Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kenny · 11-01-2002, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Kenny,

I appreciate your intelligent post. I notice from your profile that you are a seminary student in Pasadena. Presumably, you are are at Fuller. If you don't mind my asking, what particular education are you pursuing?

Thanks,

John

Thanks!

Yep, Fuller it is. I am currently getting a Master's of Arts in Theology.

atrahasis · 11-01-2002, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Subtle is the lord but malicious he is not!!!

--Einstein--

Thomas Metcalf · 11-02-2002, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"All true propositions are either intrinsic to himself or proceed from the things that he alone has created. God would have no need to consider his omniscience, and no justification is required, since he knows intuitively that he either contains or generates all true propositions."

Well, I'm sure He believes that, and it might even be true. But how does He really know that? He can't go through all true propositions and say "Yup, I know it," with any real certainty, because there's always the possibility He's missed one that He doesn't know. Similarly, how would He ever know that He's never forgotten anything? It's not as if every time I forget something, I remember that I've forgotten it.

What does it mean for a proposition to be intrinsic to God?

Thomas Metcalf · 11-02-2002, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Kenny:

"I really don�t have time right now to get deep into another discussion, but I would like to make a brief comment."

Thanks for your input and time, then. I understand if you can't post very regularly.

As for your first paragraph, I would have to say that God is indeed essentially omniscient, but then the question could be restated, "How does God know He's God?" That is, what justification does God have when He goes through all His properties and notices that He is indeed omniscient, and therefore can conclude He matches the definition of God?

You offer a very important point in the second paragraph. If some ontological arguments are sound, then we can know God is omniscient a priori, and so, presumably, can God. I think this is related to what I said above; God certainly knows what God would look like and be like, but I'm not sure He believes justifiedly that He matches that description. I might have a conception of Tom in my mind that includes that he has seen every movie in existence. I'm still without a way to figure out if I'm indeed Tom, because how would I ever know that my belief that I've seen every movie is justified?

As for G�del, I agree that it would be hard to formulate a cogent argument out of his incompleteness theorem. I have a feeling G�del is often misused much the same way Einstein and Hawking are.

I would be interested to read your version of knowledge, if you have time. I think it might be material to the argument after all.

Vanderzyden · 11-02-2002, 01:22 PM

Thomas,

I presumed that you took the attributes I listed as those commonly ascribed to God. If not, then perhaps we should back up and begin afresh.

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Metcalf:

In general, I can figure out which facts I know and which facts I don't know. I know what I ate for breakfast....

For God to be omniscient, He must believe all true propositions, and they must be justified for Him indefeasibly, under a fairly popular conception of knowledge. So for God to know He's omniscient, He must believe (indefeasibly justifiedly) that He indefeasibly justifiedly believes every true proposition.

(emphasis mine)

I think one term that is a significant impediment in the conception of omniscience is "belief". May I suggest that an omniscient being is incapable of belief? If you will, consider the primordial God, before the universe--and anything else--came into existence. God is alone.

1. God is eternal (my premise c). He is intrinsically timeless. There never was a "time" when he was not. He simply IS. Only one being can have this attribute, and that being is God. He has no equal, no co-eternal companion. There is nothing to "surprise" him, or "take him from behind". Therefore, nothing that can be known is unknown by him.

2. God knows himself (my premise d). He knows that he exists. He knows all of his characteristics (attributes). He knows the content and volume in his mind. As humans, we may consider our experience as an analogy. I know myself. I know that I exist and I may recall the content of my mind. Surely, the almighty God, maker of heaven and earth, knows himself perfectly, and he is capable of instantaneous and perfect "recollection". He is not even limited by the speed of neural transmission! For himself, there were no propositions concerning his attributes. When considering himself (then, as now), there is no need for deliberation, or examination, or introspection, or postulation. Concerning his nature, there is nothing to propose. He is the I AM THAT WHICH I AM. Therefore, the only propositions that were available for consideration were those about his plans for the future. Since God alone exists, these propositions are intrinsic to his person. Obviously, they do not exist extrinsically, since he is alone. We can discuss these "planning" propositions once our discussion progresses a bit further. More on this below.

3. God does not forget (my premise b). Surely we can surmise that he possesses a mind that is independent of physical matter; a mind that does not deteriorate. This is not difficult to conprehend. If he does not forget, then he has perfect retention of all knowledge.

Remember, we are still considering God existing alone. If God has no relations other than to himself, and he (1) is eternal, (2) knows himself fully, and (3) does not forget, then he does not believe anything. It is not appropriate to ascribe "belief" to his knowledge. For indeed, it must be absolute knowledge. To say that God knows everything about himself means to say that his thoughts about himself are held with complete certainty. He is not uncertain about even one small aspect of his own nature. He does not forget, nor does he begin to forget. Therefore, his absolute, complete, knowledge is held perpetually.

Of course, we see the contrast with our experience. Mere belief is a human limitation. We believe because we do not really know. We are incapable of certainty. Basic epistemological considerations make this very clear. However, as you imply, we may hold justified, true beliefs. We may believe some things, such as "I am thinking now", with the highest certainty of which we are capable. We are justified in such belief, and we can know nothing with more certainty. And yet, we are still somewhat uncertain, and unable to prove, that we are indeed thinking. Indeed, we are quite fallible, and have general and broad limitations. As such, we forget, or find that we simply cannot perceive the inherent truths about some things; or, again, we find that we are incapable of fully justifying our intuitions. But, we may learn of some of the truth(s) of many things. It is unreasonable to ascribe such human limitations to God as we know him through his revelations.

This exposition covers God's existence before anything else was created. Later, we can discuss my premise (a), God "is responsible for the existence of everything besides himself", and the related propositions (which were the only propositions when God existed alone). For now, I think I should stop and allow you to respond.

Enjoying this very much,

John

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

Bill Snedden · 11-02-2002, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kenny:
I don't think Godelian considerations argue against this possibility because all Godel's incompleteness theorem asserts is that it is impossible for a formal system to be both consistent (no contradictory theorems are derivable from it) and complete (all true theorems are derivable from it), but God is not a formal system; God is a self-conscious being. God need not derive His knowledge from any finite set of axioms combined with formal rules of inference, God simply knows all that He knows directly and immediately. I don't see anything in Godel which would prove that such knowledge is impossible.

Hmmm. Well, it was late and I was really using Goedel as more of an analogy, but I think there's still a point to make.

Sure God knows everything he knows directly and immediately, but how does he know that that's all there is to know? As I read the OP, we're not talking only about knowledge here, we're talking about proofs. How does God know (or prove to himself), that he knows everything? The moment God begins to attempt to determine whether or not he actually knows everything there is to know, he must of necessity engage in some type of formal reasoning, right? Or can he also assess this "directly and immediately?"

It just seems rather odd that we regularly decry the use of circular reasoning as fallacious, and yet this would seem to be the only type of reasoning possible for God to employ...

If Cornelius Van Til were God, would he have been unable to prove his own existence?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

beliefisbunk · 11-02-2002, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:


God doesn't believe anything because believers are not allowed in heaven or there would be churches in heaven.

If there was "free will" there wouldn't be any churches.

Plus, the "I told you so" is a bit more broadened (i.e., miracles, divine intervention, etc.)

Very self contradictory.

Philip Osborne · 11-02-2002, 02:52 PM

Well, I'm sure He believes that, and it might even be true. But how does He really know that? He can't go through all true propositions and say "Yup, I know it," with any real certainty, because there's always the possibility He's missed one that He doesn't know. Similarly, how would He ever know that He's never forgotten anything? It's not as if every time I forget something, I remember that I've forgotten it.

Here's a possibility, although I am as yet unsure as to how good of a possibility it is. Perhaps for God, it is incorrigibly true for Him that He is omniscient. For instance, I cannot deny that I am able to think; it is incorrigibly true. Perhaps in a similar manner, it is incorrigibly true for God that He is omniscient.

Sincerely,

Philip

Thomas Metcalf · 11-02-2002, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Philip Osborne:

"Here's a possibility, although I am as yet unsure as to how good of a possibility it is. Perhaps for God, it is incorrigibly true for Him that He is omniscient. For instance, I cannot deny that I am able to think; it is incorrigibly true. Perhaps in a similar manner, it is incorrigibly true for God that He is omniscient."

It's easy to see why "Sometimes, I am thinking" is incorrigibly true for us; if we deny it, we are asserting a contradiction, because denial is a form of thinking. In this way, it's not analytically true; it seems to be true because introspection is infallible and introspection is, I think, a posteriori. But I do not see how God would be able to introspect that He is omniscient; the way we introspect that we know K is simply by surveying our knowledge within our own minds, but this only works for all the knowledge we already know. Unless someone could demonstrate the KK thesis, I don't think we've reached a justification for God's omnipotence yet.

You perhaps have explained why God believes He is omniscient, but I'm still not sure He can justify that belief to Himself with much certainty.

Thomas Metcalf · 11-02-2002, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

"I think one term that is a significant impediment in the conception of omniscience is "belief". May I suggest that an omniscient being is incapable of belief? If you will, consider the primordial God, before the universe--and anything else--came into existence. God is alone.

1. God is eternal (my premise c)[...] There is nothing to 'surprise' him, or 'take him from behind'. Therefore, nothing that can be known is unknown by him." (Emphasis original throughout.)

I don't understand; is the part before my ellipsis supposed to imply the part after it? I can grant that God is timeless, but even if nothing could surprise me, that wouldn't mean I know everything.

"2. God knows himself (my premise d). He knows that he exists. He knows all of his characteristics (attributes). He knows the content and volume in his mind."

Well, this is precisely what I'm wondering. Maybe He believes He is omniscient, but I wonder how He could know for Himself whether that belief is justified. What possible introspection could He perform that would justify to Him that He is omniscient? What test could He run?

"3. God does not forget (my premise b). Surely we can surmise that he possesses a mind that is independent of physical matter; a mind that does not deteriorate. This is not difficult to conprehend. If he does not forget, then he has perfect retention of all knowledge."

Again, God could forget nothing and still not be quite omniscient. Plus, most non-physicalists about the mind will say that immaterial things can "deteriorate" too.

I think we can still call what God does "belief." Belief may be a primitive notion, or it may just be defined behaviorally. I would say x believes y iff in ideal conditions, if one asks x whether y, x answers in the affirmative. So if I asked God something, and He decided to answer, He would definitely have something to say.

In sum: I'm sure God feels that He is very sure about a lot of propositions, and He may even believe He's omniscient. But how could anyone possibly justify the belief that she is omniscient?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-02-2002, 09:43 AM	#13
Thomas Metcalf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 1,009	Originally posted by Vanderzyden: "All true propositions are either intrinsic to himself or proceed from the things that he alone has created. God would have no need to consider his omniscience, and no justification is required, since he knows intuitively that he either contains or generates all true propositions." Well, I'm sure He believes that, and it might even be true. But how does He really know that? He can't go through all true propositions and say "Yup, I know it," with any real certainty, because there's always the possibility He's missed one that He doesn't know. Similarly, how would He ever know that He's never forgotten anything? It's not as if every time I forget something, I remember that I've forgotten it. What does it mean for a proposition to be intrinsic to God?

11-02-2002, 09:49 AM	#14
Thomas Metcalf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 1,009	Originally posted by Kenny: "I really don�t have time right now to get deep into another discussion, but I would like to make a brief comment." Thanks for your input and time, then. I understand if you can't post very regularly. As for your first paragraph, I would have to say that God is indeed essentially omniscient, but then the question could be restated, "How does God know He's God?" That is, what justification does God have when He goes through all His properties and notices that He is indeed omniscient, and therefore can conclude He matches the definition of God? You offer a very important point in the second paragraph. If some ontological arguments are sound, then we can know God is omniscient a priori, and so, presumably, can God. I think this is related to what I said above; God certainly knows what God would look like and be like, but I'm not sure He believes justifiedly that He matches that description. I might have a conception of Tom in my mind that includes that he has seen every movie in existence. I'm still without a way to figure out if I'm indeed Tom, because how would I ever know that my belief that I've seen every movie is justified? As for G�del, I agree that it would be hard to formulate a cogent argument out of his incompleteness theorem. I have a feeling G�del is often misused much the same way Einstein and Hawking are. I would be interested to read your version of knowledge, if you have time. I think it might be material to the argument after all.

11-02-2002, 02:52 PM	#18
Philip Osborne Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cherry Hill, NJ Posts: 147	Well, I'm sure He believes that, and it might even be true. But how does He really know that? He can't go through all true propositions and say "Yup, I know it," with any real certainty, because there's always the possibility He's missed one that He doesn't know. Similarly, how would He ever know that He's never forgotten anything? It's not as if every time I forget something, I remember that I've forgotten it. Here's a possibility, although I am as yet unsure as to how good of a possibility it is. Perhaps for God, it is incorrigibly true for Him that He is omniscient. For instance, I cannot deny that I am able to think; it is incorrigibly true. Perhaps in a similar manner, it is incorrigibly true for God that He is omniscient. Sincerely, Philip

11-02-2002, 03:31 PM	#19
Thomas Metcalf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 1,009	Originally posted by Philip Osborne: "Here's a possibility, although I am as yet unsure as to how good of a possibility it is. Perhaps for God, it is incorrigibly true for Him that He is omniscient. For instance, I cannot deny that I am able to think; it is incorrigibly true. Perhaps in a similar manner, it is incorrigibly true for God that He is omniscient." It's easy to see why "Sometimes, I am thinking" is incorrigibly true for us; if we deny it, we are asserting a contradiction, because denial is a form of thinking. In this way, it's not analytically true; it seems to be true because introspection is infallible and introspection is, I think, a posteriori. But I do not see how God would be able to introspect that He is omniscient; the way we introspect that we know K is simply by surveying our knowledge within our own minds, but this only works for all the knowledge we already know. Unless someone could demonstrate the KK thesis, I don't think we've reached a justification for God's omnipotence yet. You perhaps have explained why God believes He is omniscient, but I'm still not sure He can justify that belief to Himself with much certainty.

11-02-2002, 03:38 PM	#20
Thomas Metcalf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 1,009	Originally posted by Vanderzyden: "I think one term that is a significant impediment in the conception of omniscience is "belief". May I suggest that an omniscient being is incapable of belief? If you will, consider the primordial God, before the universe--and anything else--came into existence. God is alone. 1. God is eternal (my premise c)[...] There is nothing to 'surprise' him, or 'take him from behind'. Therefore, nothing that can be known is unknown by him." (Emphasis original throughout.) I don't understand; is the part before my ellipsis supposed to imply the part after it? I can grant that God is timeless, but even if nothing could surprise me, that wouldn't mean I know everything. "2. God knows himself (my premise d). He knows that he exists. He knows all of his characteristics (attributes). He knows the content and volume in his mind." Well, this is precisely what I'm wondering. Maybe He believes He is omniscient, but I wonder how He could know for Himself whether that belief is justified. What possible introspection could He perform that would justify to Him that He is omniscient? What test could He run? "3. God does not forget (my premise b). Surely we can surmise that he possesses a mind that is independent of physical matter; a mind that does not deteriorate. This is not difficult to conprehend. If he does not forget, then he has perfect retention of all knowledge." Again, God could forget nothing and still not be quite omniscient. Plus, most non-physicalists about the mind will say that immaterial things can "deteriorate" too. I think we can still call what God does "belief." Belief may be a primitive notion, or it may just be defined behaviorally. I would say x believes y iff in ideal conditions, if one asks x whether y, x answers in the affirmative. So if I asked God something, and He decided to answer, He would definitely have something to say. In sum: I'm sure God feels that He is very sure about a lot of propositions, and He may even believe He's omniscient. But how could anyone possibly justify the belief that she is omniscient?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.