Page 2 of 6 [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

MannyBoo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,968
Location: Hyperspace

09 Mar 2013, 8:13 am

GOD spelled backwards is DOG :D



Dragoness
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 375

09 Mar 2013, 1:58 pm

seaturtleisland wrote:
Yeah and I have another unscientific paradox to add that I've heard from many pseudophilosophists. God created itself.


In theory, you are agreeing with the video.

heavenlyabyss wrote:
What is God?


Therein lies the problem: we have absolutely no idea.



Krabo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2012
Age: 244
Gender: Male
Posts: 15,625
Location: Suomi.

10 Mar 2013, 12:56 pm

God can do the impossible – he can exist without having been created.

Common sense suggests that if the state of affairs once was such that nothing existed, it would be the state of affairs ever since. Something must have always existed. I am childish enough to believe that this something is God.



kouzoku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 660

10 Mar 2013, 1:12 pm

I'm a Taoist. Yes, something must have always existed, since something cannot come from nothing, but that "something" doesn't have to be a deity.

Do people create deities because it is something they can easily grasp and relate to? I am curious about this. Even some Taoists have created deities.



Krabo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2012
Age: 244
Gender: Male
Posts: 15,625
Location: Suomi.

10 Mar 2013, 1:20 pm

If deities, as you call God, were created by man, I would lose my childishness. I would be like king Solomon, the wisest of all, and yet the most stupid of all to abandon his faith and abnegate his God.



fueledbycoffee
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 566
Location: Baltimore

10 Mar 2013, 5:59 pm

The problem with God, we have the question of creation. If God is eternal, then why couldn't the universe be? Cut out the middleman, simplify the equation. Anyone can come up with an epic backstory as to how God got so epic that he didn't need to be created, but we lack any sort of real evidence for the hypothesis.

The most logical answer is that at some point Man came up with the idea of God as an answer to questions, a catch-all plug that fit any hole with a bit of wordplay. Then, like every idea, schismed and fractured into a million different religions.

And what does childishness and losing it have to do with God?



UnLoser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Mar 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 655

10 Mar 2013, 7:02 pm

I agree with that video. The argument from design is a load of utter nonsense. I also agree that an omniscient being is a logical contradiction. A being that thinks it knows all can never really be sure if it does indeed know all, because if there were something it didn't know, then it wouldn't know it didn't know. The being can never know whether it knows all. It may hold an opinion on the matter, but it would be speculation, not true knowledge.

Edit: Okay, well I guess if you consider correct speculation to be knowledge, than an omniscient being is logically possible.



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

10 Mar 2013, 8:03 pm

Krabo wrote:
God can do the impossible – he can exist without having been created.

Common sense suggests that if the state of affairs once was such that nothing existed, it would be the state of affairs ever since. Something must have always existed. I am childish enough to believe that this something is God.


What is the point of being childish? What is wrong with admitting Tooth Fairy and Zeus are just fairy tales?



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,340
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

11 Mar 2013, 4:08 am

UnLoser wrote:
Edit: Okay, well I guess if you consider correct speculation to be knowledge, than an omniscient being is logically possible.


What about unknown things that can't even be speculated about.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,770

11 Mar 2013, 4:14 am

Technically, an omnipotent "entity" can create itself.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,340
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

11 Mar 2013, 10:37 am

Ancalagon wrote:
Jono wrote:
The video also explains why the concept of omniscience, or all-knowing, is actually a complete and utter logical contradiction. The reason for that is that knowing everything implies also knowing unknown unknowns (things that you don't even know that there is to know), which by definition, can't be known.

This sort of thing is no more a problem for religion than it is for set theory. It's a problem for *naive* religion in the same way that it's a problem for naive set theory. This really is the exact same argument that proves that the set of all sets can't exist.

You don't provide a good definition of unknown unknowns, and I don't want to bother watching a 10 minute video that makes a bad argument, but let's assume that they are defined in a way that makes sense and is truly self-contradictory. Omniscience implies that the omniscient being knows everything that can be known. Unknown unknowns cannot be known by definition.


You've sort of got it. Unknown unknowns are an epistemological concept that were popularised by Donald Rumsfeld (of all people).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_unknowns

I don't know what you would consider a good definition but the definition is simply unknown things that you are unaware of not knowing about. The argument doesn't imply that unknown unknowns can't become known but rather that one particular unknown unknown (namely the status of the unknown unknowns itself), will always be unknown because by definition you are unaware of them. Therefore, if it is possible for unknown unknowns to exist, you can never rule them out.

Ancalagon wrote:
Therefore, omniscience doesn't imply the knowledge of unknown unknowns, so there is no contradiction.

You might try to make an objection that this is limiting God's knowledge, but that doesn't work either, since unknowable things aren't knowledge.


Actually, I think that would probably be an unacceptable trade-off for an Abrahamic conception of God. Because then for instance, and this is alluded to in the video, God would never be able to rule out that he has not been created by a higher God that rules over a greater realm even if he's omniscience in the sub-realm that he rules over. If for some reason, this higher God chooses not to reveal himself to God, then the existence of this higher God and greater realm could very well be one of the unknown unknowns from God's perspective, making God little more than a demiurge similar to the concept in gnosticism and God would never be able to know any better.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,340
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

11 Mar 2013, 10:44 am

The_Walrus wrote:
Jono wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Sign...

An omniscience being would know everything. There would be no "unknown unknowns". There would be no unknowns.

The set "everything" includes what you or I would call "unknown unknowns". For the traditional God, nothing is unknown.

I'm not sure what you're finding hard to grasp here... omniscient means "knowing everything". Saying "but what about things you don't know you don't know?" doesn't challenge that. Unknown unknowns are eradicated by a being that knows everything.


Which again is logically impossible. Ok, consider the set of unknown unknowns. If there were no unknown unknowns, that means the set is empty. But even if the set is empty, it impossible to know that the set is empty because by their very definition, it impossible to know what is in that set. The fact that you don't know what is in that set is also an unknown, which is logically impossible to know because that would be a logical contradiction. Therefore even if we except it as a given that the set we call "everything", includes even the unknown unknowns, including knowing what is in the set of unknown unknowns, then it follows that knowing "everything" is logically impossible because knowing that one thing is logically impossible.

So basically, the argument is that the concept of omniscience is logically impossible because it's logically impossible to know that you know everything. I think you are failing to grasp my argument. By the way, did you watch the video?

I watched the first few minutes of the video where an annoying angel explained to God the infinite regression of designers implied by the teleological argument and then said that omniscience was impossible because you couldn't know all unknown unknowns.

I really think a logical leap is being made here. Your argument seems somewhat circular. Mind you, omniscience is itself quite circular.

Unknown unknowns possess no challenge for an omniscient being- it knows that there is nothing it does not know.


The statement in bold is logically impossible since by definition, unknown unknowns are called that because you are unaware of them. Therefore, if it is possible for unknown unknowns to exist, it is impossible to say for certainty that they don't. Please point out where that is circular.



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

11 Mar 2013, 6:08 pm

Jono wrote:
I don't know what you would consider a good definition but the definition is simply unknown things that you are unaware of not knowing about.

It's a good definition in the sense that it makes sense, but it doesn't produce a contradiction for you.

Quote:
The argument doesn't imply that unknown unknowns can't become known but rather that one particular unknown unknown (namely the status of the unknown unknowns itself), will always be unknown because by definition you are unaware of them.

If you use your definition of unknown unknowns to construct something which by definition can't be known, then the constructed thing is vulnerable to the same argument I made in my last post.

Quote:
Actually, I think that would probably be an unacceptable trade-off for an Abrahamic conception of God. Because then for instance, and this is alluded to in the video, God would never be able to rule out that he has not been created by a higher God that rules over a greater realm even if he's omniscience in the sub-realm that he rules over.

I'm not at all clear on how you got this out of what I said.

But let's consider this from a practical point of view. Sure, this idea wouldn't sit well with an Abrahamic religion. Let's assume it's true, though. God is omnicient over this universe (and any others he may have created). By definition, God is more intelligent and more knowledgeable than any entity or set of entities that exist or could exist in this universe, and therefore more intelligent and knowledgeable than humans. If this thing that God doesn't know about exists, then God can't detect its existence, and since God would be better at detecting its existence than humans, humans will never detect it, so it cannot have any practical effect on any human being, ever. If this thing were to exist, it would necessarily have exactly zero importance to humans.

So although the idea doesn't quite sit well with me, if it were proven to be true (or rather possible, since it couldn't possibly be proven to be true), then it wouldn't take me long to get used to it.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

11 Mar 2013, 6:37 pm

Jono wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Unknown unknowns possess no challenge for an omniscient being- it knows that there is nothing it does not know.


The statement in bold is logically impossible since by definition, unknown unknowns are called that because you are unaware of them. Therefore, if it is possible for unknown unknowns to exist, it is impossible to say for certainty that they don't. Please point out where that is circular.

Your first sentence is circular: you assume that there are unknown unknowns with respect to an omniscient being, and that because of the existence of these unknown unknowns there must be unknown unknowns.

"If X then X" is always a valid argument, but never proof that X is the case.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,340
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

11 Mar 2013, 9:15 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Jono wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Unknown unknowns possess no challenge for an omniscient being- it knows that there is nothing it does not know.


The statement in bold is logically impossible since by definition, unknown unknowns are called that because you are unaware of them. Therefore, if it is possible for unknown unknowns to exist, it is impossible to say for certainty that they don't. Please point out where that is circular.

Your first sentence is circular: you assume that there are unknown unknowns with respect to an omniscient being, and that because of the existence of these unknown unknowns there must be unknown unknowns.

"If X then X" is always a valid argument, but never proof that X is the case.


No, I have actually never assumed that there are unknown unknown with respect to an omniscient being at all. In fact, I freely admit that they may not. I said that even if it is merely possible for them to exist with respect to an omnipotent being, which according to your first reply to me and my response, it probably is, then it is impossible for that omnipotent being to say with certainty that they don't exist. That is not the same as assuming from the start that they exist with respect to the omnipotent being.

However, I did argue that it is impossible for that omnipotent being to know whether or not they exist because he would be unaware of them by definition. Please tell me how that is the same thing as assuming from the start that unknown unknowns exist with respect to an omnipotent being, I have never said that, not even once. Otherwise, please show me where I actually said that. Obviously, someone is misunderstanding the argument here.



Last edited by Jono on 11 Mar 2013, 11:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

TornadoEvil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Oct 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 697

11 Mar 2013, 9:29 pm

Of course, its in the very question, The Doctor is behind god.

There is, of course, no actual way to test any of these hypothesis with regards to god.

I think I read in the gospel that god doesn't like being tested and is sick and tired of sending signs, he sent a son, that is it. Guy seems to have covered quite a bit.