The so-called omnimax attributes

[Spock]

The idea of analyzing omniscience “on its own merit” is incoherent.

Is the idea of analyzing “love” on its own merit incoherent? It is alleged that omniscience is an attribute of God. If this attribute is impossible to “define” and “analyze” without referencing God, then it means nothing. You could also say that one of God’s attributes is “ifhetuenty” and when I ask what it is, you could say that without God, it cannot be defined, but it is something that only God has. Words, concepts are our way to attempt to understand the world. Knowledge, and obtaining knowledge are everyday endeavors. “Omniscience” is just an idea to bring this concept to some “Godly” heights. Of course, as my little thought experiment shows, it leads to paradox, if the OG wishes to prove his “omniscience”.

Of course there is a solution for the paradox, but the “price” is too high for the believers. The solution is simple: “omniscience” is to know everything, that can be known. Whatever does not exist, cannot be known - unless the process leading to it is fully deterministic. The “future” does not exist apart from being a potential - if there are free agents, whose actions are undetermined. Therefore omniscience does not entail knowledge of the future with free agents. Voila! No paradox.

On the other hand, if the OG would tell me: “IF you would toss those dice right now, then - knowing your muscle tensions, and the bumping of the dice into each other, and all the miriads of small but deterministic interactions - I can predict the results of those tosses” - then I would be playing the game, and I would duly impressed to see the result.

Let me explain. Imagine that there was nothing we could experience in the universe except hydrogen (don’t ask me how! ). With only that experience, someone came from “beyond” and started talking about the property of cohesion. We would think it was nonsense, of course, and demand that he explain how some such phenomena could be explained. To which he would respond, “Well, in order to understand cohesion, you have to know something about water: let me tell you about water.”

Without water, there is no cohesion. Without God, there is no omniscience. The relationship of cohesion to water is analogous to the relationship between omniscience and God. You cannot “pull the two things apart” and look at them out of context.

Not a good analogy. One can argue that only God can have omniscience, and that would be a different question. But to be able to define just “what” omniscience might be is a completely neutral and a-theological question.

No philosopher has satisfactorily explained how free will works, certainly not comprehensively, but theistic explanations have more merit than most. My idea, as we’ve discussed, is that God is capable of randomness (within certain parameters, which He sets out).

Philosophers cannot explain anything pertaining to reality. Biologists, computer science professionals, physicists will explain, if an explanation is possible. As far as I am concerned, the concept of free will is basic assumption. It cannot be proven or disproven.

Impossible for *humans *to measure. God sees everything. You may say that this seems unlikely to you, but it is by no means incoherent.

Invoking “magic” does not help!

 

[Contarini]

If these concepts are only meaningful if one presumes God, then they are not meaningful at all. Is “love” meaningful if God is not taken into consideration?

No. But “love” is not a term unique to God, is it?

But you are not under any obligation if you wish to stay away from this discussion. If you don’t understand or disagree with the propostion as presented, why do you even attempt to participate? Just to “rain” on our parade???

Certainly. Some parades should be rained on. Your way of setting this question up presumes the falsehood of classical theism. Therefore, it is a loaded question and those of us who adhere to classical theism are entitled to point this out, so that you don’t delude yourself or anyone else into thinking that you have posed a serious objection.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

And yet, you are talking to me… why bother?

Because I have hopes of persuading you to become a more interesting conversation partner. You are obviously intelligent and intellectually curious, and you care about truth. I have hope for you! (Not specifically talking about converting you here, just persuading you to engage classical theism instead of pretending it doesn’t exist and then attacking some weaker version of theism which fits into your framework more easily).

Edwin

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why not? Because the equation is objective? And it shows that time and space (along with matter/energy) are intrinsically combined into one STEM?

no, because it assumes that time exists. kind of begs the question doesnt it?

Is that an argument? If people are subjected to different experiences, then they will have different memories? Come on. That is worse than trivial.

you wanted an account for out similar memories of time. that is the answer. its been shown by studies repeatedly. sensory deprivation shows that dmemories of times passage can be quite different witthout external factors.

The “length” or “rate” of the change they perceive will be the approximately the same. Not precisely the same because we don’t have an equal and precise sense of time. That is why we use clocks and watches. Do they tick along subjectively, and it is just amazing coincidence that they happen to show the same time?

clocks dont measure time, they measure change. if i trim the teeth of a drive gear in one clock and not in a second clock they will show different times. time is an illusion, change is the reality.

Time is part of STEM. If STEM is real, then time is real. To assert that STEM is just an illusion, is equivalent to solipsism, as I already pointed out.

if you have no evidence that time is real, declaring it is part of STEM by fiat isnt going to work. its not a slide to solipsism because im not denying the reality of the universe, just the reailty of time.

where is your evidence that time exists?

 

[Betterave]

Originally Posted by Spirithound
Didn’t you know? No man can look on the face of God and live
I can’t see an alternative…your thought experiment seems to be valid (waiting for someone smarter than me…),

Posted by Spock
My heartfelt thanks to you. You are one of the very few people, who have the intellectual honesty not to evade, and have the courage to say it. It is almost unprecedented.

Please don’t encourage him Spirithound, now he’s going to start thinking that he’s being intellectually honest!

I do NOT have perfect recall, that is for sure. I cannot remember what I did when I was 3 years old - which was 60 years ago . And I am willing to admit that. But, I certainly can remember what happened a few minutes ago. If the OG (omnisicent guy) wishes to prove his omniscience - and he has only omniscience - then he cannot “manipulate” my memory just to “prove” his omniscience. That would be cheating, as I said.

Now for some intellectual honesty: what are you talking about Spock? “Manipulate your memory”? Did you forget to read what I wrote before responding to it again?

 

[Spirithound]

Correct. If he never plays the game, then omniscience is relegated to the realm of faith. However, this faith is irrational - since the attempted proof to substantiate it leads to its refutation.

Not quite. This faith would be irrational (and I use the term, attaching no negative connotations to it), but the attempted proof has not led to the refutation of omniscience. If you choose to believe in the OG, you still may, and be intellectually honest.

If the future, the past and the present all exist simultaneously, then there is no freedom. Then we really are just actors on the silver screen, playing out our predetermined parts.

I disagree with this. My first point: “predetermined parts”…Predetermined by who? Three options: The Omniscient Guy, the human himself, or a third party. I can’t articulate at this moment why I reject the option of predetermination by the OG or a third party, but that only leaves the human as responsible for his actions.

A second point follows: If humans have free will, then it takes just a little imagination to see oneself watching an improv troupe, but seeing the show at 4 distinct points, simultaneously. (not that I’m accusing you of having no imagination… )

 

[Betterave]

Hi all, I have a suggestion. Maybe it’s true that we cant’ talk about omniscience without talking about God and His other attributes. Maybe. But if you want to say so, explain why in a specific way that relates to Spock’s request for conceptual clarification. Don’t just say something that amounts to, “Can’t be done, won’t even try.” Maybe you’ll surprise yourselves as well as Spock. It’s not like we’re talking about God as He is in himself here - we’re just doing the best we can with our human concepts. There’s no reason not to clarify them one at a time.

 

[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?

Hey Spock, I just came up with an obvious solution that not even you will fail to see the cogency of - here it is:

Nice omniscient guy posts his prediction on this thread. You read it in your usual hasty way, accidentally fulfill the prediction three minutes later while attempting to purposely not fulfill it, and when you protest that nice omniscient guy was wrong and that you’ve proven he is not omniscient, nice omniscient guy just refers you back to his post where you can discover that you didn’t read carefully enough the first time. OOPS! He just passed your test again!!

(Anybody else get that eerie feeling like something similar to this scenario actually just recently happened?)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Is the idea of analyzing “love” on its own merit incoherent?

Please analyze “love” for me, on its own merit. You may not hypothesize the existence of rational beings (nor animals) in the process, for if you do, you will no longer be analyzing “love”, but “love as it relates to the properties of some living being.”

 

[liquidpele]

Please analyze “love” for me, on its own merit. You may not hypothesize the existence of rational beings (nor animals) in the process, for if you do, you will no longer be analyzing “love”, but “love as it relates to the properties of some living being.”

Ah, but perhaps that’s what he believes love is! It’s like asking if sadness exists. Does it exist if there is not a being to bring the emotion forth with tears and define it as such?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Ah, but perhaps that’s what he believes love is! It’s like asking if sadness exists. Does it exist if there is not a being to bring the emotion forth with tears and define it as such?

My point exactly.

 

[Spock]

No. But “love” is not a term unique to God, is it?

Knowledge is not either. If and when we shall get to the concept of “omnipotence” and “omnibenevolence” the same problem will arise. Concepts must stand on their own right, if they are supposed to be taken seriously. It is **assumed **that God exists. It is **assumed **that God has certain attributes. If those attributes actually are supposed to mean something, then it is irrational to assert that those attributes cannot be discussed without dragging God into the conversation. You may disagree with this framework, of course. If you do, you stated your position. We can leave it at that.

Certainly. Some parades should be rained on. Your way of setting this question up presumes the falsehood of classical theism. Therefore, it is a loaded question and those of us who adhere to classical theism are entitled to point this out, so that you don’t delude yourself or anyone else into thinking that you have posed a serious objection.

“Classical” theism? As opposed to some “neo-classical theism”? Of course I disagree with it. And with these posts I am attempting to show the reasons. Nevertheless I accept valid criticisms, but a simple, outright dismissal just does not cut it.

As for the “seriousness” of the objection, your opinion is yours. It is nor necessarily shared by others, based upon the interesting conversation that has developed.

 

[Spock]

Not quite. This faith would be irrational (and I use the term, attaching no negative connotations to it), but the attempted proof has not led to the refutation of omniscience. If you choose to believe in the OG, you still may, and be intellectually honest.

Correct.

It does not refute omniscience, it only refutes the **possibility **of proving it. Therefore it remains in the realm of faith. As I said, I have no quarrel with that. The point is, that any attempt to prove it would lead the refutation of omniscience. And if an object of faith would be invalidated by an attempt to prove it, I consider that faith irrational.

Let’s make a distinction here. An article of faith could be beyond proving it. Any attempt to prove would stay inconlusive. That kind of faith would not be irrational. Here the scenario is different. The actual attempt to prove it, would immediately disprove it. And that is very different.

 

[Spock]

Hi all, I have a suggestion. Maybe it’s true that we cant’ talk about omniscience without talking about God and His other attributes. Maybe. But if you want to say so, explain why in a specific way that relates to Spock’s request for conceptual clarification. Don’t just say something that amounts to, “Can’t be done, won’t even try.” Maybe you’ll surprise yourselves as well as Spock. It’s not like we’re talking about God as He is in himself here - we’re just doing the best we can with our human concepts. There’s no reason not to clarify them one at a time.

Thanks. That was my suggestion.

Hey Spock, I just came up with an obvious solution that not even you will fail to see the cogency of - here it is:

Nice omniscient guy posts his prediction on this thread. You read it in your usual hasty way, accidentally fulfill the prediction three minutes later while attempting to purposely not fulfill it, and when you protest that nice omniscient guy was wrong and that you’ve proven he is not omniscient, nice omniscient guy just refers you back to his post where you can discover that you didn’t read carefully enough the first time. OOPS! He just passed your test again!!

(Anybody else get that eerie feeling like something similar to this scenario actually just recently happened?)

Now you are talking! That is a **very good **scenario. But I have a few rearks to make. First, I would be extremely impressed with this. But then as we know, “one swallow does not a summer make”. Anybody can get lucky once. After expressing my sincere appreciation, I would ask if he could repeat it. And then, you can bet that I would read any post with extreme attention, and the second attempt to predict my free action would fail.

Second: a minor objection: I might get suspicious that the OG and the mods on the board edited the that “prediction” to fit to my later behavior. **We **cannot edit the old posts. **They **certainly can. As I said, I am very skeptical and suspicious.

 

[Spock]

Please analyze “love” for me, on its own merit. You may not hypothesize the existence of rational beings (nor animals) in the process, for if you do, you will no longer be analyzing “love”, but “love as it relates to the properties of some living being.”

Love: an emotion, which is usually considered to be a positive emotion.
Knowledge: information about something.

Nothing is exploited about the beings who exihibit love or gather knowledge. Just like “omniscience”, which is assumed to have some special properties (still undefined!) over and beyond knowledge. By the way “love” is not a property.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Love: an emotion, which is usually considered to be a positive emotion.
Knowledge: information about something.

Nothing is exploited about the beings who exihibit love or gather knowledge. Just like “omniscience”, which is assumed to have some special properties (still undefined!) over and beyond knowledge. By the way “love” is not a property.

What’s an “emotion”? Same rules apply.

 

[Spock]

What’s an “emotion”? Same rules apply.

A state of the central nervous system.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

A state of the central nervous system.

What’s a central nervous system?

 

[Spock]

What’s a central nervous system?

Biology will tell you… not that you don’t know it

And biology is the study the living beings.

What is living? Something that exhibits complex responses to complex stimuli.

Etc… etc… What is the point? You stopped asking about knowledge. And that is what we are talking about. Omniscience is a hypothesized extention of knowledge, where is limit of extention is undefined. The naive extention is: “to know anything and everything, whether it exists, existed or will exist; or did not exist, does not exist or will never exist”. I am trying to reach some concensus on this matter. Looks like a concensus is not likely.

The interesting thing is that nowadays pretty much no one attempts to stick to to naive definition of “omnipotence” (hopefully our next subject). Everyone accepts that “omnipotence” does not mean “to be able to do anything and everything” - though this was not so in ancient times (and it is the literal meaning of the word). Yet, the same naive definition of omniscience still lingers on, because the incorrect nature of the definition “can know anything and everything” is not so obviously contradictory. If would not get bogged down in irrelevant side issues, like what is the “central nervous system”, we might be able to do a better progression.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Biology will tell you… not that you don’t know it

And biology is the study the living beings.

What is living? Something that exhibits complex responses to complex stimuli.

Etc… etc… What is the point? You stopped asking about knowledge. And that is what we are talking about. Omniscience is a hypothesized extention of knowledge, where is limit of extention is undefined. The naive extention is: “to know anything and everything, whether it exists, existed or will exist; or did not exist, does not exist or will never exist”. I am trying to reach some concensus on this matter. Looks like a concensus is not likely.

The interesting thing is that nowadays pretty much no one attempts to stick to to naive definition of “omnipotence” (hopefully our next subject). Everyone accepts that “omnipotence” does not mean “to be able to do anything and everything” - though this was not so in ancient times (and it is the literal meaning of the word). Yet, the same naive definition of omniscience still lingers on, because the incorrect nature of the definition “can know anything and everything” is not so obviously contradictory. If would not get bogged down in irrelevant side issues, like what is the “central nervous system”, we might be able to do a better progression.

First of all, I have already responded to your larger point: I say that God cannot know something that is not. The term “possibility” has no reference to Him, because everything is actual. There is no “possible world” in which I might have written a different sentence than this, in God’s perspective. There is a “possible world”, from the perspective of a human being. There is no contradiction in those two claims.

Now, about our defining “love” without reference to individuals who are capable of love…

You have complained that I (and others) have referenced omnipotence in order to explain God’s omniscience. You suggested that love could be defined analytically, without reference to the properties of any being who could love. But “having a central nervous system” is one of the properties of a being who can love.

You are trying to tell me what love is by telling me about those individuals who love. But what I want is an analysis of love, on its own merit. If love is not coherent apart from reference to the lover, then how is one to make heads or tails of love?

Inquiring minds want to know.