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

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

07 Mar 2013, 11:31 am

Here's another brilliant video from Darkmatter, in which God meets his creator. One of the arguments, given by religious people, for God's existence is the argument from design. The argument goes that something as complex as yourself and the universe must of had a creator. However, given that God is more intelligent and more complex, shouldn't that same logic mean that something created God?

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. If that sounds confusing, maybe the video explains it better:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODetOE6cbbc&list=UULhtZqdkjshgq8TqwIjMdCQ&index=1[/youtube]



uwmonkdm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 764
Location: Canada

07 Mar 2013, 11:49 am

God has no "beginning" in nearly all (if not all) theologies..

I'll watch the video when Zizek is done talking :lol:



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,843
Location: Reading, England

07 Mar 2013, 12:00 pm

Why is God necessarily more complex than a human?

Before the universe began, there was no time. Therefore, it is impossible for there to be any regression of designers.

I'm failing to see any contradiction in omniscience. "What about unknown unknowns?" There are no unknown unknowns if you are omniscient.



uwmonkdm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 764
Location: Canada

07 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Why is God necessarily more complex than a human?

Before the universe began, there was no time. Therefore, it is impossible for there to be any regression of designers.

I'm failing to see any contradiction in omniscience. "What about unknown unknowns?" There are no unknown unknowns if you are omniscient.


You don't know that.
You can't even say with certainty that time exists now, or when it started.
Let us not forget that time is only a created concept of the human mind... I suppose that means you're right though :lol:



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

07 Mar 2013, 1:18 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Why is God necessarily more complex than a human?


Technically, he'd be more intelligent right? At least intelligent enough to have designed the universe, according to that argument. It actually makes more sense to argue that complex things came from simpler things but then that implies that complex things can exist without an intelligent designer.

The_Walrus wrote:
I'm failing to see any contradiction in omniscience. "What about unknown unknowns?" There are no unknown unknowns if you are omniscient.


It is impossible to know that there are no unknown unknowns because by definition, you wouldn't know if there were. So, even if you accept that there are no unknown unknowns, the fact that you don't know that there are no unknown unknowns still counts as something that you don't know, which again contradicts the notion of omniscience.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,843
Location: Reading, England

07 Mar 2013, 2:55 pm

uwmonkdm wrote:
You don't know that.
You can't even say with certainty that time exists now, or when it started.
Let us not forget that time is only a created concept of the human mind... I suppose that means you're right though :lol:

Of course time exists. D/S=T.

Jono wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Why is God necessarily more complex than a human?


Technically, he'd be more intelligent right? At least intelligent enough to have designed the universe, according to that argument. It actually makes more sense to argue that complex things came from simpler things but then that implies that complex things can exist without an intelligent designer.

More intelligent I will grant you, omniscience would cause massive intelligence even accounting for the difference between intelligence and knowledge. However, the argument is usually phrased in terms of complexity, not intelligence. Think of Paley's watch, which is the archetypal teleological argument.
Quote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I'm failing to see any contradiction in omniscience. "What about unknown unknowns?" There are no unknown unknowns if you are omniscient.


It is impossible to know that there are no unknown unknowns because by definition, you wouldn't know if there were. So, even if you accept that there are no unknown unknowns, the fact that you don't know that there are no unknown unknowns still counts as something that you don't know, which again contradicts the notion of omniscience.

It is possible to know that there are no unknown unknowns because by definition, you are omniscient so you know everything.



uwmonkdm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 764
Location: Canada

07 Mar 2013, 3:33 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Of course time exists. D/S=T.


Ugh, who taught you to use S for speed/velocity? :x



ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 715

07 Mar 2013, 4:28 pm

I had the same difficulty. it should be d/v.

"Your notation sucks!", Serge Lang :)



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,843
Location: Reading, England

07 Mar 2013, 4:39 pm

I was taught to use v. I just couldn't remember the correct notation, so googled it and a "dst" pyramid showed up. So blame the ravages of old age, not my teachers.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

07 Mar 2013, 5:11 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I'm failing to see any contradiction in omniscience. "What about unknown unknowns?" There are no unknown unknowns if you are omniscient.


It is impossible to know that there are no unknown unknowns because by definition, you wouldn't know if there were. So, even if you accept that there are no unknown unknowns, the fact that you don't know that there are no unknown unknowns still counts as something that you don't know, which again contradicts the notion of omniscience.

It is possible to know that there are no unknown unknowns because by definition, you are omniscient so you know everything.[/quote]

No it isn't because, knowing whether they exist makes them known unknowns not unknown unknowns. An unknown unknown means that you don't even know if there is something to know. For example, we don't know the composition of dark matter but at least we know that we don't know, so that is known unknown. However, an unknown unknown something that we don't even know that we don't know. You may know all there is know as far as you understand but it would still be impossible to rule out things that you don't know that you don't know. The fact that omniscience is defined as knowing everything, simply means that omniscience is impossible, it does not make the thing possible.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,843
Location: Reading, England

07 Mar 2013, 5:53 pm

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.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,976
Location: temperate zone

07 Mar 2013, 6:42 pm

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.


exactly.

An omniscient being would know everything. So there would be no unknowns of anykind. No known unknowns, and no unknown unknowns. So whats the problem?



TheValk
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 641

07 Mar 2013, 7:01 pm

Reminds me of the old God throwing a stone argument. Says more about logic being a limited thing rather than anything concerning God, really.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

07 Mar 2013, 7:38 pm

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?



Last edited by Jono on 07 Mar 2013, 7:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

07 Mar 2013, 7:42 pm

TheValk wrote:
Reminds me of the old God throwing a stone argument. Says more about logic being a limited thing rather than anything concerning God, really.


Kind of.