We cannot understand omniscience and omnipotence, so discussing it much is actually moot

[carn]

To highlight why we cannot understand it, consider the following:

Omniscience should consider at least correct and certain knowledge about oneself. If one does not know who or what oneself is, one cannot know whether any other knowledge one has is realiable and therefore is not omniscient.

Now consider an omniscient and omnipotent being. What the bible certainly suggest is, that an omnipotent and omniscient being can create powerful highly intelligent beings capabale of grand self delusion - after all God created satan and he is powerful, intelligent and thinks his rebellion to be “promising” or at least a correct choice otherwise he would not make such a fuss.

An omnipotent being is also capable of creating beings capable of deluding themselves into thinking they are God aka omnipotent and omniscient - examples can unfortunately found in mental health hospitals.

So an omnipotent and omniscient being can create a being that knows quite a lot, that is very intelligent, that is very powerful and that deludes itself into thinking its omniscient and omnipotent. And what does that mean for the omniscient and omnipotent being himself?

That it has no way to know for certain, that it himself is not such a sock puppet god, which deludes himself into thinking its omnipotent and omniscient, created by the real god for whatever reason. And as this real god would be truly omnipotent and omniscient, he could always cause the being thinking about the problem to miss realizing that it is not realy omniscient and omnipotent.

So from our limited point of view, God could never be certain that He is the real first cause and not just fooled into thinking so by the real first cause. And as He would not be certain he would not be omniscient. And as omniscient and omnipotent from our point of view lead to a contradiction, wemiss some curcial information.

Therefore all our discussions about the topic - while interesting for training thinking - will be in terms of results moot, as we miss some curcial info, how a being thinking it might be omnipotent and omniscient can ensure that its truly omniscient and omnipotent.

 

[prodigalson2011]

To highlight why we cannot understand it, consider the following:

Omniscience should consider at least correct and certain knowledge about oneself. If one does not know who or what oneself is, one cannot know whether any other knowledge one has is realiable and therefore is not omniscient.

Now consider an omniscient and omnipotent being. What the bible certainly suggest is, that an omnipotent and omniscient being can create powerful highly intelligent beings capabale of grand self delusion - after all God created satan and he is powerful, intelligent and thinks his rebellion to be “promising” or at least a correct choice otherwise he would not make such a fuss.

An omnipotent being is also capable of creating beings capable of deluding themselves into thinking they are God aka omnipotent and omniscient - examples can unfortunately found in mental health hospitals.

So an omnipotent and omniscient being can create a being that knows quite a lot, that is very intelligent, that is very powerful and that deludes itself into thinking its omniscient and omnipotent. And what does that mean for the omniscient and omnipotent being himself?

That it has no way to know for certain, that it himself is not such a sock puppet god, which deludes himself into thinking its omnipotent and omniscient, created by the real god for whatever reason. And as this real god would be truly omnipotent and omniscient, he could always cause the being thinking about the problem to miss realizing that it is not realy omniscient and omnipotent.

So from our limited point of view, God could never be certain that He is the real first cause and not just fooled into thinking so by the real first cause. And as He would not be certain he would not be omniscient. And as omniscient and omnipotent from our point of view lead to a contradiction, wemiss some curcial information.

Therefore all our discussions about the topic - while interesting for training thinking - will be in terms of results moot, as we miss some curcial info, how a being thinking it might be omnipotent and omniscient can ensure that its truly omniscient and omnipotent.

I’ll give you points for one of the most creative arguments against theism, but I don’t think it holds up. Mental patients who think they’re omniscient and omnipotent can easily be proven, to a sound mind, to be delusional. On the other hand, a being who truly is aware of everything outside of itself and able to create, from nothing, everything that exists… Well, let’s just say it has a much stronger case.

This is a textbook case of moving the goalposts.

 

[edward_george]

Moving the goalposts is an apt description. It sounds like a sort of inverse ontological argument. I would argue that the omniscience and omnipotence of God are not truths accessible to reason, and even if they were accessible to mere human reason, they would still not be fully comprehensible. That God is omniscient and omnipotent are truths gleaned from revelation and subsequent speculative inquiry thereupon. As John’s Gospel says, “The light shone in the darkness, and the darkness could not comprehend it.” Our limited human intellect cannot comprehend–that is, surround–the infinite reality which is God.

-ACEGC

 

[ivebeenshown]

… a being who truly is aware of everything outside of itself and able to create, from nothing, everything that exists…

This type of wording still seems problematic… sure, if ‘nothing’ means ‘no physical matter’, and ‘everything that exists’ means ‘all existing physical matter’… yes he created ex nihilo… It’s just kind of a ‘technicality’ thing.

Yeah, he created ‘everything’ from ‘nothing’… but don’t forget that God is still ‘something’…

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

So an omnipotent and omniscient being can create a being that knows quite a lot, that is very intelligent, that is very powerful and that deludes itself into thinking its omniscient and omnipotent. And what does that mean for the omniscient and omnipotent being himself?

This means that the truly omniscient and omnipotent (OO from here on out), is still truly OO while the created being is not truly OO. Creating a not-OO being (who believes he is OO) does not change the fact that there was an OO being in the first place.

That it has no way to know for certain, that it himself is not such a sock puppet god, which deludes himself into thinking its omnipotent and omniscient, created by the real god for whatever reason. And as this real god would be truly omnipotent and omniscient, he could always cause the being thinking about the problem to miss realizing that it is not realy omniscient and omnipotent.

So are you trying an ad infinitum approach here? Eventually you will find that you must stop somewhere–because an actualized infinity does not exist–and that stopping point will be the true OO being. That OO being is God. That there are non-OO beings who think that they are truly OO does not at all change the fact that there is an OO being.

So from our limited point of view, God could never be certain that He is the real first cause and not just fooled into thinking so by the real first cause. And as He would not be certain he would not be omniscient. And as omniscient and omnipotent from our point of view lead to a contradiction, wemiss some curcial information.

A truly OO being would certainly know that it is the first real cause. It must, by definition. And, to restate it for a third time, just because there are non-OO beings who believe they are truly OO does not mean that there is not an OO being.

Also, how does OO lead to a contradiction?

Therefore all our discussions about the topic - while interesting for training thinking - will be in terms of results moot, as we miss some curcial info, how a being thinking it might be omnipotent and omniscient can ensure that its truly omniscient and omnipotent.

I do not believe discussing OO is moot. It certainly helps us help yourself.

 

[carn]

"prodigalson2011:

Mental patients who think they’re omniscient and omnipotent can easily be proven, to a sound mind, to be delusional.

But it could not be proven if the true OO created a deluded non-OO and ensured that whenever the non-OO made a omnipotent or omniscient “test” (no good idea what such test would look like) that it would pass. So in that case the deluded non-OO would never find proof contradicting its delusion and no third party except the true OO could help him there.

A truly OO being would certainly know that it is the first real cause.

No.
It knows that it can create non-OOs having every reason to think and feeling it with every “fibre of their body” that they are actually the real OO. And it knows those “level 1” non-OOs can create “level 2” non-OOs again with every reason to believe they are the real OO. So even the real OO knows that just because it has every reason to think and know that it is the real OO, that this in no way establishes it is the OO. (At least if limited to deductive logic.)

It must, by definition. And, to restate it for a third time, just because there are non-OO beings who believe they are truly OO does not mean that there is not an OO being.

Of course. Its just when allah sends me to hell for opposing on principle that idea about slaughtering all pagans, i will take comfort in replying his judgement with a:
“Ok, try to torture me forever. But do you ever feel watched? You should, because you cannot know that you are the real one and therefore you are not the real one. And the real one is taking notes what you are doing.”

Also, how does OO lead to a contradiction?

At minimum, i require an OO to be certain that it is the OO. But OO cannot logically know its OO, so it is not OO, even if its unfounded belief that its OO is correct.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

The argument, more succinctly:

#1 - An omniscient being should know itself
#2 - An omnipotent being can create intelligent and powerful beings that are delusional and unaware of it. This is not a logical contradiction–e.g.: Lucifer & mental patients.
#3 - A being can’t determine if they’re omnipotent/omniscient or delusionally think they are.
#4 - This is a logical contradiction (#3 vs #1) so such a being cannot exist.

It’s a fascinating argument. Omniscient was defined in 1900 as, “All-knowing; possessing knowledge of all things; having infinite or universal knowledge” Omniscient is defined in 2012 as meaning, “Knowing everything that can be known”. I would wager arguments similar to yours are what caused theists to revise their definition.

 

[tonyrey]

An omnipotent being is also capable of creating beings capable of deluding themselves into thinking they are God aka omnipotent and omniscient - examples can unfortunately found in mental health hospitals.

It sounds like an argument produced by a patient in a psychiatric unit! The key words are “from our limited point of view”… Our inability to grasp the full implications of
omnipotence and omniscience doesn’t imply that they don’t exist. The power and wisdom required to create the universe are ample evidence that they are so close to omnipotence and omniscience that it is futile to quibble about the difference…

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

The power and wisdom required to create the universe are ample evidence that they are so close to omnipotence and omniscience that it is futile to quibble about the difference…

If one were ever confronted with a god, knowing the limitations of its powers may allow one to gauge other attributes such as its honesty, arrogance vs. humility, etc. It also may give hope that if the god before them doesn’t seem moral, there may be yet a higher level. Although tangling with such a god, in any event, would probably be decidely ill-advised.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

No.
It knows that it can create non-OOs having every reason to think and feeling it with every “fibre of their body” that they are actually the real OO. And it knows those “level 1” non-OOs can create “level 2” non-OOs again with every reason to believe they are the real OO. So even the real OO knows that just because it has every reason to think and know that it is the real OO, that this in no way establishes it is the OO. (At least if limited to deductive logic.)

No.
By definition, an OO knows everything and can do anything. It is unlimited in its knowledge and power. Thus, it will know that it is the true OO, and not a “level 1” or lower non-OO. And even still, the existence of non-OO does not mean that there is no OO, which is what it seems you are implying.

Of course. Its just when allah sends me to hell for opposing on principle that idea about slaughtering all pagans, i will take comfort in replying his judgement with a:
“Ok, try to torture me forever. But do you ever feel watched? You should, because you cannot know that you are the real one and therefore you are not the real one. And the real one is taking notes what you are doing.”

I am not sure as to how to respond to this. So I am just going to ignore it.

At minimum, i require an OO to be certain that it is the OO. But OO cannot logically know its OO, so it is not OO, even if its unfounded belief that its OO is correct.

Why is it logically impossible for an all-knowing & all-powerful being to not know that it is an all-knowing & all-powerful being?
That above statement is the true contradiction: an all-knowing being that does not know everything. Seems like your logic has a few holes in it

 

[carn]

And even still, the existence of non-OO does not mean that there is no OO, which is what it seems you are implying.

For the moment i think that further discussions are a bit useless. In the other thread i thought it might be a problem about correctly formulating consequences of QM. But apparently you realy misread my possts.

My first post in this thread said the following:

“So from our limited point of view, God could never be certain that He is the real first cause and not just fooled into thinking so by the real first cause.”

The only thing i implied is that, the question who is the OO is in doubt. The real OO could logically at least conclude “Either im OO or someone else, but there is an OO.”

(@tonyrey
The whole point of the thread is demonstrating that our mind fails at the concept of omnipotent and omniscient being. That our mind fails there can certainly never prove the existance or non-existance of such a being - especially as our minds might have been created with that deficiency with intent by the OO, which an OO is certainly capable of.)

 

[JDaniel]

To highlight why we cannot understand it, consider the following:

Omniscience should consider at least correct and certain knowledge about oneself. If one does not know who or what oneself is, one cannot know whether any other knowledge one has is realiable and therefore is not omniscient.

Now consider an omniscient and omnipotent being. What the bible certainly suggest is, that an omnipotent and omniscient being can create powerful highly intelligent beings capabale of grand self delusion - after all God created satan and he is powerful, intelligent and thinks his rebellion to be “promising” or at least a correct choice otherwise he would not make such a fuss.

An omnipotent being is also capable of creating beings capable of deluding themselves into thinking they are God aka omnipotent and omniscient - examples can unfortunately found in mental health hospitals.

So an omnipotent and omniscient being can create a being that knows quite a lot, that is very intelligent, that is very powerful and that deludes itself into thinking its omniscient and omnipotent. And what does that mean for the omniscient and omnipotent being himself?

That it has no way to know for certain, that it himself is not such a sock puppet god, which deludes himself into thinking its omnipotent and omniscient, created by the real god for whatever reason. And as this real god would be truly omnipotent and omniscient, he could always cause the being thinking about the problem to miss realizing that it is not realy omniscient and omnipotent.

So from our limited point of view, God could never be certain that He is the real first cause and not just fooled into thinking so by the real first cause. And as He would not be certain he would not be omniscient. And as omniscient and omnipotent from our point of view lead to a contradiction, wemiss some curcial information.

Therefore all our discussions about the topic - while interesting for training thinking - will be in terms of results moot, as we miss some curcial info, how a being thinking it might be omnipotent and omniscient can ensure that its truly omniscient and omnipotent.

Carn:

You’re postulating about the wrong entity. God is the entity that created the entity that doesn’t know if he’s omnipotent or omniscient or not. Christian angelology speaks directly of what happened with satan. And, your conception of it is incorrect.

Nonetheless, your conclusion might be true. Unfortunately, a consideration of your conclusion is necessary as along comes someone with misconceptions that need correction. That is part of the rationale for this forum, btw.

Hopefully, this forum does not make heretics.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The argument, more succinctly:

#1 - An omniscient being should know itself
#2 - An omnipotent being can create intelligent and powerful beings that are delusional and unaware of it. This is not a logical contradiction–e.g.: Lucifer & mental patients.
#3 - A being can’t determine if they’re omnipotent/omniscient or delusionally think they are.
#4 - This is a logical contradiction (#3 vs #1) so such a being cannot exist.

It’s a fascinating argument. Omniscient was defined in 1900 as, “All-knowing; possessing knowledge of all things; having infinite or universal knowledge” Omniscient is defined in 2012 as meaning, “Knowing everything that can be known”. I would wager arguments similar to yours are what caused theists to revise their definition.

LIA:

Origin:
early 17th century: from medieval Latin omniscient- ‘all-knowing’, based on scire ‘to know’

From the Oxford Dictionary. It’s amazing what can happen when one does not do any research!

God bless,
jd

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

For the moment i think that further discussions are a bit useless. In the other thread i thought it might be a problem about correctly formulating consequences of QM. But apparently you realy misread my possts.

My first post in this thread said the following:

“So from our limited point of view, God could never be certain that He is the real first cause and not just fooled into thinking so by the real first cause.”

The only thing i implied is that, the question who is the OO is in doubt. The real OO could logically at least conclude “Either im OO or someone else, but there is an OO.”

Actually, if anything, it shows you are ignoring my work. I said rather clearly in my first post that A truly OO being would certainly know that it is the first real cause. It must, by definition. You chose to ignore point and argue something about allah and hell or something.
In any event, you are still assuming that an OO being can be all-knowing and still not know something, a clear contradiction.

 

[tonyrey]

(@tonyrey
The whole point of the thread is demonstrating that our mind fails at the concept of omnipotent and omniscient being. That our mind fails there can certainly never prove the existence or non-existence of such a being - especially as our minds might have been created with that deficiency with intent by the OO, which an OO is certainly capable of.)

No existential proposition can be proved with logical certainty - not even our existence! - but it achieves a very high degree of probability when contrasted with another explanations…