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

Unless God is everything also rather than just some transcendent watcher.

  1. You’re essentially saying that the perfect being doesn’t exactly know what it’s like to be imperfect. Right? More importantly, am I right in saying that you think this because you think that the only way the perfect being can know what it’s like to be imperfect is by becoming imperfect (which is absurd) right?

  2. Omniscience = knowing all that there is to know. Right?

  3. You have your unique subjective experiences coupled with your disposition that make you Ecmandu. Right? Or is there more to you?

  4. Every aspect of your disposition can be translated to pure information. Right? All your experiences, emotions, feelings, can be translated to pure information. Right? Every stimuli you’re exposed to can be translated to pure information. Right?

In other words, every aspect of your being and what it experiences and every aspect of those experiences can be translated to pure information. Right?

  1. That which is omniscient has knowledge of all this information. So when every aspect of your being, including the experiences it goes through, including what that results in, can be translate to pure information/semantics, how can that which has all this information not fully and accurately know what it’s like to be you?

God is omnipresent/all-existing/Existence

You’re being daft certainly real.

For god to know EXACTLY in EVERY way, what it’s like to be me, God has to exactly be me.

But I don’t know everything!

So there’s two choices. God is exactly me, or I know something god doesn’t exactly know.

I’m trying to understand you Ecmandu but I honestly feel like you’re being evasive. I broke down the statement that you consider as paradoxical and asked you which part of it was problematic to understand you better. Again, where is there a problem in 1, 2, or 3 for there to be a paradox? Which part or aspect of it is wrong, or, which parts result in a contradiction?

  1. Every aspect of your being and every aspect of experience/experiences that your being gets exposed to/goes through and every resulting outcome that might generate from this can all be translated into pure information. This is what you fully, exactly, and accurately amount to. A finite amount of information.

  2. If something is aware of this finite amount of information, then it has knowledge of this information.

  3. That which is omniscient has knowledge of this information. That which is omniscient fully, exactly, and accurately knows what it’s like to be you.

That which is omniscient knows you better than you know yourself. For example: You don’t know what hidden potential you might have (which again is pure information) If you got exposed to a piano, you might actually have real talent in terms of playing the piano that you wouldn’t have known until you actually saw one and started playing.

Your first problem is with 2.

If a being knows exactly what it’s like to have a finite amount of information, by definition, it doesn’t have an infinite amount of information. If it has an infinite amount of information, then by definition, it has no clue what a finite amount of information is.

Unless God is everything also rather than just some transcendent watcher. Then you are a portion of God and God can have knowledge of that parts experiencing.

You can’t not know something and know the same something at the same time.

I’ll break it down. If a being knows exactly what it’s like to have a finite amount of information, by definition, it doesn’t have an infinite amount of information

It’s like saying:

If I know what it’s like to have less information then I have now, by definition, I don’t have as much information as I have now. But that’s not true because: I know what it’s like to have less information/knowledge then I have now but that does not make me any less knowledgable than I am now, which is what your argument logically implies. What it logically implies is false and there is no paradox here.

Everything about you can be translated to pure information. Having that information and understanding it amounts to knowing exactly what it’s like to be you. How can it not?

God is Existence, everything that exists, does so in Existence/God. We are existing in the all-existing/sustained by that which is omnipresent. Have you ever seen one of those images where the image, depending on how you look at it can either be a face or like multiple people? That’s kind of my view of Existence. The traits/distinguishing features of the face can be recognised in the picture. The traits/distinguishing features of the people can also be recognised in the picture. However, you can’t see both at the same time but still, all of this, is in one picture.

There is one Existence and the application of reason acts as a tool to recognise semantical gaps/meaningful things correctly and to categorise them correctly amongst other things. So we recognise that in Existence, we’re not omnipresent or omniscient, whilst recognising that Existence is omnipresent and omniscient, and we are in it.

Certainly real… I know how profound you think your argument is, simple statement of undeniable logic, I repeat:

You can’t know something and not know the same something at the same time.

Ecmandu…I fully addressed your point, you’ve yet to address mine. Again:

You said: If a being knows exactly what it’s like to have a finite amount of information, by definition, it doesn’t have an infinite amount of information

to which I said: That’s like saying:

If I know what it’s like to have less information then I have now, by definition, I don’t have as much information as I have now. But that’s not true because: I know what it’s like to have less information/knowledge then I have now but that does not make me any less knowledgable than I am now, which is what your argument logically implies. What it logically implies is false and there is no paradox here.

Me addressing your point resulted in the above example which demonstrated that what you logically imply is false and that what you say is paradoxical is not paradoxical.

You addressing my point requires that you show that it is impossible for me to know what it’s like to have less knowledge then I have now and to address the following:

Everything about you can be translated to pure information. Having that information and understanding it amounts to knowing exactly what it’s like to be you. Yes, no, or unknown?

And in addressing your point, I reworded my argument to be more precise:

It is impossible to know something and not know the same exact something at the same time.

That’s what I’ve been trying to state for this aspect of the thread, albeit poorly.

Instead of digging your heels into confusion, perhaps it would serve you well to ponder why beings can’t be omniscient, per, my above disproof.

With all due respect, the confusion arises when you give me two different sentences, one not absurd and one that is absurd, and then present them as saying the same thing. The confusion is yours not mine.

Alright, let’s break this other sentence down then:

It is impossible to:
know something and not know the same exact something at the same time

This is the same as saying it is impossible to:
know x and not know x at the same time

What you’re saying is paradoxical. It’s like me saying God can’t be almighty, because it can’t exist whilst not existing at the same time. Existing and not existing at the same time does not fall into the realm of might/competence because it’s a meaningless/absurd statement. In the exact same way, knowing x and not knowing x at the same time does not fall into the realm of knowledge. It’s not even meaningful language, let alone suitable material for rational discourse. They don’t fall into the realm of language, they are paradoxical sentences. As demonstrated, omnipotence and omniscience have clear meaning/definition.

The confusion occurred because knowing x and not knowing x is not what you argued. You argued: If a being knows exactly what it’s like to have a finite amount of information, by definition, it doesn’t have an infinite amount of information. I addressed this point fully, showing that it was not paradoxical, and then you changed sentences and accused me of being confused.

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)

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

Yes

Yes

This does not amount to nor is it the same as:

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?

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.

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.

Ok, fine. Absolute non ignorance is the same as omniscience.

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.

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

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?

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.