Universal Uncertainty Principle

[Moral Orel]

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

False. If something is undetectable to me, does it make it greater than me? No. So just because God may not be aware of some thing, does not mean that it is greater than Him. All of your other questions chain from this one, so they are they still relevant if this is false?

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

Meh. I've already agreed that the how of becoming aware of something is different from humans and that's all the second part of the definition talks about. Knowledge is still just the facts. Omniscience means God has all of them. We have less of them, and we acquire them in different ways. The definition doesn't say that knowledge is experiencing things, as you've been arguing.

But aside from that it is arguable whether God gains knowledge through experience or not. Is this a fair statement to make?

God knows that I exist because He experiences my existence.

If not, how does He know that He knows I continue to exist? In other words, how does He confirm His own knowledge?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I guess a being's ability to be aware of all spaces and to exist at all times isn't enough to know all that needs to be known, then? Oh deary me!

Presumably, this god doesn't reside within this space-time continuum, yes?
That's kind of a logical conclusion, if we accept the premise that this god created said continuum.

So, wherever this god "exists", has to be on some plain of existance "outside" of this continuum, yes?

I'ld submit that as it pertains to this god and that plain of existance, the same principles would apply as any entity that resides in this plain of existance (= the space-time continuum).

Who's to say that there isn't another realm "beyond" the one where this god resides?
How would this god know? It could be just as inaccessible to him as his realm of existence is to us.

He could be just as unaware of it like we are of his realm.

Somehow, I'm under the impression that the biblical notion of God's nature is such that if there is something God doesn't know, it is because He has chosen to forgo knowing it for His own purposes and goals.

Let's suppose that our scientists have uncovered all the secrets of this space-time continuum. It certainly isn't unimaginable. So we would know everything there is to know about the universe. And still, we would by physically limited to go "beyond" it. We exist within this realm and it is the only realm that we can be aware of.

I don't see why God couldn't have that same problem, with respect to his realm of existance.

But, who knows if I'm right or not. Do you?

Yes, the point exactly.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Presumably, this god doesn't reside within this space-time continuum, yes?
That's kind of a logical conclusion, if we accept the premise that this god created said continuum.

So, wherever this god "exists", has to be on some plain of existance "outside" of this continuum, yes?

I'ld submit that as it pertains to this god and that plain of existance, the same principles would apply as any entity that resides in this plain of existance (= the space-time continuum).

And how would you know that the same principles apply? I don't think that is the case, and I don't think you're thinking hard enough about the absurdity by which you posit these questions.

Who's to say that there isn't another realm "beyond" the one where this god resides?
How would this god know? It could be just as inaccessible to him as his realm of existence is to us.

...oh, here we go into the recursive loop of asking each other the questions which are impossible to answer. You might be mistaking me for a Christian who thinks that 'omni-attributes' are specifically meaningful. As I'm sure NV could tell you.....I'm a contrarian (as he puts it), so my thinking on these things isn't going to get bogged down with these vicious circles of questions.

He could be just as unaware of it like we are of his realm.

I see a lot of 'could' in your hypothetical scenarios...which is what makes them hypothetical after all.

Let's suppose that our scientists have uncovered all the secrets of this space-time continuum.

lol! Why would I suppose that. No, let's actually take that consideration up..........when it actually happens. (Good luck, Astro-physicists...!)

It certainly isn't unimaginable.

Since when does being imaginable make it possible or even probable?

So we would know everything there is to know about the universe.

You've been watching to many of those youtube anti-god cartoons again. I too have seen that cartoon, and it is bunk.

And still, we would by physically limited to go "beyond" it.

Let me know when we wake up so we can resume a real conversation..........

We exist within this realm and it is the only realm that we can be aware of.

Now you're saying something that makes sense.

I don't see why God couldn't have that same problem, with respect to his realm of existance.

The problem as I see it is that you can posit something on very flimsy hypothetical grounds, which is supposedly analogous to what 'us Christians' do (tuh, huh, tuh, huh...!)

Yes, the point exactly.

Yes, YOUR point exactly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And how would you know that the same principles apply?

That's the entire point of the OP.

I don't think that is the case

Why not?

, and I don't think you're thinking hard enough about the absurdity by which you posit these questions.

What goes on "beyond" our space-time continuum, is bound to sound absurd to us.
Many things inside our space-time continuum are even absurd to us, simply because they exist beyond our day-to-day experience of reality.

...oh, here we go into the recursive loop of asking each other the questions which are impossible to answer

Yes, the point of the OP.

I see a lot of 'could' in your hypothetical scenarios...which is what makes them hypothetical after all.

Yes.... if there would be certainty instead, the OP would have no point.
Ironically, that is the point of uncertainty

lol! Why would I suppose that

For the sake of argument, obviously.
Just like I am, for the sake of argument, assuming that this god exists.

No, let's actually take that consideration up..........when it actually happens. (Good luck, Astro-physicists...!)

Okay. Then let's be consistant and only take your god up for consideration when he can actually be shown to exist.

Thanks for playing.

You've been watching to many of those youtube anti-god cartoons again. I too have seen that cartoon, and it is bunk.

No idea what you are talking about.

The problem as I see it is that you can posit something on very flimsy hypothetical grounds,

.........says the theist.

At least, I'm not trying to hide the fact that I'm talking about hypotheticals.

Yes, YOUR point exactly.

Not "my" point. The point of the thread. And a good point, at that.

 

[zippy2006]

Meh. I've already agreed that the how of becoming aware of something is different from humans and that's all the second part of the definition talks about. Knowledge is still just the facts. Omniscience means God has all of them. We have less of them, and we acquire them in different ways. The definition doesn't say that knowledge is experiencing things, as you've been arguing.

My argument is not that knowledge is experiencing things, but rather that our knowledge is distinctively human. Here are two more arguments. First, according to your definition, we have knowledge that is encapsulated in skills we are able to do. We have know-how knowledge. For example: a mechanic has skill-based knowledge about how cars work and how to go about fixing them. This sort of knowledge is bound to material creatures and makes no sense for God. Second, facts are not just facts for us. We hold beliefs with various levels of certitude; some we hold to be exceedingly probable and some we hold to be very improbable. Our knowledge comes in shades of grey. Not so with God.

But aside from that it is arguable whether God gains knowledge through experience or not. Is this a fair statement to make?

It certainly isn't arguable on Classical Theism.

God knows that I exist because He experiences my existence.

If not, how does He know that He knows I continue to exist? In other words, how does He confirm His own knowledge?

God knows that you exist because he created you. God knows that you continue to exist because he constantly creates you, or "conserves" you in existence.

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.

But our discussion is a discussion about knowledge and awareness, and you explicitly reference awareness in the antecedent of your conditional statement. Therefore we could say that "Our discussion about awareness is not limited by human understanding." I represented this by saying, "Our understanding of awareness is not bound to a human context." Again, I do not think I have misrepresented you.

But I think we have covered enough tangential issues. I said:

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.

Proceed to your argument. What is your argument for the conclusion that God is not omnipotent?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's the entire point of the OP.



Why not?



What goes on "beyond" our space-time continuum, is bound to sound absurd to us.
Many things inside our space-time continuum are even absurd to us, simply because they exist beyond our day-to-day experience of reality.

I was speaking theologically, not in the mode of 'quantum-mechanics.' The point I'm making is that we are UNCERTAIN as to what God 'IS'. We've tried to capture Him and quantify Him by conceptual means, usually through the use of 'omni-attribute' language. And I think that is a mistake. I don't play that language game.

Yes, the point of the OP.




Yes.... if there would be certainty instead, the OP would have no point.
Ironically, that is the point of uncertainty

Not in this context, it's not.

For the sake of argument, obviously.
Just like I am, for the sake of argument, assuming that this god exists.

exactly.

Okay. Then let's be consistant and only take your god up for consideration when he can actually be shown to exist.

Thanks for playing.

And now we know what games you're willing to play, don't we? Or....do we. I'm kind of uncertain at this point.

No idea what you are talking about.

That's ok. I'm not going to link it in.

.........says the theist.

Again, you're mistaking me for someone who thinks faith is something that can be specifically quantified and verified. Moreover, in my estimation, Christian Apologetics isn't so much for the purpose of 'convincing' others about any logic attributable to believing in Jesus, and my view on religious epistemology as it contextualize the human response of faith to God doesn't allow or afford us that superb luxury. (Notice: I don't say that 'faith' itself IS an epistemology--because it ain't!)

At least, I'm not trying to hide the fact that I'm talking about hypotheticals.

I'm not hiding any fact about the hypothetical nature of my own position; again, your mistaking me for someone that thinks faith should be completely quantifiable from the standpoint of logic and/or science. It's not. And I don't hide the fact that this is the case.

Not "my" point. The point of the thread. And a good point, at that.

NO, not really, the OP misses some nuances.

 

[Moral Orel]

God knows that you exist because he created you. God knows that you continue to exist because he constantly creates you, or "conserves" you in existence.

Real quick, to this. I don't think the first part is right. If God is outside of time, or timeless in some way, then the past tense isn't applicable. He doesn't remember creating me because it wasn't in the past for Him because "the past" is meaningless for Him. To the second part though too, is God incapable of creating a thing and then not personally maintaining it? It would seem that He can know a thing exists that He created without having to reference the fact that He is continuing to allow it to exist. Secondly, this answer seems to make His knowledge of my existence contingent on Him creating me, but that can't be it right? How does God know that God exists then?

 

[Pilgrim]

How does God know that God exists then?

If there is a first hand account from Moses that God says God exists, then God exists and is aware that God exists.

Exodus 3:14 - And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

 

[zippy2006]

Real quick, to this. I don't think the first part is right. If God is outside of time, or timeless in some way, then the past tense isn't applicable. He doesn't remember creating me because it wasn't in the past for Him because "the past" is meaningless for Him.

Material creation is subject to time. To say that God created you when you were conceived is to say that you were created in your past, not God's past.

To the second part though too, is God incapable of creating a thing and then not personally maintaining it?

God can create a thing and then allow it to cease to exist.

It would seem that He can know a thing exists that He created without having to reference the fact that He is continuing to allow it to exist.

I simply gave the most obvious reason God knows that something exists: because he is actively imparting being to that thing.

Secondly, this answer seems to make His knowledge of my existence contingent on Him creating me, but that can't be it right?

Why not?

How does God know that God exists then?

Knowledge of one's own existence seems to be a self-evident principle. To say more than that about how God knows that he exists is beyond me.

 

[friend of]

All of your other questions chain from this one, so they are they still relevant if this is false?

Actually, if this Unknown Factor is not "greater" than God, much less does not possess sentience, than it cannot be "hidden" from God's knowledge because God is all creation. The only way for such an UF to exist outside of the Universe of God would be if UF was a suprem(er) being. If the UF(s) were ever to be considered "greater" than God (i.e. beyond God's own comprehension) UF would also be required to possess sentience. So then what inhibits such UF(s) from contacting God of this universe/multiverses? Because they are "so much greater?" The query becomes subject to a loop of infinite regression. Greater would need to be defined as it becomes redundant.

Of note when applying the uncertainty principal to God is that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Light-speed is itself a governing principal of reality. For something to be beyond God's comprehension would be the same as breaking an immutable, reality defining principal.

Asking that this Universal Uncertainty Principal apply to God is the same as asking someone to picture what reality was like before the creation of the Universe. One cannot truly come to grips with the concept of nothing while simultaneously experiencing nothing, likewise inverted, God cannot be without knowledge.

 

[Moral Orel]

God can create a thing and then allow it to cease to exist.

That is a valid answer to my poorly phrased question, but what I was getting at was: can God create something that is self-reliant for it's own existence?

Why not?

Because if it is contingent on Him continuing to keep me existing, then He is incapable of something, namely, that He is incapable of creating something that does not rely on Him to exist. Which would make Him less than omnipotent, which isn't really the problem posed in this thread, but interesting nonetheless.

But this was all just to get at the next premise:

God knows that He knows what He knows because He can confirm that He knows it.

Doesn't really matter how He goes about confirming that He knows what He knows, just that He can. If He could not confirm that He knows what He knows, then He wouldn't know He knows what He knows.

It probably sounds like I'm being intentionally convoluted, but I'm not. I'm trying to be as specific as I can and as is necessary.

 

[Moral Orel]

Actually, if this Unknown Factor is not "greater" than God, much less does not possess sentience, than it cannot be "hidden" from God's knowledge because God is all creation.

Doesn't follow. If I was color blind, I couldn't see the color green. I wouldn't know "green" exists. It doesn't make green greater than me, and green certainly doesn't need to be sentient.

Note, I didn't say "hidden", that implies the intention to hide, which implies sentience. I said "undetected" which carries no such implications.

The question is, "how does God know that everything that exists is what He created?". The answer can't be as simple as, "because God created everything". That's just circular reasoning.

 

[juvenissun]

God can't know if there is something that He is unaware of. Therefore, God cannot be omniscient, and no one can.

In order to talk about an illusive figure like God, we should define what He is first. What is God?

One of God's nature in the definition is: God is omniscient.

So, your question is answered. If someone is not omniscient, then he is not God.

 

[juvenissun]

The question is, "how does God know that everything that exists is what He created?". The answer can't be as simple as, "because God created everything". That's just circular reasoning.

Try to replace God by John or Donald or Amy. If so, your argument is completely correct. But you can not equate God with John or Amy. God is way higher above them.

How much higher? It depends on how do you define God. You may define a god who is not so powerful, or you may define a god who is not so wise.

But, according to Christianity, God is all powerful and all wise. So, in Christianity, your question is actually invalid. It violates the basic definition of Christian God.

 

[juvenissun]

that He is incapable of creating something that does not rely on Him to exist.

He creates you. Your existence does not rely on Him. Right?

 

[juvenissun]

If God is anything less than omniscient, does that not pose a pretty serious problem for the belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God to the extent that God told people exactly what to write?

If so, we should be able to find something written in the Bible which is not right.

Have you ever found descriptions like that in the Bible? I tried for many years. So far, I failed completely.

 

[juvenissun]

If you were color blind, and no one ever told you there was anything other than shades of grey, and you had no way to conceptualize other colors, would you be correct to say, "color does not exist"? Of course not.

In this example, the answer is: God is not color blind.
In fact, you can not see x-ray. God can.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If so, we should be able to find something written in the Bible which is not right.

Have you ever found descriptions like that in the Bible? I tried for many years. So far, I failed completely.

Genesis is demonstrably incorrect.

(this is the part where you label all the demonstrably incorrect parts as "metaphorical")

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In this example, the answer is: God is not color blind.

You don't know that.

In fact, you can not see x-ray. God can.

I can see x-rays. I can measure them as well.
Sure, I require tools to do so. But detectable is detectable.