Omniscience and Omnipotence a contradiction?

[SMG.]

Hey everyone,

 

I have read Stefan's book against the God's on three different occassions.

I accept the arguments but I do have a problem with this argument as I do not believe it to be

valid:

 

Omniscience cannot coexist with omnipotence, since if a god knows what will happen

tomorrow, said god will be unable to change it without invalidating its knowledge. If this god retains the power to change what will happen tomorrow, then it cannot know with exact certainty what will happen tomorrow.

 

I consdier myself to be a rational empiricist and I am not an athiest anymore than I am an agopherist(someone who believes in an invisable gopher in the sky with no mass) or aunicornist (someone who believes in an invisable unicorn in the sky with no mass). I am an athiest but I do not think the word is nessisarry as a word isn't needed for the acknoledgement of not believing in the non existent as being rational and empirical fits the bill. Your just not dillusional.

 

If I have missed something in my critque or made an error please let me know and I would love to be corrected. If however you believe my critique to be rational and on point please let me know.

 

I have attached it in the file:

Omnipotent vs. Omniscience Rebutal.pdf

[DCLugi]

Hey everyone,

 

I have read Stephans book against the God's on three different occassions.

I accept the arguments but I do have a problem with this argument as I do not believe it to be

valid:

 

Omniscience cannot coexist with omnipotence, since if a god knows what will happen

tomorrow, said god will be unable to change it without invalidating its knowledge. If this god retains the power to change what will happen tomorrow, then it cannot know with exact certainty what will happen tomorrow.

 

I consdier myself to be a rational empiricist and I am not an athiest anymore than I am an agopherist(someone who believes in an invisable gopher in the sky with no mass) or aunicornist (someone who believes in an invisable unicorn in the sky with no mass). I am an athiest but I do not think the word is nessisarry as a word isn't needed for the acknoledgement of not believing in the non existent as being rational and empirical fits the bill. Your just not dillusional.

 

If I have missed something in my critque or made an error please let me know and I would love to be corrected. If however you believe my critique to be rational and on point please let me know.

 

I have attached it in the file:

I'm interested in reading this. I was a bit thrown that a gold level donator got Stefan's name wrong:}

[SMG.]

That's my bad, you can tell I am more of a listener than a reader...

[J. D. Stembal]

Objection 4: 

You claim God existed before matter and energy in your argument. By the definition of 

existence however everything that exists must be made of matter and energy so your rebuttal 

falls apart. Stephen wrote, “Believing that consciousness can exist in the absence of matter is 

like believing that gravity can be present in the absence of mass, or that light can exist in the 

absence of a light source, or that electricity can exist in the absence of energy.”

 

Answer:

I agree with that argument, but my critique was not of atheism but rather the omniscient

omnipotent contradiction argument. That argument is not valid, and if it just reverts back to the

argument you phrased we should use that valid argument and not use invalid arguments that 

fall back on valid arguments.

 

It is a bit distracting to discuss the validity of omniscience, omnipotence, knowing the future, or changing the future without also recognizing the other arguments against theism, namely the mountain of empirical evidence that there simply are no gods in existence. That said, I don't think Stefan's argument is necessary invalid. More accurately, Stefan's argument is completely unnecessary because you have to first concede the theist argument in the existence of gods in order to discuss the contradiction between omniscience and free will.

 

The omniscience vs. free will contradiction supposedly convinced my ex-girlfriend that atheism was a valid philosophy ("The Cost of Not Listening" June 25th, 2014 call-in show) after she told me weeks earlier that she couldn't accept strict atheism for our future family. Apparently, she believed that all dogma, even rational atheism, is too close-minded to teach to children. Despite her contention that she was on the fence between atheism and agnosticism, she had two very influential religious people in her life, her best friend from grade school and her mother. It became clear to me that she would impose religion onto our children despite her objections to being raised Catholic, so I broke off our sexual relationship, and we split up.

 

You claim that you are a rational empiricist, but hesitate to use the term atheist to describe your position. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning for avoiding the word, atheist. Are there any influences in your life that won't allow you to fully endorse atheism? Are you holding out for evidence in the existence of a deity?

[SMG.]

It is a bit distracting to discuss the validity of omniscience, omnipotence, knowing the future, or changing the future without also recognizing the other arguments against theism, namely the mountain of empirical evidence that there simply are no gods in existence. That said, I don't think Stefan's argument is necessary invalid. More accurately, Stefan's argument is completely unnecessary because you have to first concede the theist argument in the existence of gods in order to discuss the contradiction between omniscience and free will.

 

The omniscience vs. free will contradiction supposedly convinced my ex-girlfriend that atheism was a valid philosophy ("The Cost of Not Listening" June 25th, 2014 call-in show) after she told me weeks earlier that she couldn't accept strict atheism for our future family. Apparently, she believed that all dogma, even rational atheism, is too close-minded to teach to children. Despite her contention that she was on the fence between atheism and agnosticism, she had two very influential religious people in her life, her best friend from grade school and her mother. It became clear to me that she would impose religion onto our children despite her objections to being raised Catholic, so I broke off our sexual relationship, and we split up.

 

You claim that you are a rational empiricist, but hesitate to use the term atheist to describe your position. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning for avoiding the word, atheist. Are there any influences in your life that won't allow you to fully endorse atheism? Are you holding out for evidence in the existence of a deity?

 

Yes, I do have a religious background so I guess it would be possible that there were past influences on my life for me taking that stand but I do not believe that to be the case. Perhaps though this makes me more attune to arguments that are invalid.

 

Imagine a world where no one were theists and everyone were rational empiricists. Would the word atheist even be necessary? In my original post I did say I was an atheist but I believe it confuses the issues. If someone believed that 2+2=5 for example would we need a word defining ourselves as those that did not believe in that particular falsehood? I think not, for both questions. If a religious person asks you if you believe in god or are religious I believe the best answer is to answer no, I am a rational empiricist. If you said atheist instead or rational empiricist such a person may write you off on picking it for a great number of emotional reasons. Not all atheists are necessarily rational in all aspects of their lives and someone may be atheist without knowing any of the arguments for it. I am not holding out for evidence of anything. I am not holding on to evidence for atheism or for the lack of evidence for theism. Instead I will follow the evidence where it leads, if more evidence comes in I will compare it against other evidence. I do not care what the conclusion is.

 

By saying you are a rational empiricist, you are telling them that their beliefs are not rational and can not be verified empirically. If it turns out that they can think, really think, you have undoubtedly touched a nerve and started a conversation that may make them re consider there view. The word atheist doesn't do that it is a conclusion, where rational empiricism is not.

 

If you agree that Stefan’s argument is completely unnecessary why should anyone bring it up being there exists a mountain of evidence for atheism as you say. My last objection in the article states that. If you believe my reasoning to be flawed please tell me and I will correct my error, if there is not however, let us not try to convince others using flawed reasoning and not pretend that the argument works. I wouldn't want to convince someone else on flawed reasoning. Getting to atheism as a conclusion is not as important as being able to think rationally and be able to check ones bias?

 

I understand from what you said, your girlfriend was supposedly convinced by this argument. Are you fine with people getting to the conclusion of atheism with arguments that are not valid? If they did get there with arguments that are not valid did they really think about reasons why, or does part of them just want to conform to your views or others? If that is the case there is no difference between any deist and atheist if the only factor brining one to a certain view is that of emotion.

[JSDev]

Omniscience is a logical impossibility. The reason is because, as Donald Rumsfeld is famous for saying, there are known knowns (things we know we know), known unknowns (things we know we don't know), but also unknown unknowns (things we don't know we don't know).

 

Omniscience is defined as all knowing, but it's impossible because even a self proclaimed omniscient being can't know for sure it knows everything because of the unknown unknowns category of knowledge.

[Lars]

Omniscience is a logical impossibility. The reason is because, as Donald Rumsfeld is famous for saying, there are known knowns (things we know we know), known unknowns (things we know we don't know), but also unknown unknowns (things we don't know we don't know).Omniscience is defined as all knowing, but it's impossible because even a self proclaimed omniscient being can't know for sure it knows everything because of the unknown unknowns category of knowledge.

I am an atheist, just a little perplexed by this. Why are unknown unknowns a necessary aspect of knowledge?

[JSDev]

I am an atheist, just a little perplexed by this. Why are unknown unknowns a necessary aspect of knowledge?

I believe it's axiomatic. There are always things you don't even know you don't know. For example, there's no way a god can be sure he wasn't created by just another higher being.

[Lars]

I believe it's axiomatic. There are always things you don't even know you don't know. For example, there's no way a god can be sure he wasn't created by just another higher being.

I supposed it would be axiomatic if we are to assume the universe is infinite, both macro and micro.So, to possess knowledge is to be certain of a given topic and omniscience implies universal certainty.An omniscient entity would supposedly be aware of their own future choices, although possessing such knowledge would also come with the ability to choose otherwise which invalidates omniscience through a lack of certainty. We must assume that a creator deity possesses free will otherwise an infinity of unknown causal factors must be accepted. Either way, omniscience is invalid.Also, it's a bit difficult to ascribe the capacity for knowledge to a deterministic robot.As it has already been mentioned, there's enough reason to dismiss the idea of god without exploring the concepts of omniscience and omnipotence.

[JSDev]

I supposed it would be axiomatic if we are to assume the universe is infinite both macro and micro.So, to possess knowledge is to be certain of a given topic, omniscience implies universal certainty...

We don't have to assume that. There's no way you can know you've reached the edge of knowledge even in a finite universe. You're are correct that by definition, omniscience implies universal certainty, but there's no way any being can be universally certain.

As it has already been mentioned, there's enough reason to dismiss the idea of god without exploring the concepts of omniscience and omnipotence

Yeah i agree with that, but I find that this particular logic fail is one most theists don't think about so I thought it was worth mentioning.

[Lars]

We don't have to assume that. There's no way you can know you've reached the edge of knowledge even in a finite universe.

That is true.Too bad nothing we say can to stop the faithful from asserting whatever they like about the infinite capacity of their god to defy contradiction.

[SMG.]

Omniscience is a logical impossibility. The reason is because, as Donald Rumsfeld is famous for saying, there are known knowns (things we know we know), known unknowns (things we know we don't know), but also unknown unknowns (things we don't know we don't know).Omniscience is defined as all knowing, but it's impossible because even a self proclaimed omniscient being can't know for sure it knows everything because of the unknown unknowns category of knowledge.

I don't disagree on this point as I don't think their is a being with this ability. We assume here that the being knows what we call all the unknown unknowns or the things we can not know, so the unknown unkowns wouldn't even be a category for such a being.

[J. D. Stembal]

Yes, I do have a religious background so I guess it would be possible that there were past influences on my life for me taking that stand but I do not believe that to be the case. Perhaps though this makes me more attune to arguments that are invalid.

 

Imagine a world where no one were theists and everyone were rational empiricists. Would the word atheist even be necessary? In my original post I did say I was an atheist but I believe it confuses the issues. If someone believed that 2+2=5 for example would we need a word defining ourselves as those that did not believe in that particular falsehood? I think not, for both questions. If a religious person asks you if you believe in god or are religious I believe the best answer is to answer no, I am a rational empiricist. If you said atheist instead or rational empiricist such a person may write you off on picking it for a great number of emotional reasons. Not all atheists are necessarily rational in all aspects of their lives and someone may be atheist without knowing any of the arguments for it. I am not holding out for evidence of anything. I am not holding on to evidence for atheism or for the lack of evidence for theism. Instead I will follow the evidence where it leads, if more evidence comes in I will compare it against other evidence. I do not care what the conclusion is.

 

By saying you are a rational empiricist, you are telling them that their beliefs are not rational and can not be verified empirically. If it turns out that they can think, really think, you have undoubtedly touched a nerve and started a conversation that may make them re consider there view. The word atheist doesn't do that it is a conclusion, where rational empiricism is not.

 

If you agree that Stefan’s argument is completely unnecessary why should anyone bring it up being there exists a mountain of evidence for atheism as you say. My last objection in the article states that. If you believe my reasoning to be flawed please tell me and I will correct my error, if there is not however, let us not try to convince others using flawed reasoning and not pretend that the argument works. I wouldn't want to convince someone else on flawed reasoning. Getting to atheism as a conclusion is not as important as being able to think rationally and be able to check ones bias?

 

I understand from what you said, your girlfriend was supposedly convinced by this argument. Are you fine with people getting to the conclusion of atheism with arguments that are not valid? If they did get there with arguments that are not valid did they really think about reasons why, or does part of them just want to conform to your views or others? If that is the case there is no difference between any deist and atheist if the only factor brining one to a certain view is that of emotion.

 

Eh, I got it wrong. I listened to the MP3 of the show again, and Stefan uses the argument that god cannot exist in reality because, by definition, he is unreal (a square circle). Supposedly, my ex was convinced by this argument, yet, like you, she had a negative emotional reaction to the word, atheism. The meaning is simple. You do not believe in any gods or religions. She called this lack of belief, a dogma, which it is not. Atheism is a lack of belief since the evidence does not support the claims of theists.

 

I read your rebuttal of Stefan's argument, and honestly, I could not follow it, rationally, because is presupposes that there are such things as deities, omniscience, and omnipotence - things for which there is absolutely no evidence, nor can there ever be any evidence corroborating them.

 

The question remains, why do you have a problem with the word, atheism? I prefer it to rational empiricist because when you say atheist everyone knows precisely what you mean, and there is no ambiguity.

[JSDev]

I don't disagree on this point as I don't think their is a being with this ability. We assume here that the being knows what we call all the unknown unknowns or the things we can not know, so the unknown unkowns wouldn't even be a category for such a being.

incorrect, it's logically impossible for such a being to exist. Point being that even for the sake of argument you can't just posit such a being. It's like saying you can imagine a cricket that can jump in two directions at the same time (even granting you that you don't believe such a cricket exists). You can have those words come out of your mouth but it's still logically impossible.

[SMG.]

Eh, I got it wrong. I listened to the MP3 of the show again, and Stefan uses the argument that god cannot exist in reality because, by definition, he is unreal (a square circle). Supposedly, my ex was convinced by this argument, yet, like you, she had a negative emotional reaction to the word, atheism. The meaning is simple. You do not believe in any gods or religions. She called this lack of belief, a dogma, which it is not. Atheism is a lack of belief since the evidence does not support the claims of theists.

 

I read your rebuttal of Stefan's argument, and honestly, I could not follow it, rationally, because is presupposes that there are such things as deities, omniscience, and omnipotence - things for which there is absolutely no evidence, nor can there ever be any evidence corroborating them.

 

The question remains, why do you have a problem with the word, atheism? I prefer it to rational empiricist because when you say atheist everyone knows precisely what you mean, and there is no ambiguity.

I do not disagree with the word atheism, and I would consider myself to be one. I did not make up the argument I am just rebutting it. It is the argument that assumes the diety's existence and then shows how those traits are contradictory. I am saying assuming such a being those traits are not contridictory.  I would agree that I have a negative emotional reaction to the word Atheist because of my past and growing up, but the word itself seems to focus on only one aspect. As I stated previously, would you consider yourself to be an agopherist (someone who believes in a giant invisible gopher in the sky) or an aunicornist (someone who believes in an invisable unicorn in the sky). I would hope you would just consider yourself to be just a rational empiricist. Those two words should be enough to combat all mysticism. Atheism may get to the point sooner but in a world without Theists the word would not exist. I agree it is a conclusion, but I am not about conclusions I am about the process that gets to conclusions. If there is no way rational empiricism proves theism, which I would agree with, then having it as an answer to all mystism makes more sence to me.

incorrect, it's logically impossible for such a being to exist. Point being that even for the sake of argument you can't just posit such a being. It's like saying you can imagine a cricket that can jump in two directions at the same time (even granting you that you don't believe such a cricket exists). You can have those words come out of your mouth but it's still logically impossible.

I understand the cricket analogy. I can not imagine that to happen. I can not imagine a square circle either. I may be missing something here, but I can I at least imagine such a non existent being to exist? As I agree such a being does not exist, the only limits someone could have would be to the extent they can imagine such a creature. When Donald Rumsfeld proposed the unkown unkown category for example is he talking about the limits of human knowledge. I just do not understand where the contradiction is in the same way I can see where it is in a square circle. I am not saying you are wrong, am just say I don't see it.

[aro]

Just a minor thought here, I don't think that an atheist is on the same level as an aunicornist or an agopherist. When a staggering amount of people believe in god(s), I think it's important that non-believers clearly distinguish themselves from believers and make their position known. A belief in unicorns doesn't carry the same weight as a belief in a god who commands you to blindly obey him (or rather, the scripture). In other words, belief in unicorns is not nearly as damaging as belief in certain religious doctrines.

[JSDev]

I do not disagree with the word atheism, and I would consider myself to be one. I did not make up the argument I am just rebutting it. It is the argument that assumes the diety's existence and then shows how those traits are contradictory. I am saying assuming such a being those traits are not contridictory. I would agree that I have a negative emotional reaction to the word Atheist because of my past and growing up, but the word itself seems to focus on only one aspect. As I stated previously, would you consider yourself to be an agopherist (someone who believes in a giant invisible gopher in the sky) or an aunicornist (someone who believes in an invisable unicorn in the sky). I would hope you would just consider yourself to be just a rational empiricist. Those two words should be enough to combat all mysticism. Atheism may get to the point sooner but in a world without Theists the word would not exist. I agree it is a conclusion, but I am not about conclusions I am about the process that gets to conclusions. If there is no way rational empiricism proves theism, which I would agree with, then having it as an answer to all mystism makes more sence to me.I understand the cricket analogy. I can not imagine that to happen. I can not imagine a square circle either. I may be missing something here, but I can I at least imagine such a non existent being to exist? As I agree such a being does not exist, the only limits someone could have would be to the extent they can imagine such a creature. When Donald Rumsfeld proposed the unkown unkown category for example is he talking about the limits of human knowledge. I just do not understand where the contradiction is in the same way I can see where it is in a square circle. I am not saying you are wrong, am just say I don't see it.

It's one of those things that's really hard to describe. Let's assume god exists just to remove that as a consideration. If he said to you that he knew everything, and you asked him how he knew he knew everything, how do you suppose he'd answer that? Would he just say he has faith in himself? He can't ever truly know the answer to that. And if he can't know the answer to that then he is not all knowing.

[Sal9000]

Omniscience does not work on a mathematical level. Let's take the position that there is a set of all true statements, past, present, conditional and unconditional. Let's call this set 'True'.

 

If we apply Cantor's theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_theorem to that we can see that there is no such thing as omniscience.

 

Here is why:A powerset is a set that contains all variations of a given set (subsets). When a given set has n members, the powerset has 2^n members.If we have a set of all true statements, which is the definition of omniscience, the power set of that is 'bigger'. Thus, the set of all true statements is not complete. Thus, it cannot all true statements.

 

Another proof would go like that. You have the set of all true statements. You can take one statement fromt his set and see if it is contained as member in the super set. If the true statement is a member of the superset, you have additional information, and an additonal truth. Thus, the set of true statements is not complete. The same is true when the true statement should not appear in the superset. 

[SMG.]

Just a minor thought here, I don't think that an atheist is on the same level as an aunicornist or an agopherist. When a staggering amount of people believe in god(s), I think it's important that non-believers clearly distinguish themselves from believers and make their position known. A belief in unicorns doesn't carry the same weight as a belief in a god who commands you to blindly obey him (or rather, the scripture). In other words, belief in unicorns is not nearly as damaging as belief in certain religious doctrines.

Hi aro,

I complety agree with you. I am just saying without a word that talks about the irrational as being rational we wouldn't need a word that is the opoosite of what we pretend to be rational. It is the reason why I do not say atheism.

[SMG.]

Omniscience does not work on a mathematical level. Let's take the position that there is a set of all true statements, past, present, conditional and unconditional. Let's call this set 'True'.

 

If we apply Cantor's theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_theorem to that we can see that there is no such thing as omniscience.

 

Here is why:A powerset is a set that contains all variations of a given set (subsets). When a given set has n members, the powerset has 2^n members.If we have a set of all true statements, which is the definition of omniscience, the power set of that is 'bigger'. Thus, the set of all true statements is not complete. Thus, it cannot all true statements.

 

Another proof would go like that. You have the set of all true statements. You can take one statement fromt his set and see if it is contained as member in the super set. If the true statement is a member of the superset, you have additional information, and an additonal truth. Thus, the set of true statements is not complete. The same is true when the true statement should not appear in the superset. 

 

Omniscience does not work on a mathematical level. Let's take the position that there is a set of all true statements, past, present, conditional and unconditional. Let's call this set 'True'.

 

If we apply Cantor's theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_theorem to that we can see that there is no such thing as omniscience.

 

Here is why:A powerset is a set that contains all variations of a given set (subsets). When a given set has n members, the powerset has 2^n members.If we have a set of all true statements, which is the definition of omniscience, the power set of that is 'bigger'. Thus, the set of all true statements is not complete. Thus, it cannot all true statements.

 

Another proof would go like that. You have the set of all true statements. You can take one statement fromt his set and see if it is contained as member in the super set. If the true statement is a member of the superset, you have additional information, and an additonal truth. Thus, the set of true statements is not complete. The same is true when the true statement should not appear in the superset. 

Interesting I think I understand. This would only be the case though in a universe that is infinently expanding is that correct?

[Sal9000]

Sets and supersets don't depend on a finite or infinite universe afaik. Lets say you have a very simple universe with two atoms. This would like that in a set: {atom1, atom2}, The description in a superset would look like that {atom1, atom 2, {atom1, atom2}, {atom2, atom1}.

 

Things get more interesting when you have an infinite universe that is countable. The superset of a countable infinite set is uncountable.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum

[Triumph]

Sets and supersets don't depend on a finite or infinite universe afaik. Lets say you have a very simple universe with two atoms. This would like that in a set: {atom1, atom2}, The description in a superset would look like that {atom1, atom 2, {atom1, atom2}, {atom2, atom1}.

 

Things get more interesting when you have an infinite universe that is countable. The superset of a countable infinite set is uncountable.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum

I see what you are getting at Sal, but I think you have your sets and subsets backwards.

 

if I am understanding you correctly {omnipotence^(omniscience)} is your set and {Reality} is your subset.

 

But with god being someone who would exist outside time, past & future aren't a thing to him.  There is only present.  So if god made a decision to influence our reality, we would percieve it as a decision in our past, a decision in our present and a decision in ourfuture.  However from his perspecitive it was 1 decision and not at least 3. 

 

Simplifying it, reality is surjective to god and not god surjective to reality.

[JanneW]

Omniscience does not work on a mathematical level. Let's take the position that there is a set of all true statements, past, present, conditional and unconditional. Let's call this set 'True'.

 

If we apply Cantor's theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_theorem to that we can see that there is no such thing as omniscience.

 

Thank you, that was beautiful.

[dsayers]

incorrect, it's logically impossible for such a being to exist. Point being that even for the sake of argument you can't just posit such a being. It's like saying you can imagine a cricket that can jump in two directions at the same time (even granting you that you don't believe such a cricket exists).

 

You cannot posit a cricket that can jump in two directions simultaneously because it's internally inconsistent. Your introduction of the unknown unknown does not refute omniscience, it begs the question of whether omniscience is possible. Your claim of logical impossibility is based on the assumption that the unknown unknown disproves omniscience, which it does not.

 

 

A powerset is a set that contains all variations of a given set (subsets). When a given set has n members, the powerset has 2^n members.

 

Where does 2^n come from? Is that a way of expressing that "this tablecloth is red" also asserts that the tablecloth has the capacity to be not red? If so, then I think an omniscient being would have the capacity to understand this.

 

@topic:

I agree that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive.

 

As for whether omniscience is even possible, my first thought goes to size. As in, how big of a storage facility would be needed to encase all knowledge? Especially if time cannot be considered to be finite? It doesn't seem possible, though I accept that this could be a limitation of my not-so-omniscient mind.

[Jibninjas]

Hey everyone,

 

I have read Stefan's book against the God's on three different occassions.

I accept the arguments but I do have a problem with this argument as I do not believe it to be

valid:

 

Omniscience cannot coexist with omnipotence, since if a god knows what will happen

tomorrow, said god will be unable to change it without invalidating its knowledge. If this god retains the power to change what will happen tomorrow, then it cannot know with exact certainty what will happen tomorrow.

 

I consdier myself to be a rational empiricist and I am not an athiest anymore than I am an agopherist(someone who believes in an invisable gopher in the sky with no mass) or aunicornist (someone who believes in an invisable unicorn in the sky with no mass). I am an athiest but I do not think the word is nessisarry as a word isn't needed for the acknoledgement of not believing in the non existent as being rational and empirical fits the bill. Your just not dillusional.

 

If I have missed something in my critque or made an error please let me know and I would love to be corrected. If however you believe my critique to be rational and on point please let me know.

 

I have attached it in the file:

 

I did not read his book so I don't quite know the context of the quoted section, but there are definitely some issues there.

 

First, depending on his definition of omniscience and omnipotence, on what grounds would such a being need to change what will happen tomorrow?  There can be no new information in which to change his previous actions nor could such a being make an incorrect decision on his actions.  So the point would be moot.  Such a being would never encounter a situation in which said being would change what would happen tomorrow.  Now maybe you are just asking if such a being could do such a thing, then this is just another "Could God create a rock so big he cannot lift it?" question.  This has been long discredited in the philosophic community as our idea of what it means to be omnipotent has changed.  This is not getting into the fact that if such a being was ever to change what will happen tomorrow said being would have previously known (because it is all knowing) that the being would change what was going to happen tomorrow from eternity thus retaining his omniscient status.  A lot of the conversation also depends on what theory of time (A or B) you subscribe to.  I think it is helpful when looking at omniscience in the context of possible worlds (which I would elaborate more on if anyone cared).

 

Second, I think that it is very important to point out that neither omniscience nor omnipotence is a necessary condition a creator god.  In other words, for there to be a being that created all of reality (often labeled God) such a being does not necessarily have to be omniscient or omnipotent.  If this is true, then by defeating the idea of omniscience or omnipotence or their compatibility you have not defeated the idea of a creator god.  You have only, if you are successful that is, defeated one specific concept/attribute of a god.

 

I mentioned earlier about the definition or understanding of what it means to be omnipotent.  The same is important of omniscience.  If you are interested in such topics as god's omniscience and free will I suggest you look up open theism.  Many scholars today agree that the definition of omniscience should be "knowing all that exists to be known".  The outcome of a free will action is not in the set of all that exists to be known.  The idea that a being would "know" what a square circle looks like is no more interesting that the idea that an omnipotent being would be able to create a rock so big that even he could not lift it.

[Jibninjas]

It is a bit distracting to discuss the validity of omniscience, omnipotence, knowing the future, or changing the future without also recognizing the other arguments against theism, namely the mountain of empirical evidence that there simply are no gods in existence. That said, I don't think Stefan's argument is necessary invalid. More accurately, Stefan's argument is completely unnecessary because you have to first concede the theist argument in the existence of gods in order to discuss the contradiction between omniscience and free will.

 

The omniscience vs. free will contradiction supposedly convinced my ex-girlfriend that atheism was a valid philosophy ("The Cost of Not Listening" June 25th, 2014 call-in show) after she told me weeks earlier that she couldn't accept strict atheism for our future family. Apparently, she believed that all dogma, even rational atheism, is too close-minded to teach to children. Despite her contention that she was on the fence between atheism and agnosticism, she had two very influential religious people in her life, her best friend from grade school and her mother. It became clear to me that she would impose religion onto our children despite her objections to being raised Catholic, so I broke off our sexual relationship, and we split up.

 

You claim that you are a rational empiricist, but hesitate to use the term atheist to describe your position. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning for avoiding the word, atheist. Are there any influences in your life that won't allow you to fully endorse atheism? Are you holding out for evidence in the existence of a deity?

 

 

Wow, I rarely come upon someone that makes such a bold statement as there being a "mountain of empirical evidence that there simply are no gods in existence".  Could you point me to your thread, or a thread, where any of this mountain of empirical evidence is discussed?  

 

Also, in order to discuss in abstract the compatibility of omniscience and god you in no way have to concede anything nor would you have to recognize any of the other arguments.  I am not sure why you think this.  Could you elaborate?

[JSDev]

You cannot posit a cricket that can jump in two directions simultaneously because it's internally inconsistent. Your introduction of the unknown unknown does not refute omniscience, it begs the question of whether omniscience is possible. Your claim of logical impossibility is based on the assumption that the unknown unknown disproves omniscience, which it does not.

 

 

 

Where does 2^n come from? Is that a way of expressing that "this tablecloth is red" also asserts that the tablecloth has the capacity to be not red? If so, then I think an omniscient being would have the capacity to understand this.

 

@topic:

I agree that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive.

 

As for whether omniscience is even possible, my first thought goes to size. As in, how big of a storage facility would be needed to encase all knowledge? Especially if time cannot be considered to be finite? It doesn't seem possible, though I accept that this could be a limitation of my not-so-omniscient mind.

 

Which is why I said omniscience is impossible. The only argument against this claim that I'm hearing can be summed up as "Omniscience is possible if an omniscient being exists". This doesn't answer the question. If I say, it's impossible to know if you've reached the limits of all knowledge, you can't simply say "well, not for an omniscient being"!

[AustinJames]

"Can god cook a burrito so hot, that he himself could not eat it?"- Homer Simpson

 

I'm having trouble understanding how any conclusion in this matter would increase my knowledge or ability to reason.