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

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.

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?

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.

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 .

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 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?

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?)

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.

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

The second part of the post is literally non computational word salad.

Which part? Where does it result in a paradox. I showed how your argument lead to a misunderstanding between two sentences. One that was meaningful and one that was absurd. All you’re saying is that the second part is word salad without backing it up. I cannot respond to that.

One of you’re issues to this regard is this:

Since omniscience is defined as a being that knows all is knowable, you argue from the definition, and not treating the definition as a proposition which is falsifiable. You say my argument is non computable because of the definition, and I say yours is non computable because of the evidence.

I’ll let you ponder this further than we’ve currently gone in this thread:

If god is in all beings, why are all beings not omniscient? Do you think, maybe, perhaps, (this is rhetorical) that god is not in all beings?

I argue from reason and reason dictates that anything that is paradoxical is false. If you read my argument premise by premise, you’d see how rejecting omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience is rationally absurd.

You cannot empirically test for omnipresence/Existence. You can only empirically test for things within Existence/that which is all-existing. But you cannot reject omnipresence because reason does not allow you to. Same with omnipotence and omniscience as demonstrated by the argument.

Some thing has to be all-existing. Right? Let’s call this x.

Per the dictates of reason, x sustains/creates all beings with what it possess. This avoids the paradox of something coming from nothing.

All existing things, are sustained by x. X is what makes everything exist. We recognise that we are not omnipresent and we recognise that x is necessarily omnipresent. So in order to avoid paradoxes in explaining how we are are in Existence but not Existence itself at the same time whilst rationally accounting for x, we have only one non-paradoxical path to take. Potency/purity.

X has varying levels of potency. Let’s call it’s purest/most potent/highest/complete form God. Maximally potent/pure x (a.k.a God) has reach/access to all impurer levels of x. It sustains all impurer levels of x. We are perhaps a less potent form of consciousness within the most potent form of consciousness. Or a less potent form of reality within the most potent form of reality.

In conclusion, ultimately: Maximally potent/pure x sustains all impurer/less potent levels of x. And, it has reach and access to all impurer/less potent levels of x. This thereby rationally fulfils the semantics of omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience.

What I’ve outlined, is paradox free. Can you give me another model of Existence that is paradox free?

This is a bit humorous…

You see, you have one line, I have about 7.
It’s painfully obvious that you are not a logistician, nor do you care about logic.

Try this one:

No single being can count, no matter how fast they count, an infinite number. It never stops.

There are an infinite amount of infinite numbers.

Now, if there are an infinite number of beings each stating one number each, an infinite amount of numbers could be stated (known) but it is not centralized, but rather, decentralized …

You are neither a rational or logical person, so this will mean nothing to you.