Richard Carrier present an interesting result from a maximally knowledgeable God
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
I never even clicked the link, tbh.
Can you not click a link that was not given? Google it. You'll enjoy it.
I agree this is not an argument against the Mormon god, who probably enjoyed that activity greatly.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
So what I gather from this is that the author knows everything about being an omniscient being but an omniscient being cannot begin to fathom anything about the author. Because you know being omniscient really means not being omniscient.
Yep, sure sounds plausible to me.
Yep, sure sounds plausible to me.
Actually, it's about the formal logical contradiction entailed by the very idea of an eternally omniscient being. Being who gained omniscience later in their existence would not be affected, because they could remember what it felt like not to know things.
UGLI baby
Well-Known Member
lol
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I don't see a contradiction. All I see is something we cannot fathom. Things we cannot fathom exist in abundance. We are trying to fathom many of them, but take the physics thread going on. We know that big things interact with little things (to over-simplify) and vice versa, but we still cannot explain it (GUT). It doesn't mean they do not interact just because we cannot explain it, but merely is a reflection of our limited knowledge. By our very nature we cannot know what it is like to be truly omniscient in every sense of the word. We can speculate, but that is far from knowledge or proof. Just as his claim that an omniscient being cannot know what it is like to enjoy a gangbang, neither can any of us know what it is like to be omniscient. So any "logical" contradiction is predicated on our assumptions more than anything else. We could just as easily assume that said being does indeed know everything at every depth possible to know it. Maybe we cannot explain how, but we can assume he does. The interesting thing is both positions are in essence an expression of faith. Believers (in an omniscient being) have faith (i.e. they believe) that this being DOES know everything, non-believers have faith (i.e. they believe) that this being does NOT know everything.
But if you are simply making it a logical thought exercise it hinges on the definition, and acceptance of the definition, of omniscient, which is really what he is debating at the core: does omniscient mean truly all-knowing at every depth possible of knowledge, or something less, or are there gradients of omniscience.
But if you are simply making it a logical thought exercise it hinges on the definition, and acceptance of the definition, of omniscient, which is really what he is debating at the core: does omniscient mean truly all-knowing at every depth possible of knowledge, or something less, or are there gradients of omniscience.
What is the difference of this from the ancient questions of people about the omniscience, perfection or the infinite powers of the God?
Like,
"Can God create iron that he cannot bend?" or,
"Can God create a stone that he cannot carry?"
"Can God throw himself into the Hell?"
"Can God kill/extinguish himself?"
"Can God create another God(s)?"
"Can God make Satan the new God?" and sooo on with other thousands of the same type of questions.
I think this argument is pretty old news and all the parties have their fair answers. The religious side's most popular answer being "Well, we believe in a God that is over and beyond the human logic(He's the creator of the logic already), so the fault or the contradiction in the human logic, either it's about being omniscience or any other thing, it does not bound/affect the God."
It's like "Hey you cannot call a foul on referee, he's not bound by the rules!" I know it's a pretty primitive plea but, quite fair in my opinion.
Like,
"Can God create iron that he cannot bend?" or,
"Can God create a stone that he cannot carry?"
"Can God throw himself into the Hell?"
"Can God kill/extinguish himself?"
"Can God create another God(s)?"
"Can God make Satan the new God?" and sooo on with other thousands of the same type of questions.
I think this argument is pretty old news and all the parties have their fair answers. The religious side's most popular answer being "Well, we believe in a God that is over and beyond the human logic(He's the creator of the logic already), so the fault or the contradiction in the human logic, either it's about being omniscience or any other thing, it does not bound/affect the God."
It's like "Hey you cannot call a foul on referee, he's not bound by the rules!" I know it's a pretty primitive plea but, quite fair in my opinion.
Actually, the argument is that God *must* know what it is like to enjoy anything, and that therefore he can not know what it is like to not know something.
Mormon theology FTW. Evolution, One Bruh, evolution.
Except magic put Jesus through that not knowing something for everything that humanity experienced or ever would (take that, free agency).
All of those questions referred to logical impossibilities, things that are impossible by definition. This argument refers to different things a person can know, knowledge of either (and both) being possessed by humans and beings that are capable of change, but that can not be both known simultaneously by an eternal, unchanging being.
The "win" being that arguments against the Trinitarian god don't work against the Mormon god, and vice-versa?
So the Father of the trinity is not omniscient in Himself? Not acceptable to a Trinitarian.