Theli

beausoleil...

In the last post you only replied to the arguments that were irrelavent to the issue. I felt like I was wasting my time.

Then refute any statement/argument as they come. You are not going to prove your point by simply saying "no, I don't agree".

No, you didn't. You simply tried to dodge the issue, and you ony answered statement wich was irrelavent for the issue.

I have already shown how knowledge and natural laws are different, and why they should be treated/measured different.
And also, that no scientist in his right mind will say that a natural law exists excacly everywhere. Only where the conditions required for that law exists (matter/energy for instance).

Ok, lets here it...

First of all, this thread is not only about the criticisms of omniscience (even if that is an crucial factor), it was about verifying omniscience.
On with the points you mentioned.

1. You don't know what everything is.
You can't claim that something exists or has information about everything within a certain space, if you don't even know what that space is, or how vast that space is. It doesn't work as a practical hypothesis as the most important detail (everthing) remains unknown.

3. No locical link between knowledge.
I don't think I can make this one more clear. And this point was not about needing a second omniscient being. It was about knowledge of A doesn't guarentee knowledge of B unless there is a logical link between A & B.

4. Is omniscience probable?
This doesn't have anything to do with need of an omniscient observer either. Did you just choose these points randomly?

7. Does god know what omniscience is?
This is tied to point 4. Omniscience is very unprobable, as even the alledged omniscient being can be mistaken. Again, omniscience is a useless hypothesis.

Those hypotheses are not as improbable as omniscience, because they have a logical link (mathematics, common source, other natural laws), they are not said to apply "everywhere" either.

Everywhere?
Show me someone who claims that a natural law applies excacly everywhere and to everything at any time.
Did the law of conservation apply prior to big bang? Does it apply in a black hole? Does it apply on subatomic level? Does it apply outside our universe?
How can you have a working hypothesis that don't have any logic, applies to an unknown everything and is being problematic in it's own.

If you reffer to conservation of energy everywhere at any time, then yes.

Yes, it's established. Just as the knowledge of the supposed omniscient being is established. What what has not been established is that neither conservation of energy or a beings knowledge should apply everywhere (including time).
About stoping you from saying things. No, I can't stop you from saying/post things, I'm not a moderator.

Excacly, if there is no logical link between a tested situation and an untested situation we have no reason to apply any results from the tested situation to the untested one.

I havent heard of this, could you elaborate?

Excacly, we measure knowledge, not omniscience.

B:
Item 10 - and a human would fail to answer a question and hence be demonstrably not omniscient.[/QUOTE]

I know. It's easy to prove that a being is not omniscient (if we assume that the questioner knows the correct answer), but we have no reason to even assume omniscience.
You didn't excacly refute this one.

Ooops, My error.
It's supposed to say "omniscience/non-omniscience manner". The idea that we should measure knowledge with only 2 possible results omniscience and no omniscience is a very clumpsy and inaccurate way to measure knowledge.

E=mc2.
Seriously though, I can't go out of my way listing mathematical formulas to prove a point that is generally irrelavent to this issue. If you want to discuss physics you have a much greater chance doing of so in the Science & Skepticism board.
Matter/energy IS a link. There can't be no conservation of energy if there is no matter or energy in the sense that we know them.
Natural laws exist as a product of matter/energy in our universe.

Well... there are the gaps I have mentioned alot of times in the text above.
1. Omniscience applies to everything/everywhere where scientific laws does not. (this includes our time)
2. Knowledge is an ability not a re-occuring phenomenan/event, so the natural law example doesn't really apply to the same rules.
3. Omniscience itself is incomprehensible, problematic and improbable, so it is not a good hypothesis to apply to any being.

Thanks for replying.

beausoleil

<a href="http://www.chstm.man.ac.uk/people/timmermann/lect-1221-02.htm" target="_blank">http://www.chstm.man.ac.uk/people/timmermann/lect-1221-02.htm</a>

Stuck at work loading fiddly samples into more fiddly sample containers - But I thought I'd post a link to the turkey argument. To me, the outline of the problem of 'inductivism' looks very like your problem with verifying the omniscient being. In fact, I would say you have reinvented it, which is quite impressive. Science continues to generate new truths nonetheless. Omniscience could be verified to this same level, it seems to me. That is to say, in applications varying as widely as we can think of. For all practical purposes...

I would say, this is what we mean by 'truth' and 'verified' in the way it is often (loosely) used, whereas you would campaign for a more strict definition.

If you felt I only replied to the irrelevant issues in the post in question, well, that was because I felt I 'd already replied to the others, but you were just saying the same things again. I think I've stated where I disagreed with you and why quite clearly. In short, by the same sort of argument you use to show omniscience cannot be verified one can show no general principle can be verified. This is because your criterion for verification seems to be that to verify something we must test every single instance it applies to.

I'm quite happy to talk about physics wherever it's brought up - you made assertions about natural laws being logically or mathematically necessary or some such. This is not the case - we believe they apply other places where there is matter and energy because we tested it, not because we deduced it from some principle saying they exist everywhere there is matter and energy (or vice versa). But maybe we just didn't think about the right parameters to vary yet. Sound familiar?

It's been fun, but I think the seam is played out. Cheers.

Theli

beausoleil...

Ofcourse. Science doesn't deal with absolute truth/fact but rather the most probable theory based on tests, observations and theories.
About the turkey example. I don't know what the person who wrote that was getting at, but it seems that he meant that we should expect the unexpected, because it does have a slim chance of happening.
This line of thinking doesn't work in reality though. I can't, every day when I leave the house look up in the sky because a rock, or a peice of a plane might drop on my head. To expect something unexpected leaves us in the state of not knowing anything (since the opposite to what we know still have a slim chance).

How this works out for omniscience & natural laws...
Natural laws gives us a good base of understanding our universe and how it works. Ofcourse we must be aware (and I think most scientiests are) that these laws might not exist or govern under certain circumstances.
But when it comes to omniscience, omniscience claims to cover excacly everything, everywhen and everywhere, wich as we have learned in science never hold water.
If we were to aproach the omniscience question in a science-manner I would say that (omniscience) - (excact knowledge of future events) is more likely than full omniscience, so why shouldn't we favor the former?

Looking back over the thread there are still some arguments that you didn't answer. You merely categorized them.

1st of all - omniscience in itself is incomprehensible and so it is not a good hypothesis.
It is also improbable for several reasons. On being that it demands that determinism is true (wich is not established).
The other is that the amount of possible knowledge is infinite. So, even if the chance for one of those answers wrong is incredibly small, then chance for chance for that being to not have a single error is infinitelly small (0%).
There are also questions that has no correct answer. There is also the question weither the being knows the answer to questions that has never been answered.

Show me your elaborate answers to these points.


I have covered this about 3 times, you must have missed it every time.
Science doesn't claim that natural laws are present excacly everywhere and at every time.
The verification by science is just that they are present forces wich can be used to further our knowledge of the universe.
The other problem wich I will now state for the second time is that knowledge is not a re-occuring phenomenan in the objects in question. You cannot measure (for instance) god's knowledge in an atom, so now connection can be made between the knowledge of the atom and the actual atom.

Read above.

I did post this before, but you did either miss it, or ignored it.

For 100% verification it must be tested everywhere and at every possible situation (unless a link can be established).

?

Natural laws only exist where we have tested it?

Ehhh... You just ignored about 85% of my post, and now it is played out?

Bye

beausoleil

My point is that 'omniscience' could be established to the same level as scientific principles we describe as universal. We interpret the implications differently. I don't feel it is necessary to test every application of a principle before holding it to be universal, since I see it as an ongoing process rather than a finished job..

"Of course we must be aware (and I think most scientiests are) that these laws might not exist or govern under certain circumstances."

I disagree - my experience of scientists is that they don't think of the law of gravitation (for instance) having exceptions in certain cicumstances. From the fact that it has survived all tests to date they feel justified in applying it everywhere.

1st of all - omniscience in itself is incomprehensible and so it is not a good hypothesis.

Response (repeated) - this is outside what I'm discussing, the specific question of whether the probem of induction is more of a problem for omniscience than for other proposed universal principles

It is also improbable for several reasons. On being that it demands that determinism is true (wich is not established).

Similar response - nothing to do with the problem of induction.

The other is that the amount of possible knowledge is infinite. So, even if the chance for one of those answers wrong is incredibly small, then chance for chance for that being to not have a single error is infinitelly small (0%).

This is the problem of induction - see above comments. You seem to think I don't understand it - my problem in fact is that it is universally applicable and so can be lelled at many more things. Nonetheless, we do in fact treat those things as established.

There are also questions that has no correct answer. There is also the question weither the being knows the answer to questions that has never been answered.

These are also nothing to do with the problem of induction, I'm afraid. I'm not responding to this thread to demonstrate omniscience is probable, improbable or impossible, just to question the specific argument against inductive testing.

"Science doesn't claim that natural laws are present excacly everywhere and at every time."

To be flippant (but make a point), so what's the problem people have with miracles? Clearly these were just examples where the laws of science were different for a while.

"The other problem wich I will now state for the second time is that knowledge is not a re-occuring phenomenan in the objects in question. You cannot measure (for instance) god's knowledge in an atom, so now connection can be made between the knowledge of the atom and the actual atom."

I'm still not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying there is an independent reality of which we can have no direct knowledge, and therefore we cannot in principle test a being that claims to have any knowledge of that reality? That would again be a different argument.

"Natural laws only exist where we have tested it?"

No, we assume they exist universally and test them to see if we are right. Obviously we can't test them in every possible circumstance, but as widely as possible. Your previous argument (one of them) was that natural laws existed everywhere there was matter and energy and that this was a necessary conclusion from logic and mathematics. My response is that this statement is factually incorrect. Universal applicablity is an assumption that is tested whenever we have the opportunity. We didn';t deduce that the matter in Andromeda wa sthe same as the matter here - we assumed it and tested it.

To sum up my position - principles are assumed to be universal once a large variety of instances have been tested, the assumption being subjected to continuous testing as new opportunities for testing become available. Once a proposed omniscient being was presented, I wuold feel quite happy proceeding in exactly the same way. It can never be established 100%, but nothing can be established 100%

Theli

beausoleil...

And I disagree with that on the grounds that not all knowledge is even testable/verifyable, and that omniscience would apply to excacly all possible knowledge, and that the most important factor (everything) is unknown.

Neither do I. But...
1. It is imperitive to establish a link between the tested area and the untested area if we want to hold a universal principle, such as mathematical formulas.
2. You mention "universal". Does universal mean everything? We have neither the means or the knowledge to even assume that our tested results should have any relevance outside our universe. As it is with omniscience, it applies to things outside the universe, and also in past/future time. There is a huge gap between the two.

Does gravity apply inside a black hole the same way as it applies in the rest of the universe? Did it apply before the big bang? Does it apply on superstrings? It only applies where the necessary elements exists (matter). This is the link that has been established by scientists. The needed elements for gravity to exist.

Have we tested outside our universe? It applies here because all our tests has had the vital elements (matter).

Once again you simply categorized the statement as not being beneficial to your own point, and waved it off.
This is very important. There are other factors that needs to be taken into consideration than a few tests on an infinite number of possibilities.
Noone will accept a hypothesis wich is incomprehensible and inprobable. Is it a coincident that noone has established a strong theory regarding the collapse of the wavefunction?

We can, by asking the being in hand a large number of questions get an insight in its knowledge. But to take the leap from that to omniscience, leads us away from probable, workable and applicable theories to fantasyland. We lack way to much knowledge to even consider something like that.
I would like to state that, the chance for that to be reading our minds, and automaticly comming up desirable answers is much more likely.

That's because you refuse to see the other factors that are at work.
We ask the being a number of questions, in wich he gives us desirable (correct) answers. It is now our turn to draw a conclution from that.
You seem to be stuck with the notion that "omniscience" is the only conclution/hypothesis we have.
Where that conclution is is doomed to be false as we don't even know the meaning of the conclution, or what that implies.

How is answers to a very small number of questions univerally applicable?
When we dont even know what contitions may exist outside our known space.

Let us test this example:
You drop 10 marbles on your foot (one by one), they are pretty small so it doesn't hurt.
Now, as for the 11th object we have an anvil.
If we dont take heed to the changed conditions (the heavier anvil) we would reach the conclution that it wont hurt when we drop the anvil on our foot either, since the last tests didn't.
We are mistaken, and in severe pain.
The factor here, or logical link if you like was that the marbles was much lighter than the anvil. If we were to drop another marble we would know in advance that it wouldn't hurt, as the significant conditions/elements are the same.
We can therefore draw the conclution that no marbles that light will hurt when dropped from the same hight.

This applies to natural laws aswell. We try to find the logical links, so we wont have to test excacly every instance.
But when it comes to omniscience, suddenly we have no allcovering link. There is nothing that guarentee, or even suppose that the being in question knows the exact date I will die just because he knows how many CD's I have. These are both peices of knowledge that an omniscient being should have, but there is no link between them.

Under the right circumstances, don't forget that.

But it does have with verifying/detecting omniscience, I'm afraid. We have no reason to assume a conclution of our tests if that conclution is based on unknown factors, and is in it's whole subjective.

I have nothing against inductive testing as to natural laws and marbles, but it doesn't work when it comes to omniscience. We cannot make a conclution regarding knowledge without assuming a conclution (such as omniscience) in advance.

Miracles usually include voices and signs in the clouds (and such). They have all a large dose of antropomorphism, and thus are much more likely figments of peoples imagination or overambitious faith. I never said anything about natural laws seizing to function for a moment. Just that they don't apply under certain circumstances (where there is no matter, for instance).
As one cannot seperate a true and a false conclution based on a supposed supernatural event, I won't take any supernatural theory as true. One reason why I don't believe in any god.

This is tied to natural laws. As they are not independent forces controlling matter but attributes of matter in our universe, knowledge can be derived from a particular atom, and be applied to a second similar atom. When it comes to the being in question's knowledge of the atom, it does not exist as an attribute of the atoms and cannot be applied to both (unless you actually question about both atoms).

But we must also establish wich circumstances (and where) the laws apply.
I might have missinterpreted your intentions here.

No, you missunderstood.
The attributes/laws are tested and confirmed at point A, and then applied to the untested point B through mathematic and logic based on the tests at point A.
If point B doesn't have the elements essential for the attributes/laws from point A, they can't be directly applied. There is no link between point A and B concerning the attributes/laws.

Yes, excacly. We must first test the elements, such as radiation to see if our natural laws are applicable.
If the radiation tests were inconclusive and didn't match our calculations, based on tests done in our galaxy we could not directly apply our natural laws there.
There is a underlining link when it comes to the universe though - a common source, big bang.

Yes, when the essential elements are there. Gravity does not apply where there is no matter near.

Yes. This is assuming that the tests were done under similar conditions.

Proposed?

Who proposed?

Why would anyone propose omniscience concerning it's improbability and incomprehencibility (Wow, what a word!)?
Why not propose "very much knowledge"? It's a very vauge proposition, but we have neither the time, language, knowledge or brainpower to get an excact/correct conclution of something so vast, complex and changing as knowledge (possible omniscience). Not by asking a few questions.
If you cannot establish a logic link between knowledge of the asked question A and knowledge of the unasked question B, you have no reason to assume that B will be answered truly.
You can also reffer to science and natural laws as finding the simplicity in complexity. I don't see anything like that in knowledge.

Only one thing can be established 100%. "I exist".
Not counting tautologies, ofcourse.
I can't think of anything else.

Thanks for replying, it's an interesting subject. My post might be abit repetitive, these things happen.

Vesica

Wow! There is a lot in those posts...but I am still lost way back on this:

I am not saying that this point somehow equals God. I am saying that as long as we do not know all there is to know about existence and the Universe no one can say there isn't a "God"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, yes we can.
You cannot prove somethings nonexistence by use of hard evidence. But you can prove it's nonexistence by pointing out the complete lack of evidence.
By saying that X doesn't exist you only have to point out the lack of evidence for X. To claim that something exist that is outside our knowledge is a fallacy (a lie, even).


Huh? How exactly do we get the foresight to know that there will never be evidence for something??

So, by that logic, we can say extinct species are 'nonexistant' as of now because there is no proof that there are any remaining populations of them....well we can say that unless someone finds one of the 'nonexistant' little critters (deep sea fishing anyone?) Granted this is something that has been known to exist. I guess try to mirror that logic precisely: If someone in centuries and centuries ago had dreamed up the wild notion of our bodies being made of minsule collections of protiens and such organized in a meaningful way into systems and organs and such....then a another person of that time could argue the nonexistance of these little 'globs' on the basis of no proof of thier existance, at least no known proof in the knowledge of thier time, which leads me to ask again, Do you know something I don't about all the knowledge and discoveries that will ever be made that you can conclusively state the nonexistance of something?

It's not like there are not hundreds of examples like those (UV light, other galaxies etc etc)....*sigh* Sorry to carp on so but the problems in that statement were needling at me!
...I can understand the point you were trying to make and I am not even attempting to argue about the (non)existance of GOD but it seems to me rather hard to prove the nonexistance of something PERIOD?! Regaurdless of the method you undertake....

Theli

Vesica...

I never said such a thing. But we cannot base our assumption on future possible evidence.
We will, every morning stare up into the sky afraid that a peice of a plane might hit us, based on the simple notion that it is possible. This doesn't work very well when put into practice.
We cannot say that something exist based on the notion that evidence for it might be presented to us in the future.

Yes.

Yes, only then can we claim that that the critter or the speices exist. We cannot forsee the discovery of the creature, so there is no reason for us to assume that it exist until we do discover it.

No. There no such thing as perfect knowledge when it comes to discoveries. But we still don't have any reason to assume the existence of something yet to be discovered (unless logic implies that it should/must exist).
If we were able to look into the future and take a peak at all future discoveries then we can clam that something yet to be discovered exists. But we don't have that luxury, do we?
That is why the burden of proof always falls on the person who makes a positive claim.

Are you reffering to 100% certainty?
There is suprisingly little we can know with 100% certainty.
But... We don't have any reason to assume that god exists unless some proof is presented to us. We could just aswell assume that purple horses exist on pluto. See where this is going?
If we would keep this line of thinking (everything exist that has not been disproven) we will find ourselfs chasing phantoms and trolls of our own imagination in a chaotic universe with no logic or reason. And with no certainty or knowledge.
Why should a certain "god" have any special pleading?

Vesica

I apologize that my post got a little rambling but I still fail to see how one can prove the nonexistance of anything....

Maybe this is all a semantics debate...
How can you validate or test something that has no discernable presence?

I would agree that one can show that it is highly unlikely, improbable that a certain thing X exists. One could point out types of evidence that would be likely to be known if X existed but, behold, they are absent. But how can you prove with any kind of certainty that something does not exist??

I am in no way advocating fevered quest to prove God or unicorns or other sentient life forms exist...I am just saying I do not see how you can prove they don't beyond any shadow of a doubt. Personally I chose not to waste my time persuing highly improbable happenings...Sorry if this is has all been a semantics misunderstanding!

Theli

Vesica...

Prove nonexistence?
Why should someone search for evidence to disprove something that has not been proven true.
It would be like trying to kill something that's already dead.
If there is no evidence of X, we have no reason to assume X exist. Not until some reliable evidence is presented and X is the most probable explaination for the evidence should we assume the existence of X.

The debate is about how to establish theories out of evidence at hand.

You don't test. If X cannot be neither proven or disproven, no conclutions can be drawn from X. Simply because we cannot seperate a false claim from a true claim concerning X.

You cannot prove either. But we have no reason to assume the existence of X. As we don't know everything in the universe we must derive the most plausable explaination based on observations at hand. And to claim that X does not exist, one simply means that there is nothing to support the existence of X.
We don't make any positive claims about something that is outside our knowledge as such claims are logically false.

Who said that we could prove they didn't exist beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Did I say that?
Did someone else on this board say that?
I don't see the point in disproving something that hasn't been proven yet.

I think you missunderstood my intents, yes.

ansarthemystic

To all the posts on this topic some things are missing!
First of all many atheists are presenting themselves as freethinkers. However a true freethinker is a philosopher. Therefore a true philosopher is a freethinker. With this in mind a philosopher or freethinker is concerned about finding truth (this is my opinion). To say that there is no god, or that one does not believe in god or to say that there is a god, or that one believes in god is not the result of philosophical thinking. Did you get that? To arrive at the conclusion that there is no god is not rational or philosophical thinking. For what reason do I say this? Well, let's start with this scenario. To prove that there is a god, one (the philosopher) must say to her/himself " if there is a god (once god has been defined to the ratification of believers and non-believers, then it follows that such and such (i.e. the logical results of this supposed being's supposed existence), must be apparent. It logically follows that the freethinker (remember, freethinker and philosopher are considered synonymous!) must also ask him/herself "if god does not exist according to the agreed upon definition of what god is, it should follow that the logical consequences or results of this non-existence should be apparent as well! Therefore it is useless to attack the idea that god exists by attacking a particular religion's concept of it! The god of Christianity may in fact exist (I don't care!). However, this being, if it exists is not God (note the capital G!). It would be more conducive to take the Buddhist approach that the existence of God is irrelevant. A true freethinker is open to the possibility that his/germ belief is wrong. However it is not necessary to align oneself with the idea that there is no god.

Peace and blessings!