Omniscience a fallacy?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Omniscience a fallacy? » Omniscience a fallacy?

Page: 1 2

Omniscience a fallacy?

LoveIsLifeIsLove
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2009
Location: Blighty

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1

Posted 10/25/09 - 10:07 AM: Subject: Omniscience a fallacy?	#1
Though I can tell this topic may have arisen at least once before, my two-cents I shall add regardless. Of all things whilst watching 'Bruce Almighty' I began thinking about the topic: For a supreme being - Alpha and Omega etc, the nature of being omniscient surely induces its own downfall. Now I am not going out of my way to dispute the existence of a God, only to state that even a God must be fallible. For a being to know everything, be responsible for everything and so on and so forth, then in knowing all must imply that if I were to be able to speak/communicate with such a being and I asked - "Do you know of every question that could ever be asked?" - Then the answer must be yes. "Do you know every answer to each of those questions?" - The answer must be yes, except one; or in short, no. For wouldn't it imply that to know all must also mean that to cover every type of question to be asked, one heading would be 'The unanswerable question'? Believers amongst you may think this to be a silly notion, but please consider this - if you believe, then you believe that I am a product of that belief/god; therefore every thought and action I take is God's doing, maybe not by controlling it every second of my life, but by being the instigator of everything, I am a by-product of that initial moment in time. So for me to be able to propose such a question implies in itself that such a thing exists with the realm of belief regarding an 'Omniscient God'.

mustybooks
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 27, 2009
Location: Northampton, England

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 30

Posted 10/25/09 - 11:40 AM:	#2
There are many illogical contradictions of omnipotence, onmnibenevolence and onmniscience. A common argument i've found to be is that God is not of this universe and therefore the rules of our universe do not apply to it. Belief itself is illogical. To completely believe in a somethings existence with no knowledge of it or any proof that it may exist. Even complete belief in proven theories is wrong as something in the future may come along to contradict this theory...
with every answer, more questions appear. Son of Mogh

jawats
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 24, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 10/25/09 - 05:21 PM:	#3
This comes under the type question I have seen, which is, "If God is all-powerful, then could He make a rock so big that he could not move it?" To which the answer, it seems to me, would be "only if he willed it." C.S. Lewis once postulated that nonsense is not made sensical simply by placing "God" into the equation, somehow. Interestingly, if God, as you posit, is the instigator of all, then your very question of the existence of God was instigated by God, and your belief in his nonexistence, similarly instigated by God. Quite ironic. Of course, if one is a pure determinist, then one will end up where you do. Throwing free will into the mix, however, complicates things greatly by indicating that, once God had given Man free will, He was / is not responsible as "watchmaker God," as you would have.

Dragohunter
illusion is persistent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Why does it matteR?

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 166

Posted 10/25/09 - 06:14 PM:	#4
I think this is a simple confusion of applying language. Can you define what "knowledge" is in a similar sense to us applying to God? We simply use those terms to talk about the nature of God which we can hardly conceive and hence, arises nonsense. (Although I have 4 arguments against the 3 different versions of the Omnipotence Paradox) But just because we can hardly give a correct definition of God's essence does not mean the the idea of God fallible. Ludwig Wittgenstein says that the meaning of the word God does not go beyond its usage, and the usage of the word gives a representation of what we believe about reality, and therefore we can not postulate questions that are nonsense.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." - Albert Einstein

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 723

Posted 10/25/09 - 07:03 PM:	#5
jawats (#3) wrote: This comes under the type question I have seen, which is, "If God is all-powerful, then could He make a rock so big that he could not move it?" To which the answer, it seems to me, would be "only if he willed it." C.S. Lewis once postulated that nonsense is not made sensical simply by placing "God" into the equation, somehow. Indeed, "genuine omnipotence" is ambiguous at best. • should be a walk in the park for an omnipotent being to create an immovable sign-post, and put it up out in the country-side • should be an equal trivial task to create a cannon that fires unstoppable cannon balls, and mount it close to the sign-post Well, obviously, these two cannot both exist at the same time. So, if omnipotence is to mean anything at all, it can only include one of the two (at a time if you will). Thus, there's sign-post-omnipotence, and there's cannon-ball-omnipotence, but not both, which seems to make a good case for abandoning "genuine omnipotence" as a consistent concept. Of course this is just one example. Yes, 'placing "God" into the equation' is somewhat irrelevant, since it's omnipotence itself that leads to these contradictions, not "God" (whatever that word means). However, this (inconsistent) capability is often attributed to God, which is how the association comes about. Sorry in advance for contributing to off-tracking the thread. There are other threads omniscience on the forums, for example this one.
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3642

Posted 10/25/09 - 07:24 PM:	#6
There's nothing inconsistent with having the ability to create immovable sign posts and cannons firing unstoppable cannon balls at it, if the cannon ball flies right through it without moving the sign post. It may be physically impossible but not logically. But lets say you come up with two tasks that are mutually exclusive, such as letting the sun shine or make clouds block it out. The ability to do one and the ability to do the other are not mutually exclusive, because one does not have to execute an ability to have it. The concept of such an ability that entails a logical inconsistency, e.g. doing both simulatenously, is no more an exception of actions an omnipotent can do than square triangles are to that triangles do not have four sides.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 723

Posted 10/25/09 - 07:32 PM:	#7
Yet, even an omnipotent being cannot execute contradictory actions, the "cannot" part being in contrast to "omnipotent". Well, unless you allow for contradictions to exist.
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3642

Posted 10/25/09 - 07:47 PM:	#8
LoveIsLifeIsLove wrote: For wouldn't it imply that to know all must also mean that to cover every type of question to be asked, one heading would be 'The unanswerable question'? This reminds me of the so called "ultimate truth machine" which can't answer the question whether P ="the ultimate truth machine will answer that P is false" is true or not, because if it answers true, then it is false, and if it answers false, then it is true. One could say though that God doesn't have to answer this kind of questions in order to know that is true or false. Although one might say that Q="God knows Q is false" is not possible for God to know, since if he knows it is true, then he is wrong, and if he knows that it is false, then he is also wrong. So thus God cannot know whether Q is true or not, hence it is true. However one could say it is logically true and thus not actually a positive statement and thus does not count as knowledge in the first place.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3642

Posted 10/25/09 - 07:53 PM:	#9
jorndoe wrote: Yet, even an omnipotent being cannot execute contradictory actions, the "cannot" part being in contrast to "omnipotent". Well, unless you allow for contradictions to exist. Contradictory actions are not really actions much like square triangles are not really triangles. Of course they are actions, but they are also not actions. They are both executable by omnipotent beings and not executable by omnipotent beings, as well as by executable by impotent beings. Simply put, they are not exceptions to omnipotence, no more than square triangles are exceptions to all triangles having three sides. It does not make omnipotence incoherent no more than square triangles make the concept of triangle incoherent.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 723

Posted 10/25/09 - 08:20 PM:	#10
keda (#6,#9) wrote: [..] Contradictory actions are not really actions much like square triangles are not really triangles. Of course they are actions, but they are also not actions. They are both executable by omnipotent beings and not executable by omnipotent beings, as well as by executable by impotent beings. Nice cop-out. Yes, modify the sign-post/cannon-ball/rock scenarios in whichever way you want, for them to be mutually exclusive, as you put it. You might as well admit: (1) the two individual scenarios are "actions" by themselves, unless you mean to say that omnipotence cannot accomplish either; (2) concurrently, the two individual actions lead to contradictions. But, ok, sure, modify concepts to avoid the problem and maintain unconditional omnipotence; not a very satisfactory answer, but if that floats your boat. Once upon a time God tried to execute both actions, and vanished in a puff of contradiction. Instead, we're finding our reality, where immovable sign-posts, unstoppable cannon-balls, unliftable rocks, and God are not around. Argh..more off-tracking..keda, it's all your fault..
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.