Kim, wood times
I haven’t exactly been closely following this part of the debate, but:
If he didn’t know them, he wouldn’t be able to deduce them. But…
This is wrong. Such a problem would arise if the definition had been “a being is omniscient if it knows everything it is consistent for that being to know”. In that case, then a carrot could, I suppose, be called “omniscient”. That is not, however, what the proposed definition is (or at least it shouldn’t be). Omniscience is in knowing all true propositions - that is, knowing everything that can be known. But there are obvious things that cannot be known: anything that is not true. This includes false statements and truth-valueless sentences. The future may not have true statements about it. If so, they cannot be known even by God, and thus he can still act in a free manner.
Again, I caution against referring to the dictionary here, for while such definitions are fine for everyday purposes, they are usually too imprecise for philosophical purposes.
Hombre08107
Which ‘God’ are you speaking of?
I suppose that the ‘God’ of the Christians is generally regarded as omniscient, omnipotent, transcendental, etc., but my god is both immanent and transcendent.
How about your ‘God?’ And why do you seek to destroy your ‘God?’ Oh, and it is your ‘God’ you’re talking about!
So, you choose to ‘prove’ your own ‘God’ doesn’t exist… what’s the point of that?
That would be the God of standard theism: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, perfect, sovereign, immutable etc. That is the entity generally talked about in the philosophy of religion.
And did you not notice the small matter of hombre’s being an atheist (at least as far as the God of standard theism is concerned)? How does one destroy what doesn’t exist?
Some are trying to test God’s attributes and showing that his attributes are contradictive.
The comparison with the carrot is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. If omniscence means that you know everything what you capably can than that can’t refer to God. Because God created everything. A carrot did not. So it’s not difficult to understand that God knows eveything because He created it.
Secondly, we often forget that God isn’t held by a couple of dimensions. Rather He created the concept of dimensions. God, isn’t something we created like some suggest (i.e. He is my mind, He is love etc.) He is a being, a supreme being. To say that God created the universe we have at least to say He got a consciousness.
But how do I know he really exist?
By simple (deductive) reasoning you can find the answer very quickly. It’s all about action and reaction. Normal laws suggest that every action occurs after another action. If the universe was a videotape we could rewind it endlessly because the react-act must be solid because there is no such thing as an action without a cause.
However the universe can’t simply came out of nothing. Nothing = nothing. true? So there must be something that can cause an action without having a cause for it. I like to make the comparision with our souls. If the laws are correct we don’t have freewills (i.e. predetermination). But I know and I feel that I have a certain amount of free will. Don’t you feel that too?
So we can only come to the conclusion that a larger soul (comparing to our soul) created the world (.i.e. God).
Says you, but just because you’ve not seen one does not mean there are none. Nuclear decay is a good example of an effect that very much appears to be completely causeless.
In any case, your argument itself accepts that there is at least one uncaused cause: God. Why can there not be more? Why cannot the universe itself be uncaused? Furthermore, you haven’t made it clear how you are inferring that he is a supreme being just on the basis of being an uncaused cause.
Etc.
Even something causeless had to be created. It absurd to say it’s possible if you have an empty room with completly nothing there is a reasonable change that something will pop-up out of nothing, absurd.
Nuclear decay is NOTED (.i.e. like your self said APPEARS not IS) to be causeless, people don’t know yet. That’s something very different. You can’t say just because it’s not proven otherwise it is. Please reason with me. Empty room stays empty.
You said why aren’t there more causers without having a cause…I did mention souls didn’t I?
Now why is God the supreme being?
Something, someone created the universe. That Being is not time bounded after all He created time. Which explain in a simple way the infinity of God. So if we take the concept of reverse enigeneering we can conclude God is One and Supreme:
God created universe.
So God is not time bounded because he created the universe.
God is One because two gods is contradictive : two Gods who are omnipotent results in a paradox.
For example:
God 1: doesn’t want God 2 to know a little secret
God 2: Is omnipotent can know the little secret but that contradicts the omnipotency of God 1.
So we can conclude there is only One Supreme God.
how do you disprove the saying “god is truth”?
Again, says you. What of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs, which appear apparently spontaneously and uncausedly?
I’m bringing this up because such things very much appear causeless. Obviously we don’t know for certain, nor am I claiming any certainty. But the very doubt is enough to question your assertion that everything has a cause. Your last sentence is exactly the point I was making, because you are committing that fallacy yourself in assuming that because it’s not proven that everything does not have a cause, everything must do.
Your point was not clear, but it appears you are saying that free will comes about through the causeless action of the soul. If so, then you again refute your own premise that nothing is without a cause. On the other hand, if free will is causeless, and therefore random, how does it qualify as free will?
No we do not. That is what I questioned before. You’re inferring from the existence of the universe a creator. Assuming that there is a creator of the universe, by what are you inferring that this creator is a supreme being? If there is a creator of the universe, that being is surely powerful by our standards, but we, as yet, have no reason to believe he is unsurpassably powerful.
Your last bit only demonstrates that there cannot be more than one supreme being, not that there must be one.
Kyry
Precisely!
Therefore random? three categories of making/taking a choice:
- predetermination
- random
- will
You only show two of them which is confusing. So free will is to have a will of your own choice (i.e. not random). I do not not refute my own premises because even our causeless souls are created by something (.i.e. other being). Because we couldn’t have created the universe. This Being most have the power of being causeless. Which in common days refer to God. You probably ask who created God? That question would be ignorant cause i’ve told earlier that God doesn’t live by the standard of our dimensions, if there is a God.
If the prove is clear that God exist the question of his attributes stops right there. Let’s presume God does exist (which He does IMHO). He should have created most (not all, if he is not a supreme being, refering to your quote) of the things we can see and are aware off. I’ve proven that two Gods never can exist. But if there is One God He must have created everything otherwise there is something else. But once again I’ve proven there can be only One God. So We can come to the conclusion that IF there is a God, He got all power otherwise He isn’t a God.
Irrespective of where souls come from, you were apparently saying that they are a source of free will because their will is not caused by anything. And I am saying that if free will is uncaused, it is random - therefore it is not free will. In any case, the whole talk of souls is not really relevant to the issue, and it is also question-begging.
In any case, you avoid the other possibilities. We still have no reason to think that everything has a cause, nor that everything has an origin. Thus we cannot infer a creator. The world may simply have always existed, uncaused and uncreated.
Again, accepting for the sake of argument that it does have a creator, we still cannot infer his supreme status. God could exist without cause, and then create all there is (besides himself), and yet not be supreme. Now you will say that only a supreme being can be causeless, but this is blatantly question-begging.
So none of your arguments are independently convincing, and you haven’t responded to the points I have raised.
I should like to point out that there are at least as many ‘gods’ as there are sentient beings.
Each of us goes to the alter of his/her own ‘god.’ It is this particular ‘god’ that is the one general ‘god,’ not the God of any organised church/religion.
God is personal. But the correspondences between my ‘god’ and your ‘god’ are numerous.
Finally, ‘god’ is nothing more than a concept. We can never know anything beyond the limits of our conceptual thought patterning.
‘God’ is the most complex and fascinating of all our abstract ideas, that’s all, nothing more.
But that’s my ‘god!’
Our discussion became too much complicated for me. Could we start over with a new premises/question? This time i’ll try to stay on the topic.
Okay. Again, the thing about souls is not obviously relevant to the discussion.
But the central issue here is that you are asserting that everything (supreme being aside) must have a cause and an origin. And I am questioning both premises on logical and empirical grounds.
Ok, look. I've had about enough of this. For some reason, you are convinced that since we disagree about theism, that I must be your hated enemy or something. That, or you think trash-talking is a part of philosophy like it would be if we were playing hoops.
You remind me of myself when I was 14 or so. I was a complete pain in the ass to talk to back then, and now so are you. Obviously it doesn't matter what I say, you aren't interested in the truth of things- based on how often you constantly misquote me. Why in the world do you expect anybody to talk to you when you begin all of your posts with a paragraph berating the people you are talking to for how stupid they are? Don't you realize that if you were interested in philosophy, [i]real[/i] philosophy, you'd see that people who disagree with you are doing you a favor? Do you see professionals carrying on in this matter?
I've lost all interest in whatever it you're trying to do. No doubt you'll miss the point and parade that as victory, say I'mbowing out because I know I'm defeated or something. And hey, that's cool, maybe you need 'victory' in your life to make up for something else, I dunno. But if you ever learn how to be respectful, and stop behaving like a jackass, then look me up because you aren't dumb, and there may be some engaging things to talk about with you.
Closing arguments, don’t expect a reply:
Yes, I have refuted your argument- God does not necessarily have foreknowledge of his choices because since His knowledge is perfect, He has no reason to made up his mind at the point of action- he can make choices at any time. So all this talk of knowing his choices before He makes them is nonsense, unless you can define a time where it is possible for God to have known the future, but for whatever reason impossible to have made a choice about it. That’s my argument, you’ve never bothered to engage it- even with the number of words it took you to quote Monty Python like a blasted fool.
Earlier, you said, Uccisore, that God is aware of his actions but not his choices. Given that his actions depend on his choices, how is he unaware of the choices preceding these actions?
In response to kyry,
You quoted the proposition but that is not the argument, per say. The argument reads:
This argument has been explained in past posts. Nevertheles, I will further illustrate:
Say you are a being, omniscient, but not knowing your own future actions. Say, in a closed environment, you are in a small room. In this room is a table and a cup. There is nothing else in the room. In the present, you are staring at the cup. Now, you know that in the future, this cup will have moved. You know that in the future, the table will not move. You know that in the future, this cup will come in contract with you. You know that in the future, nothing else has come in contract with the cup, even though this is implied within a closed environment. This being can deduce that he infact will move the cup, defeating the restriction of knowing his own future actions, thus proving contradictory.
kyry, you later defend Uccisore in the other argument by stating “The future may not have true statements about it.” That’s a very bold claim. You’re going to have to back that up.
By showing it cannot exist.
phrygianslave, kyry answered your first question correctly when he reminded you that the discussion is on the god of standard theism.
You described your god,
If he’s trancendent then how do you know anything about him? How do you even know he’s trancendent? Phryganslave, you are nothing more than a religious agnostic, knowing nothing about your god but believing in God, nothingness, regardless. Hiding behind the veil of Skepticism will not save your god. Proving something can exist due to trancendence does not prove its existence. It’s the biggest mistake theists run into.
Concerning Uccisore’s last post:
It was about time. Uccisore claims that he cannot continue because I keep breaking his heart. Poor guy. He left one of my arguments unrefutued, knowing his defeat. We have come to the agreement that he cannot refute the fact that God, a being omniscient and omnipotent, cannot exist. Nevertheles, with his dying words, Uccisore gives his last weak refutation against my other argument.
After a bunch of nagging and crying on how life is not fair, Uccisore makes his counter-argument:
“God does not necessarily have foreknowledge of his choices because since His knowledge is perfect.” So God doesn’t know something because he knows everything. Ok? Moving on, “He has no reason to made up his mind at the point of action- he can make choices at any time.” Besides the bad grammar, very muddled and unclear sentence. He has no reason to make up his mind? You refute the contradiction by stating that God doesn’t make choices? Not performing chosen actions?
If you read the rest of the paragraph, it’s just as muddled and incoherent. He has no argument. Uccisore’s last attempt was by far the weakest.
And that’s a wrap for my discussion with Uccisore. For the atheist, I hope you found my arguments helpful. For the religionist, I hope you question your faith. The contradiction of omniscience and omnipotence is not the only contradiction against the God of standard theism. Look it up, there are many more. I don’t expect you to convert, but if you think you should, don’t be afraid of taking the red pill.
I’m exhausted. As much as the guy hates me, Uccisore was a great challenge. I’ve never argued this sorta stuff on the internet, nor with anyone except my friends, and that’s just for fun. Now I really have to go and do something productive with life, not that I wont be stopping by or anything. Take care, everyone. 
It’s not at all clear what you are arguing, here. My point is that God does not deduce things if he is omniscient. In any case, such deductions would depend on causal relationships it is not clear hold in our world, nor about the future.
Whilst that indeed portrays an argument that is incoherent, I don’t think it is a fair portrayal of omniscience.
Why is that a bold claim? I’m not saying there are no true statements about the future, but that there may be no true statements about the future. The future may not exist. It is a possibility you do not examine.
My “How does one destroy what doesn’t exist?” was rhetorical; you can’t destroy something that isn’t there.
Incidentally, another alternative you do not consider is that God may be atemporal.
I agree that God has knowledge of his choices. What I'm saying is that it makes no sense to call this knowledge [i]prior[/i]. As far back as you care to name, God knew what He would do today. But also, as far back as you care to name, it is reasonable to say that God had already [i]freely chosen[/i] what He would do today, being in possession of all the information He would ever need to make that choice.
It is difficult to answer the question "When did God learn X?" But whatever answer there may be, it's the exact same as the answer to "When did God choose to do Y?"
I admit, it is difficult to imagine a Being who has always known what He will do today, and yet is free with respect to what He did today. But I submit that as difficult as it may be, it is not blatantly [i]contradictory[/i], just hard to fathom.