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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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 …
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.
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?
You maybe. But only cause you havent lived.
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.
Only superficial experience is informational.
The other kind is actually anti information which defies correspondence.
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.