Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises were...

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:23 pm

It's not paradoxical nor is it non computable (nonsense). It is a clean disproof through contradiction.

You claim a being knows everything.
You agreed that knowing what you don't know is a TYPE of knowledge.

How does a being who knows everything know what it's like to not know everything. It has to know and not know the same thing at the same time. Impossible.

The answer is not "well, it's omniscient anyways because I said so, because everything means everything!"

The answer necessarily proves that I know more about what it's like to be me than any possible being, and I don't claim omniscience. It proves in the positive that every being that exists knows at least one thing god doesn't know about their subjective state. Thus, God cannot possibly, or any being for that matter, be omniscient (know everything that is knowable)
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7274
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:06 pm

Ecmandu wrote:It's not paradoxical nor is it non computable (nonsense). It is a clean disproof through contradiction.

You're confusing two different sentences (one of them absurd, one of them meaningful) as meaning the same thing.

You claim a being knows everything.

Yes
You agreed that knowing what you don't know is a TYPE of knowledge.

Yes
How does a being who knows everything know what it's like to not know everything.

This does not amount to nor is it the same as:
It has to know and not know the same thing at the same time. Impossible.


I'll demonstrate the difference between them again but in a different manner. If you disagree with any step, be precise so I can address it directly.

In a nutshell, knowing what it's like to be not happy, is not the same as being not happy. You can't be happy and not happy at the same time but you can be happy and know what it's like to be not happy at the same time. Do you see the difference?

Your first sentence: How does a being who knows everything know what it's like to not know everything. This amounts to: How does a being who knows x (everything) know what it's like to not know x (everything)

What it's like to not know x is not the same as not knowing x. Do you see the difference?

Your second sentence:It has to know and not know the same thing at the same time. This amounts to: It has to know x and not know x at the same time.

It has to know x and not know x at the same time is not the same as: It has to know x and know what it's like to not know x at the same time.

Do you see the difference now?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:12 pm

Certainly real wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:It's not paradoxical nor is it non computable (nonsense). It is a clean disproof through contradiction.

You're confusing two different sentences (one of them absurd, one of them meaningful) as meaning the same thing.

You claim a being knows everything.

Yes
You agreed that knowing what you don't know is a TYPE of knowledge.

Yes
How does a being who knows everything know what it's like to not know everything.

This does not amount to nor is it the same as:
It has to know and not know the same thing at the same time. Impossible.


I'll demonstrate the difference between them again but in a different manner. If you disagree with any step, be precise so I can address it directly.

Your first sentence: How does a being who knows everything know what it's like to not know everything. This amounts to: How does a being who knows x (everything) know what it's like to not know x (everything)

What it's like to not know x is not the same as not knowing x. Do you see the difference?

Your second sentence:It has to know and not know the same thing at the same time. This amounts to: It has to know x and not know x at the same time.

It has to know x and not know x at the same time is not the same as: It has to know x and know what it's like to not know x at the same time.

Do you see the difference now?

In a nutshell, knowing what it's like to be happy, is not the same as being happy. You can't be happy and not happy at the same time but you can be happy and know what it's like to be not happy. Do you see the difference?


I'll accept your difference.

However, if both are true (and they are) then at least one argument exists that makes it impossible for any being to know all that is known.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7274
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:31 pm

I'll accept your difference.

However, if both are true (and they are) then at least one argument exists that makes it impossible for any being to know all that is known.


It's not my difference Ecmandu. They are two different sentences that you saw as being the same. One is meaningful (true) the other is paradoxical (meaningless/absurd/contradictory.

then at least one argument exists that makes it impossible for any being to know all that is known.


Which argument is that?
"Can something know x and not know x at the same time" does not amount to an argument. It amounts to a paradox just like a square-circle amounts to a paradox. It's like saying can that which is all-knowing know...and then insert paradox/contradiction/meaninglessness

It's like saying that which is almighty must be able to create a square-circle, or that which is all-knowing must be able to know what a square-circle is. This is the same as saying that which is almighty must be able to do absurdity/paradox/contradiction/meaninglessness. Or that which is all-knowing must be able to know absurdity/paradox/contradiction/meaninglessness.

Again, the definitions:

Almighty (that which can do all that is doable) Creating a square-circle/any paradoxical thing is not something that's doable because a square-circle is absurd/paradoxical. It's irrelevant to meaningful language let alone rational discourse
All-knowing (that which knows all there is to know) Knowing a square-circle/any paradoxical thing is not something that's knowable because a square-circle is absurd/paradoxical. It's irrelevant to meaningful language let alone rational discourse
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:41 pm

Certainly real wrote:
I'll accept your difference.

However, if both are true (and they are) then at least one argument exists that makes it impossible for any being to know all that is known.


It's not my difference Ecmandu. They are two different sentences that you saw as being the same. One is meaningful (true) the other is paradoxical (meaningless/absurd/contradictory.

then at least one argument exists that makes it impossible for any being to know all that is known.


Which argument is that?
"Can something know x and not know x at the same time" does not amount to an argument. It amounts to a paradox just like a square-circle amounts to a paradox. It's like saying can that which is all-knowing know...and then insert paradox/contradiction/meaninglessness

It's like saying that which is almighty must be able to create a square-circle, or that which is all-knowing must be able to know what a square-circle is. This is the same as saying that which is almighty must be able to do absurdity/paradox/contradiction/meaninglessness. Or that which is all-knowing must be able to know absurdity/paradox/contradiction/meaninglessness.

Again, the definitions:

Almighty (that which can do all that is doable) Creating a square-circle/any paradoxical thing is not something that's doable because a square-circle is absurd/paradoxical. It's irrelevant to meaningful language let alone rational discourse
All-knowing (that which knows all there is to know) Knowing a square-circle/any paradoxical thing is not something that's knowable because a square-circle is absurd/paradoxical. It's irrelevant to meaningful language let alone rational discourse


You're correct, it is like creating a square circle.

Let the square be our ignorance, which we can verify.
Let the circle be absolute non ignorance.

If you are non ignorant, it is impossible to have any ignorance.

Well. Every other being besides you is ignorant. So every other being besides you, knows something that you don't know, if you knew it 100%, you'd be EXACTLY as ignorant as them, you'd be exactly them and only them.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7274
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:57 am

Ecmandu wrote:Let the square be our ignorance, which we can verify.
Let the circle be absolute non ignorance.

Ok, fine. Absolute non ignorance is the same as omniscience.
If you are non ignorant, it is impossible to have any ignorance.

True. If you are non ignorant, it is impossible to have any ignorance. But it's not impossible to know what it's like to be ignorant. If you think it is, then show me the paradox that follows.

Well. Every other being besides you is ignorant.

Yes, all beings that lack omniscience (absolute non-ignorance) are ignorant in some way.

So every other being besides you, knows something that you don't know

What exactly is it that every other being knows that that which is non-ignorant doesn't know? I'll take a guess from everything you've said so far:
Is it what it's like to be ignorant/lack omniscience?

If yes, then I've already addressed that point in multiple ways. I know what it's like to have less than x amount of knowledge than I have now whilst at same time having x amount of knowledge. Do you see a problem with this?

You're correct, it is like creating a square circle.

A square-circle is a contradiction/an irrational thing. If your argument amounts to omniscience is absurd because that which is all-knowing cannot know what a square-circle is, then this isn't a problem with the concept of omniscience, this is a problem with your argument. Your argument contains a contradiction which indicates faulty reasoning. If I responded to your argument that contains a contradiction with an argument that contains a contradiction it would be like this. Yes an omniscient being knows what a square-circle is. See the problem in accepting paradoxes/contradictions in your definitions or reasoning?

You say, an omniscient being must know what a square-circle is
Response if a square-circle is not absurd, then an all-knowing being knows what a square-circle is.

Except a square-circle is absurd and the latter two sentences are rationally useless/meaningless and should never enter rational discourse.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:22 am

God never doesn't have complete knowledge of everything according to theists. Your argument against me is a time of ignorance into less ignorance argument, which doesn't apply to omniscience, so it's false.

You didn't understand that I was calling omniscience a square circle.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7274
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:57 am

Ecmandu wrote:God never doesn't have complete knowledge of everything according to theists. Your argument against me is a time of ignorance into less ignorance argument, which doesn't apply to omniscience, so it's false.


I'm not arguing what theists argue, I'm upholding pure reason which entails that anything that is said/defined/theories/thought about, be paradox/contradiction/irrationality free.

I highlighted paradoxes in your argument. You haven't answered any of the questions that I put to you even though I answered everything you asked of me. Plus you keep changing what you say. I'm not sure this discussion is gonna bear any fruit.

You didn't understand that I was calling omniscience a square circle.


Omniscience = that which knows all that is knowable
Square-circle = Absurd

One can be defined, the other cannot. Your attempt to show that something cannot know all that there is to know ultimately lead to: That which is all-knowing cannot know what it's like to know and not know at the same time. Which is absurd. The definition of omniscience is not absurd. What you consider as amounting to knowledge (knowing x and not knowing x at the same time, a square-circle, anything that's absurd) is absurd.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:00 am

There are no paradoxes that have come up in either of our arguments.

Just a person who uses pure logic (me)

And well... you, who happens to be wrong.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7274
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:07 am

Ecmandu wrote:There are no paradoxes that have come up in either of our arguments.

Just a person who uses pure logic (me)

And well... you, who happens to be wrong.


Put another way. God may know what I don't know, but that doesn't mean god doesn't know it like I don't know it.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7274
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:14 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:There are no paradoxes that have come up in either of our arguments.

Just a person who uses pure logic (me)

And well... you, who happens to be wrong.


Put another way. God may know what I don't know, but that doesn't mean god doesn't know it like I don't know it.


I can't keep repeating myself, particularly when you don't respond to my question and the paradoxes I highlight in what you say. And, I doubt your sincerity when you have this kind of attitude:

There are no paradoxes that have come up in either of our arguments.

Just a person who uses pure logic (me)

And well... you, who happens to be wrong.


I clarified your confusion for you. Knowing x and not knowing x at the same time is not the same as Knowing what it's like to not know x. God can never be like you, but it can know what it's like to be you. Simple. That is in line with omniscience.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:51 am

Certainly real wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:There are no paradoxes that have come up in either of our arguments.

Just a person who uses pure logic (me)

And well... you, who happens to be wrong.


Put another way. God may know what I don't know, but that doesn't mean god doesn't know it like I don't know it.


I can't keep repeating myself, particularly when you don't respond to my question and the paradoxes I highlight in what you say. And, I doubt your sincerity when you have this kind of attitude:

There are no paradoxes that have come up in either of our arguments.

Just a person who uses pure logic (me)

And well... you, who happens to be wrong.


I clarified your confusion for you. Knowing x and not knowing x at the same time is not the same as Knowing what it's like to not know x. God can never be like you, but it can know what it's like to be you. Simple. That is in line with omniscience.


And I'm stating very clearly that for an omnistate knowing x and not knowing x at the same time solves as the definition of an omnistate (never having ignorance) how can a being that it's impossible to have ever had ignorance know what ignorance is like?

Perhaps it can look from afar and state that certainly real doesn't know what I know, but NEVER!!! EVER!!!

Does it not actually know it, like you know you don't actually know it.

You know something it can never know!

By definitions. Pure logic and reason.

It's a proof that every being besides god knows something that can be known that god cannot know.

It's a disproof of omniscience ... it's a square circle.

Actually I believe circles can be squared but that's besides the point of the analogy ...
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7274
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:06 am

read above post as well...

Put more simply, an omniscient being had no idea what it's like to not know something.

We do.

Thus we all know something that an omniscient bring doesn't.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7274
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:42 am

Again, knowing what you don't know amounts to you knowing that you lack knowledge about something or some things. This is not the same as knowing x and not knowing x at the same time.

God fully knows what it's like to be you because you and all the experiences you encounter and the result of that, can be translated to pure information.

Existence includes within it all shapes and feelings and experiences but the concepts omnishape, omnifeeling, omnitaste and omnicolour are evidently absurd. Right? Whilst there is nothing that is omnishape or omnicolour, there are various shapes or colours. God knows all shapes and colours that can exist/do exist. If shapes and colours can be fully broken down into pure information, then they can be known without being experienced. Right? The same applies to feelings, sensations, tastes, scents and anything else that plays a part in an experience. Right? If I look at a green room with my eyes acting as the filter/reciever that receives the light, then God knows all the information such as how my eyesight is, whether I’m colour blind and so on. Right? By combining all the information together, God is able to know what it’s like to see a green room through my eyes. Right? All experiences are an interconnected web of information/semantical gaps that God is fully aware of as God is omnipresent. So God is able to know what experience x is like through the subjective perspective of subject y. Right? We are nothing more than subjective perspectives of a rational nature receiving/having/being filtered with various experiences. God knows fully what it’s like to be us and God knows fully what our potential is.

In conclusion: God fully knows what it's like to be us (where what it's like to be something does actually constitute knowledge and thus is included in the realm of knowledge and knowing) because god has all the information that amounts to us and our experiences, whilst we don't. Everything can be broken down into information or semantical gaps and this information can be understand or known. God being omnipresent understands and knows all information thus God is omniscient. Where is the absurdity in this?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby barbarianhorde » Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:30 pm

Certainly real wrote:Again, knowing what you don't know amounts to you knowing that you lack knowledge about something or some things. This is not the same as knowing x and not knowing x at the same time.

God fully knows what it's like to be you because you and all the experiences you encounter and the result of that, can be translated to pure information.


You maybe. But only cause you havent lived.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: under your pillow

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:48 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:
Certainly real wrote:Again, knowing what you don't know amounts to you knowing that you lack knowledge about something or some things. This is not the same as knowing x and not knowing x at the same time.

God fully knows what it's like to be you because you and all the experiences you encounter and the result of that, can be translated to pure information.


it's not the same, but it is perfectly analogous to:

Knowing for a fact that you know something and knowing for a fact that you don't know that same exact something that you can know if you want.

Just because the information is there doesn't mean that one being can have it all.

The above argument proves it.

Remember, certainly real, an omniscient being by definition has never not known everything that can be known. So this is the proposition. I'm stating that the proposition is false by its very definition, because it has to know and know it doesn't know what it can know at exactly the same time.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7274
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby barbarianhorde » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:31 pm

Only superficial experience is informational.
The other kind is actually anti information which defies correspondence.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: under your pillow

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:14 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:
Certainly real wrote:Again, knowing what you don't know amounts to you knowing that you lack knowledge about something or some things. This is not the same as knowing x and not knowing x at the same time.

God fully knows what it's like to be you because you and all the experiences you encounter and the result of that, can be translated to pure information.


You maybe. But only cause you havent lived.


I'll start by making the following clear. Any argument of the following types:

Can it do (insert paradox)
Can it know (insert paradox)
Can it do (insert unknown)
Can it know (insert unknown)

Are not meaningful and so they have no impact on the following:
That which can do all that is doable
That which knows all that is knowable

Are we in agreement on this?

Moving on:

If it amounts to knowledge, then by logic, that which is all-knowing would know it. To my understanding all that's needed is all the information that amounts to knowledge plus a receiver to understand it. Agreed? At any point if you disagree, make it clear and I will show you how the alternative is paradoxical/irrational.

The receiver needs to have the right traits to understand that information and my belief is that that which is omnipresent, that which sustains everything and gave everything its creation has the right traits to fully understand the information. Agreed?

For example we have limited hearing in terms of what we can hear, Existence won't have this issue. It determines all possible sounds/notes/pitches that can be made and is fully aware of what they sound like as they can essentially be translated to pure information and Existence has the right traits/tools/receiver to fully decipher/understand that information.

I'm guessing that you're saying it does't have the right traits to understand the information. Right? In which case I'd say that would be paradoxical in the following way: We are entirely dependent on Existence. This entails that we received all our traits from that which ultimately sustains us (Existence). This means that that which sustains us has the right tools/traits/receptacle/reciever (whichever is most accurate) to decipher/understand the information fully. Do you see how the alternative would be paradoxical? How it would ultimately lead to something coming from nothing?

The mechanism of how I can know what it's like to have less knowledge then I have now aren't clear as far as I know. Maybe it's because I've experienced being switched off/having gaps in experience/not being able to access all of me (memories etc.), these are all hypothetical possibilities of which we don't know which is accurate in relation to us, they may all be accurate.

But it may also be because being in possession of these traits means that I can apply negation (just as I can negate my focus from one thing to another, or just simply lessen the potency of my focus (as may be the case with meditation). That which appears to be clear, is this is something I can do. So the outline is clearly there, the mechanism of how this outline is achieved has not yet been established as far as I'm aware but this does not take away from the fact that the outline is clearly there.

God is different to us. The outline is clearly there (as in it must have all the information and all the tools necessary to fully decipher/understand the information) which tools it has to fully understand the information or the mechanism deployed to understand, may be unknown to us, but that certainly doesn't render the outline paradoxical. Again, it necessarily has all the information and all that's required to fully understand the information.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:15 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:Only superficial experience is informational.
The other kind is actually anti information which defies correspondence.


If it doesn't amount to knowledge, then logically speaking, it's not something that falls into the realm of knowledge is it? Therefore it's irrelevant to knowing and omniscience is it not?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:33 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
barbarianhorde wrote:
Certainly real wrote:Again, knowing what you don't know amounts to you knowing that you lack knowledge about something or some things. This is not the same as knowing x and not knowing x at the same time.

God fully knows what it's like to be you because you and all the experiences you encounter and the result of that, can be translated to pure information.


it's not the same, but it is perfectly analogous to:

Knowing for a fact that you know something and knowing for a fact that you don't know that same exact something that you can know if you want.

Just because the information is there doesn't mean that one being can have it all.

The above argument proves it.

Remember, certainly real, an omniscient being by definition has never not known everything that can be known. So this is the proposition. I'm stating that the proposition is false by its very definition, because it has to know and know it doesn't know what it can know at exactly the same time.


Yes, I agree that an omniscient being by definition has never not known everything that can be known. It's what reason requires of its definition. Your mistake is that you think that in order to know what it's like to be non-omnisicnet it is rationally required/necessary to experience non-omnipresence. Right?

I've already given you an answer on how an omniscient being knows what it's like to be non-omniscent without ever experiencing non-omniscience. You just haven't addressed it or shown paradoxes within it. I'll try again:

All that's needed is all the information that amounts to knowledge plus a receiver to understand it. Agreed? At any point if you disagree, make it clear and I will show you how the alternative is paradoxical/irrational.

The receiver needs to have the right traits to understand that information and my belief is that that which is omnipresent, that which sustains everything and gave everything its creation has the right traits to fully understand the information. Agreed?

For example we have limited hearing in terms of what we can hear, Existence won't have this issue. It determines all possible sounds/notes/pitches that can be made and is fully aware of what they sound like as they can essentially be translated to pure information and Existence has the right traits/tools/receiver to fully decipher/understand that information.

I'm guessing that you're saying it does't have the right traits to understand the information. Right? In which case I'd say that would be paradoxical in the following way: We are entirely dependent on Existence. This entails that we received all our traits from that which ultimately sustains us (Existence). This means that that which sustains us has the right tools/traits/receptacle/reciever (whichever is most accurate) to decipher/understand the information fully. Do you see how the alternative would be paradoxical? How it would ultimately lead to something coming from nothing?

The mechanism of how I can know what it's like to have less knowledge then I have now aren't clear as far as I know. Maybe it's because I've experienced being switched off/having gaps in experience/not being able to access all of me (memories etc.), these are all hypothetical possibilities of which we don't know which is accurate in relation to us, they may all be accurate.

But it may also be because being in possession of these traits means that I can apply negation (just as I can negate my focus from one thing to another, or just simply lessen the potency of my focus (as may be the case with meditation). That which appears to be clear, is this is something I can do. So the outline is clearly there, the mechanism of how this outline is achieved has not yet been established as far as I'm aware but this does not take away from the fact that the outline is clearly there.

God is different to us. The outline is clearly there (as in it must have all the information and all the tools necessary to fully decipher/understand the information) which tools it has to fully understand the information or the mechanism deployed to understand, may be unknown to us, but that certainly doesn't render the outline paradoxical. Again, it necessarily has all the information and all that's required to fully understand the information.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby barbarianhorde » Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:50 pm

Certainly real wrote:
barbarianhorde wrote:Only superficial experience is informational.
The other kind is actually anti information which defies correspondence.


If it doesn't amount to knowledge, then logically speaking, it's not something that falls into the realm of knowledge is it? Therefore it's irrelevant to knowing and omniscience is it not?

I never said knowledge, we spoke information.
Information is objective can be used by different entities but knowledge is subjective needs to be learned.

A piece of paper with info isn't knowledge. Your memory of your last orgasm isn't information.
This is step one to address ill be happy to help at the next one too .
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: under your pillow

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:26 pm

I know what it's like to be ignorant of something.

God never has known this and never will know this.

The being you're describing is not a learning human being, which is your analogic framework for stating God can know this.

If at any point you state that god has EVER been ignorant of something, then God is not all knowing.

If at any point that god has NEVER been ignorant of something, then god is not all knowing.

How do we know this? Because God, unlike me, has never experienced ignorance, and knowing that you are ignorant of something is a form of knowledge.

The two states involve ignorance of some form and are mutually exclusive.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7274
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:33 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:I never said knowledge, we spoke information/quote]

I thought we were talking with regards to omniscience: That which knows all there is to know. In any case, reason dictates that if something does not/cannot amount to knowledge, then it's irrelevant to omniscience.

Information is objective can be used by different entities but knowledge is subjective needs to be learned.

A piece of paper with info isn't knowledge. Your memory of your last orgasm isn't information.


I know. Which is why I said: All that's needed is all the information that amounts to knowledge plus a receiver to understand it. Agreed?

The receiver needs to have the right traits/tools/senses to understand that information.

That which is omnipresent, that which sustains everything and gave everything its creation has the all the traits/tools/senses necessary to fully and accurately understanding any information. Agreed?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:06 pm

Ecmandu wrote:I know what it's like to be ignorant of something.

God never has known this and never will know this.

The being you're describing is not a learning human being, which is your analogic framework for stating God can know this.

If at any point you state that god has EVER been ignorant of something, then God is not all knowing.

If at any point that god has NEVER been ignorant of something, then god is not all knowing.

How do we know this? Because God, unlike me, has never experienced ignorance, and knowing that you are ignorant of something is a form of knowledge.

The two states involve ignorance of some form and are mutually exclusive.


I'll break what you're saying down step by step. If I've misunderstood you tell me where I've misunderstood you. If I've left something out, tell me what I've left out.

Again, we both agree that an omniscient being by definition has never not known everything that can be known. This is the same as saying: An omniscient being has never been non-omniscient. (Have I misunderstood you here?)

You believe that in order to know what it's like to be non-omniscient it is rationally required/necessary to experience non-omniscience (Have I misunderstood you here?)

The two states involve ignorance of some form and are mutually exclusive.

No because the item of knowledge that is: what it's like to be non-omniscient is not exclusively accessible/understandable by non-omniscient beings. It is exclusively understandable by beings that have the sufficient tools/senses/traits/receptacle/receiver to understand the information. So any being that has the sufficient tools/senses/traits/receptacle/receiver can gain understanding of that information. That which is omniscient has the sufficient tools/senses/traits/receiver, because it sustains/gave us ours (hearing, eyesight, intellect, sensations etc.), we did not get our senses from non-existence. Therefore, it would be paradoxical to claim that that which is omnipresent does not have the sufficient tools/senses/traits/receptacle/receiver when IT sustains us and not the other way round.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:29 pm

The first part of the post. No, you didn't misunderstand me...

The second part of the post is literally non computational word salad.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7274
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]