Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well the reason for pointing out that deception and unknown unknowns is a problem is because omniscience and omnipotence are impossible. So if omniscience is impossible, and God is required to be omniscient by definition, then God is impossible.
God could still be omniscient - about his created universe....Sure, but if we're no longer talking about an omniscient God, then we're no longer talking about the Christian's definition of God.
No I'd say that within a simulation, omniscience and omnipotence is pretty straight-forward - like a hacker with a game of Minecraft. This doesn't mean that the player is omnipotent and omniscient about the world outside the game....Well the reason for pointing out that deception and unknown unknowns is a problem is because omniscience and omnipotence are impossible.
I actually did in a thread once a long time ago and people tried to solve the problem the same way you did. Here it is in a nutshell.That might be a valid argument, but can't be sound unless you can prove there are unknown unknowns.
I think you're watering down the term "omniscient" and "omnipotent" to the point of meaninglessness. You can't be "omniscient and omnipotent" in a limited scale. Consider the following sentence:No I'd say that within a simulation, omniscience and omnipotence is pretty straight-forward - like a hacker with a game of Minecraft. This doesn't mean that the player is omnipotent and omniscient about the world outside the game....
God could still be omniscient - about his created universe....
Perhaps their exist other realities - rather than God's reality with an eternal trinity being the only one that could possibly exist...
If God has no access to these so concerning those he isn't omniscient....
No I think it makes sense that it can mean you are capable of knowing and doing everything within a creation... that is why the hacker within a Minecraft game has "god-like" powers... what is "meaningless" about that?I think you're watering down the term "omniscient" and "omnipotent" to the point of meaninglessness. You can't be "omniscient and omnipotent" in a limited scale.
Omniscience carries a greater meaning than simply knowing everything about one thing
If there is something you are completely unaware of, then you are unaware that you are unaware of it. That's the unknown unknown. I don't have to prove that there is a thing out there that you are unaware of, I have to prove that you can't confirm whether there is or isn't a thing out there that you are unaware of.
You and I know everything about the sentence I created "The ball is red" so we are omniscient about that sentence. Which is silly and is why we don't use omniscience the way you're proposing.No I think it makes sense that it can mean you are capable of knowing and doing everything within a creation... that is why the hacker within a Minecraft game has "god-like" powers... what is "meaningless" about that?
In the case of the Christian God, his omniscience and omnipotence would concern our limited universe (and perhaps his infinite self).
And in the case of omniscience we are only talking about perfect information and complete information about the totality of existence. The totality of existence is the domain in question.Note related terms are "perfect information" or "complete information". These are talking about a domain rather than saying they know about every particle in the universe, etc.
Then as I've argued that it is impossible to be aware that there is nothing you are unaware of, it is impossible for any being to be omniscient. If God must be omniscient, then he cannot be.I define omniscience as being all-knowing such that there is nothing one is unaware of.
I seem to be unable to explain how a hacker could be said to be omniscient and omnipotent within a game of Minecraft... people who are more knowledgeable about possible simulations seem to understand what I'm saying...You and I know everything about the sentence I created "The ball is red" so we are omniscient about that sentence. Which is silly and is why we don't use omniscience the way you're proposing.
I'm talking about individual games like Minecraft. In a similar way complete or perfect knowledge is usually within a limited domain.And in the case of omniscience we are only talking about perfect information and complete information about the totality of existence. The totality of existence is the domain in question.
Then as I've argued that it is impossible to be aware that there is nothing you are unaware of, it is impossible for any being to be omniscient. If God must be omniscient, then he cannot be.
Why do you insist on using the omni words? Language is subjective, sure, but we agree on word usages for practical reasons. Changing definitions the way you propose makes the words so broad that they're worthless.I'm talking about individual games like Minecraft. In a similar way complete or perfect knowledge is within a limited domain.
That's how I'm using the words. The definition of words can evolve.
What about "near-omniscience" and "near-omnipotence"? Or "domain-specific" omnipotence or omniscience...
In this thread you said: (post #18)Then as I've argued that it is impossible to be aware that there is nothing you are unaware of, it is impossible for any being to be omniscient. If God must be omniscient, then he cannot be.
Then as I've argued that it is impossible to be aware that there is nothing you are unaware of, it is impossible for any being to be omniscient. If God must be omniscient, then he cannot be.
No that's not what I'm arguing. Your confusion on what my point is is understandable, it's a very weird concept that I had to read about ten times before I got the distinction.You're arguing that God can't know what he doesn't know. And I'm arguing that if he knows all that there is to know, he is de facto omniscient.
Yes. But I accepted them for the sake of argument to make my point.In this thread you said: (post #18)
Anselm's Second Ontological Argument
"Perhaps omnipotence and omniscience is attainable over time. Say we build a robot..."
So you're saying your thought experiment involving omniscience is logically impossible?
That only works if God knows that everything that exists is either Him or things which He has created. How does He know this is not a false dichotomy?That is a a subtle argument. I had not heard that approach before, and I really like it. However, it does not work for God as understood by classical Christian theism.
God is the omniscient and knows all that can be known. How? Everything that exists is either uncreated (God) or created ex nihilo (everything else). God knows God's self and God knows all that God created, so there is no possible unknown unknown for God under those conditions. God knows all that can be known.
You kept on insisting that that thought experiment made sense over and over.... even though it was logically impossible?Yes. But I accepted them for the sake of argument to make my point.JohnClay said:So you're saying your thought experiment involving omniscience is logically impossible?
Well I'm talking about the god-like ability of a Minecraft hacker being able know and do about anything in the game. What are better terms to describe their ability to know and do just about everything? Perfect or complete knowledge could be relevant... and most people understand why I used the omni- terms.Why do you insist on using the omni words? Language is subjective, sure, but we agree on word usages for practical reasons. Changing definitions the way you propose makes the words so broad that they're worthless.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?