Omniscience is impossible.

[Lullaby Chainer]

(If you get bored reading this, just know I'm wrapping this all back to God.)

A thinking entity is placed in a realm by a higher power.

This thinking entity knows EVERYTHING about his realm. He has memories of creating it from nothing. He has the knowledge that he has always existed. He knows everything there is in the realm. He knows everything that will ever happen in the realm, and everything that ever was.

He must understand that him being a product of an entity unreachable by himself is a scenario.

If he doesn't understand this, than he is not omniscient and we've already won the argument.

Here comes the problem.

(Assuming omniscience does not entail omnipotence..)

Is it possible to know whether or not there exists things that you do not and can not know of?

Think back to the scenario. The thinker in the realm may know everything he is capable of knowing, never encounters something that he doesn't already know, and therefore concludes that he is omniscient... yet he must realize that it is still possible that there exists things he cannot reach or know of. He must realize that it is still possible that he is the product of an unreachable entity.

The only thing or thinker capable of concluding omniscience is the thinker itself. Otherwise, if it has to be told that it is omniscience, then it is not omniscient because that entails that there was something it did not know.. that it was omniscient.

So.. set aside all dictionary absolutes..

-A thinker exists.
-A thinker never encounters anything it does not know.
-The thinker concludes omniscience.
The thinker is not really omniscient unless it realizes that it is impossible to know of things that are impossible, for the thinker, to know.
-The thinker cannot be omniscience.

UNLESS

-The thinker is omnipotent.

How does the thinker know he or she is omnipotent?

-The thinker never encounters something he or she cannot do.
The thinker is not really omniscient unless it realizes that it is impossible to encounter things that cannot be done when they are impossible, for the thinker, to know.

In other words.. the thinker in the realm never encounters something it cannot do if it never knows of something it can't do.

-The thinker realizes this, and cannot conclude omniscience.

-The thinker does not realize this... and is not omniscience because it hasn't realized something.

Thus..

Omniscience is impossible.

Thus.. God is either not omniscient or a liar.

The point is, to be omniscient, the thinker must be aware that if there are things that are unknowable by itself, then it does not know of those things. Whether those things exist is irrelevant. It's the fact that the thinker is aware that it cannot know something: it cannot know if there exists things that are unreachable or unknowable by the thinker itself.

(or I messed up in my thought process somewhere.. that's where you come in I literally started this thread with nothing planned out.. so there's bound to be a mess up somewhere)

[HelioPrime]

It started when you said :

A thinking entity is placed in a realm by a higher power.

Not sure but I don't think any source credible or not mentions anything higher than god in the judeo-chrisitan religion.

The only answer could be the one we can't explain. God either was just always there or never existed to begin with.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: HelioPrime It started when you said : A thinking entity is placed in a realm by a higher power. Not sure but I don't think any source credible or not mentions anything higher than god in the judeo-chrisitan religion.

You missed the point. This isn't about definition absolutes. This is about the real world. I'm assuming God exists. And I'm assuming he told us all he's all-knowing. You're stuck on "but THAT'S not in the Bible". People usually assume... either you believe in the bible or not. I'm taking a different approach. I'm assuming God really really did inspire the Bible.. then thinking logically from there. People always group "God inspired the Bible" and "the inspired word of God is true". There's no logical reason to group those together. One can assume that God inspired the Bible and not assume he told the truth. People always think of those as one in the same and they're not.

Also, this doesn't change my argument. It applies to any being that claims, or we claim is, omniscient.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Furthermore, there's no book that tells God he's omniscient. He inspired that himself. He had to conclude that himself. It's important to realize this to understand my argument.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer You missed the point. This isn't about definition absolutes. This is about the real world. I'm assuming God exists. And I'm assuming he told us all he's all-knowing. You're stuck on "but THAT'S not in the Bible". People usually assume... either you believe in the bible or not. I'm taking a different approach. I'm assuming God really really did inspire the Bible.. then thinking logically from there. People always group "God inspired the Bible" and "the inspired word of God is true". There's no logical reason to group those together. One can assume that God inspired the Bible and not assume he told the truth. People always think of those as one in the same and they're not. Also, this doesn't change my argument. It applies to any being that claims, or we claim is, omniscient.

You described the thinker as not knowing about the subject of its own creater. So in a hypothetical view if that was the case then yes, by definition we couldn't call god omnicent.

I think the definition of what defines all powerful is the key. All we have is human interpretation of translated bible texts which we compare to modern day views of the word.

You'd have to find something else god would not know to point at the lack of all knowing. Since we have not even a shred of evidence to even point at a higher than god being he still remains omnicient (I'm sure I spelled that wrong)

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Furthermore, there's no book that tells God he's omniscient. He inspired that himself. He had to conclude that himself. It's important to realize this to understand my argument.

EXACTLY!!

If god was all powerful he would do whatever god did.

Its humans who describe god, in translating texts its very likely they choose to use the word to describe god in the easiest way possible!

If your translating a text that doesn't match your language word for word isn't the most logical thing to use words in your own language that resemble the meaning of groups of the original texts words?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: HelioPrime You described the thinker as not knowing about the subject of its own creater.

No, I haven't.

I said, "He has memories of creating it from nothing. He has the knowledge that he has always existed."

Quote by: HelioPrime I think the definition of what defines all powerful is the key. All we have is human interpretation of translated bible texts which we compare to modern day views of the word.

All we can logically assume from the Bible is that God either concludes those things himself or wants us to do so.

Quote by: HelioPrime You'd have to find something else god would not know to point at the lack of all knowing. Since we have not even a shred of evidence to even point at a higher than god being he still remains omnicient (I'm sure I spelled that wrong)

It's not about actualities. It's about possibilities.

There may or may not be anything higher than God.

The point is, to be omniscient, the thinker must be aware that if there are things that are unknowable by itself, then it does not know of those things. Whether those things exist is irrelevant. It's the fact that the thinker is aware that it cannot know something: it cannot know if there exists things that are unreachable or unknowable by the thinker itself.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: HelioPrime EXACTLY!! If god was all powerful he would do whatever god did. Its humans who describe god, in translating texts its very likely they choose to use the word to describe god in the easiest way possible! If your translating a text that doesn't match your language word for word isn't the most logical thing to use words in your own language that resemble the meaning of groups of the original texts words?

Ok, so you're saying that maybe he's not actually omniscient and the bible is a fabrication of man? Not that I disagree, but what does that prove or disprove of my argument?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Ok, so you're saying that maybe he's not actually omniscient and the bible is a fabrication of man? Not that I disagree, but what does that prove or disprove of my argument?

re-read it again slowly so the words sink in.

again...your translating a text from another language. You run into words you don't quite understand or that lack a direct translation. So you take liberties and just apply a word of your language that makes some sense.

Coule that be how god's reputation for power might have come about?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer The point is, to be omniscient, the thinker must be aware that if there are things that are unknowable by itself, then it does not know of those things. Whether those things exist is irrelevant. It's the fact that the thinker is aware that it cannot know something: it cannot know if there exists things that are unreachable or unknowable by the thinker itself.

How would god have to acknowledge he doesn't know certain things? Is that a fact he wouldn't know, or the human definition for the word.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: HelioPrime re-read it again slowly so the words sink in. again...your translating a text from another language. You run into words you don't quite understand or that lack a direct translation. So you take liberties and just apply a word of your language that makes some sense. Coule that be how god's reputation for power might have come about?

I understand you. What I'm saying is how does this prove anything? Are you saying that maybe God isn't omniscient after all and the Bible is just a fabrication of man? (I would agree) I'm just trying to understand what you're saying by that. I understand it's possible that there are mistranslations. And yes, to me.. as an atheist, that's of course how I believe his reputation for power came about. But what, related to the topic, are you implying by it?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I understand you. What I'm saying is how does this prove anything? Are you saying that maybe God isn't omniscient after all and the Bible is just a fabrication of man? (I would agree) I'm just trying to understand what you're saying by that. I understand it's possible that there are mistranslations. And yes, to me.. as an atheist, that's of course how I believe his reputation for power came about. But what, related to the topic, are you implying by it?

Implying just what it is. Not being a chrisitan I don't believe in the bible word for word. I would even stretch that to say its possible the bible was influenced by god, but got stretched by humankind to suit their needs as the ages went.

The bible states in places that the word of god is absolute, but if those references were added by men themselves it could change the whole concept of how modern religions view the bible.

Its easy to see why men might have altered the bible, rulers who used authority to rule, and based their rule on gods grace would have wanted a bible that basically said to obey and serve.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: HelioPrime How would god have to acknowledge he doesn't know certain things? Is that a fact he wouldn't know, or the human definition for the word.

Human definition? We all know what omniscience means. This topic is whether or not that word is realistically possible and on a side note, whether God is really omniscient. We aren't using a god definition or alien definition. We're using the only definition we know of. That's the definition I'm questioning God on.

By the definition I'm using, yes.. God would have to be aware that IF there are things that are unknowable by him, then he would not know them. Which means that God doesn't know something: whether or not there exists things that are unknowable by him.

[HelioPrime]

To continue what if we find old writings pointing to evidence that at some point, the bible was altered with words on purpose by some long dead pope or priest?

Would that make the bible automatically false because it contains untrue writings or just mean the atheist and fundamentalist views on the bible might have to change.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: HelioPrime Implying just what it is. Not being a chrisitan I don't believe in the bible word for word. I would even stretch that to say its possible the bible was influenced by god, but got stretched by humankind to suit their needs as the ages went. The bible states in places that the word of god is absolute, but if those references were added by men themselves it could change the whole concept of how modern religions view the bible. Its easy to see why men might have altered the bible, rulers who used authority to rule, and based their rule on gods grace would have wanted a bible that basically said to obey and serve.

Just what it is would be off-topic. Which is fine. But if your implying something on-topic, let me know. That's what I'm curious about.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Human definition? We all know what omniscience means. This topic is whether or not that word is realistically possible and on a side note, whether God is really omniscient. We aren't using a god definition or alien definition. We're using the only definition we know of. That's the definition I'm questioning God on. By the definition I'm using, yes.. God would have to be aware that IF there are things that are unknowable by him, then he would not know them. Which means that God doesn't know something: whether or not there exists things that are unknowable by him.

Ok, well then by the definition god isn't all powerful.

And since the bible lies then god must be false.

Which still has nothing to do with the real existance question, this only relates to the situation created by your definition.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: HelioPrime Ok, well then by the definition god isn't all powerful. And since the bible lies then god must be false.

or God lied.

Quote by: HelioPrime Which still has nothing to do with the real existance question, this only relates to the situation created by your definition.

What was my definition? :eek:

And I'm already assuming God exists in this thread. I'm not trying to prove he doesn't. I'm trying to prove either he's not omniscient or he li- oh my word. Is that what you meant? That maybe he didn't lie.. people just fabricated those parts of the Bible?

[HelioPrime]

People could have taken a real story and fabricated bits and pieces to suit their goals. Not a hard concept to grasp.

If god lied, does that mean hes really satan in disguise!

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: HelioPrime People could have taken a real story and fabricated bits and pieces to suit their goals. Not a hard concept to grasp.

Oh, of course not. I grasp it fully, and I adhere to it.

In which case.. I have to leave a new option..

God either isn't omniscient.. lied.. or people fabricated that part of the Bible.

[Winter wind]

Gee lullaby, did Christian bullies steal your milk money every recess?

Any who, it's hard to argue omniscience since none of us are. Plus your characterization of God as "He" gives me the impression you are thinking of a super smart man with a big white beard.

God is an essence, not an entity. Think of Star Wars.
"It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, it binds the galaxy together."
Not exactly God, but the intangibility of God is captured slightly here. God can be omniscient if he is a force.