The Worst Argument in History

[one_raven]

An omniscient, omnipotent being could exist... if each state were properly defined so as to exclude paradox, which is almost no fun at all!

Perhaps, but necessary if we are discussing reality - in which paradoxes can not exist.
I feel that, since we are discussing whther or not it could be a reality the paradox preclusion should be understood as a pre-requisite and not have to be stated explicitly.

 

[Michael]

Well, I suppose by finding paradox, we at least know what attributes an omniscient omnipotent God can not have. It is worthwhile.

 

[one_raven]

I suppose.

 

[Sarkus]

An omniscient, omnipotent being could exist... if each state were properly defined so as to exclude paradox, which is almost no fun at all!

Only be defining them such that they are no longer "omniscient" and "omnipotent" - in which case you are no longer talking about a being that is both "omniscient" and "omnipotent".

So either you argue that they can exist within the same entity (by demonstrating how it is logically possible) or you argue that they can't - and provide alternative characteristics that can co-exist.

There is no point in redefining words such that they no longer mean what they should mean.


"I like this cat."
"But it's a dog."
"Yes - but I've redefined what I mean by 'cat' so that now it's what I once called 'dog'."

Gets a bit silly - and pointless - and confusing. Which will only lead to arguments that detract from the actual matter in hand.

So - either accept the definitions as they are understood - or don't use the terms if you mean something different.

 

[one_raven]

I did not redefine the words at all.
Did you read this whole thread?

 

[Michael]

Sarkus,

I see your point. I suppose it depends on the definition one chooses to accept. For example, according to Wiki there is a distinction between inherent omniscience the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known and total omniscience actually knowing everything that can be known. The paragraph goes on to say that many modern theologians argue that God's omniscience is inherent rather than total, and that God chooses to limit his omniscience in order to preserve the freewill and dignity of his creatures. Certain theologians of the 16th Century, comfortable with the definition of God as being omniscient in the total sense, chose to rebuke created beings' ability to choose freely, and so embraced the doctrine of predestination.

So it really depends on which form of omniscience one chooses to defend, inherent or total. I was initially referring to the paradox of freewill and total omniscience. One_Raven took the stance inherent. I then tried to say inherent could not exist with omnipotent. But omnipotent can mean: to do what is logically possible. I believe that the combination of logically-constrained omnipotence and inherent omniscience is possible.

Michael

 

[Michael]

I suppose.

I came across this in wiki:

Belief that God can do absolutely anything can be thought to yield certain logical paradoxes. A simple example goes as follows: Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it? If he can, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting God's power. But if he cannot, then he is still not omnipotent. This question cannot be answered using formal logic due to its self-referential nature. See liar paradox and Godel's incompleteness theorem. This problem led in the High Middle Ages to developing the concept of mathematical infinity, and laid the basis for infinitesimal calculus.



That's interesting,
Michael

 

[one_raven]

One_Raven took the stance inherent.

No I didn't.
You said yourself...

total omniscience actually knowing everything that can be known.

I was arguing that God could very well know EVERYTHING that can be known, and still not have absolute knowledge of the future.

With everything that went back and forth, how could have possibly missed that? It was my WHOLE POINT.

If you think I was arguing that God has inherent omniscience, I feel like this discussion was a complete waste of my time.

 

[Michael]

No I didn't.
You said yourself...

I was arguing that God could very well know EVERYTHING that can be known, and still not have absolute knowledge of the future.

With everything that went back and forth, how could have possibly missed that? It was my WHOLE POINT.

If you think I was arguing that God has inherent omniscience, I feel like this discussion was a complete waste of my time.

inherent omniscience includes exactly what you just now wrote: the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known

(AND can be known).

As for prefacing this with allowing God to choose. Well, I saw nothing in your argument that restricted God having a choice in the matter? As a matter of fact, as you asserted God has the ability to think, then God can chose not to know-all. If not there'd be nothing to think about.


one_raven, perhaps you should review your own argument or at least restate it.


Michael