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 » Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:08 am

I clarified perfectly to a post you ignored. A being may choose to go outside its comfort zone, and in doing so, learn what consent violation is, but when that being says "no!" The consent violation stops. This let's every being learn right and wrong on it's own terms instead of the terms of you and the psychopath in the sky.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

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

Postby Certainly real » Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:39 am

barbarianhorde wrote:
Certainly real wrote:So am I right in concluding that you think a tree is better than God? Am I right in concluding that you think it's better to be a tree than to be God?

Not wrong to anticipate that this may be.
But the jury is still in conclave on that.

You now I really don't believe perfection as a whole can make sense if not every part is completely pure in bliss which is just not so.

Plus, any whole has some border. Existence can't be some object.

Anyway can you answer the question or not?


With regards to your question, it is better to be omnipotent than it is to be a tree. No trees can ever be omnipotent, therefore all trees are imperfect because there is something better than trees.

Some people believe the perfect being ought to be able to create a rock so heavy that even it cannot lift. Or that the perfect being must be able to know what a 100th sense is. Reason has no place for absurdities. Unknowns are just unknowns and reason cannot be applied to them. Reason dictates that we avoid absurdities and that we cannot apply it to unknowns. Do we agree on this?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Sep 23, 2018 2:09 am

Certainly real wrote:
barbarianhorde wrote:
Certainly real wrote:So am I right in concluding that you think a tree is better than God? Am I right in concluding that you think it's better to be a tree than to be God?

Not wrong to anticipate that this may be.
But the jury is still in conclave on that.

You now I really don't believe perfection as a whole can make sense if not every part is completely pure in bliss which is just not so.

Plus, any whole has some border. Existence can't be some object.

Anyway can you answer the question or not?


With regards to your question, it is better to be omnipotent than it is to be a tree. No trees can ever be omnipotent, therefore all trees are imperfect because there is something better than trees.

Some people believe the perfect being ought to be able to create a rock so heavy that even it cannot lift. Or that the perfect being must be able to know what a 100th sense is. Reason has no place for absurdities. Unknowns are just unknowns and reason cannot be applied to them. Reason dictates that we avoid absurdities and that we cannot apply it to unknowns. Do we agree on this?


Why can't a tree be omnipotent?
Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster ?

Oh, maybe omnipotence is never substantiated!!!

That means it doesn't exist!!

Answer me this GOD! Because that's who you think you are....

How does an all knowing being exist?

Here's more pure logic for you.

I know that I don't know what your name in real life is. Knowing what you don't know, is by definition, that we can all prove independently, a form of knowledge. If god knows everything, then God can't know what it's like to be us. If god knows what it's like to be us, then God can't know anything (the sum total of all our lack of knowledge combined.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

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

Postby Certainly real » Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:06 am

Ecmandu wrote:I clarified perfectly to a post you ignored. A being may choose to go outside its comfort zone, and in doing so, learn what consent violation is, but when that being says "no!" The consent violation stops. This let's every being learn right and wrong on it's own terms instead of the terms of you and the psychopath in the sky.


How does this effect the nature of Existence? How does this change the only logical and necessary definition of Existence from that which is all-existing/omnipresent to something else?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:12 am

Certainly real wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:I clarified perfectly to a post you ignored. A being may choose to go outside its comfort zone, and in doing so, learn what consent violation is, but when that being says "no!" The consent violation stops. This let's every being learn right and wrong on it's own terms instead of the terms of you and the psychopath in the sky.


How does this effect the nature of Existence? How does this change the only logical and necessary definition of Existence from that which is all-existing/omnipresent to something else?


It proves it's not omnibenevolent, and thus not perfect.

Try my last reply now...
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

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

Postby Certainly real » Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:02 am

Ecmandu wrote:Why can't a tree be omnipotent?
Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster ?/quote]

Because the definition of omnipotence requires omnipresence. You can't be omnipotent if you don't have reach or access to all of existence. You can't have reach or access to all of existence if you're not omnipresent.

Oh, maybe omnipotence is never substantiated!!!

That means it doesn't exist!!


It has meaning: That which can do all that is doable in Existence. It's not paradoxical. You can't have something become omnipotent from a non-omnipotent state because omnipotence requires omnipresence. Existence, which is omnipresent has always existed and will always exist. So either Existence (the only thing that is omnipresent and necessarily eternal) is omnipotent or it isn't. Given that omnipotence has meaning, Existence is omnipotent. Again, look at the argument premise by premise and if you're trying prove the argument wrong do so without being paradoxical. Also, don't forget the challenge I set.

How does an all knowing being exist?

By being omnipresent it has reach and access to everything, so it knows everything there is to know. It is all knowing.

Here's more pure logic for you.

I know that I don't know what your name in real life is. Knowing what you don't know, is by definition, that we can all prove independently, a form of knowledge. If god knows everything, then God can't know what it's like to be us. If god knows what it's like to be us, then God can't know anything (the sum total of all our lack of knowledge combined


Knowing what you don't know amounts to you knowing that you lack knowledge in some way (in this case, what my my name is) Agreed? If you really don't know my name, then God also knows that you don't know my name, so God has knowledge of this. Agreed? So the sum total of all our lack of knowledge combined is an amount/something that God knows. Agreed?

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 real 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: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:28 pm

Knowing that you don't know something is a TYPE of knowledge, it is not the lack of knowledge.

This makes omniscience impossible.

If God knows everything, God knows exactly what it's like to be a being that doesn't know everything.

Disproof through contradiction.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

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

Postby Certainly real » Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:18 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Certainly real wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:I clarified perfectly to a post you ignored. A being may choose to go outside its comfort zone, and in doing so, learn what consent violation is, but when that being says "no!" The consent violation stops. This let's every being learn right and wrong on it's own terms instead of the terms of you and the psychopath in the sky.


How does this effect the nature of Existence? How does this change the only logical and necessary definition of Existence from that which is all-existing/omnipresent to something else?


It proves it's not omnibenevolent, and thus not perfect.

Try my last reply now...


You're referring to consent which is a matter of free will. Our understanding with regards to free will is as follows. Either it's entirely random, or it's entirely determined, or it's something in between or something else that is unknown to us like a 100th sense. If it's a matter of randomness, then consent is irrelevant. If it's a matter of it being pre-determined, then consent again, is irrelevant. If it's somewhere in between, then again, consent is irrelevant as none of these descriptions seem to satisfy our view of free-will and what would amount to a consent. Which could mean that if it's unknown, like a 100th sense, then it's unknown territory and we can't apply reason to it. It would be like saying God not knowing what the 100th sense is amounts to contradictions in omniscience. We don't know if there is a 100th sense so we don't know if it falls in the realm of knowledge or not. Our lack of knowledge or awareness or unknowns has no bearing on omniscience. Absurdities and paradoxes clearly rule things out of Existence.

If you take the random view or pre-determined view, the way that that would amount to consent, is still such that omniscience is maintained. If you disagree, tell me why and I will address it. I've covered this topic before.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Certainly real » Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:28 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Knowing that you don't know something is a TYPE of knowledge, it is not the lack of knowledge.

This makes omniscience impossible.

If God knows everything, God knows exactly what it's like to be a being that doesn't know everything.

Disproof through contradiction.


Knowing that something lacks knowledge is an item of knowledge. We are not in disagreement on this.

1) God knows all the beings that lack knowledge (so God is fully aware of all non-omniscient beings) Is this contradictory?

2) God knows exactly which items of knowledge each non-omnisicnet being lacks. Is this contradictory?

Where is the contradiction?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Certainly real » Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:35 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Certainly real wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:I clarified perfectly to a post you ignored. A being may choose to go outside its comfort zone, and in doing so, learn what consent violation is, but when that being says "no!" The consent violation stops. This let's every being learn right and wrong on it's own terms instead of the terms of you and the psychopath in the sky.


How does this effect the nature of Existence? How does this change the only logical and necessary definition of Existence from that which is all-existing/omnipresent to something else?


It proves it's not omnibenevolent, and thus not perfect.

Try my last reply now...


Also, I'm not sure on the semantical gap you refer to when you say omnibenevolent. God being perfect entails that God does perfectly. The core and outline of what being perfect is, is clear. The outline and core of what doing perfectly is, is also clear. However given that we don't have knowledge of the future and so many other items of knowledge that the omniscient being knows when planning, designing or calculating (all of which it does perfectly) it's unknown to us what doing perfectly constitutes. So when you fault our universe or matters in relation to consent and free-will you are not in a suitable position to do so because of the unknowns that I've highlighted. I can equally throw in defence a load of unknowns to counter what you say but having a debate purely using unknowns or paradoxes will never bear any fruit or lead to progression. This is what reason dictates.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:31 pm

Certainly real wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Knowing that you don't know something is a TYPE of knowledge, it is not the lack of knowledge.

This makes omniscience impossible.

If God knows everything, God knows exactly what it's like to be a being that doesn't know everything.

Disproof through contradiction.


Knowing that something lacks knowledge is an item of knowledge. We are not in disagreement on this.

1) God knows all the beings that lack knowledge (so God is fully aware of all non-omniscient beings) Is this contradictory?

2) God knows exactly which items of knowledge each non-omnisicnet being lacks. Is this contradictory?

Where is the contradiction?


Because God doesn't know exactly what it's like to be me. I do. That means I know something god doesn't know.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

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

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:34 pm

Certainly real wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Knowing that you don't know something is a TYPE of knowledge, it is not the lack of knowledge.

This makes omniscience impossible.

If God knows everything, God knows exactly what it's like to be a being that doesn't know everything.

Disproof through contradiction.


Knowing that something lacks knowledge is an item of knowledge. We are not in disagreement on this.

1) God knows all the beings that lack knowledge (so God is fully aware of all non-omniscient beings) Is this contradictory?

2) God knows exactly which items of knowledge each non-omnisicnet being lacks. Is this contradictory?

Where is the contradiction?
Unless God is everything also rather than just some transcendent watcher.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

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

Postby Certainly real » Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:08 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Certainly real wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Knowing that you don't know something is a TYPE of knowledge, it is not the lack of knowledge.

This makes omniscience impossible.

If God knows everything, God knows exactly what it's like to be a being that doesn't know everything.

Disproof through contradiction.


Knowing that something lacks knowledge is an item of knowledge. We are not in disagreement on this.

1) God knows all the beings that lack knowledge (so God is fully aware of all non-omniscient beings) Is this contradictory?

2) God knows exactly which items of knowledge each non-omnisicnet being lacks. Is this contradictory?

Where is the contradiction?


Because God doesn't know exactly what it's like to be me. I do. That means I know something god doesn't know.


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?

5) 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?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Certainly real » Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:14 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Certainly real wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Knowing that you don't know something is a TYPE of knowledge, it is not the lack of knowledge.

This makes omniscience impossible.

If God knows everything, God knows exactly what it's like to be a being that doesn't know everything.

Disproof through contradiction.


Knowing that something lacks knowledge is an item of knowledge. We are not in disagreement on this.

1) God knows all the beings that lack knowledge (so God is fully aware of all non-omniscient beings) Is this contradictory?

2) God knows exactly which items of knowledge each non-omnisicnet being lacks. Is this contradictory?

Where is the contradiction?
Unless God is everything also rather than just some transcendent watcher.


God is omnipresent/all-existing/Existence
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:32 pm

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.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
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 1:03 am

Ecmandu wrote: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.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:15 am

Certainly real wrote:
Ecmandu wrote: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.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

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

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:24 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Certainly real wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Knowing that you don't know something is a TYPE of knowledge, it is not the lack of knowledge.

This makes omniscience impossible.

If God knows everything, God knows exactly what it's like to be a being that doesn't know everything.

Disproof through contradiction.


Knowing that something lacks knowledge is an item of knowledge. We are not in disagreement on this.

1) God knows all the beings that lack knowledge (so God is fully aware of all non-omniscient beings) Is this contradictory?

2) God knows exactly which items of knowledge each non-omnisicnet being lacks. Is this contradictory?

Where is the contradiction?


Because God doesn't know exactly what it's like to be me. I do. That means I know something god doesn't know.

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.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

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

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:27 pm

You can't not know something and know the same something at the same time.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
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 5:42 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Certainly real wrote:
Ecmandu wrote: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.


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?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Certainly real » Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:14 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote: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.


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
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:40 pm

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
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
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 7:35 pm

Ecmandu wrote: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?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

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

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:58 pm

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.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
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 8:25 pm

Ecmandu wrote: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.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users