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

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.

I’ll give you another one of my lines in case you think I am bluffing.

If a being knows every reason why it does what it does, and all of those reasons are internal, then it has no capacity to detect external reasons, it has nothing to act upon. This causes logical Catatonia, which is a lack of sentience.

If a being knows every reason why it does what it does but all those reasons are external. Then it knows no reason why it does something, it causes logical Catatonia as well because it can’t exist .

So, to be a conscious being, it knows incompletely, reasons internal and external.

I’ve been trying really hard not to get too advanced for you.

You ability to distinguish between what is meaningful and what is paradoxical is poor. Amongst other things, you seem to think that the following two sentence mean the same thing: I know x and I know what it’s like to not know x at the same time. 2) I know x and I don’t know x at the same time

Your mistake is that you produce paradoxical sentences, I point them out to you, fix them for you and then you ignore them and produce other paradoxical sentence. A logician wouldn’t make sense of them simply because they are absurd. Here’s one last thing I’ll fix for you: Counting to infinity is absurd. Counting infinitely is possible.

Have a nice day

Well, first of all, I’m not God. I think we overestimate our ability to deduce. There are particles that can be in the same place at the same time. Particles can also be waves at the same time. There’s the Schrödingers Cat paradox. I also think we are separate from other things AND not separate.

but then I disagree. I have known that someone was mistreating me, out of my sight, while not knowing it. When it is revealed I have realized that I knew it all along and had even taken steps to distance myself, though I didn’t notice that I knew it. It is like I fell into a deeper portion of the full organism, which knew all along. And in some way, I was even aware of it while not being aware of it.

But mainly I hesitate to assume that I know what a godlike being can and cannot do.

Perhaps paradoxes are logic not solved yet.
On some level your story fits this criteria:

I know that I don’t know whether you have a middle name or what it is if you do.

God never has this perception (by definition) this second part is addressed directly as a reply to certainly real about his false mathematical statement.

Infinities can be counted simultaneously by an infinite number of beings counting each digit in a line that extends infinitely into space. Not a single infinity can be counted by one being alone.

This again is proof that all the information is there, it’s just impossible forone being to do it.

In fact it’s proof that no matter what type of being you are, there’s an infinite amount that you don’t know.

Any field of study that claims that it has observed a paradox, is using language wrongly. You can never understand a paradox let alone observe one.

You’ve never presented ONE paradox in this thread, not ONE!! Stop acting like you know what the word means!!!

Let’s have fun now.

If god is in all of us, how come we are all not omniscient?

If god is omnipresent, and we sin, then that means a perfect beings sins all the time …

How about once you catch up with my 5 arguments here we move to the harder ones…

But I know you can’t … so it’s a moot point …

[b]
God is a philosophical being not an empirical one

The characteristics he has do not exist in reality

So to say that God is in human beings or vice versa is to falsely conflate the philosophical with the empirical

The confusion over omniscience is resolved when the two are separated and kept separate as they should be
[/b]

True paradoxes cannot exist for they would invalidate logic which is the foundation of mathematics
Were logic invalidated then contradictory truth statements would have equal epistemological value

I doubt the sincerity of this comment.

Let’s uphold reason.

Given that you now seem to be trying, I’ll repeat myself again.
Because we are not all omnipresent/Existence and you cannot be omniscient if you don’t have access to all things/omnipresence

Once again: We are existing in Existence/God, but we are not Existence/God.
Us being in Existence/God or
Existence/God being in us is not the same as:
Us being Existence/God
Non-existence being in us is paradoxical. So is:
Us being Existence or:
Existence being us. Which just leaves:
We are in Existence/Existence is in us

The rest of your argument doesn’t follow because it assumes that the following statement is rational: We are all God/Existence. As demonstrated above, this statement is paradoxical and therefore not rational.

The rest of your argument doesn’t follow because it assumes that the following statement is rational: We are all God/Existence. As demonstrated above, this statement is paradoxical and therefore not rational. Again to demonstrate the same paradox using different words: If we change/sin in Existence, this is not the same as Existence changing/sinning. It would be absurd for Existence to ever change. Things in Existence change, but Existence itself never changes.

First give me a basic argument that doesn’t contain a paradox in its first premise, then try giving me harder ones.

If that is the case, then why bother?