'll pose the same question to you (phrased correctly this time): can God make a round square?

If so, then we can throw out Apologetics because it seeks to prove God's existence using logic, but God's ability to do this would make logic obsolete and worthless.

Deuteronomy 6:16 - "Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah."

 

[Moral Orel]

Deuteronomy 6:16 - "Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah."

I'm not asking God to do anything or to prove He can do anything. I'm asking whether you think logic is a worthwhile endeavor into determining God's existence or the likelihood of God's existence. If you don't believe it to be, then I don't think this is the sub-forum for you. Logic is what Apologetics is supposed to be based around, so if you're going to throw it out the window, then it is worthless to discuss logic in regards to God's existence.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not asking God to do anything or to prove He can do anything. I'm asking whether you think logic is a worthwhile endeavor into determining God's existence or the likelihood of God's existence. If you don't believe it to be, then I don't think this is the sub-forum for you. Logic is what Apologetics is supposed to be based around, so if you're going to throw it out the window, then it is worthless to discuss logic in regards to God's existence.

I'd have to disagree that the basis of apologetics is logic. I don't think the Apostle Peter would have thought that this is necessarily the case, at least not in a Greek sense. We all know the Jews of Jesus' time weren't so much concerned with Greek style logic to lay out their faith in God or about the cogency of the Scriptures.

 

[Pilgrim]

I'm not asking God to do anything or to prove He can do anything. I'm asking whether you think logic is a worthwhile endeavor into determining God's existence or the likelihood of God's existence. If you don't believe it to be, then I don't think this is the sub-forum for you. Logic is what Apologetics is supposed to be based around, so if you're going to throw it out the window, then it is worthless to discuss logic in regards to God's existence.

Sure. So is scripture--God's Word revealed to man.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'd have to disagree that the basis of apologetics is logic. I don't think the Apostle Peter would have thought that this is necessarily the case, at least not in a Greek sense. We all know the Jews of Jesus' time weren't so much concerned with Greek style logic to lay out their faith in God or about the cogency of the Scriptures.

In the context of how this sub-forum defines Apologetics (rational arguments), and in the context of my line of questions with Mr. O, is it a fair starting point to agree that God cannot do the logically impossible, such as create a round square? If God can do the logically impossible, what point is there in using logic at all to argue about His existence?

 

[Moral Orel]

Sure. So is scripture--God's Word revealed to man.

Okay, so do you agree then that God cannot do things which are logically impossible? If so then we have a basis to start a discussion on. If you disagree, and you believe God can defy logic somehow, then there is no discussion to be had.

 

[Pilgrim]

Okay, so do you agree then that God cannot do things which are logically impossible? If so then we have a basis to start a discussion on. If you disagree, and you believe God can defy logic somehow, then there is no discussion to be had.

What God chooses to do or not do is a mystery only God can fully answer. Marvel at the world around us. God’s creative nature and his incomprehensible immenseness is present everywhere we look, yet in our lifetime (on earth) we get to see only glimpses. He still reveals Himself to us in His word. Through scripture we are able to gain insights into God’s infinite characteristics and His relational heart—His holy nature. And through Jesus we saw God walk on earth.

The Bible tells us that God is eternal.

• God lives without beginning or end (Isaiah 40:28).

God is omnipotent. If He wants to do something He can—anything He wants.

God is also omniscient. His knowledge and power know no limit. His nature is immutable. We can trust that he will be forever constant, firm, and secure.

• God is omniscient (Psalms 139:1)
• He knows everything about the past, present, and future (Isaiah 46: 9-10)

God is lovingly relational. God is good. Moses wrote in Exodus:

• “God who is passionate about his relationship with you” (Exodus 34:14)

God created man because He was lonely and He loves relating to us. God shows His goodness and His grace to us by a personal relationship. God’s heart is compassionate, merciful, faithful, unfailing, caring, and just. His love for us is loyal and eternal. The greatest expression of God's love was in sending Jesus to restore the relationship that was broken because of sin.

God's love is perfect. He is all good, all powerful, and all holy. Man fails to love perfectly and is sinful. God doesn’t just decide to be holy—He is holy.

• “Whatever is good and perfect comes down to us from God our father.” (James 1:17)

All of the beauty, joy, and contentment man is able to experience are because of God and come from God. In order to understand God, stand in awe of his pure goodness. As King Solomon said:

• “The fear of the Lord is the foundation of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10).

Man's wisdom consists only from that God has revealed to us, either directly, or through the minds he created within us to explore. But everything we know, He knew first. The most important thing God wants us to know is His Son Jesus.

• Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

 

[Moral Orel]

What God chooses to do or not do is a mystery only God can fully answer. Marvel at the world around us. God’s creative nature and his incomprehensible immenseness is present everywhere we look, yet in our lifetime (on earth) we get to see only glimpses. He still reveals Himself to us in His word. Through scripture we are able to gain insights into God’s infinite characteristics and His relational heart—His holy nature. And through Jesus we saw God walk on earth.

The Bible tells us that God is eternal.

• God lives without beginning or end (Isaiah 40:28).

God is omnipotent. If He wants to do something He can—anything He wants.

God is also omniscient. His knowledge and power know no limit. His nature is immutable. We can trust that he will be forever constant, firm, and secure.

• God is omniscient (Psalms 139:1)
• He knows everything about the past, present, and future (Isaiah 46: 9-10)

God is lovingly relational. God is good. Moses wrote in Exodus:

• “God who is passionate about his relationship with you” (Exodus 34:14)

God created man because He was lonely and He loves relating to us. God shows His goodness and His grace to us by a personal relationship. God’s heart is compassionate, merciful, faithful, unfailing, caring, and just. His love for us is loyal and eternal. The greatest expression of God's love was in sending Jesus to restore the relationship that was broken because of sin.

God's love is perfect. He is all good, all powerful, and all holy. Man fails to love perfectly and is sinful. God doesn’t just decide to be holy—He is holy.

• “Whatever is good and perfect comes down to us from God our father.” (James 1:17)

All of the beauty, joy, and contentment man is able to experience are because of God and come from God. In order to understand God, stand in awe of his pure goodness. As King Solomon said:

• “The fear of the Lord is the foundation of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10).

Man's wisdom consists only from that God has revealed to us, either directly, or through the minds he created within us to explore. But everything we know, He knew first. The most important thing God wants us to know is His Son Jesus.

• Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

I can only assume that you believe God can do the logically impossible, and as I said, there's no meaningful discussion about this topic to be had if we throw logic out the window. So unless you can address the actual argument I made with a rational argument, I'm afraid this is the end of the line for us on this topic.

While I don't care if you choose to proselytize in my thread, it is not the same as engaging in Apologetics, and doesn't comport with the statement of purpose of this sub-forum. I hope you won't consider it rude if I do not reply to any other posts that are off-topic, such as the one I'm replying to now.

 

[Moral Orel]

The only thing we know about knowledge and awareness is related to human knowledge and awareness. The connections between various knowledge, the recall via memory, the relation of premises to conclusions, the human senses, human perception--all of these things are intimately related to the human way of being.

None of those things are knowledge or awareness though. They are all ways to process or attain knowledge or awareness. What we know about awareness is that it is something that is possessed by an entity. Awareness is the type of thing that can be attained or it can be lost. If you currently possess awareness of a thing, then you have knowledge of that thing. None of these concepts are mired in "human context" and do not suffer from our limited understanding of awareness. These are the only concepts of awareness that are important to the discussion.

Sure, there are likely truths that humans have no knowledge of. So what? What do you think this has to do with God?

If we can imagine ways to possess awareness of something even if we cannot actually conceptualize those ways, then there is no reason to think that our discussion is limited by human understanding. However God possesses knowledge, we can talk about it in the abstract, and discuss what He possesses and how He possesses it, but it in no way limits our ability to discuss what knowledge God possesses because it isn't limited to how we possess knowledge.

 

[zippy2006]

None of those things are knowledge or awareness though. They are all ways to process or attain knowledge or awareness.

I disagree. The connections and relations between various knowledge, especially the way that premises and conclusions are held together, are facts that hold of knowledge itself and not of the process of attaining knowledge. The way that knowledge is held passively in the memory and then can be recalled at will to be considered more directly is a fact about knowledge. And the five senses and perception are human awareness, not "the way we come to attain awareness."

If you currently possess awareness of a thing, then you have knowledge of that thing.

I don't think so. Awareness of the existence of something is different from knowledge of its essence. Being aware of the sights and sounds of a thunderstorm does not mean that I have knowledge of thunderstorms, only that I have experienced one.

None of these concepts are mired in "human context" and do not suffer from our limited understanding of awareness. These are the only concepts of awareness that are important to the discussion.

You made three points about awareness: 1) it is possessed by an entity, 2) it can be attained or lost, and 3) awareness implies knowledge. None of these points taken together or separately show in any way that our understanding of awareness is not tied to a human context. Indeed, everything we know about awareness is known primarily through our own human experience.

If we can imagine ways to possess awareness of something even if we cannot actually conceptualize those ways, then there is no reason to think that our discussion is limited by human understanding.

"If we can imagine kinds of awareness we do not possess, then our understanding of awareness is not bound to a human context." I don't think it follows. Imagination, like awareness, is not sufficient for knowledge.

However God possesses knowledge, we can talk about it in the abstract, and discuss what He possesses and how He possesses it, but it in no way limits our ability to discuss what knowledge God possesses because it isn't limited to how we possess knowledge.

Remember what I said:

When we attribute knowledge to God we do so by analogy, and the knowledge we attribute is assumed to be infinitely greater than human knowledge. Your attribution assumes that it is equivalent to human knowledge insofar as it is thought to succumb to the same weaknesses of human knowledge. But it is not equivalent, nor can it be thought to succumb to the same weaknesses (both a priori and according to the creation arguments I've put forward).

We can talk about God's knowledge, but we cannot equate it with the human way of knowing or infer that it succumbs to the same weaknesses of human knowing. "Humans forget things therefore God forgets things," is a false inference because God's way of knowing is infinitely greater than our own. The imperfections of human knowing do not carry over into God. "Humans can't know everything therefore God can't know everything," is guilty of the same fallacy.

"Humans can't know that they know everything therefore God can't know that he knows everything," is also guilty of the same fallacy. But, "If it is impossible for any being to know that they know everything, then God can't know that he knows everything," is valid. You need to provide an argument proving that it is impossible for any being to know that they know everything. So far the only premise you've offered is something like, "There are things that human beings do not even know that they don't know," but this premise is insufficient to prove the antecedent above. Indeed, left to this premise alone, we come to the same fallacy noted. So let's hear your argument.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In the context of how this sub-forum defines Apologetics (rational arguments), and in the context of my line of questions with Mr. O, is it a fair starting point to agree that God cannot do the logically impossible, such as create a round square? If God can do the logically impossible, what point is there in using logic at all to argue about His existence?

Fair point. But we might then want to ask ourselves how 'logical' it is for a person to be raised from the dead. From a human standpoint, a human body being raised from the dead three days after it's decease is somewhat illogical. Wouldn't you think.

 

[Pilgrim]

I can only assume that you believe God can do the logically impossible, and as I said, there's no meaningful discussion about this topic to be had if we throw logic out the window. So unless you can address the actual argument I made with a rational argument, I'm afraid this is the end of the line for us on this topic.

While I don't care if you choose to proselytize in my thread, it is not the same as engaging in Apologetics, and doesn't comport with the statement of purpose of this sub-forum. I hope you won't consider it rude if I do not reply to any other posts that are off-topic, such as the one I'm replying to now.

Please forgive me. I am on occasion exuberant when sharing the logic of God. He did, after all, perform numerous miracles, including those performed while he walked on earth in the form of man, named Jesus Christ.

• He created everything from nothing.
• He changed water into wine.
• He gave sight to the blind.
• He brought the dead back to life.
• He died and arose 3 days later before ascending to heaven.

Questions for you:

1. How do the best logicians argue historical facts that take shape in the form of miracles?
2. Do you know with any sort of certainty (confidence) if "what you consider logically impossible" would be considered "logically impossible" to God?
3. Or do you make assumption based on your "faith" in the logic developed by man?
4. Is it possible that when dealing with questions relating to the nature and origin of logic, that God's logic is rational, and man's logic is irrational?

[IF] Laplace, Fourier, Einstein, and Newton before them, used their brilliant minds (Gift's from God) to develop some of the best language (of man) to describe mathematics and physical laws as we see them through man's eyes (God sees everything) [AND] Einstein wrote his theory of special relativity and not a single footnote. It was all original work (no citations) from his genius (Gift from God). [THEN] Gifts from God are given to some men in the form of genius mental capacities.

[IF] Does any of this (previous ❡) rise to the creative power and infinite knowledge of God; if not. [THEN] Logic of God is superior to the logic of man. [THEREFOR] Mankind's knowledge is like a single grain of sand among all the stars in terms of our maturity level in knowledge.

You ask if God can make a square circle or a round square. [IF] Fourier can take analog inputs and create square outputs; [AND] Laplace can invent transforms used in modern control systems to send flight into space; [AND] Newton can translate the effects of gravity into mathematics of physical laws; [THEN] God, who gave brilliant minds to these men, can transform circle to square and vice versa. (If God wants to.) Factoid: Scripture says do not tempt God.

[IF] Man can create a transformative mechanical tool with two armatures. On one side there is fashioned a perfect square from a template. On the other side of the machine is produced, from the mechanical motion and transform algorithm, a perfect circle. [THEN] Man makes a square circle. [THEREFOR] This type of tool can work with whatever inputs and outputs chosen and program developed or selected--limited by man's creativity (Gift from God). [IF] this creation comes from mind of man, [THEN] God has this knowledge beforehand [AND] power of God is infinitely greater.

 

[Moral Orel]

Fair point. But we might then want to ask ourselves how 'logical' it is for a person to be raised from the dead. From a human standpoint, a human body being raised from the dead three days after it's decease is somewhat illogical. Wouldn't you think.

I don't think miracles have anything to do with logic. That we lack the knowledge about something does not make it illogical. If God knows how to bring a person back after they've been dead three days, but we can only do so after a few minutes, it doesn't speak about logic at all.

I think it's irrational to believe it happened just 'cause someone said it did, but that still doesn't sway into the area of logic.

 

[Moral Orel]

Do you know with any sort of certainty (confidence) if "what you consider logically impossible" would be considered "logically impossible" to God?

I'll explain this much towards your post. A square circle, or a round square cannot exist, that is why God cannot make one. One object cannot simultaneously hold the qualities of both being square and being round. The definition of a square is contradictory to the definition of a circle, and vice versa.

Transforming a square to a circle makes the square cease to exist, even if the material it was made from still does. It is no longer a square, it is now a circle.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm using the dictionary's definitions of "knowledge" and "awareness". All the stuff you add to them, and all the ways you twist them only muddies the discussion. Here they are:

Knowledge:
1 facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education

Awareness:
1 knowledge or perception of a situation or fact

Knowledge is a list of facts. Awareness of a thing means we have knowledge of a thing. There is no reason to add more to them than what is here.

I disagree. The connections and relations between various knowledge, especially the way that premises and conclusions are held together, are facts that hold of knowledge itself and not of the process of attaining knowledge. The way that knowledge is held passively in the memory and then can be recalled at will to be considered more directly is a fact about knowledge. And the five senses and perception are human awareness, not "the way we come to attain awareness."

Knowledge is the facts. That's it. You can't say knowledge is the facts and the way we act on the facts. It doesn't make sense. If I paint my house, me painting my house isn't my house. My house is my house, and I can act upon my house. If I buy a car, me filling out loan agreements isn't a car. My car is a car, and I acted to attain a car.

I don't think so. Awareness of the existence of something is different from knowledge of its essence. Being aware of the sights and sounds of a thunderstorm does not mean that I have knowledge of thunderstorms, only that I have experienced one.

More muddiness without reason. No one said anything about understanding the "essence" of a thing. We don't need to go beyond knowing that a thing exists. If I am aware of the sights and sounds of a thunderstorm, then I have knowledge of the existence of thunderstorms. Even if I don't know they're called "thunderstorms", even if I don't know what causes them, etc.

You made three points about awareness: 1) it is possessed by an entity, 2) it can be attained or lost, and 3) awareness implies knowledge. None of these points taken together or separately show in any way that our understanding of awareness is not tied to a human context. Indeed, everything we know about awareness is known primarily through our own human experience.

No. Everything we know about how we become aware of things is through human existence. You are aware of something, or you are not. You have knowledge of something, or you do not. No human context needed to understand these concepts.

"If we can imagine kinds of awareness we do not possess, then our understanding of awareness is not bound to a human context." I don't think it follows. Imagination, like awareness, is not sufficient for knowledge.

I did not say that. I understand things can get confusing, and arguments can be misunderstood, but putting actual quotation marks around things is going way too far. Reign it in, and read what I actually wrote.

We can talk about God's knowledge, but we cannot equate it with the human way of knowing or infer that it succumbs to the same weaknesses of human knowing. "Humans forget things therefore God forgets things," is a false inference because God's way of knowing is infinitely greater than our own. The imperfections of human knowing do not carry over into God. "Humans can't know everything therefore God can't know everything," is guilty of the same fallacy.

Again, knowledge is simply facts. God knows more facts than us. God acquires knowledge of facts in different ways than us. You've inserted human context into things for no reason. A list of facts is a list of facts, it doesn't matter who possesses it.

"Humans can't know that they know everything therefore God can't know that he knows everything," is also guilty of the same fallacy. But, "If it is impossible for any being to know that they know everything, then God can't know that he knows everything," is valid. You need to provide an argument proving that it is impossible for any being to know that they know everything. So far the only premise you've offered is something like, "There are things that human beings do not even know that they don't know," but this premise is insufficient to prove the antecedent above. Indeed, left to this premise alone, we come to the same fallacy noted. So let's hear your argument.

That isn't the first premise of my argument. It's in the OP, but here it is again:

If there exists something that you don't know exists, then you can't know that you don't know it doesn't exist.

If X is a thing that God doesn't know exists, God can't say, "I don't know that X exists" because He would have to know that X exists to even comment on it, correct?

Yes, I said "if". Don't go jumping the gun straight to: "there isn't anything that exists that God doesn't know about". We'll get to that later. Is this premise true?

 

[zippy2006]

I'm using the dictionary's definitions of "knowledge" and "awareness". All the stuff you add to them, and all the ways you twist them only muddies the discussion. Here they are:

Knowledge:
1 facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education

Awareness:
1 knowledge or perception of a situation or fact

This does not help things. Dictionaries map common usage, which is not about God. As already noted, we cannot just apply common definitions to God. Proof of this is the fact that God does not acquire knowledge through experience or education, therefore according to the dictionary definition God does not have knowledge at all. You've proved my point.

Knowledge is the facts. That's it.

That's not even true according to the definition you gave.

More muddiness without reason. No one said anything about understanding the "essence" of a thing. We don't need to go beyond knowing that a thing exists. If I am aware of the sights and sounds of a thunderstorm, then I have knowledge of the existence of thunderstorms. Even if I don't know they're called "thunderstorms", even if I don't know what causes them, etc.

You can have knowledge of existence, sure.

No. Everything we know about how we become aware of things is through human existence. You are aware of something, or you are not. You have knowledge of something, or you do not. No human context needed to understand these concepts.

Again, you've provided no reason to believe these notions do not come from a human context.

I did not say that. I understand things can get confusing, and arguments can be misunderstood, but putting actual quotation marks around things is going way too far. Reign it in, and read what I actually wrote.

Then produce the argument you wanted, don't just tell me I've misrepresented you. The fact that you are incapable of producing the argument says a lot. Quotations marks demarcate the paraphrase, and are perfectly legitimate.

As before, I don't see any reason to believe that your claim of misrepresentation is even accurate:

Original Quote: "If we can imagine ways to possess awareness of something even if we cannot actually conceptualize those ways, then there is no reason to think that our discussion is limited by human understanding."

Paraphrase: "If we can imagine kinds of awareness we do not possess, then our understanding of awareness is not bound to a human context."​

How exactly do you think that is a misrepresentation?

Again, knowledge is simply facts.

Again, it demonstrably isn't. Did you even take the time to read your own definition?

That isn't the first premise of my argument. It's in the OP, but here it is again:

If there exists something that you don't know exists, then you can't know that you don't know it doesn't exist.

If X is a thing that God doesn't know exists, God can't say, "I don't know that X exists" because He would have to know that X exists to even comment on it, correct?

Yes, I said "if". Don't go jumping the gun straight to: "there isn't anything that exists that God doesn't know about". We'll get to that later. Is this premise true?

Sure, "If X is a thing that God doesn't know exists, God can't say, 'I don't know that X exists'." That's true.

 

[friend of]

Hello Nicholas Deka,

I thought I'd take a whack at your model.

Your premise in a nutshell:
According to the universal uncertainty principal, God cannot know whether He knows everything or not.

Before I get into my refutation and apply this principal, which obviously applies to humanity, onto God, I would invite you to answer a few questions beforehand (if you would be so kind.) Then, I will attempt to give you an answer as to why your model should not apply to Christians with respect to your original premise. We can do this with a simple t/f to each question and expand later.

Q1) If this premise can be attributed to God, then the "unknown factor" must be greater than God. t/f?

Q2) If this UF is greater than God, then it must possess sentient consciousness in it's own right. t/f?

Q3) If Q2 is true, then the reason for UF's lack of acknowledgement of Christian God is due to UF's superiority (i.e. UF is so much greater than Christian God that it does not even bother to acknowledge Christian God's existence.) t/f?

Q4)
i) If Q3 is true, then your original premise becomes an appeal to uncertainty; an atheistic god of gaps that persuades believers to abandon God's omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent attributes by appealing to a potential, ill-defined uncertainty.

ii) If Q3 is false, what bearing should this have on our Christian faith or our attitude toward Jesus, as we have no interaction with this greater UF and it has no interaction with the Universe of Yahweh?

have fun

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't have time for the whole thing at the moment, maybe later tonight, but just this part where I was explaining that we can discuss things in the abstract:

Then produce the argument you wanted, don't just tell me I've misrepresented you. The fact that you are incapable of producing the argument says a lot. Quotations marks demarcate the paraphrase, and are perfectly legitimate.

As before, I don't see any reason to believe that your claim of misrepresentation is even accurate:

Original Quote: "If we can imagine ways to possess awareness of something even if we cannot actually conceptualize those ways, then there is no reason to think that our discussion is limited by human understanding."

Paraphrase: "If we can imagine kinds of awareness we do not possess, then our understanding of awareness is not bound to a human context."
How exactly do you think that is a misrepresentation?

I'm bolding the pertinent parts. The limits of our discussion are not bound by our understanding of something in a human context. That says nothing about how we understand awareness.