What if God had a beginning?

[JohnClay]

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.

So at the moment you seem to say that nothing can be omniscient....
I talked about the problem with a robot becoming omniscient and you replied in post #28
Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

What makes it impossible to do these things? It's impossible with our current technology, sure. But we're talking about a robot with a billion years to advance technology at the rate of a computer's processor. What makes it impossible for any technology to be sufficiently advanced to do these things?

You didn't say that "for the sake of an argument" let's pretend that the robot could be omniscient - you seemed to say that it is not impossible for the robot to be omniscient.

Also in post #32:
Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

I know it seems unfathomable to you. That isn't a reason to say it's impossible though.

You seem to be insisting that omniscience is not impossible....

....Because who cares if he has complete control and knowledge over a simulation? That isn't genuine omnipotence or genuine omniscience

You seem to be saying that the robot could have "genuine" omniscience if it involves its own universe rather than a simulation....

In that thread I'm not aware of you saying that omniscience is in fact impossible... perhaps you did, but my earlier points in this post remain...

 

[Moral Orel]

You didn't say that "for the sake of an argument" let's pretend that the robot could be omniscient - you seemed to say that it is not impossible for the robot to be omniscient.

Yeah, but I did say "to do these things" didn't I? You made specific objections to what the robot could do, I argued against those specific objections. Look, I already beat you to proving that omniscience is impossible years ago:

Universal Uncertainty Principle

Do you think I was unaware of my own thread on the topic? If I wasn't ignoring this silly technicality for the sake of argument with someone else, what do you think I was doing? What nefarious works do you imagine I was up to?

You seem to be insisting that omniscience is not impossible....

No, I was insisting that you can't know that the specific things you listed were impossible.

You seem to be saying that the robot could have "genuine" omniscience if it involves its own universe rather than a simulation....

No, I said that having complete knowledge of one simulation inside an entire universe isn't omniscience.

In that thread I'm not aware of you saying that omniscience is in fact impossible

Why would I? I accepted the OPs claim of omnipotence and omniscience because showing omniscience and contingency being compatible spoke more directly to the argument made than quibbling about omniscience.

And here's me using the universal uncertainty principle on you in the thread:

You don't know whether or not you don't know something you don't know.

So what is your complaint specifically? That I didn't give you credit for having the correct conclusion via a bunch of impossible to prove premises?

 

[JohnClay]

Yeah, but I did say "to do these things" didn't I? You made specific objections to what the robot could do, I argued against those specific objections.

I said "To be truly omniscient would include knowing the exact state of every star in the universe" and that "our Sun (and its 10^57 atoms... that's a 1 with 57 zeroes)".

You were the one with an unusual claim (that a robot could become omniscient and omnipotent). So you're insisting that it is reasonable to think that a robot could constantly know the state of every atom in every star in the universe?

Look, I already beat you to proving that omniscience is impossible years ago:

Universal Uncertainty Principle

I'm talking about that other thread - where in the Anselm's thread did you clarify that you don't actually believe that omniscience is possible?

Do you think I was unaware of my own thread on the topic?

I was quoting you to show you what you actually wrote rather than trust your recollections...

If I wasn't ignoring this silly technicality for the sake of argument with someone else, what do you think I was doing? What nefarious works do you imagine I was up to?

Perhaps you changed your mind about omniscience.... that seems clear to me... or at least you gave the impression for your discussion with me in that thread that you are assuming that omniscience is possible.

No, I was insisting that you can't know that the specific things you listed were impossible.

So it is possible for a futuristic robot existing in our universe to constantly know all information related to every atom in the universe? (my example was the atoms in every star in the universe).

No, I said that having complete knowledge of one simulation inside an entire universe isn't omniscience.

You said:

Because who cares if he has complete control and knowledge over a simulation? That isn't genuine omnipotence or genuine omniscience​

You implied that complete knowledge over the robot's universe is omniscience. i.e. that in that case it is "genuine".

In that thread I'm not aware of you saying that omniscience is in fact impossible

Why would I? I accepted the OPs claim of omnipotence and omniscience because showing omniscience and contingency being compatible spoke more directly to the argument made than quibbling about omniscience.

I thought it was odd not not believe in something (omniscience) and not say so (in that thread) then spend a long time with examples based on the assumption that this (omniscience) is true...

And here's me using the universal uncertainty principle on you in the thread:

But I still think omniscience within a specific domain (like a simulation) makes sense. In this current thread you disagree.

So what is your complaint specifically? That I didn't give you credit for having the correct conclusion via a bunch of impossible to prove premises?

You seemed to give no hint in the other thread that you think omniscience is impossible. You could have said something like "I do actually think that omniscience is impossible but I'll just assume in this convoluted technology argument that omniscience is possible".
A far better argument I think would be to just use the established simulation argument. That a hacker could have omnipotence and omniscience. Don't you think that is a far simpler argument? It is far far more plausible. Your robot argument isn't plausible. It doesn't explain how it could constantly know that state of every atom in the universe. Your counter argument is "what about technology? Maybe it will be possible in the future."
Your counter-argument to the simulation example is just that it isn't "genuine" omniscience. Well I thought the robot didn't have genuine omniscience either!

 

[Moral Orel]

Perhaps you changed your mind about omniscience.... that seems clear to me...

I changed my mind about a decade ago when I first heard the UUP. It's evidenced that I held the position that omniscience is impossible as of four years ago on these forums.

or at least you gave the impression for your discussion with me in that thread that you are assuming that omniscience is possible.

Yes! Exactly! I was assuming for that thread that omniscience is possible. What is the problem? I tentatively held the position that omniscience was possible in a single thread to prove a point. I tentatively hold the position that God exists in threads all the time without explicitly stating, "for the sake of argument". Are you accusing me of flip-flopping on my atheism over it?

But I still think omniscience within a specific domain (like a simulation) makes sense. In this current thread you disagree.

Then you're the one with a contradictory position. You tell me omniscience is impossible, now you tell me it is possible. The UUP works inside your simulation idea as well, you know.

 

[JohnClay]

I changed my mind about a decade ago when I first heard the UUP. It's evidenced that I held the position that omniscience is impossible as of four years ago on these forums.

I mean between the Anselm's thread and this thread.

Yes! Exactly! I was assuming for that thread that omniscience is possible. What is the problem? I tentatively held the position that omniscience was possible in a single thread to prove a point. I tentatively hold the position that God exists in threads all the time without explicitly stating, "for the sake of argument". Are you accusing me of flip-flopping on my atheism over it?

But... you said "I was insisting that you can't know that the specific things you listed were impossible"
So are you saying that I am wrong in my belief that it is impossible for the robot to constantly know the state of every atom in the universe?
And why is omniscience in a simulation not "genuine"? That implies the omniscience in the robot's universe is "genuine".

Then you're the one with a contradictory position. You tell me omniscience is impossible, now you tell me it is possible.

I said I think it is impossible for the robot to become omniscient and that according to you any kind of omniscience is impossible.

The UUP works inside your simulation idea as well, you know.

I thought the creator of a simulation would know everything there is to know about the simulation. I think the only way that would not be the case is if some undetectable data was inserted there by someone else... (or the creator did it while under the control of another personality) Or their detection of the information is inaccurate. But they still roughly know everything. I mean they probably know 99.999% of the information even if a hacker is interfering....
Note that in the case of a simulation there are clear rational reasons why the creator of the simulation might not accurately know everything....
Unlike your robot example where your side of the argument was just that "maybe in the future there could be some kind of new technology...."
So do you insist that the robot example of omniscience and omnipotence is superior to the simulation example?
You'd say that it isn't omniscience isn't omniscience if it is "roughly" but the example of a simulation is stronger than the robot example.

 

[Moral Orel]

I mean between the Anselm's thread and this thread.

But I already held that omniscience is impossible years ago. You think I forgot for the duration of Anselm's thread in which I referenced the UUP and then suddenly remembered afterwards?

But... you said "I was insisting that you can't know that the specific things you listed were impossible"
So are you saying that I am wrong in my belief that it is impossible for the robot to constantly know the state of every atom in the universe?

You're wrong to believe it. Neither of us has any idea whether it is true or not.

And why is omniscience in a simulation not "genuine"? That implies the omniscience in the robot's universe is "genuine".

It doesn't imply that. Real omniscience is impossible, but to be genuinely describing omniscience you would have to be talking about knowledge of everything. You aren't even in the same concept of omniscience if you're talking about knowledge of one simulation within an entire universe.

I said I think it is impossible for the robot to become omniscient and that according to you any kind of omniscience is impossible.

Yes, according to me omniscience is impossible (there aren't different kinds). According to you omniscience is impossible, but it's also possible (in a simulation).

I thought the creator of a simulation would know everything there is to know about the simulation. I think the only way that would not be the case is if some undetectable data was inserted there by someone else... (or the creator did it while under the control of another personality) What do you think?

There you go. The creator of the simulation can't know that he knows there are no undetectable things in his simulation. Omniscience crushed!

 

[JohnClay]

Well it centers on this:

But... you said "I was insisting that you can't know that the specific things you listed were impossible"
So are you saying that I am wrong in my belief that it is impossible for the robot to constantly know the state of every atom in the universe?

You're wrong to believe it. Neither of us has any idea whether it is true or not.

If the robot is constantly aware of every atom in the universe then where is it storing its memory about its thoughts?

Do you have any belief as to the likelihood of my argument vs the counter argument? Are they equally likely? Is my belief more likely to be wrong?

 

[Moral Orel]

If the robot is constantly aware of every atom in the universe then where is it storing its memory about its thoughts?

Do you have any belief as to the likelihood of my argument vs the counter argument? Are they equally likely? Is my belief more likely to be wrong?

The likelihood of your argument (one can't be constantly aware of every atom in the universe) vs the likelihood of the counter argument (one can be constantly aware of every atom in the universe) is entirely unknown. For the record, I never made the counter argument. I only claimed it can't be ruled out.

Imagine a conversation about what is possible a thousand years ago. Do you think folks then had any place to speculate on what technological and scientific advances we would be making now? Now blow up that scale by a million and tell me you're fit to speculate on the technological and scientific advances an immortal robot could be making a billion years from now.

 

[JohnClay]

...Imagine a conversation about what is possible a thousand years ago. Do you think folks then had any place to speculate on what technological and scientific advances we would be making now? Now blow up that scale by a million and tell me you're fit to speculate on the technological and scientific advances an immortal robot could be making a billion years from now

I'm not talking about an individual technology like time travel or unlimited free energy... For the robot to have omnipotence and omniscience it needs technology to have every conceivable power...

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm not talking about an individual technology like time travel or unlimited free energy... For the robot to have omnipotence and omniscience it needs technology to have every conceivable power...

Yours is nothing but an argument from incredulity fallacy. Sorry.

 

[JohnClay]

Yours is nothing but an argument from incredulity fallacy. Sorry.

Well then it seems impossible for me to disprove your thought experiment about a robot becoming omniscient AND omnipotent. Maybe you could invent a religion due to how difficult it seems to give valid counter arguments... I mean it does center on an omnipotent omniscient being....
Edit: I guess you're talking about a possible being, not a definite being

 

[Moral Orel]

Edit: I guess you're talking about a possible being, not a definite being

There ya go, now yer gettin it.

 

[dóxatotheó]

I think a belief in a God can be compatible with the semi-scientific belief that God is the creator of a simulation. It would allow the creator to be omniscient and omnipotent within the simulation (since it is just a computer game).

I was under the impression that in traditional Christianity, God has no beginning.... apparently even the Father's son, Jesus, had no beginning... and this isn't compatible with the idea that the godhood started with the simulation.

In the history of the church has there ever been the belief that God or the Jesus part of God had a beginning? Is there a term for this concept?

we dont believe the Godhead started with the simulation the infinite being cannot be finite in one aspect because eternity is where all things came to exist and no church never believed that and the heresy you looking at is arianism