Go Back   AFA Forums > Atheism > Debate Forum

Debate Forum The AFA Debate forum. Set up your debate or join the peanut gallery in here.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 30th May 2010, 05:07 PM
davo's Avatar
davo davo is offline
SIR Vacuous cunt
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 3rd Planet from the Sun
Posts: 8,763
Default An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

"An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical"

Lion IRC in the affirmative, Davo in the negative.

The format will be:
* Lion will open the debate.
* a rebuttal by Davo
* then five posts each regarding the topic,
* and one closing post each.

10,000 word count per post is the default.
*EDIT : "Character count" was intended, and will be the default for future debates.

Any figures or data must be referenced, or forfeit.

A three-day response time will be allowed on each post rebuttal. Late response will be deemed a forfeit.

The commentary thread is set up and open to all posters. Commenters are asked to be fair within reason: sledging or prompting may be frowned upon.

Lion will begin with his opening statement.
__________________
Spearthrower: "There are words like vacuous & cunt that are applicable."

(delta p)*(delta q) >= h/(4*pi) ----- An explanation of Logical Fallacies : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies ----- ferox deo vacuus vinco ----- How do I post video etc here?

Last edited by The Irreverent Mr Black; 1st October 2010 at 01:05 PM. Reason: EDIT : "Character count" was intended, and will be the default for future debates.
  #2  
Old 31st May 2010, 02:18 PM
Lion IRC Lion IRC is offline
Raptured!
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 129
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

One of the fringe benefits of being invited to speak first is that none of your opening comments can really be called non-sequiturs.

My new best friend Davo appears to be on the verge of a “Road to Damascus” experience. In the space of a week or so, he has gone from holding up his hand in front of my face (as if the idea we are about to debate were no more than a truism) to ...”we had better have a FORMAL debate about this.”

I’m sure Davo will put up a brave effort...”regardless of the result” <--- See that!
Not just a pre-debate “throw away line”. A startling admission that the topic of this debate is no longer just some wiki page you can simply point to when you get flustered and words fail you.

It is conceded by Davo himself that the omnipotence and omniscience “paradox” needs a closer examination and may not stand up to the rigors of a formal debate.

And for that small admission of sorts, I am thankful because, not long ago, it was apparently a “waste of time” to discuss the matter with “an ignorant troll” like me. (By the way, thank you Davo for not listening to those people or else we wouldn’t be here having this debate.)

So I am going to continue the “formal debate” as I have elsewhere thus far on AFA. I am going to present my case to those of you who perhaps are now reconsidering the presuppositions upon which this so-called “paradox” rests. (You know who you are!)

If you are reading this debate it is because you are interested. You are doing the equivalent of turning around and looking to the back of the court room when the lawyers for the defence suddenly call a new “star witness” who will exonerate their client – you’re response proves the existence of reasonable doubt.

I am going to present the case in such a way that you MUST, at the very least, accept that the Iron Chariots Wiki claim is now in DOUBT if not all together rejected.

If God knows what will happen, and does something else, he's not omniscient. If he knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.

And it does take a truly brave person to bite off and attempt to chew the monumental mouthful of malarkey that Davo has, in offering to defend the idea proposed by some iron chariot wiki editor. (You do realise it is JUST a wiki don’t you?) It does not tell how to use words or what words mean. It is not censored. Wikis don’t tell you facts about future events. Who says that?

wikipedia.org.

So when I am confronted by Davo with a presupposition about God’s inability to do a certain “thing” I naturally ask...”says who”?

And when confronted by Davo with the reply...”there’s a wiki which says it” I feel the urge to laugh. Is he seriously going to try and argue what God can and cannot do because he read something on a wiki site?

God – the ne plus ultra of “magic wands”. The Supreme Being. The irresistible force who can turn Himself into an immovable object (perhaps a rock) The One who is simultaneously Alpha and Omega. This is the Divine Monotheistic entity whom Davo is going to confront with...”hey God I’ve got a 23 word wiki here which says...”

“If God knows what will happen, and does something else, he's not omniscient. If he knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.”

To which God could, if He wanted, respond by simply saying....”oh yeah? What about when I haven’t yet decided what WILL happen?”

This debate is going to be about demonstrating that the wiki proposition is NOT a paradox at all but rather, it is a false dilemma. It is the equivalent of saying since God can’t be in two places at once He can’t listen to two prayers both being made at the same time.

If you are going to call God Omnipotent – able to do ANYTHING, then by definition, any claim that God MUST do this or must do that fails outright.

God is not compelled to be omniscient 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (He doesn’t even have to work 7 days a week!) God can take a day off. He can afford to be undecided – He’s God. He can even afford to make a mistake. It’s not as if He can’t turn back the clock if He wants.

My final opening remark is about the bible which I should but won’t be using as a lamp unto my feet light unto my way in this debate. All scripture is profitable but in this case it isn’t needed. The only reason I might change my mind about this is if Davo introduces scriptural verses which of course he is welcome to do. In that event, readers will have to endure a bible study class between the two of us – which would be lovely but I’m sure most of you would recognize as being off-topic and it would be clear who was trying to change the topic. This debate is purely about whether an omniscient being is compelled to be omniscient against its own will.

I will argue that being able to know everything there is to know is an ability – not a restriction to ones ability. When Mr Hitchens speaks about “mind-forged manacles” he rather plainly proves my point. When we watch a movie for the second time and wilfully ignore or suspend our ability to recall how it ends to heighten our own enjoyment of the re-run this also proves my point. When God says, “I don’t know what I am going to do tomorrow He is telling the truth.


The preceding comments outline my approach to;

the topic in general

my good-natured but ill-advised opponent

the scope of the argument
  #3  
Old 31st May 2010, 05:55 PM
davo's Avatar
davo davo is offline
SIR Vacuous cunt
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 3rd Planet from the Sun
Posts: 8,763
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

Typically when starting a debate, one presents ones case that they will be talking about. I will cut to the quick of the debate rather than obfuscate the presentation as my opponent appears to have done, I will directly approach the topic and what I will be covering. I will try and keep my opening introduction short.

The omnipotence and omniscience paradox is quite clear, and will fully stand up to the rigors of a formal debate. I have never said otherwise, nor inferred it.

The other important point is it is the task of my opponent as the affirmative, is to show that an omnipotent and omniscient god is logical. My task is to show that this is false.

First let us define the argument we will be discussing, as is customary.

Omniscience comes from the Latin "omni-" (all) + "scire" (to know) = to know all.

Omniscience is the property of having complete or maximal knowledge. The dictionary Merriam Webster states omniscient means having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight, possessed of universal or complete knowledge, and the Oxford English dictionary as One having total knowledge, knowing everything.

It is a state of all-knowing, a perfection of totality, a perfection of knowing all.

My opponent appears from the outset trying to redefine the term specifically based on religious views, and by a phrase coined by John Polkinghorne being 'inherent omniscience', that being the potential to have infinite knowledge. He has already claimed that his god can know everything but chooses not too. My opponent will most probably take this position throughout the whole debate, with defining words according to faith, rather that their true form. These meanings derived from faith interpretations are varied based on concepts of gods. Considering that these are faith based derivatives of defined words created over time, and that many of faith take the literal meaning of the words, it is rightly so that we use the true meaning of a word, and not its interpretation based on belief as this effectively means that a word not only means nothing, but the premise that the construct of the debate argument is by default, an error in reasoning and thus not logical.

His source for this conceptual break down of meaning is namely a Mr Polkinghorne and some other modern theologians that have only recently coined this phrase. Quite succinctly, the phrase they are using is not a totality, in fact, it is simply renaming an ability provided by the claim of omnipotence, (able to do anything due to being all powerful). Very different logical spheres.

Potentiality is not actuality. I have the potential to be a doctor, does not mean I am a doctor. I have the potential to be a rapist, does not mean I am a rapist, I have the potential to be drowned, does not mean I am drowned.

Omniscience is a very accurate state, simple in it's definition.

To define omniscience as the 'potentiality' for omniscience, is not logical. One cannot be 'half way up a ladder' to perfection, and also 'be at the top of it'.

Omniscience also has the problem of experiential knowledge, requiring a god that is omniscient having had the experience of 'sinning' as just one example, or ultimate evil for another. It would also require the experience of having no power, and no omniscience, both at the same time. This is not logical.

Omniscience is also the ability to not only know what for instance has been, but could be. It is also the ability to know all that one knows as an element of oneself knowing itself. This creates an infinite loop that is illogical.

Omnipotence from Latin: Omni Potens: "all power") is unlimited power, a state of having unlimited, maximal power or authority. The Oxford English dictionary states, having unlimited power; able to do anything, having ultimate power and influence: an omnipotent sovereign. Again this is a clear state of perfection. It is the ability to do anything.

When we define logical, the dictionary states of, relating to, involving, or being in accordance with logic, formally true or valid. This holds that the argument is consistent as presented, in this case a god that holds the properties of omniscience and omnipotence.

To-wit, I will argue that a being that knows everything (omniscient) and maximally powerful (omnipotent) is not logical based on numerous issues with such.

An omnipotent being could create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it (illogical)

An omnipotent god could make 1 + 1 = 3 (illogical)

An omnipotent god could make a round square (illogical)

An omnipotent god could make a stone a feather (illogical)

An omniscient god would know what it is going to do tomorrow, one that was also omnipotent would be able to do what he didn't expect. (illogical)

The list goes on, but I will hold on a more in depth analysis as this is just an introduction.

Once my opponent has shown that omniscience and omnipotence are logical, he must also show that an omniscient and omnipresent god is logical, as per the topic of the debate.

Logical means reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning and more especially of inference and of scientific method, it is the study of the principles of correct reasoning to a conclusion that can be shown as true and valid.
__________________
Spearthrower: "There are words like vacuous & cunt that are applicable."

(delta p)*(delta q) >= h/(4*pi) ----- An explanation of Logical Fallacies : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies ----- ferox deo vacuus vinco ----- How do I post video etc here?
Old 1st June 2010, 04:21 PM
Lion IRC
This message has been deleted by Protium.
  #4  
Old 1st June 2010, 04:27 PM
Lion IRC Lion IRC is offline
Raptured!
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 129
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

Post #2

OK its official. Davo really does want to take on the ne plus ultra of magic wands. He really does want to put himself in the position of being prognosticator of how God could and could not act. Actually I’m not convinced that he should be burdened with the fakery put upon his back by the person who typed out the “paradox” he is being asked to defend and which I am going to reveal as a sham. Or to make clear my sympathy towards his position by way of analogy Davo is to Iron Chariot as Puzzle is to Shift*
*See The Last Battle – CS Lewis 1956

In this slightly longer post I will (naturally) now take the gloves off and make the first of my three planned and proactive assault stages.
This post weighs into the theme of relatedness between the concept of “possessing knowledge” and “possessing ability”.
I have four substantive posts after this one to cover my remaining two themes which are…. *pregnant pause*….hmmm, I might leave myself some elbow room.

Davo says it is the task of his opponent as to show that an omnipotent and omniscient god is logical. This is partly true but in seeking to defend a wiki page proposition Dave need not direct all his efforts at attempting defensive arguments. He is not handicapped by the limitation to show only the positives he feels are logically in his favor – he is perfectly entitled to attack logical negatives he feels are present in my case. Likewise, my case necessarily includes proofs that my opponent’s position is illogical.

If I can convince the readers that omniscience and omnipotence are not mutually exclusive in logic then I will have done so. That’s how logic works. If presented with a binary choice worded like this – “God is either Omnipotent OR Omniscient” the logical thinker should ask themselves whether a third or fourth or fifth alternative is available and so forth.
In law, where a suspect is charged with murder, the case does not stand or fall on one side proving that they “did it”. A suspect may WIN an acquittal by taking the time and effort to prove that an alternative exists – a logical alternative – another suspect. And that is the logical path I am taking here.

If I can persuade Davo and all the readers here that an alternative exists to the false dilemma inherent in the Iron Chariot proposition, then I will not only have proven that the co-existence Omniscience and Omnipotence is “logical” but I will simultaneously have proven that it is not “illogical”. And THAT is how logic works. If a thing is NOT illogical then by default it can claim to be logical – and vice versa - remembering of course that we are talking about a theoretical concept.

A quick word about the point that this is a theoretical concept. We all owe it to ourselves and to the cause of “reason” that we not bring any AvT baggage to the table in this case.
Whether or not you are an atheist or otherwise is irrelevant to how you decide – This debate is a thought experiment about a concept – knowledge and how that knowledge is used by a Being who, in the context of this debate has at His disposal all available knowledge. This verb – “to know” is just one of is abilities. He has any ability He wishes when He wants, in any degree of ability He wants without limit. I encourage readers to bear this in mind for the duration of this debate. This is not a debate about the existence of God. It is a debate about the characteristics and versatility of knowledge. It has nothing to do with Davo’s faith that there is no God to debate and I reject unconditionally the quasi-strawman claim that my position is related to the AvT agenda.

In fact I’m surprised that the name Polkinghorne is mentioned at all – AT ALL! It amounts to an invitation for me to draw on sources such as Michel Onfray and get bogged down in atheology versus theology. I decline that red herring invitation and draw readers BACK to the philosophical debate at hand. BTW Davo, you could have at least told the readers the actual title of the book by Polkinghorne you incorrectly assumed I was drawing upon. IE – You could have referenced the reference you accused me of referencing.

(cont. Split post to meet character limit rather than word limit)
  #5  
Old 1st June 2010, 04:34 PM
Lion IRC Lion IRC is offline
Raptured!
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 129
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

The meanings of the words omniscience and omnipotence are not in dispute here. Where my objection arises is in the claim that knowing everything then prevents a Being from acting upon that knowledge. That is an exceptionally egregious error in logic and a bizarre form of special pleading. A packet of knowledge how ever big or small does not disempower the possessor of that knowledge. Imagine if I were to write to A.C Graying with the proposition that the continuous acquisition of knowledge up until the “jar” mentioned in the example below contained ALL knowledge would result in ones Omnipotence being less that what it was before one commenced filling the “jar”. Knowledge is power. Does the Iron Chariot wiki think this is an illogical paradox also? I assert that knowledge IS power because it affords one choices. The less knowledge we have the fewer are our choices. This is true in computer games with platform based advancement where acquiring more knowledge directly equates to more skills. This is true in education and vocation where the more you learn, the more you earn. This is true in internet forum administration where the “knowledge” that you can make someone’s post simply disappear affords you the power to sit back let things happen “at random” safe in the KNOWLEDGE that it will all work out fine in the end.

Let’s now drill down even further to the heart of the philosophy of this debate. And apologies to those of you who mistakenly think this debate is about anything other than (or disguised as) philosophy. If philosophy is not for you, you have my sympathy. Think of it as meta-physics and knowledge as a quantum mechanical device.

I tried to “think of” (ie. draw from my own knowledge at will) philosophers who might carry some weight with the AFA home crowd and whose thoughts about the theory of knowledge might be a little more influential. I myself never made it past “A” in the philosophy dictionary – Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas and by the time I had “acquired knowledge” in some degree about these former great men or philosophy the latter Schopenhauer’s and Nietzsche’s simply looked uninspiring, dull and morose and they….(oops not today. That’s another debate sorry) But in amongst the “A”s I did stumble across a name whose work on the theory of knowledge seemed impress Bertrand Russell* (he too is way down the alphabetical list along with Roscelin) I am speaking of course of Abelard who was a student of Roscelin. Roscelin was thought by Russell to be a mean spirited and unpleasant character on account of the fact that he ridiculed Abelard for being a castrati. Russell didn’t mention “uninspiring, dull and morose” but that may have been because….(Doh! sorry)
*See Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy.

Abelards work on the theory of knowledge with his focus on dialectics, relatedness of universals and certainty seem to incorporate a view with in itself is “logical” that reality and logic are concomitant. In other words, whether or not we think a proposed reality is illogical is irrelevant. The fact that God can in reality do something we (mistakenly) think is illogical is not a flaw on the part of reality – or God for that matter. But rather a failure of our ability to conceive. In this respect he reminds us of the logical positivists who basically discard anything which in reality cannot be investigated in order to “acquire knowledge” as irrelevant. This is much akin to AC Graylings advice** about the usefulness or otherwise of “knowledge acquired” from the internet. If we cannot “know” or verify (ascertain truth) about a proposed reality what use is it? Abelard appears to caution against reading a definition of “related” things in such a way as would make them incomprehensible and I accordingly argue that the construction of a theory of knowledge in which the person who holds that knowledge has no volition or ability to select from the “available menu options” is a reflection on our poor grasp of reality.
*See AC Grayling 19th January 2009 New Scientist and Abelard’s metaphoric use of the term “respiciendo” and “respicere” in Logica Ingredientibus.

My fundamental claim is that Omniscience and Omnipotence are related. Whether there is a theological implication is secondary. But we need not assume the only Omniscient/Omnipotent being is God.

We could just as easily debate in respect to a being who had a jar balanced on their head which contained everything there was to know about a movie Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. They had watched the move so often they knew everything. And each factoid was stored in the jar. The movie was no longer exciting. The being already knew the beginning and the ending. They knew all the songs. Along comes an “Oompa Loompa” one day and says "why don’t you take the jar and smash it then it will be like watching the movie for the first time". The being with the jar says …”Can I do that?” and the Oompa Loompa replies "of course you can – you’re God. Who is gonna stop you?" The Being replies, “so I can even magically return the jar and its contents to their original state and put it back on top of my head if I want.”

Omniscience IS a very accurate state. It really does mean the ENTIRE theory and corpus of knowledge. The verb “to know” is quite aptly applied because like all verbs it epistemologically applies to the ACT of knowing. An act which follows subsequent to the verb which relates to seeking knowledge previously NOT known.
There is an essential characteristic of knowledge requires that it is part of a verb. To know. To posses knowledge. I argue that the connection and relatedness between knowledge and the theory of knowledge as a form of verb (to possess knowledge) is such that Omniscience and Omnipotence are truly “respiciendo”.

The only way a logical positivist could find out if God is Omniscient is to keep asking Him questions about everything into infinity. When I am asked “do you know the name of the Admin person at AFA” I could safely answer yes. But what if I thought the nick name was the knowledge being sought and the real question was about Protiums personal name. A second question would be needed and a second answer.

Davo says “To 'access knowledge' you have to know of the knowledge” and I need only respond by asking what part of the word “Omnipotent” implies “need to…”. What Omnipotent Being is forced by a non-omnipotent - under what duress? Do I really need to remind Davo that an Omnipotent Being can destroy and create. He could make Davo disintegrate and everyone would wonder where you went. He could turn back time and nobody would wonder where you went. How would you then get a message to God that ““To 'access knowledge' you have to know of the knowledge” You declare God has to do what you say. I hold the exact opposite view. Omnipotence means all powerful.

Any declaration about God being “compelled” repudiates the very foundation of your case because you are no longer talking about God.

God can at His own divine pleasure and in His own good time say…"not now Davo I have a million billion trillion things on my plate. Maybe later".

Knowledge has a fundamental ethereal quality that it there to be used and it is dynamic not static. This stands to reason because knowledge itself is transitory. Our own database of knowledge continuously changes with time. We interact with knowledge. We consume it and we generate it.

We observe dynamic omniscience in the ability of the actual Being which possesses that knowledge DIRECTLY from the related and corresponding dynamic omnipotence of that Being. If God knows EVERYTHING then He logically and irrefutably knows how become ignorant. He can summarise omnipotence in a 10,000 word post and by divine fiat grant us the knowledge to understand it.

The relatedness and mutual interdependence of Omnipotence and Omniscience is such that ONLY an Omnipotent Being could logically posses all knowledge. The claimed paradox at the Iron Chariot wiki should read….How can an Omnipotent Being NOT possess all knowledge?

If there were two contenders for the Title of Omnipotent being we would as a matter of plain logical positivism and empiricism seek to ascertain the extent of their respective ABILITIES. Which contender can recite the value of pi to the furthest number of decimal places? Which one can tie their shoe laces the fastest? Which one can speak the most foreign languages? And…..now here is the kicker! The head shot. Ask both contenders to draw on their dualistic skills of Omniscience and Omnipotence - Who was the first Prime Minister of Australia? First one to answer wins.

How the hell can an Omnipotent Being NOT possess all knowledge?

Lion (IRC)

(End of split post to meet 10K character limit versus 10K word limit under the rules.)

Last edited by Lion IRC; 1st June 2010 at 04:46 PM. Reason: Mentioned in the example below - rush to post sorry
Old 1st June 2010, 09:38 PM
davo
This message has been deleted by davo. Reason: argh stupid errors with wquotes
  #6  
Old 1st June 2010, 09:44 PM
davo's Avatar
davo davo is offline
SIR Vacuous cunt
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 3rd Planet from the Sun
Posts: 8,763
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

Quote:
Lion IRC said View Post
Post #2

OK its official. Davo really does want to take on the ne plus ultra of magic wands. He really does want to put himself in the position of being prognosticator of how God could and could not act. Actually I’m not convinced that he should be burdened with the fakery put upon his back by the person who typed out the "paradox" he is being asked to defend and which I am going to reveal as a sham. Or to make clear my sympathy towards his position by way of

analogy Davo is to Iron Chariot as Puzzle is to Shift
For the casual reader I point out this along with my opponents first post, is an error of reasoning called a Personal Attack logical fallacy. Not the best to use this type of argument when you have to show your view is logical.

I would also point out, my opponents posts seem to not carry really any content or response to the issues raised directly related to the logic of the claim, but has resorted to the Gish Gallop.

I have tried to whittle things down to the actual argument, I haven't really found it as yet. I politely request of you Lion, to actually approach the debate points raised. I will mark some for you as I go, but feel free to extend on that.

Quote:
Davo says it is the task of his opponent as to show that an omnipotent and omniscient god is logical. This is partly true but in seeking to defend a wiki page proposition Dave need not direct all his efforts at attempting defensive arguments.
My task is to argue the debate topic "An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical" not a wiki page. your task is to approach my points raised, and vice versa. I don't see you doing that in all honesty. I gave quite explicit examples.

The Iron Chariots link was just one sample of the results of the Ominiscience and Omnipotence claim. It's not on trial (tho very good example), to try and frame the topic on something that isn't really relevant is a logical fallacy called a Red Herring.

Quote:
If I can persuade Davo and all the readers here that an alternative exists to the false dilemma inherent in the Iron Chariot proposition, then I will not only have proven that the co-existence Omniscience and Omnipotence is "logical" but I will simultaneously have proven that it is not "illogical".
Point of note, the topic is "An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical", not the wiki post given as an example of the issues the topic presents.

But while your at it, I ask you directly "Does God know what he's going to do tomorrow? If so, could he do something else?". Please respond to the question, to be honest I am having trouble finding any real content to your post, this may give me something to actually work with.

Quote:
And THAT is how logic works.
No it doesn't ... you just committed an error of reasoning called a logical fallacy, specifically Hasty Generalisation

Quote:
It has nothing to do with Davo’s faith that there is no God to debate
I have made no such claim. Please withdraw your comment or show where I have done so.

I am an atheist, I do not have a belief in a god or gods. I make no claim there is no god, I am making the statement that an omniscient and omnipotent god is not logical. From that (outside the topic of the debate) I have come to the conclusion the god you claim with those cannot exist.

Quote:
In fact I’m surprised that the name Polkinghorne is mentioned at all – AT ALL!
No, to be clear, I said "My opponent appears from the outset trying to redefine the term specifically based on religious views, and by a phrase coined by John Polkinghorne being 'inherent omniscience', that being the potential to have infinite knowledge."

You were quite clear in your original post. "When God says, "I don’t know what I am going to do tomorrow He is telling the truth."

If he does not know what he is going to do tomorrow, please show the logic in him also knowing what he is going to do tomorrow (omniscience)

If he does not know, he is not omniscient.

Point of request : Please show how this is logical, that not knowing something is omniscience, when it is a total contradiction.

Quote:
Lion IRC said View Post
The meanings of the words omniscience and omnipotence are not in dispute here. Where my objection arises is in the claim that knowing everything then prevents a Being from acting upon that knowledge. That is an exceptionally egregious error in logic and a bizarre form of special pleading.
Point of request : Where have I claimed this at all?

Quote:
A packet of knowledge how ever big or small does not disempower the possessor of that knowledge. Imagine if I were to write to A.C Graying with the proposition that the continuous acquisition of knowledge up until the "jar" mentioned in the example below contained ALL knowledge would result in ones Omnipotence being less that what it was before one commenced filling the "jar".
? another point of request : where have I claimed this? I'm not sure what you are saying, to be honest.

Both omniscience and omnipotence are impossible as a set for a 'being'. I am not arguing lesser of anything. I am stating to claim these properties, is illogical. A god that is both is illogical.

Quote:
I tried to "think of" (ie. draw from my own knowledge at will) philosophers who might carry some weight with the AFA home crowd and whose thoughts about the theory of knowledge might be a little more influential.
Appeal to Authority

Quote:
But in amongst the "A"s I did stumble across a name whose work on the theory of knowledge seemed impress Bertrand Russell* (he too is way down the alphabetical list along with Roscelin) I am speaking of course of Abelard who was a student of Roscelin. Roscelin was thought by Russell to be a mean spirited and unpleasant character on account of the fact that he ridiculed Abelard for being a castrati. Russell didn’t mention "uninspiring, dull and morose" but that may have been because….(Doh! sorry)
*See Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy.
Name dropping appeal to authority

I'm not a philosopher, I would have loved to have had the chances you obviously did, but please approach my requests. (point of order for mods, I request that the Affirmative actually approach the topic, and the relevent questions I have given in regard explicit examples of illogic presented. I debate is approaching the points of an argument raised, not just making a case for your position avoiding, well the actual debate.)

.... continued
__________________
Spearthrower: "There are words like vacuous & cunt that are applicable."

(delta p)*(delta q) >= h/(4*pi) ----- An explanation of Logical Fallacies : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies ----- ferox deo vacuus vinco ----- How do I post video etc here?

Last edited by davo; 1st June 2010 at 09:57 PM. Reason: argh with all the fonts he uses and stuff it's so hard to actually quote, and it would strip stuff when I posted argh QUOTES
  #7  
Old 1st June 2010, 09:49 PM
davo's Avatar
davo davo is offline
SIR Vacuous cunt
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 3rd Planet from the Sun
Posts: 8,763
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

Quote:
My fundamental claim is that Omniscience and Omnipotence are related. Whether there is a theological implication is secondary. But we need not assume the only Omniscient/Omnipotent being is God.
I am not making any claims, other than an omniscient and omnipotent god being is illogical, as per the topic.

But ok I will state any being claimed to hold both those properties is illogical too.

Quote:
Omniscience IS a very accurate state. It really does mean the ENTIRE theory and corpus of knowledge.
Agreed.

Point of request :

An omniscient being knows all future and past facts. This means these facts are unchangable, as the omniscient being already knows that they would change it and to what, it's omniscient, the 'sum of all knowledge'.

The existence of this being would be immutable, unchangable. This being would be powerless to change the future. The only way it could change the immutable knowledge it has of the future would to not be omniscient.

But not being able to change the future, would mean that this being was not omnipotent.

How is a being that is both omniscient and omnipotent possible, let alone logical?

Please show us the reasoning you are presenting. The logic.

Quote:
The only way a logical positivist could find out if God is Omniscient is to keep asking Him questions about everything into infinity.
There is no need to find out. This is over the logic of such a being existing. My or anyone elses ability to 'find out' the truth of this is irrelevant. Please show how my knowing if a being is omniscient is relevant to it being omniscient or not.

I will point out right here, if you are saying you cannot find out unless you ask, it is not logical to claim that such a being exists against all the logic issues with the claim in the topic presented so far that you just fail to confront. At all.

Quote:
Davo says “To 'access knowledge' you have to know of the knowledge” and I need only respond by asking what part of the word “Omnipotent” implies “need to…”. What Omnipotent Being is forced by a non-omnipotent - under what duress?
What? I am not forcing anything. I am asking directly how such a being can logically exist. This has nothing to do with me, but it.

Quote:
Any declaration about God being “compelled” repudiates the very foundation of your case because you are no longer talking about God.
I'm not 'compelling' it anything. I am stating, again, that the claim that a god is both omniscient and omnipotent, is illogical. I have presented arguments and you fail to confront them.

Quote:
Knowledge has a fundamental ethereal quality that it there to be used and it is dynamic not static. This stands to reason because knowledge itself is transitory. Our own database of knowledge continuously changes with time. We interact with knowledge. We consume it and we generate it.
But we are not omniscient.

Point of request : Please show how it is logical to know everything, the sum of all possible that could be known, as well as be all powerful, and for example, do something that you didn't already know you were going to do.

Please show me the logic I am missing in this argument. I'm waiting.

Quote:
We observe dynamic omniscience in the ability of the actual Being which possesses that knowledge DIRECTLY from the related and corresponding dynamic omnipotence of that Being.
Point of request: Show me the evidence you are presenting here or withdraw the statement. This is effectively Begging the question

Quote:
The relatedness and mutual interdependence of Omnipotence and Omniscience is such that ONLY an Omnipotent Being could logically posses all knowledge.
Point of request : show the actual evidence for this or withdraw your statement.

Quote:
The claimed paradox at the Iron Chariot wiki should read….How can an Omnipotent Being NOT possess all knowledge?
Are you saying it's powerless not to be dumb? :P

Quote:
If there were two contenders for the Title of Omnipotent being we would as a matter of plain logical positivism and empiricism seek to ascertain the extent of their respective ABILITIES.
Irrelevant. There is no need for us to seek to ascertain this. If your position is logical, it would be independant of what I knew.

Quote:
How the hell can an Omnipotent Being NOT possess all knowledge?
I'd be very carefull refuting you whole attempt at some(?) sort of an argument in one sentence. Are you saying it is powerless to be otherwise?

I will leave you with a thought, can this all knowing being suprise himself?

oh and just for you, a quote from Abelard, if he was around today I wonder if he would still think the same with regards Limbo? hmmm

By doubting we come to inquiry; and through inquiry we perceive truth.
--- Peter Abelard
__________________
Spearthrower: "There are words like vacuous & cunt that are applicable."

(delta p)*(delta q) >= h/(4*pi) ----- An explanation of Logical Fallacies : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies ----- ferox deo vacuus vinco ----- How do I post video etc here?

Last edited by davo; 1st June 2010 at 09:52 PM. Reason: DAMMIT stupid quotes remove whole slabs of text, please use standard FONT and don't mark things up
  #8  
Old 2nd June 2010, 05:21 PM
Lion IRC Lion IRC is offline
Raptured!
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 129
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

Post # 3

Oh dear. The water is getting deeper in this debate.

Yesterday I introduced details of the first of three themes I will be taking up in this debate – The inseparable relatedness of omnipotence and omniscience. I have also already stated the fundamental points which lead us to this point.

1. The wiki page is just is a point of view. There could be 10,000 people who agree with it or just 1 – its author. There are certainly more than 10,000 who disagree as well. (God exists therefore the paradox must not be real)

2. You do not have to be a theist or an atheist to address the topic. It does not have to be an AvT agenda. We are talking about a concept.

3. The side of the argument I support can be won just as easily as the side Davo supports can be lost. I don’t need to (but I can) prove that my position is logical simply by showing that his is illogical. Someone who claims this is not so does not regard logical and illogical as opposites.

Now, in phase two, I am going to wade into the murky depths of what knowledge actually is. The grey areas. The subjective areas.

But first a couple of asides. (Yes, Davo and I are entitled to a little banter and good natured jibes sprinkled in amongst the substance of the debate.)

Never proof read AFTER you have already posted. You will always see things you want to change. I flick myself on the cheek for proof reading while at work and rushing to post but I expect that the eyes of intelligent reader probably edited the obvious mistakes and other people probably didn’t even notice. (eg Dave/Davo) Its OK. I make similar errors in live debates. With oral debates sometimes people at the back can’t hear what you say anyway. The last thing I would want is for people to think “he’s cutting and pasting from somewhere else”. No this is me – warts and all.

Nonetheless, since there was an unsolicited request from the audience along the lines of …”I can’t hear you” I WILL make my paragraphs shorter.

After this debate I will ask Davo if he would like to re-submit to me via PM any or all his posts with the ability to make any final edits and airbrush out any parts deemed imperfect or faulty with the benefit of hindsight. And me likewise to him. Not to add items we forgot but to polish what we did and fix up the few instances where we may have felt….”beg” was better than “implore” or “might be” was better than “must be” etc.

Now, my reference to Davo as Puzzle was not a personal attack. Puzzle is a sympathetic character in the book and the nasty Shift preys on Puzzles misguided loyalty. When the reader finds out that the deception (sham paradox) perpetrated by that ugly Ape (Iron Chariot Wiki) amounts to cruelty against a kind and innocent animal (a Donkey named Puzzle) I hope this will be accepted in good faith. (Do atheists use words like bona fide and con fide?)

At the very least, readers might appreciate that I am trying to help Davo save face by demonstrating that we are about arguing someone else’s dubious wiki claim for which he should not be held responsible.

Cynics might also contemplate that I am using the …”its just a wiki” approach as a gambit tactic to tempt him into claiming… “no it isn’t, most people – most really smart people – most really smart Scottish people all agree with that wiki”.

The final house keeping point I must make is that when I want to address a claim made by Davo I make a point to state his name as the originator of the claim.

If, in the course of an argument I say for example, “it may be claimed that Omnipotence is….blah blah blah” that is simply a rhetorical device.

So onwards we go.

Into the “quantum weirdness” of knowledge.

Into the Zen of knowledge.

Into the world…nay, the universe…nay, the multiverse of awareness of enlightenment - information - consciousness – sentience – satori.

And I would like to begin with a Zen-like challenge to you, the reader and Davo to ask yourselves…”how full is your cup of knowledge?”

You may have been like the novice Zen monk whose mouth began to move before they even fully comprehended the question. Did you answer quickly and instinctively to try and impress your Zen master with your “knowledge? – poor you! Beware of Master Huang-po’s bamboo cane*. Did you answer without even drawing from your overflowing cup of knowledge? Perhaps you answered by saying nothing because you are more greatly enlightened than the person asking you the question and you “pursue not the outer entanglements” nor “dwell on the inner voids” but are “serene in the oneness of things.”*
*SeeThe Golden Age of Zen: Zen Masters of the T'Ang Dynasty By John C. H. Wu, Jingxiong Wu
* See the writings of 6th century Zen patriarch Seng-ts'an

The Zen Koans show in a very lovely way, that attempting to define “all knowledge” in an empirical way is as slippery a task as trying to define matter. And so we leave the Zen Masters and move on to the Dreamers of Physics.

Who here, knowing (thinking we know) about Werner Heisenberg, could possibly argue that “alternative choices” equals a LACK of knowledge? Knowledge that a “thing” is not as predictable as first thought is STILL knowledge.


The HUP was hailed as a discovery. An omniscient being must surely “know” about Quantum “weirdness”. Is the HUP a “paradox”? No. If it represents Truth - even though it appears “Gonzo” it is automatically a part of the T.O.E. which God calls the Unified Knowledge of Everything.

In order to assert something “scientific” about Omniscience we must, of course, as scientific and rational empiricists be able to demonstrate some facts about Omniscience. But what are the facts about “knowledge”. Is it a tree from which we pick fruit that we can’t properly digest and can never fill our “cups”?


Are there 2 cups full of knowledge from which the Omniscient Being can choose? One cup being the knowledge about math’s and science and the other cup being full of the knowledge of ethics and morality? Does the internal dialogue in our heads about which cup of “knowledge” we will and won’t use in any particular case detract from our 2 cup omniscience?

I asserted in my last post that Omniscience is linked to the dynamism manifest in Omnipotence. That the two are joined as mechanism and agent are joined. I stated that. ”We observe dynamic omniscience in the ability of the actual Being which possesses that knowledge DIRECTLY from the related and corresponding dynamic omnipotence of that Being”

(Cont...)
  #9  
Old 2nd June 2010, 05:29 PM
Lion IRC Lion IRC is offline
Raptured!
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 129
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

(Cont...)

Davo challenges this claim and asks me to withdraw but I cannot.

Why? Because I have “thought” about it. I posted it after having exercised my “knowledge” about the observed world and the imagined world of an Omniscient Being. How would I know what an Omniscient being “thinks” without considering the dynamic and corresponding ACTIONS to which the thoughts of that Omniscient being are connected? My very thoughts… (awareness/knowledge/sentience/enlightenment) about whether or not to “post” or “withdraw a post” of one of my very own thoughts (again - awareness/knowledge/sentience/enlightenment) are the precise “dynamic” actions which I assert needs to be OBSERVED/PERCEIVED.

Knowledge is not as simple a “notion” as Davo would have you believe. You can’t measure it in a cup. It doesn’t exist like some Newtonian physics concept. I can “know” a thing without having to HOLD that thing in my immediate consciousness.

I don’t walk around all day continuously knowing all things in case I desire to USE one of those quanta of knowledge for something. The omniscience of God does NOT depending upon how long it takes Him to answer Who was the first Prime Minister of Australia?

Omniscience is to Omnipotence as Matter is to Energy. Davo would have us think of knowledge like the ancient atomists thought of matter and void. I would have you broaden your minds (awareness/knowledge/sentience/enlightenment) and think more deeply about the concept of “knowing” Latin scient - from sciens, scire, Latin, "to know".

Knowledge is NOT a very plain and simple concept. If it were, we could add to our “jar” of knowledge the answer another false dilemma which troubled the ancient Greeks. Does an arrow which is moving through space occupy, momentarily, a series of fixed points, for a fixed period of time?

Would an Omniscient Being know how many attoseconds the arrow remained in one point before it moved to the very next point it occupied exactly one attosecond later?

God might look at any paradox proposed by humans and say…”I told you the tree of knowledge would lead you to an early grave”.

I saw a request from Davo to answer a question about whether God knows what He is going to do tomorrow. Here is a very good place to address that question while we are at this point in the discussion. What does Davo mean by the word “know”? If God asked Himself, “do I know what I am going to do tomorrow He might well answer yes – anything I bloody well want. Does that mean that He does not know? Of course not. Because that is part of the “fuzziness” of knowledge.


By the way – I would like to remind readers that the above request from Davo to find out what God knows comes from the same mouth as the one which declared…[quote]”There is no need to find out. This is over the logic of such a being existing. My or anyone elses ability to 'find out' the truth of this is irrelevant. Please show how my knowing if a being is omniscient is relevant to it being omniscient or not.”[Unquote]

Suppose God wanted to Create knowledge the way Mozart imagined a new musical composition. Is it not logical that the Being who invented all known musical instruments and who knew every single possible note combination capable of being produced on those instruments can ALSO compose NEW music.

Even if God memorized all music to the point of musical Omniscience He could still enjoy the sound of silence. He could still pick up a violin and play music which He hadn’t listened to for a while. We might “know” The Marriage of Figaro Overture by heart. When we hear it, what is the logical basis to conclude that it MUST sound boring simply because of our Omniscience? Omniscience does not mean a broken record playing over and over and over in our head – a constant wall of noise composed of “knowledge”.

I argue that Omniscience is nothing more than a really good memory.
Davo doesn’t like me using human knowledge comparisons arguing that we are not omniscient how would we know whether God enjoys dusting off an old record He hasn’t listened to in many years. Well, I then respond, how is it that a human at Iron Chariot presumes to know what “knowledge” feels like to God?

In summary of this post…”knowledge” is not a clearly defined precise “thing”. It is nebulous and ethereal. It is like fuzzy logic, and Gonzo Marketing* and Quantum Weirdness and all the other ironic but true - paradoxical but true manifestations of “knowledge”.
*See The Life and Work of Hunter S Thomson and Christopher Locke’s book

Davo concludes his last post with a rhetorical question asking whether God can be surprised. I answer thus….What would God do if He wanted to experience the feeling of “surprise” He would take that magic wand of His and wave it.

Lion (IRC)
PS - I will clear up the [font] rules via PM and remedy prior to the next post.


Point of order to the mods (Apparently permitted under the rules)

Can you please stop Lion IRC from using debate strategies and tactics which might unduly persuade the audience. LOL

Of course he uses appeal to authority (the AFA home crowd). Of course he is using the logic device that that something can be shown to be “logical” by demonstrating that its opposite is illogical.

It’s the very nature of rhetorical debate. I am using a mixture of persuading TOWARDS my proposition and persuading AGAINST my opponents position. Of course I am attacking the alleged paradox and proposing an alternative. Imagine a defense lawyer being told by the prosecution that any evidence that “someone else did it” is inadmissible.


Whether or not Davo chooses to remain silent about the purported “logic” of his own position is his choice. He is more than welcome to assume that his position needs no explanation or reasoning.
  #10  
Old 2nd June 2010, 10:46 PM
davo's Avatar
davo davo is offline
SIR Vacuous cunt
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 3rd Planet from the Sun
Posts: 8,763
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

I will lay out the logic as to why the claim of the topic is illogical, something you will note Lion IRC has not done at all. Simply danced around and avoided it.

This is an important point for the casual reader, that the Affirmative (Lion IRC) is not using logic at all to argue that omniscience and omnipotence are logical. He is avoiding it.

This is how someone does logic Lion IRC who is not trying to hide the fact their position has none.

Let me have a go at this high end philosophy stuff you keep namedropping about whilst you twirl your twirls and weave your little web of confusion .. let's see if I can tackle these issues regarding the topic claim of "An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical" and make my bumbling around in presenting myself clearer for you:

1/ An omniscient being knows all future and past facts, including all possibilities and experiences any of those possibilities could have.

2/ This means these facts are unchangable as the omniscient being already knows that they would change it and to what, there is no way these facts were not known.

3/ The result is the existence of this being would be immutable, unchangable. This being would be powerless to change the future as it already knows what it would change, it knows EVERYTHING.

4/ The only way it could change the immutable knowledge it has of the future would to not be omniscient.

5/ But not being able to change the future, would mean that this being was not omnipotent.


Lion IRC : How is a being that is both omniscient and omnipotent possible given it is clearly illogical for something to have both these traits?

Please show us the logic of your position. This is what you need to do to combat what I have shown of it being illogical. Approach the points in the actual logic and show us the error of logic I am committing. Show us the logic in the position you are taking that clearly shows I am wrong.

Your omniscient and omnipresent god is not logical.

Lion IRC's claims during the debate :

Quote:
Likewise, my case necessarily includes proofs that my opponent’s position is illogical
- I'm waiting on this, please show how the above is illogical, I've asked a few times now.

Quote:
When God says, “I don’t know what I am going to do tomorrow He is telling the truth.
- Lion IRC clearly refuting his argument by defining his god as not knowing something. ie: what he is going to do tomorrow. a total contradiction.

Quote:
How the hell can an Omnipotent Being NOT possess all knowledge?
- Lion IRC again showing that an Omnipotent god can't do something. He refutes himself in one sentence, the pinnacle point that his post led up too.. a total contradiction.

Ie: an omniscient and omnipotent god is not logical and dare I say it, the only way it's cult can defend it is with the Gish Gallop or sophistry, as people here see quite well. It's quite sad to see the gymnastics in action really :\

I pretty much call the debate over. I'm not sure what point there is in going on if none of the stuff I am presenting is going to be confronted AT ALL.

My opponent is not approaching any of my points which is what a debate is about, and has refuted himself a number of times.
__________________
Spearthrower: "There are words like vacuous & cunt that are applicable."

(delta p)*(delta q) >= h/(4*pi) ----- An explanation of Logical Fallacies : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies ----- ferox deo vacuus vinco ----- How do I post video etc here?
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 02:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.