Are there any limits to what an omniscient creature knows or doesn't know?
Do they know, but are not capable of understanding the feeling of sensory experiences and emotion?
Do they know 'arbitrary' things, like virtual particle reactions, that if they could be observed, not only have no impact how they happened, but only matter via path? (For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle vs intuitive interactions?
Do they know what a peasant had for breakfast 10,000 years ago in Mongolia?
Does they know the emotions associated with neurological functions? Do they know the sensations associated with neurological functions?
Hardly a comprehensive list, but the point is, is there anything that an omniscient creature does not know, understand of experience? and with what can this be backed up with?
This was presented as a source:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omniscience/
Does it present any constraints?
A read on what omniscience means, please?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8494
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: A read on what omniscience means, please?
Post #3[Replying to post 1 by Willum]
It's not a mystery is it?
All knowledge means knowledge of everything. Funny how some theists need to change this obvious definition.
They claim God knows everything, but not everything. Sure, that makes sense.
Tcg
It's not a mystery is it?
All knowledge means knowledge of everything. Funny how some theists need to change this obvious definition.
They claim God knows everything, but not everything. Sure, that makes sense.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: A read on what omniscience means, please?
Post #4[Replying to post 3 by Tcg]
What's bugging me is that God seems to not know exactly the kind of information any particular theist needs to justify their perspective.
Every theist has a different thing God doesn't know so that they can justify their view of him.
A most malleable deity... UNLESS of course he needs to know everything for some reason.
It is all very confusing.
What's bugging me is that God seems to not know exactly the kind of information any particular theist needs to justify their perspective.
Every theist has a different thing God doesn't know so that they can justify their view of him.
A most malleable deity... UNLESS of course he needs to know everything for some reason.
It is all very confusing.
I will never understand how someone who claims to know the ultimate truth, of God, believes they deserve respect, when they cannot distinguish it from a fairy-tale.
You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.
To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight
You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.
To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight
Post #5
The Supreme Being is omniscience, which is the ability to know everything…But, this ability does not require the Supreme Being to influence anything. Hence, there are no constraints. Where, the bible doesn't include the term omniscience, yet it has well over 100 verses, which acknowledge this reality. This is known as the "perfect being theology" and is accepted worldwide by the religious and 9% of those who do not believe in deities…Yes, that's right! Of, the respondents to a survey asking if they believed in God/gods, 19% said no. But, 9% of the 19% said that they believed in a higher power or spiritual force…
So, when almost "half" of those who don't accept the God/gods of the bible, but do believe in the supernatural or spiritual forces come forward, the evidence for a Supreme Being is overwhelming! Therefore, it is those who reject this reality, which are the ones that will not accept any type of evidence, except their own position. This is why the religious reject these types of requests for evidence. Hence, it seems that several need to change their approach.
So, when almost "half" of those who don't accept the God/gods of the bible, but do believe in the supernatural or spiritual forces come forward, the evidence for a Supreme Being is overwhelming! Therefore, it is those who reject this reality, which are the ones that will not accept any type of evidence, except their own position. This is why the religious reject these types of requests for evidence. Hence, it seems that several need to change their approach.
-
bluegreenearth
- Guru
- Posts: 1917
- Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
- Location: Manassas, VA
- Has thanked: 681 times
- Been thanked: 470 times
Post #6
FWI wrote: The Supreme Being is omniscience, which is the ability to know everything…But, this ability does not require the Supreme Being to influence anything. Hence, there are no constraints. Where, the bible doesn't include the term omniscience, yet it has well over 100 verses, which acknowledge this reality. This is known as the "perfect being theology" and is accepted worldwide by the religious and 9% of those who do not believe in deities…Yes, that's right! Of, the respondents to a survey asking if they believed in God/gods, 19% said no. But, 9% of the 19% said that they believed in a higher power or spiritual force…
So, when almost "half" of those who don't accept the God/gods of the bible, but do believe in the supernatural or spiritual forces come forward, the evidence for a Supreme Being is overwhelming! Therefore, it is those who reject this reality, which are the ones that will not accept any type of evidence, except their own position. This is why the religious reject these types of requests for evidence. Hence, it seems that several need to change their approach.
An argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a logically fallacious argument that asserts a claim is most probably true because many or most people believe it. However, even if we ignore the logical fallacy, any quantity and quality of evidence is useless in demonstrating the truth of an unfalsifiable claim precisely because it can be neither proved or disproved. The most supported unfalsifiable claim has the same chance at being true or false as the least supported unfalsifiable claim. For this reason, agnosticism is the only intellectually honest and justifiable position to take regarding unfalsifiable claims.
Post #7
[Replying to post 6 by bluegreenearth]
The usage of the argumentum ad populum to rebut my comments is in error. This phrase originated in the 1960's when a falsified prima facie by the French obsession with Jerry Lewis as a comic genius. It derives from the 1927 song "Fifty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong" which compared free attitudes in 1920s Paris with censorship and prohibition in the United States.
However, the argumentum ad populum does not apply when the appeal is related to beliefs! Therefore, appeals to popularity is therefore valid when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. Thus, the difference between my comments and argumentum ad populum, is that ad populum is placing the entire faculty and reason in the hands of some group of people, where the other is building, to the best of the group's ability, an accurate representation of historical events, experiences and the state of the universe as it is today or the beliefs of the group…
The usage of the argumentum ad populum to rebut my comments is in error. This phrase originated in the 1960's when a falsified prima facie by the French obsession with Jerry Lewis as a comic genius. It derives from the 1927 song "Fifty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong" which compared free attitudes in 1920s Paris with censorship and prohibition in the United States.
However, the argumentum ad populum does not apply when the appeal is related to beliefs! Therefore, appeals to popularity is therefore valid when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. Thus, the difference between my comments and argumentum ad populum, is that ad populum is placing the entire faculty and reason in the hands of some group of people, where the other is building, to the best of the group's ability, an accurate representation of historical events, experiences and the state of the universe as it is today or the beliefs of the group…
-
bluegreenearth
- Guru
- Posts: 1917
- Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
- Location: Manassas, VA
- Has thanked: 681 times
- Been thanked: 470 times
Post #8
Empirical reality doesn't care if a bunch of people believe in an unfalsifiable claim. At one time, a bunch of people had a justification for believing the planet was at the center of the solar system, but their inability to objectively demonstrate their belief was true made their claim unfalsifiable. Once they developed the technology to finally make an attempt at falsifying the claim, empirical reality demonstrated the claim was wrong. So, the truth of a claim is never impacted at all by the number of people who believe it. The truth of a claim can only be demonstrated by its ability to survive every test designed to disprove it. While a claim remains unfalsifiable, there is no evidence of any type or quantity that will validate it.FWI wrote: [Replying to post 6 by bluegreenearth]
The usage of the argumentum ad populum to rebut my comments is in error. This phrase originated in the 1960's when a falsified prima facie by the French obsession with Jerry Lewis as a comic genius. It derives from the 1927 song "Fifty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong" which compared free attitudes in 1920s Paris with censorship and prohibition in the United States.
However, the argumentum ad populum does not apply when the appeal is related to beliefs! Therefore, appeals to popularity is therefore valid when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. Thus, the difference between my comments and argumentum ad populum, is that ad populum is placing the entire faculty and reason in the hands of some group of people, where the other is building, to the best of the group's ability, an accurate representation of historical events, experiences and the state of the universe as it is today or the beliefs of the group…
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8494
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: A read on what omniscience means, please?
Post #9[Replying to post 4 by Willum]
The most confusing is the apologetic that God is omniscient, but can choose to know only what it choses to know. In order to do this of course, it would have to know that which is choses not to know.
Such are the mental gymnastics used in an attempt to make sense of a theology that doesn't make sense.
Tcg
The most confusing is the apologetic that God is omniscient, but can choose to know only what it choses to know. In order to do this of course, it would have to know that which is choses not to know.
Such are the mental gymnastics used in an attempt to make sense of a theology that doesn't make sense.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
Post #10
[Replying to post 8 by bluegreenearth]
It's interesting that you would now interject empirical reality, when this concept is a double-edge sword. Where, empirical reality is also known as sense experience. It is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. So, the existence of the non-physical is proven by the current empirical (scientific) evidence of our universe. Where, there is only two ways the universe came to be: It caused itself to come into being or it was caused by intelligence…
Since, there is no empirical evidence that the universe created itself and no scientific evidence that the universe was caused by another universe, as well as, no scientific evidence that any natural process caused the universe. The only other option is that it was caused by some type of intelligence, an intelligence so great and powerful that it is way beyond the natural understandings!
Yet, there is plenty of scientific evidence that the universe exists with fine-tuned constants. Where, these fine-tuned constants are precise settings, which exist for the purpose of allowing celestial bodies and life to exist. Thus, without these precise settings the universe could not exist. This, surely points to intelligent design, not some make-believe accident…
So, before you suggest that there are several theories, which can rebut the reality that I have "barely" touched on, make sure that you include the empirical evidence…
It's interesting that you would now interject empirical reality, when this concept is a double-edge sword. Where, empirical reality is also known as sense experience. It is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. So, the existence of the non-physical is proven by the current empirical (scientific) evidence of our universe. Where, there is only two ways the universe came to be: It caused itself to come into being or it was caused by intelligence…
Since, there is no empirical evidence that the universe created itself and no scientific evidence that the universe was caused by another universe, as well as, no scientific evidence that any natural process caused the universe. The only other option is that it was caused by some type of intelligence, an intelligence so great and powerful that it is way beyond the natural understandings!
Yet, there is plenty of scientific evidence that the universe exists with fine-tuned constants. Where, these fine-tuned constants are precise settings, which exist for the purpose of allowing celestial bodies and life to exist. Thus, without these precise settings the universe could not exist. This, surely points to intelligent design, not some make-believe accident…
So, before you suggest that there are several theories, which can rebut the reality that I have "barely" touched on, make sure that you include the empirical evidence…
