What if God had a beginning?

[JohnClay]

Also:

So you're saying your thought experiment involving omniscience is logically impossible?

Yes. But I accepted them for the sake of argument to make my point.

When you used the robot example you seemed to be talking about omnipotence and omniscience related to the robot's universe...
Are you saying that doesn't make sense and that for the robot to become omnipotent and omniscient it would need to be able to know and have power over ALL of reality? And I mean ALL of reality...

 

[public hermit]

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?

Because there's nothing left to not know. There's only God and everything else. That's the sum total of all there is. I see what you're saying, but I don't think it works.

What would that third thing be that proves the dichotomy is false? It doesn't exist. There is no possible third thing. Whatever you try to add is either God or an aspect of God's creation.

 

[Moral Orel]

When you used the robot example you seemed to be talking about omnipotence and omniscience related to the robot's universe...
Are you saying that doesn't make sense and that for the robot to become omnipotent and omniscient and it would need to be able to know and have power over ALL of reality? And I mean ALL of reality...

Yes.

 

[JohnClay]

When you used the robot example you seemed to be talking about omnipotence and omniscience related to the robot's universe...
Are you saying that doesn't make sense and that for the robot to become omnipotent and omniscient and it would need to be able to know and have power over ALL of reality? And I mean ALL of reality...

Yes.

Well I wish I was talking to you back then rather this version of you that doesn't want to have anything to do with supposed logical problems...

 

[Moral Orel]

Whatever you try to add is either God or an aspect of God's creation.

How does God confirm this is true?

 

[Moral Orel]

Well I wish I was talking to you back then rather this version of you that doesn't want to have anything to do with supposed logical problems...

I sometimes accept things as true for the sake of argument to show that even if I accept all these other premises their argument fails. The topic in that conversations was whether omnipotence was intrinsically necessary, so I accepted omnipotence for the sake of argument to show that even if it really existed it could still be contingent. The topic of that thread was necessity vs contingency, not virtual worlds and the most functional usage of the words "omnipotence" and "omniscience".

 

[JohnClay]

I sometimes accept things as true for the sake of argument to show that even if I accept all these other premises their argument fails. The topic in that conversations was whether omnipotence was intrinsically necessary, so I accepted omnipotence for the sake of argument to show that even if it really existed it could still be contingent. The topic of that thread was necessity vs contingency, not virtual worlds and the most functional usage of the words "omnipotence" and "omniscience".

You were the only one who insisted "Perhaps omnipotence and omniscience is attainable over time". I insisted that for the robot it isn't - not even to a very small extent. It seems odd that you'd maintain that argument over and over and over again if it is logically impossible.

 

[Moral Orel]

You were the only one who insisted "Perhaps omnipotence and omniscience is attainable over time". I insisted that for the robot it isn't - not even to a very small extent. It seems odd that you'd maintain that argument over and over and over again if it is logically impossible.

Because even if it was logically possible their argument failed. Nothing that you argued was impossible was actually impossible. Although ironically I used the unknown unknowns on you in that thread. Do you remember?

 

[Moral Orel]

@public hermit @Rachel20
I hope you folks take this "unknown unknowns" argument in the spirit it's intended. While I do maintain that it works, I find it wholly inconsequential. You say that God is omniscient, and I say omniscience isn't possible, that doesn't really mean God isn't possible. It only means that God isn't how you describe Him. And because, quite ironically, it is impossible to fully know God, it isn't all that silly to think humans got something wrong when they wrote about Him.

If the only thing He doesn't know is that there is nothing He doesn't know, who cares?

 

[Rachel20]

I hope you folks take this "unknown unknowns" argument in the spirit it's intended.

I had fun with it, so that's always a good sign I took it in the right spirit! (which doesn't mean I'm conceding, I'll have to ponder it more

 

[public hermit]

@public hermit @Rachel20
I hope you folks take this "unknown unknowns" argument in the spirit it's intended. While I do maintain that it works, I find it wholly inconsequential. You say that God is omniscient, and I say omniscience isn't possible, that doesn't really mean God isn't possible. It only means that God isn't how you describe Him. And because, quite ironically, it is impossible to fully know God, it isn't all that silly to think humans got something wrong when they wrote about Him.

If the only thing He doesn't know is that there is nothing He doesn't know, who cares?

Although I don't think it works, I really like it. It's brilliant, subtle.

I agree that it's impossible to fully know God, and am quite certain that we humans have gotten some things wrong. I have no shame in admitting that. Still, I really enjoyed your "unknown unknowns" argument. I am sure at some point in life I'll bring it up and be sure to attribute it to Moral Orel. Good stuff.

 

[Moral Orel]

I had fun with it, so that's always a good sign I took it in the right spirit!

I never know what sorts of faces people are making on the other side of the interwebs. Are you folks chuckling? Are you folks scowling? It's unknown to me.

I think I'm the only atheist around here who thinks like that though. Most atheist think if they disprove some quality God is purported to have, then they disproved God. Sadly, some Christians think so too.

 

[Moral Orel]

Although I don't think it works, I really like it. It's brilliant, subtle.

I agree that it's impossible to fully know God, and am quite certain that we humans have gotten some things wrong. I have no shame in admitting that. Still, I really enjoyed your "unknown unknowns" argument. I am sure at some point in life I'll bring it up and be sure to attribute it to Moral Orel. Good stuff.

Oh, it's not mine. I found it about a decade ago on some random blogger's website. He probably didn't come up with it either.

But go ahead and give "Moral Orel" the credit anyways, more people should be aware of that brilliant show. It was a wholly underappreciated, misunderstood animation on Adult Swim from about twenty years ago. It was explicitly, satirically, anti-fundamentalist and very subtley pro-Christian at the same time.

 

[JohnClay]

....Nothing that you argued was impossible was actually impossible.

I argued that it was impossible for a robot to become omniscient or omnipotent about their universe... and also not omniscient and omnipotent about reality as a whole....
So you're saying that I was wrong to claim that was impossible?

Although ironically I used the unknown unknowns on you in that thread. Do you remember?

So can you use the "unknown unknowns" argument to "prove" that it is possible the robot could become omniscient?

 

[Moral Orel]

I argued that it was impossible for a robot to become omniscient or omnipotent about their universe... so you're saying that I was wrong that it was impossible?

You gave specific examples like transferring information across great distances. You were wrong to claim that was impossible.

So can you use the "unknown unknowns" argument to "prove" that it is possible the robot could become omniscient?

I used the "unknown unknowns" to show that your specific examples could not be shown to be impossible,

 

[JohnClay]

You gave specific examples like transferring information across great distances. You were wrong to claim that was impossible.

You said:

Nothing that you argued was impossible was actually impossible​

But all you've provided evidence for is:

At least one thing you argued was impossible was actually possible​

I maintain that some things I argued were impossible (like omniscience and omnipotence for the robot) were impossible.

I used the "unknown unknowns" to show that your specific examples could not be shown to be impossible,

The point of my examples was to support my belief that the robot can not become omniscient and omnipotent. Is my conclusion incorrect?

 

[Moral Orel]

The point of my examples was to support my belief that the robot can not become omniscient and omnipotent. Is my conclusion incorrect?

We agree on the conclusion. Your examples aren't evidence for that conclusion.

 

[Moral Orel]

Why is that funny? If I said "I think it's going to rain today. The sky is overcast and dark" and you said "I also think it's going to rain today. I had a dream about water last night." do you see how we can have the same conclusion even though my evidence is good and your evidence is bad?

 

[JohnClay]

Why is that funny? If I said "I think it's going to rain today. The sky is overcast and dark" and you said "I also think it's going to rain today. I had a dream about water last night." do you see how we can have the same conclusion even though my evidence is good and your evidence is bad?

No it's like this:
You: It's not going to rain today.
Me: Yes it will rain today.... I had a dream about water last night.
You: That argument is invalid...
later...
You: It will rain today
Me: Was my conclusion incorrect?
You: We agree on the conclusion. Your examples aren't evidence for that conclusion.

Remember you were originally saying that it is plausible for a robot to become omniscient (which according to you involves knowing everything concerning reality, not just the robot's universe)

 

[Moral Orel]

Remember you were originally saying that it is plausible for a robot to become omniscient

Are you familiar with the concept of "for the sake of argument"? Because I already mentioned the unknown unknowns in the other thread, I wasn't unaware of it, I made a thread on it in this very forum years ago, so it isn't as though I'm flip flopping.

Your arguments about whether or not the robot could be omniscient were a distraction from the point that a maximally great being could be contingent.