The so-called omnimax attributes

[Eucharisted]

Except I am not discussing God at all. I am discussing a few secular (non-theological) concepts, which are habitually associated with God. That is not the same. Do you understand the difference? Are you sufficiently “learned” to comprehend this simple distinction? One can only hope, even if there in no real foundation to be hopeful.

Dancing around the issue, eh Spock? What music are you dancing to?

Others can do whatever they want.

Exactly.

 

[Spock]

Dancing around the issue, eh Spock? What music are you dancing to?

Well my hope was feeble, and it turned out to be false. Good bye.

 

[Eucharisted]

I am pretty sure the reason you have an issue with the omni’s is because they pertain to God, given your previous posts on God. Well, you can’t chuck out the bucket and still have the water; if you want to discuss God’s attributes, than you also gotta discuss God. Why? Because the omni’s aren’t just concepts; they are attributes, which belong to something that has them. Ever wonder why superheroes have powers or why ghosts can go through solid walls? Those are their attributes, and they aren’t just concepts. The same goes for the omni’s. Even if they’re made up, they are attached to a being or beings that have them. So like I said and I repeat: To discuss God’s attributes, you must also discuss God.

 

[Spock]

I am pretty sure the reason you have an issue with the omni’s is because they pertain to God, given your previous posts on God. Well, you can’t chuck out the bucket and still have the water; if you want to discuss God’s attributes, than you also gotta discuss God. Why? Because the omni’s aren’t just concepts; they are attributes, which belong to something that has them. Ever wonder why superheroes have powers or why ghosts can go through solid walls? Those are their attributes, and they aren’t just concepts. The same goes for the omni’s. Even if they’re made up, they are attached to a being or beings that have them. So like I said and I repeat: To discuss God’s attributes, you must also discuss God.

Well, this is better. Correction for the highlighted text. They are alleged, supposed attributes of God. If the concepts themselves turn out to be undefinable in a sensible way, then they will not be the attributes of anything. I am not trying to declare (ex-cathedra) that these concepts are nonsensical, I am inviting others to give their (name removed by moderator)ut and see where the conversation might lead. But to repeat, whether these concepts can be viewed as attributes, hinges upon the question: “do these concepts make sense”? If you wish to participate, you will be welcome. (The reason I am answering your post, despite the previous “good-bye” is simple. I am almost “infinitely” patient, and like to give many opportunities to redeem yourself, before I would completely disregard you. And this is not meant to be a put-down, rather an encouragement. There are quite a few people whose posts I will never answer, because they have proved, over and over that they are blithering idiots. Names are withheld, as per forum rules.)

Now, if you are interested, tell me your opinion about the question I asked: “does omniscience include knowledge of a nonexistent object or event” - the example: “would omniscience include the knowledge of a book, which was never written and will never be written because the author was never born?”.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I would like you to read the exchange with Katholish, where we are in the middle of this discussion.

i have now, if something doesnt exist it is nothing, and then not a possiblity.

Strangely enough, early theologians and philosophers used the same literal translation as you did for “omniscience”. They asserted that God can do literally “everything”. But let’s concentrate on “omniscience”.

ok.

Very hazy. What is good, and for whom is it good? What is good for the goose, is it automatically good for the gander? The existence of conflicting “goods” should not be overlooked. I propose to leave this one alone for the time being. Omniscience is complicated enough.

ok, but goodness is only from the point of G-d. people place way too much importance on their thoughts and feelings, G-d knows best.

Only “everywhere”? Or also “everywhen”? Even in non-existent places in never existed events? You see, the literal translation is quite unsatisfactory.

non-existent is nothing and doesnt exist, there is then no place in “nothing” for anything to exist because there is no such thing as nothing. events that never existed are also a derivation of nothing, creating the same circumstance. they are nothing, therefore there is nothing to know about them.

Well, you did make a judgment call about my possible intent. And now you make another judgment call about my knowledge of the Scriptures. :tsktsk:

and again you wrongly interpret the meaning of Scripture, it has to do with judging your ultimate fate, no in making judgenment calls. after all every decision is a judgement call of one kind or another.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Now, if you are interested, tell me your opinion about the question I asked: “does omniscience include knowledge of a nonexistent object or event” - the example: “would omniscience include the knowledge of a book, which was never written and will never be written because the author was never born?”.

I think not. Here’s why:

Contingent beings have contingent possibilities. I can imagine eating a sandwich or eating pizza for dinner – as soon as I imagine these things they become objects (my thoughts) and they can be known. But I can consider “what might be”, which does not exist. In this sense, it seems like I can contemplate the contents of (for example) a book that Tolstoy did not write. But these are simply created things within my mind. My thoughts have existence, and I am capable of thinking of many logically possible “things”, but these are “things” of a very queer sort – they are apparitions of the mind.

An omniscient being knows every"thing" that every being thinks, as well as those things that are. But he cannot know those things that are not, because there is nothing to know about them. There is no necessity of contemplation (considering possibilities) in such a being, because all is immediately known. All is actual; nothing not actual is possible – because possibility would have to involve a “change in the opinion”, as it were, of the omniscient being, which is not possible.

If an omniscient being were capable of change, then it would not be omniscient – because it would already have its own future opinion, and thus already have changed (a contradiction).

I think this should work as a good omni-starting point.

 

[Katholish]

Spock,

And that is where the problem lies. If I have a coin in my hand, and decide to flip it, I can “know” that the result will be either “heads” or “tails” (or maybe someone will catch it in mid-air, and the coin never lands). But that hardly qualifies as “omnisicence”, does it? To have “knowledge” about the potentials it is not sufficient to know all the possible alternatives, but also to “know” which one will be actualized.

To have a complete knowledge of the potentials would seem to knowledge of all possible alternatives. Omniscience would seem to combine this kind of knowledge with a knowledge of what will be actualized. I am not really seeing the problem here.

Let’s finish up my previous question: “what does it mean that omniscience includes the knowledge of a never-happened event?”. I think that would be total nonsense. Something that never happened and will never happen, simply cannot be “known”. Do you agree with that?

No, I don’t agree at all. Can I have “knolwedge” of something potential that will not happen? Yes, I can think of many examples. Say for instance that I were to drop the keyboard I am typing on. I “know” that it will fall to the floor. I know this because my knowledge of the principles of gravity extends into the realm of what could potentially happen but doesn’t. Most theoretical knowledge extends into the realm of the potential, but it is nevertheless real knowledge.

Right on the money! So if omniscience would “know” the outcome of free decision (which has not been made yet) that would present some other serious problems, which must be investigated later on. Looks like that “omniscience” is still very hazy, and problematic. If, as you say that “it does not seem to be consistent with omniscience”, then "omniscience has to be redefined. Obviously the suggested definition (knowing all) is incorrect.

I know that you are trying to approach the concept of omniscience without referrence to God, but here we run into a little problem because the very concept of omniscience requires eternality–being outside of time. It is logically incoherent to posit omniscience within time, this I will grant you. Thus, insofar as a free will decision which has not been made yet from our temporal perspective yet will be made, from the perspective of eternity and omniscience has already been made. Omniscience would have to be able to view the future and past as if they were the present.

I suggest that there might be a limitation in “knowing” what a theoretical free agent would do (who will never actually exist), because I wonder if such a proposition involves a contradiction, i.e. theoretical free agent that will never exist do not have the potential to make free decisions. I just don’t know, the question has never come up for me before.

 

[Eucharisted]

Spock,

Since you seek to know what the omni’s are, than ponder this: If you were to think up a perfect being, what woul be his attributes? Now, there are two things to remember as you ponder this: 1) You are a finite being, so you cannot possibly perfectly explain the attributes of this being, but only know and express them in a human way, and 2) Since a perfect being is essentially self-sustaining, his attributes cannot be depending on things outside of him (for example, you cannot say “He would be all powerful because than He would create a perfect world” or “He would be all knowing because than He could stop people from evil, since He would know the future”).

 

[Spock]

i have now, if something doesnt exist it is nothing, and then not a possiblity.

Just to be sure that I understand correctly: “you say that if something does not exist, then it cannot be known”?

ok, but goodness is only from the point of G-d. people place way too much importance on their thoughts and feelings, G-d knows best.

This we can put on the back-burner for the time being. Though, when we shall return to it, I will disgaree.

non-existent is nothing and doesnt exist, there is then no place in “nothing” for anything to exist because there is no such thing as nothing. events that never existed are also a derivation of nothing, creating the same circumstance. they are nothing, therefore there is nothing to know about them.

This seems to clarify my question above. Am I right? If so, we are in agreement.

 

[Spock]

I think not. Here’s why:

Contingent beings have contingent possibilities. I can imagine eating a sandwich or eating pizza for dinner – as soon as I imagine these things they become objects (my thoughts) and they can be known. But I can consider “what might be”, which does not exist. In this sense, it seems like I can contemplate the contents of (for example) a book that Tolstoy did not write. But these are simply created things within my mind. My thoughts have existence, and I am capable of thinking of many logically possible “things”, but these are “things” of a very queer sort – they are apparitions of the mind.

An omniscient being knows every"thing" that every being thinks, as well as those things that are. But he cannot know those things that are not, because there is nothing to know about them. There is no necessity of contemplation (considering possibilities) in such a being, because all is immediately known.

Up until this point I agree with you.

All is actual; nothing not actual is possible – because possibility would have to involve a “change in the opinion”, as it were, of the omniscient being, which is not possible.

If an omniscient being were capable of change, then it would not be omniscient – because it would already have its own future opinion, and thus already have changed (a contradiction).

This is somewhat questionable. Since the world is not static, it constantly changes, therefore the the “knowledge” about it must change, too.

But your point is very important. Would omniscience include the knowledge of not-yet-happened events? And this is the whole problem. Something that has not happened yet, is not actual, rather a potential. If it is just a potential, it cannot be known - in the full sense of the word. It can be guessed, or surmised, or hypothesized, but cannot be known.

Yet, some events can be “known”, even if they have not happened yet - where “known” is not used rigorously, rather in the colloquial sense. If the event is governed by fully determisitic laws, and a full picture of “today” can be known, then the future event can be said to be “knowable”. The trouble is that there are very few (if any) fully deterministic events. For example: mathematically any model of weather prediction includes non-linear functions, and such functions are very “volatile” to the starting conditions. This is known as the butterfly effect. A very minor change in the starting condition can result in huge fluctuation.

And this brings up another point: can the present be fully known? The Hesienberg uncertainty principle says: no. Not even the present can be fully known. So where does that leave omniscience?

 

[Spock]

To have a complete knowledge of the potentials would seem to knowledge of all possible alternatives. Omniscience would seem to combine this kind of knowledge with a knowledge of what will be actualized. I am not really seeing the problem here.

To know what will be actualized is the crux of the event.

No, I don’t agree at all. Can I have “knolwedge” of something potential that will not happen? Yes, I can think of many examples. Say for instance that I were to drop the keyboard I am typing on. I “know” that it will fall to the floor. I know this because my knowledge of the principles of gravity extends into the realm of what could potentially happen but doesn’t. Most theoretical knowledge extends into the realm of the potential, but it is nevertheless real knowledge.

Aha. But this is only knowledge in the colloquial sense, it is only a very likely educated guess. As I said in the previous post, if the future is governed by true determinism, then having a full picture of “now” would allow an accurate prediction of the future. And that brings up other problems as I said in the previous post.

I know that you are trying to approach the concept of omniscience without referrence to God, but here we run into a little problem because the very concept of omniscience requires eternality–being outside of time. It is logically incoherent to posit omniscience within time, this I will grant you. Thus, insofar as a free will decision which has not been made yet from our temporal perspective yet will be made, from the perspective of eternity and omniscience has already been made. Omniscience would have to be able to view the future and past as if they were the present.

And that brings up another real problem. As far as we are concerned, the future is only a set of unrealized potentials, it is not actual. So, in order to make omniscience plausible, you have to discard this concept, and must assert that there is no past, present and future, everything is actual. That is contradicted by all of our assumptions about reality. Moreover, it leads to a logical contradiction. Namely: if something does not exist from our point of view, yet it exists from the omniscient beings point of view, then the same thing both exists and not exists depending on the perspective.

I suggest that there might be a limitation in “knowing” what a theoretical free agent would do (who will never actually exist), because I wonder if such a proposition involves a contradiction, i.e. theoretical free agent that will never exist do not have the potential to make free decisions. I just don’t know, the question has never come up for me before.

That is fair enough.

 

[Spock]

Now, let’s play with a thought experiment. Suppose that I challenge this allegedly omniscient entity to prove his omniscience. He is a nice guy and is willing to prove that he is really omniscient, and does know the future. He will offer me a game, in which I will roll die, and he will predict the precise outcome. But I am a born skeptic, and will retort that even if he can predict the outcome, it may just be a lucky guess, so I challenge him to predict when the dice will be rolled, with which hand will I toss the dice, and a whole lot of special circumstances. If he is willing to do that, he is trapped. As soon as he makes the prediction, I will purposefully not do what he predicts. If he says that I will roll in exactly 3 minues, I will not roll in three minutes. If he predicts that I will roll with my right hand, I will deliberately roll with my left hand, etc… And he cannot prevent me, as long as I have the freedom to do whatever I want to do.

Therefore it seems that omniscience can only be true if the agent (me) is deprived of his free will. Strange, eh?

 

[Betterave]

I have serious problems with the so called “omnimax” attributes. These are omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omnipresence, and they are not well defined. I have yet to see a coherent and rigorous definition of these terms. Take, whichever you want, and present a definition, so we can review it. Forget that these attributes are supposed to pertain to God. Let’s not drag God and his other alleged attributes into the discussion. I would prefer to examine these attributes on their own merit, and see if they make any sense. If the concepts themselves make sense, then (and only then) it can be examined if they can be properly attributed to God. If the concepts themselves are incoherent, they will not make sense, even if they are God’s attributes.

“Coherent and rigorous”… that’s going to be a judgment call right? Do you have coherent and rigorous definitions of ‘coherent’ and ‘rigorous’? Do you really know what you’re looking for? I think that you might do well to spend a good deal of time reflecting on this question.

Was it liquidpele that brought up the question, “Can God create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift?”? The same thing applies: has he thought about what he is asking? (The answer to his question, btw, is obviously no. To say yes would be to limit God’s power, to say no does not; if God cannot not be omnipotent (which is all that the dilemma posed by the question implies), this obviously doesn’t imply that God is not omnipotent.)

But enough about God. Can a being with finite intellect understand an infinite intellect? Hmmm… Is this not essentially your question Spock? Do you know the answer?

How about we start with an easier question: can a finite intellect understand itself?

 

[Betterave]

Now, let’s play with a thought experiment. Suppose that I challenge this allegedly omniscient entity to prove his omniscience. He is a nice guy and is willing to prove that he is really omniscient, and does know the future. He will offer me a game, in which I will roll die, and he will predict the precise outcome. But I am a born skeptic, and will retort that even if he can predict the outcome, it may just be a lucky guess, so I challenge him to predict when the dice will be rolled, with which hand will I toss the dice, and a whole lot of special circumstances. If he is willing to do that, he is trapped. As soon as he makes the prediction, I will purposefully not do what he predicts. If he says that I will roll in exactly 3 minues, I will not roll in three minutes. If he predicts that I will roll with my right hand, I will deliberately roll with my left hand, etc… And he cannot prevent me, as long as I have the freedom to do whatever I want to do.

Therefore it seems that omniscience can only be true if the agent (me) is deprived of his free will. Strange, eh?

I’d say that’s an easy one Spock: the omniscient guy tells a third party his prediction, not you; that way you can’t cheat (unless you’re ‘omniscient’ too), he can’t cheat, and ‘omniscience’ is demonstrated (not really, of course, but at least very nice omniscient guy passes your test).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Just to be sure that I understand correctly: “you say that if something does not exist, then it cannot be known”?

im saying that “nothing” cannot be known because it doesnt exist, it cannot exist, and therefore there is literally “nothing” to know.

This we can put on the back-burner for the time being. Though, when we shall return to it, I will disgaree.

ok

This seems to clarify my question above. Am I right? If so, we are in agreement.

im trying to say that in that case there is nothing to know.

 

[Cluny]

<<Let’s not drag God and his other alleged attributes into the discussion. I would prefer to examine these attributes on their own merit, and see if they make any sense.>>

May I paraphrase your request to see if I understand you properly?

You want to discuss the attributes of God without brining God into the conversation.

Have I got that right?

This makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Now, let’s play with a thought experiment. Suppose that I challenge this allegedly omniscient entity to prove his omniscience. He is a nice guy and is willing to prove that he is really omniscient, and does know the future. He will offer me a game, in which I will roll die, and he will predict the precise outcome. But I am a born skeptic, and will retort that even if he can predict the outcome, it may just be a lucky guess, so I challenge him to predict when the dice will be rolled, with which hand will I toss the dice, and a whole lot of special circumstances. If he is willing to do that, he is trapped. As soon as he makes the prediction, I will purposefully not do what he predicts. If he says that I will roll in exactly 3 minues, I will not roll in three minutes. If he predicts that I will roll with my right hand, I will deliberately roll with my left hand, etc… And he cannot prevent me, as long as I have the freedom to do whatever I want to do.

Therefore it seems that omniscience can only be true if the agent (me) is deprived of his free will. Strange, eh?

metaphysically time is a singularity. predictions, actions, outcomes all occupy the same now

 

[Spock]

I’d say that’s an easy one Spock: the omniscient guy tells a third party his prediction, not you; that way you can’t cheat (unless you’re ‘omniscient’ too), he can’t cheat, and ‘omniscience’ is demonstrated (not really, of course, but at least very nice omniscient guy passes your test).

The trouble is that I am very skeptical. I do not accept the testimony of this third party. I suspect that they are in it together, and therefore the testimony is not acceptable. You could have made up a different scenario, where the omniscient guy writes down his prediction and seals the envelope. I would not accept that either. It is easy to have many envelopes prepared, and any competent stage magician can assure that the “correct one” will be presented as evidence. If he would give the envelope directly to me, I would open it immediately.

In this case I only accept the one and only evidence, presented to me beforehand, so I can be absolutely assured of the prediction. No other method is acceptable. And then I will invoke my free will and make sure that the prediction fails. Cool, isn’t it?

 

[Spock]

<<Let’s not drag God and his other alleged attributes into the discussion. I would prefer to examine these attributes on their own merit, and see if they make any sense.>>

May I paraphrase your request to see if I understand you properly?

You want to discuss the attributes of God without brining God into the conversation.

Have I got that right?

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Not quite. The correct way to state would be: “You want to discuss the alleged attributes of God without brining God into the conversation.” And that makes a lot of sense. If the attributes turn out to be sensible, then it could be asked if God has these attributes. If the attributes are nonsensical, then the question: whether God has these attributes is meaningless.

 

[Spock]

metaphysically time is a singularity. predictions, actions, outcomes all occupy the same now

I don’t even understand this. The yesterday’s “me” is different from today’s “me”. Yesterday’s “me” does not exist any more - in any meaningful sense of “existence”. Tomorrow’s “me” does not exist yet. Time (whetever it is physically) is real. It is part of the Einsteinian world. To say that “everything happens” now is an unintelligible gobbledegook as far as I am concerned.