The Free Will Problem

[Sarpedon]

And just like omnipotence - which is not “God can do anything” - it is “God can do anything that can be done”, omniscience is not “knowing everything”, it is “knowing everything that can be known”. Same principle!

And you are defining what God can know.

 

[Sarpedon]

“Knowing” is to have information about something. It is not the human way of “knowing”. It is the only way of knowing.

Prove it.

Was logic created by God, or is logic something that limits God as well?

I would think, (but aren’t sure) that it is inherent in God’s nature. Therefore, it is not created, but God is not bound by it.

 

[ateista]

And you are defining what God can know.

Just like theologians define what God can do. What is the difference?

 

[Sarpedon]

Just like theologians define what God can do. What is the difference?

Theologians in no way define what God can do, rather they try to figure out what He can do. Do you have an argument against God being able to know the thing in question?

 

[ateista]

I suppose you could say that the essence of a pebble is a small aggregation of certain types (or type) of molecules (that form geologic structures) in the solid state. The same for a grain of sand, although it is smaller and sometimes composed of a single molecule. The essence of a neutrino would be a parallel case. I’m not sure with thought, but depending on how you define it I would guess that it is the functioning of the mind (for me, it is not only physical).

Sorry, but that is not satisfactory. The essence (if there is such a thing in a meaningful manner) should allow us to differentiate between two similar but not identical instances of “pebbles” or hydrogen atoms, or neutrinos… and your definition does not allow that.

I don’t really see your point here.

The point is that “essence” is not a meaningful term, and it still presupposes existence (which is a meaningful term).

Keep in mind that so far you have only listed non-sentient things. Things get more complex when you add souls and intellects and such.

If a term is not meaningful for simple things, then it is not meaningful for complex ones.

That isn’t inherently impossible, but it would render it essentially impossible to know any attributes of God through reason.

If that is the case, then we should be silent about God in every respect. It is not meaningful to say that “God exists” or “God is love”, either. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. Either we can speak of God in a meaningful manner, or we cannot. You cannot say that we can speak of God when it is convenient and decline the conversation when it is not.

This “cop-out” happens all the time. I bring up a problem, examine it in depth, and all of a sudden the believers declare that it is a “mystery”, it belongs to the realm of “faith”, and it cannot be examined in a purely rational fashion. Sorry, but I don’t accept it. Are there some things that can be discussed about God in a purely rational, meaningful fashion? And if the answer is “yes”, then what are they?

 

[ateista]

Theologians in no way define what God can do, rather they try to figure out what He can do. Do you have an argument against God being able to know the thing in question?

Sure I do. If someting does not exist, then there is no way to have information about it. In other words, it is unknowable. It is exactly as nonsensical as saying that God can do anything - even create a married bachelor.

 

[Sarpedon]

Just like theologians define what God can do. What is the difference?

Demonstrating that humans cannot know the thing in question is not a real argument against a hypothetical deity’s ability to know it. I will attempt to answer your posts in depth tomorrow.

 

[ateista]

Prove it.

It is axiomatic and obvious. Show me a way that something nonexistent is “knowable”.

I would think, (but aren’t sure) that it is inherent in God’s nature. Therefore, it is not created, but God is not bound by it.

If God is not “bound” (limited) by logic, then he can create a 4-sided triangle. Can he?

 

[Sarpedon]

If God is not “bound” (limited) by logic, then he can create a 4-sided triangle. Can he?

Sorry, I goofed on my explanation. I meant that God is not bound by logic in the sense the He answers to something above Him. Correspond would be a better term than bound. No, He cannot create a 4 sided triangle.

 

[ateista]

Sorry, I goofed on my explanation. I meant that God is not bound by logic in the sense the He answers to something above Him. Correspond would be a better term than bound. No, He cannot create a 4 sided triangle.

Correspond is a good term. “Limited” is equally good - it carries no extra “baggage”. So God cannot do something that is nonsensical. I agree with you. Such a limitation does not “detract” from God omnipotence.

Now, let’s examine omniscience.

Let me give you a concrete example for knowledge: suppose that on a given week there is no winner on Powerball. What does it mean that God “knows” who is the winner on that specific week? There is no winner, so God cannot “know” who the winner is.

Isn’t that obvious? If something does not exist, it makes no sense to say that God knows it.

 

[gdibella]

No it means that God knows that there is no winner in Powerball that week. For statements contrary to fact (such as in “that there is a winner in the given week in Powerball”) God knows that these statements are not true.
I don’t understand how this is a dilemma, unless God is compelled to invent a winner so that way he “knows” who the winner is in the given week.

God doesn’t have another species of knowledge about non-existent worlds.

 

[ateista]

No it means that God knows that there is no winner in Powerball that week. For statements contrary to fact (such as in “that there is a winner in the given week in Powerball”) God knows that these statements are not true.
I don’t understand how this is a dilemma, unless God is compelled to invent a winner so that way he “knows” who the winner is in the given week.

God doesn’t have another species of knowledge about non-existent worlds.

Thank you! That was the whole point. If something does not exist, then it has no attributes that can be known. The name of this week’s Powerball winner is not knowable - if there is no winner this week.

Hopefully everyone will understand now that the prerequisite of knowledge is existence. If something does not exist, it is not knowable, though the fact that it does not exist - is knowable.

 

[davidv]

Thank you! That was the whole point. If something does not exist, then it has no attributes that can be known. The name of this week’s Powerball winner is not knowable - if there is no winner this week.

Hopefully everyone will understand now that the prerequisite of knowledge is existence. If something does not exist, it is not knowable, though the fact that it does not exist - is knowable.

Based on this logic:I know God, therefore He exists.

 

[ateista]

Based on this logic:I know God, therefore He exists.

Oh, please. Don’t pull my leg. I did not say if someone claims “knowledge” of a dragon then a dragon exists. It goes only in the other direction: “if there are no dragons, then dragons are not knowable”.

 

[davidv]

Oh, please. Don’t pull my leg. I did not say if someone claims “knowledge” of a dragon then a dragon exists. It goes only in the other direction: “if there are no dragons, then dragons are not knowable”.

It seems to me that the same can be said of your assertion that there is nothing spiritual.

 

[gdibella]

No, your premise is true only in a limited sense. It is not true that existence as of a certain time-frame precedes knowledge. ** The conclusion of our agreed statement (There is no winner in powerball) is that statements contrary to fact cannot be known at any point in time. (If there is no winner this week in powerball at no time can anyone name a winner, even an omniscient God.) **

This is separate from the issue of God knowing the future. The statements describing future events are not contrary-to-fact but describing events in the future that will occur.
Fore-knowledge, pre-science, pro-videntia, all mean that God is seeing all events in one view. The future events from our time-frame are not so for God, as he exists outside time.
Thus, existence is not the prerequisite to knowledge in an unqualified way. Existence precedes knowledge only in that a person within time cannot have knowledge of non-existent entities.

Bt, God is not within time and thus can have knowledge of events that happen in the future. **God knows the future because it does exist for him-- right now, as we speak. **

So God does not have knowledge of non-existent entities, as these future events currently and continually exist for him.

 

[ateista]

It seems to me that the same can be said of your assertion that there is nothing spiritual.

Except I did not say that there in nothing “spiritual”, I merely said that I do not believe that “spiritual” is a meaningful term, and therefore I do not believe that such an entity exists. Big difference… but let’s not derail the conversation.

At this current point it seems that we can agree on one thing: “if something does not exist, it is unknowable to everyone, including God.”

 

[davidv]

Except I did not say that there in nothing “spiritual”, I merely said that I do not believe that “spiritual” is a meaningful term, and therefore I do not believe that such an entity exists. Big difference… but let’s not derail the conversation.

At this current point it seems that we can agree on one thing: “if something does not exist, it is unknowable to everyone, including God.”

Much of what you write seems to strongly imply that there can only be that which is observable.

I am not sure I can agree with your last statement because I am not sure it means what the words say to me. If I am planning a project in my shop, can I “know” the thing I have yet to produce? How does the phase “does not exist” apply to this scenario?

 

[ateista]

No, your premise is true only in a limited sense. It is not true that existence as of a certain time-frame precedes knowledge. ** The conclusion of our agreed statement (There is no winner in powerball) is that statements contrary to fact cannot be known at any point in time. (If there is no winner this week in powerball at no time** can anyone name a winner, even an omniscient God.)

This is separate from the issue of God knowing the future. The statements describing future events are not contrary-to-fact but describing events in the future that will occur.
Fore-knowledge, pre-science, pro-videntia, all mean that God is seeing all events in one view. The future events from our time-frame are not so for God, as he exists outside time.
Thus, existence is not the prerequisite to knowledge in an unqualified way. Existence precedes knowledge only in that a person within time cannot have knowledge of non-existent entities.

Bt, God is not within time and thus can have knowledge of events that happen in the future. **God knows the future because it does exist for him-- right now, as we speak. **

So God does not have knowledge of non-existent entities, as these future events currently and continually exist for him.

You are jumping too far ahead. Better take small steps.

The next question is to establish if existence is relative or absolute. Knowledge about existence is something that can only be explored after we examine the nature of “existence”.

I maintain that existence is absolute. If something exists, then this fact is not contingent upon the “observer”. Of course one observer may not know about the existing object, but this lack of knowledge does not make the existence questionable.

This has nothing to do with being within time, or outside time. If something does not exist, it is not knowable, if something does exist, it is knowable. That is all I am talking about.

Thus, existence is not the prerequisite to knowledge in an unqualified way. Existence precedes knowledge only in that a person within time cannot have knowledge of non-existent entities.

This is incorrect. Something either exists or not. Where and when is not relevant. Existence is an absolute prerequisite for knowledge. The fact that we are constrained by time only limits our knowledge, but not what makes knowledge possible - namely existence.

 

[ateista]

Much of what you write seems to strongly imply that there can only be that which is observable.

“Observe” is a very broad term. We cannot observe what goes on within a black hole, because no information can emerge from a black hole. The gravity well will prevent even light to escape so we cannot gain information (knowledge). We can hypothesize, but that is all.

None of these mean that a black hole does not exist. Our incapability of observation what goes on inside a black hole does not mean that the inside of a black hole does not exist.

I am not sure I can agree with your last statement because I am not sure it means what the words say to me. If I am planning a project in my shop, can I “know” the thing I have yet to produce? How does the phase “does not exist” apply to this scenario?

You can plan ahead, you can hope that your plan can be carried out. You can imagine how the project will unfold. These all you can do. None of them qualifies as “knowledge”. They are hopes, suppositions, plans, etc… but not “hard knowledge”. It is very important to distinguish between these terms.