How omniscient is God?

[FractalFire]

I will try this once.

Bradski - look at my long post, #18. It doesn’t look a thing like you just described. Did you even read it? Did you not get it? What do you have an issue with? Can you make an actual argument or will there just be more rhetoric?

God is not “a being,” so He can’t be “a maximally great being” or “a necessary being,” though God is in a sense maximally great and is absolutely necessary.

While I agree with your criticism of Bradski – I think he is being somewhat overconfident about his grasp of arguments he doesn’t appear to have studied – how are you defining “being?” I was using it in the sense that we might say “person.” That is, not the physical embodiment of a person, but the actual person themselves – a consciousness, a self-aware entity. Of course, my grasp of philosophical definitions is somewhat shaky, so I quite probably used the wrong term. Why do you object to the use of this phrasing?

Also, in defense of my prior phrasing, I was using maximally great being as used in the ontological argument, which has been reformulated recently by Plantinga and defended by William Lane Craig (so the typical Thomist critique of Anselm’s suspicious formulation no longer applies, or so Craig argues, anyway). I’m not sure I accept the argument myself, but it seems like a good enough description of God’s nature for our purposes, so I went with it. See here for clarification:

reasonablefaith.org/misunderstanding-the-ontological-argument
reasonablefaith.org/questions-on-time-and-scary-monsters
reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-24

 

[Solmyr]

… we are confronted with the ultimate unanswerable question, why is there something rather than nothing?

Simple. Because “nothing” is not an ontologically existing object, it is only an “abstraction” or a “concept”. In other words: “nothing does not and cannot exist”.

The universe exists necessarily, and the Big Bang does not say that the universe “popped” into existence from the vast ocean of “nothing”. The universe has no “beginning”, because “beginning” is a concept which presupposes an “absolute time”.

Any metaphysics must start from the actual physics. Actual physics says that there is no time, space or causative relationship “outside” the universe; actually the phrase “outside the universe” is a meaningless utterance, just like the phrase “to the north from the North Pole”.

 

[e_c]

how are you defining “being?”

Is-ness.

Does that help? God isn’t something that can be strictly defined, because definitions involve a genus and a species. God can’t have a genus (and accordingly no species) because nothing is prior to Him to categorize Him as being “under.”

We speak familiarly of God as “a being” because that’s easier with our lexicon. If you want to go on a mental adventure, pick up Pseudo-Dionysius’s “Divine Names” and grab a cold one.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The universe exists necessarily …

And you know this how? It could only be necessary if it were eternal.

There is no proof that the universe is eternal, and abundant proof that the timeline of the universe was created along with the universe.

Now we know the universe exists, so we know that it was always possible that it should exist.

What we do not know, and can never discover through physics, is why it came to exist.

For that you have to go to metaphysics.

 

[Solmyr]

And you know this how? It could only be necessary if it were eternal.

What does the word “eternal” mean to you? If you think that “time” is a line from minus infinity to plus infinity (-∞, +∞), with the “now” somewhere in the middle, then you are wrong. This naïve concept of time was entertained in the times of Newton, but Einstein’s theory of relativity made this concept obsolete.

Time is undefined and cannot be defined “outside” the universe. Within the universe time is a geometrical half-line, starting from the expansion of the singularity. Think about it as the real numbers in the set of (0, +∞), where the “(” indicates that “0” is not included in the set. Just like there is no “smallest” positive integer, there is no “0” in time. I am pretty sure you will find this concept counterintuitive. But very few things are “intuitive” in reality.

Within the singularity time is undefined. Our current physics is unable to penetrate the first fractions of a second into the singularity. That is all we know. Before some “lover of scientism” will hop in, let’s just assert that there is no guarantee that science will ever crack this problem. Not that it matters.

What we do not know, and can never discover through physics, is why it came to exist.

There is NO “why” in nature. And it is incorrect to assume that the universe “came” into existence. The universe simply exists, and it MUST exist, because “nothing” cannot exist. Now that is simple metaphysics.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There is NO “why” in nature. And it is incorrect to assume that the universe “came” into existence. The universe simply exists, and it MUST exist, because “nothing” cannot exist. Now that is simple metaphysics.

Or simple-minded metaphysics.

Only by your fiat can you say there is no “why” in metaphysics.

I don’t have to accept your fiat now, do I?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There is NO “why” in nature. And it is incorrect to assume that the universe “came” into existence. The universe simply exists, and it MUST exist, because “nothing” cannot exist. Now that is simple metaphysics.

It is correct, according to the Big Bang, not to assume but to assert that the universe “came” into existence. The Big Bang does not assert that the universe MUST exist because “nothing” cannot exist. You can assert that, but the Big Bang does not. What the Big Bang asserts is that the universe “came” from something infinitely small, so small that the laws of physics we know about cannot possibly apply to it; something so small that it approached nil, nada, zero, zilch. … **NOTHING. **

Yes, the concept of Nothing is logically baffling, but that does not mean the concept does not point to the non-existence of the universe. It is for you to prove that the universe always existed. You cannot do that. Being baffled by the concept of Nothing proves nothing … except maybe that your mind cannot fathom the depths of the mind of God nor precisely how God produced the universe by his own fiat.

 

[e_c]

Just because “nothing” does not positively exist does not mean that there must be something that positively exists.

There do exist things that are unnecessary. If it is possible to conceive of something not existing, it does not need to exist absolutely speaking.

We know that God exists because other stuff exists, so we know that there must always at least be God. But that does not necessitate that there is a universe, except by “relative necessity,” which is dependent upon our experience of there actually being something other than God in existence.

 

[Bradski]

?..the universe “came” from something infinitely small, so small that the laws of physics we know about cannot possibly apply to it; something so small that it approached nothing.

Just pointing out that all we need to do is highlight a different word to show that you agree with the the proposition.

 

[Solmyr]

Just because “nothing” does not positively exist does not mean that there must be something that positively exists.

Why? If there is no such “thing” as “nothing”, then “something” must exist. You may say that this “something” is God, while I say that it is the universe. I can point to the universe and show you that it exists. You don’t have this “privilege”. You cannot present God for examination. So you only have an unsubstantiated hypothesis, nothing else.

We know that God exists because other stuff exists, so we know that there must always at least be God.

That is the quintessential “cart in front of the horse” type argument. From the existence of the cart, you cannot deduce the existence of the horse.

 

[e_c]

My goodness. If you want to misunderstand it then you will misunderstand it.

There does not have to be a universe.

But since there is a universe, there must be a God. (We see the effect, we can learn about the cause.) So, we know that there is always God, as an absolute condition.

Start another thread if you want to try to knock down the cosmological argument (or argument from necessity, which is more along these lines we are discussing here, having to do with “nothing” and “necessity” and the “absolute”).

 

[Bradski]

But since there is a universe, there must be a God. (We see the effect, we can learn about the cause.) So, we know that there is always God…

And this would be the God in which you believed before you came across all these arguments. How handy was that! I mean, you could have been a Hindu and not believed in God in which case…well, I don’t actually know what happens there.

Either you suddenly realise that you have been believing the wrong things all your life or, something which is galactically more likely, you will apply these arguments to what you already believe.

This, ec, is your biggest problem. Notwithstanding most of the unwarrented assumptions within the arguments, they can all be used to confirm the existence of any deity or deities or anything at all that you claim is the first cause.

God is considered a triune in any case. Why are you telling us that there must have been a single cause? Well, it’s because you already started with the answer before you started laying out someone else’s arguments. Which have been set out to reach a conclusion which has already been reached.

Every effect has at least one cause. But you demand that it must be only one. Because otherwise… It can’t have been God
.
If something is created, whatever caused it to be created does not necessarily have control over it from the point of creation. But you demand that it must. Because otherwise…it’s not God.

If something is created, there is no logical requirement for whatever that was to have knowledge of how it will evolve. But you demand that it must. Because otherwise…it’s not God.

If it was created and it was what we might consider to be a god, then there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to suggest that the deity (for lack of a better term) has any interest in some late developing mammal that can be found scratching around on a small rock in an insignificant solar system in the outer suburbs of a nondescript Galaxy. But you demand that it must. Because otherwise…it’s not God.

Do you catch my drift? I’m not sure how you could answer any of these points. But I have a pretty good idea how you will. You’ll simply repeat them.

 

[e_c]

Do you honestly think that defending a position necessarily reveals a bias? Even if it does, that does not make that position wrong.

It puzzles me why you are on this forum. Why exactly do you bother? I read your post on the thread where you explained why you “stuck around,” but why exactly do you care to try to assert your atheism repeatedly in threads about God’s characteristics? It’s Sisyphustic.

I made a real argument that has stood the test of time and become a cornerstone of Western philosophy. I don’t think that you’ve given it real consideration. We could go back and forth endlessly with your schtick that “you believe it, so your arguments about it can’t be trusted,” which is what your post basically says, along with an undercurrent of, “If it works, it’s too convenient, and if it doesn’t work, then HA!” I could give that right back to you, but it’s not dialectic, it’s rhetoric. “Donald Trump for philosopher-king! Hoorah!” I refuse.

I don’t care to go through a longer and more detailed argument with you until you show that you actually give real attempts at understanding the briefer ones that I make. It’s a waste of time. Give a real look at your counter points and the points that you’re trying to counter. Yikes.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Just pointing out that all we need to do is highlight a different word to show that you agree with the the proposition.

The** approach **to nothing suggest there is a nothing to approach.

What that nothing is cannot be fathomed, as Solmyr rightly offers.

He denies there is a nothing because the assertion **nothing exists **reduces itself to an absurdity.

No one on our side pretends that Nothing Exists What we affirm is that Something came into being that Was Not. Nor do we pretend that is a event that makes sense in traditional logic, since the miracle of the Creation was not following human logic but rather creating circumstances by which it would eventually be possible for human logic to appear in the universe because God created the universe is such a way that it could be intelligible and logical.

 

[e_c]

since the miracle of the Creation was not following human logic but rather creating circumstances by which it would eventually be possible for human logic to appear in the universe because God created the universe is such a way that it could be intelligible and logical

“In the beginning was the Word…”

It’s all orderly right from the get-go. The act of creation makes sense when we look back on it.

There is a lot of trouble throwing around the word “nothing,” especially with this kind of discussion. Heidegger had a ball with it. It can even be confusing in normal situations. “I like nothing better than hot dogs, but salad is better than nothing.”

There is more useful terminology out there… “privation” is a good one, as is “prime matter.”

 

[Solmyr]

No one on our side pretends that Nothing Exists What we affirm is that Something came into being that Was Not.

The usual question is “how can something come out of nothing”. And then it is “assumed” that the universe just “popped” into existence from “nothing”. So, yes, you do say that the non-believers assert that the universe came into existence, that something came out of nothing. We do not say that.

 

[Bradski]

Do you honestly think that defending a position necessarily reveals a bias? Even if it does, that does not make that position wrong.

If you know the answer you want before you start looking for the evidence as to what the answer might be, then that might suggest to some that you are not being entirely honest with yourself.

I made a real argument that has stood the test of time and become a cornerstone of Western philosophy. I don’t think that you’ve given it real consideration. We could go back and forth endlessly with your schtick that “you believe it, so your arguments about it can’t be trusted,” which is what your post basically says, along with an undercurrent of, “If it works, it’s too convenient, and if it doesn’t work, then HA!”

I don’t want to be picky, but you didn’t make an argument. You paraphrased an old one. And maybe I haven’t considered it? Well, I spend quite a lot of time investigating why I could be wrong. I look for arguments that run counter to what I believe. You might have garnered that from the ‘why are you here?’ thead. I don’t post on atheist forums because it’s not going to help me having a lot of people continually telling me that I’m right. I need the opposing view, thanks for asking.

I have never taken the approach that I need to tell all of you why I am right. Everything I post is in response to positions that Christians say they hold. Then we have what you might have called earlier a dialectical discussion. Where both sides are meant to make an honest appraisal of the other’s position. As opposed to, I dunno, claiming that they haven’t given it due consideration without any evidence for that whatsoever.

And when you suggest that I am saying that if it works it is too convenient, then you have missed the point completely. It is not merely convenient for you. It is convenient for anyone who wants to propose a creator. Literally anyone. The argument (I nearly said ‘your’ argument) does absolutely nothing to indicate the God in whom you believe.

In your mind it does, but that is because you STARTED with your God and then looked for arguments to support your belief. And those arguments, not being specific to your God, are then rendered useless.

I don’t care to go through a longer and more detailed argument with you until you show that you actually give real attempts at understanding the briefer ones that I make. It’s a waste of time.

Life is roo short. I’d rather you spend your time productively. Maybe look for arguments that counter your own beliefs and play the Devil’s Advocate. Have a little internal ‘dialectical’ and take the part of a Hindu who is using the exact same arguments.

You’ll end up in a mental shouting match. ‘No, this applies to MY God, not YOURS!’ You might win if you can shout the loudest.

 

[FractalFire]

The usual question is “how can something come out of nothing”. And then it is “assumed” that the universe just “popped” into existence from “nothing”. So, yes, you do say that the non-believers assert that the universe came into existence, that something came out of nothing. We do not say that.

I wouldn’t recommend using “we” so liberally, there are plenty of atheists who might disagree. For example, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing by Laurence Krauss. (Of course, his “nothing” is a quantum vacuum, which is not *my *nothing, but whatever.) Whether or not the something from nothing arguments happens to be a good criticism of your position, it is a good criticism of some other positions. For people who don’t propose that the universe came from nothing, most apologists will use different tactics, depending on what they believe.

Further, it should be pointed out that “How can something come from nothing?”
or more accurately “why is there anything at all instead of nothing?” is a legitimate philosophical question that needs to be asked.

 

[Solmyr]

I wouldn’t recommend using “we” so liberally, there are plenty of atheists who might disagree. For example, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing by Laurence Krauss. (Of course, his “nothing” is a quantum vacuum, which is not *my *nothing, but whatever.)

How could it be “whatever”? That is the pertinent issue. “Nothing” is not quantum vacuum. Nothing is an abstraction, a concept, which has no referent in reality. Mathematics deals with sets. A simple set is {1, 2, 3,…} the set of positive integers. There is a special set, the null-set, which is described with the symbol of ∅ and which is {} a set with no elements.

Whether or not the something from nothing arguments happens to be a good criticism of your position, it is a good criticism of some other positions. For people who don’t propose that the universe came from nothing, most apologists will use different tactics, depending on what they believe.

I would like to meet with a real apologist, who is able and willing to conduct a conversation on the basis of physical reality. No luck as of yet.

Further, it should be pointed out that “How can something come from nothing?” or more accurately “why is there anything at all instead of nothing?” is a legitimate philosophical question that needs to be asked.

As far as I am concerned, it is exactly as legitimate as asking what exists on the other side of the Mobius strip, or what exists to the north of the North Pole, or how many ounces of water can you put into a Klein-bottle. Or how many angels fit on the tip of a needle, or when did you stop beating your wife? Just because a question is a syntactically valid construct, it does not make it a valid inquiry.

“Nothing” does not and cannot exist as an entity. So the question you presented is not a legitimate question. All we can say is that the universe exists. Modern physics explains that space, time, causation are only defined within the universe. So the questions like “what exists outside the universe, or what existed before the universe, or what caused the universe” are all nonsensical, irrational, illegitimate questions. Any apologist who does not understand that is not worthy to listen to.

 

[FractalFire]

How could it be “whatever”? That is the pertinent issue. “Nothing” is not quantum vacuum. Nothing is an abstraction, a concept, which has no referent in reality. Mathematics deals with sets. A simple set is {1, 2, 3,…} the set of positive integers. There is a special set, the null-set, which is described with the symbol of ∅ and which is {} a set with no elements.

Well, good for you for getting it right (that’s close to my definition), but we still have to deal with those who don’t get something that simple. (Namely Krauss, who seems to be mildly confused about what nothing means). So don’t fault my side if your side happens to be full of people who can’t grasp the definition of nothing properly.

“Nothing” does not and cannot exist as an entity

That doesn’t mean something has to exist. Just because I can’t have “0” dollars properly speaking doesn’t mean I must have at least one dollar. So far as we can tell, our universe is not required to be the way it is. It could conceivably be quite different. This means it cannot be the final cause, because whatever that is, it must be absolute and unchangeable, i.e. could not be otherwise, must be by itself.

Modern physics explains that space, time, causation are only defined within the universe. So the questions like “what exists outside the universe, or what existed before the universe, or what caused the universe” are all nonsensical, irrational, illegitimate questions. Any apologist who does not understand that is not worthy to listen to.

Yes, I agree that space and time did not exist. From William Lane Craig:

"Notice that there’s simply nothing prior to the initial boundary of space-time. Let’s not be misled by words. When cosmologists say, “There is nothing prior to the initial boundary,” they do not mean that there is some state of affairs prior to it, and that is a state of nothingness. That would be to treat nothing as though it were something! Rather they mean that at the boundary point, it is false that “There is something prior to this point.”

Read more: reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles-the-kalam-cosmological-argument#ixzz3yDGUWloT

Causality is another question, mostly because some versions of causality proposed by philosophers aren’t at all like the causality we normally think of (i.e. Physical interaction). Something certainly seems to have caused the universe, primarily on the basis that the universe is not, as I said, an explanation for itself. The universe could have many different laws – yet it does not. It doesn’t have to have matter (or perhaps even space-time), but it does. It is not its own explanation, and therefore seems to require something else to explain it. I would recommend reading Craig. He agrees with much of what you’ve just said, by the way.