• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Since there is no limit to study things and to the accumulation of knowledge
and skills, but at the same time it is impossible to know everything, there is
a being [perhaps on a distant planet]


that knows absolutely everything except for one thing. For example, out of
the answers to 100 hypotheses, it knows 99 answers and does not know
just one answer. And this is just as impossible as
it is to know all 100 answers in full. But this situation does exist in
reality: any reasonable being (even a dog or a cat) likes to learn things, and
the amount of learned stuff exponentially grows. So the perfectly all-knowing
being has to be out there.


FROM DISCUSSION:

To know everything that means spanning infinity.
I think it would be impossible for such a being to exist.
No, it is possible, because you are not sure.
If you are perfectly sure, only then it is impossible in your opinion.
Learn the depths inside your own mind.
The leading Atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins is not sure:
Ben Stein's scandal documentary ``Expelled''.



you can't use is unsupported assertion and waffle, which is all that was in your original post.
That word "waffle" has reminded me of the court scene:

So for me, the possibility of such a God existing remains open
It is an understandable situation because we do not live in Paradise yet. This means,
that there is satan.
The satan was not created by God of Love, because only Holy Lucifer was created by Love.
Because satan was not created by Love, he is god himself (false God). Hence, there are two gods fight going on on Earth. That is why it is not Paradise yet.
(2) Suffering Mom with Cancer - YouTube

Knowing everything would include knowing you know everything but then you'd have to know you know everything, and then the know you know you know everything and so on ad infinitum.
Consider seven Millennium Prize PRoblem. In my logical opinion, I know the answer to every one of the problems. And I know, I have these answers, and what they are correct in my opinion.
No loop here. Now, if there would be 1000000 Millennium Prize Problems, then in my personal opinion, I would have calculated all the answers. So, again, no problem with an infinite loop.
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Since there is no limit to study things and to the accumulation of knowledge
and skills, but at the same time it is impossible to know everything, there is
a being [perhaps on a distant planet] that knows absolutely everything except
for one thing. For example, out of the answers to 100 hypotheses, it knows 99
answers and does not know just one answer. And this is just as impossible as
it is to know all 100 answers in full. But this situation does exist in
reality: any reasonable being (even a dog or a cat) likes to learn things, and
the amount of learned stuff exponentially grows. So the perfectly all-knowing
being has to be out there.

To know everything that means spanning infinity.
I think it would be impossible for such a being to exist.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
To know everything that means spanning infinity.
I think it would be impossible for such a being to exist.
No, it is possible, because you are not sure.
If you are perfectly sure, only then it is impossible in your opinion.
Learn the depths inside your own mind.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No, it is possible, because you are not sure.
If you are perfectly sure, only then it is impossible in your opinion.
Learn the depths inside your own mind.
Not when it comes to infinity. There's no border or point starting or ending.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Since there is no limit to study things and to the accumulation of knowledge
and skills, but at the same time it is impossible to know everything, there is
a being [perhaps on a distant planet]


that knows absolutely everything except for one thing. For example, out of
the answers to 100 hypotheses, it knows 99 answers and does not know
just one answer. And this is just as impossible as
it is to know all 100 answers in full. But this situation does exist in
reality: any reasonable being (even a dog or a cat) likes to learn things, and
the amount of learned stuff exponentially grows. So the perfectly all-knowing
being has to be out there.


FROM DISCUSSION:


No, it is possible, because you are not sure.
If you are perfectly sure, only then it is impossible in your opinion.
Learn the depths inside your own mind.
The leading Atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins is not sure:


Where's the proof? This is just baseless assertions and waffle.
 

Aštra’el

Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth
To know everything that means spanning infinity.
I think it would be impossible for such a being to exist.

For a human mind, of course. For something more akin to a supercomputer or a machine superintelligence - in particular, the one responsible for designing the simulation, the idea of omnipotence or even omnipresence within that simulation is absolutely possible.

To phrase it another way: Imagine that a sentient supercomputer created a “video game”. If it wanted to it could be everywhere within the video game world at once, observe everything that was going on at all times, know everything that has ever happened within it, and know everything that could possibly happen, all while wielding absolute control over every aspect of the game.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
For a human mind, of course. For something more akin to a supercomputer or a machine superintelligence - in particular, the one responsible for designing the simulation, the idea of omnipotence or even omnipresence within that simulation is absolutely possible.

To phrase it another way: Imagine that a sentient supercomputer created a “video game”. If it wanted to it could be everywhere within the video game world at once, observe everything that was going on at all times, know everything that has ever happened within it, and know everything that could possibly happen, all while wielding absolute control over every aspect of the game.
Interesting thought.

Something akin with 'endless' games like No Mans Sky or Minecraft.

Procedurally generated landscapes and such where deletion and generation is endlessly active.

Still there would be a tremendous amount of power required unless you think it's a simulation.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
You might be wrong, regardless.
A scientist can say, that I might be wrong, regardless of my logical arguments.
But because some scientists trust in the existence of an all-knowing being,
then I must be right in their judgment of my arguments.
 
Last edited:

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Since there is no limit to study things and to the accumulation of knowledge
and skills, but at the same time it is impossible to know everything, there is
a being [perhaps on a distant planet]

that knows absolutely everything except for one thing. For example, out of
the answers to 100 hypotheses, it knows 99 answers and does not know
just one answer. And this is just as impossible as
it is to know all 100 answers in full. But this situation does exist in
reality: any reasonable being (even a dog or a cat) likes to learn things, and
the amount of learned stuff exponentially grows. So the perfectly all-knowing
being has to be out there.
No, your logic is wrong (however many times you repeat it in different forms).

It is indeed impossible for any entity to know literally everything (that would create all sorts of infinite loops and data storage issues) but for the same reason, is impossible for any entity to know even "almost everything". The concept of "everything" encompasses such an unimaginable range of information that the idea of anything knowing even a significant part of it is extreme.

So, however much any one entity may learn over the course of it's existence, their total knowledge will only ever make up an infinitesimally tiny proportion of "everything" and would certainly never come close to "everything".
 

PureX

Veteran Member
A scientist can say, that I might be wrong, regardless of my logical arguments.
Your logical argument is wrong if you assert that you are right just because you could be. Which appeared to me that you were doing in the post I commented on.
But because some scientists trust in the existence of an all-knowing being,
then I must be right in their judgment of my arguments.
Some do, some don't, and none know for sure either way. The possibility exists, and we can choose to trust in it or not to. That doesn't make any of us right or wrong. It just gives us the option to choose.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Your logical argument is wrong if you assert that you are right just because you could be. Which appeared to me that you were doing in the post I commented on.
Some do, some don't, and none know for sure either way. The possibility exists, and we can choose to trust in it or not to. That doesn't make any of us right or wrong. It just gives us the option to choose.
Well, what are the logical problems with my arguments again?
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Describe this disproof of all theistic religions, please.
I'm not claiming to disprove anything, just stating basic logical facts.

You can't store all the information about the entire universe inside the universe because the information about the contents of the universe would bigger than the contents themselves. You can't start talking about anything "outside the universe" either because then you wouldn't be talking about "everything". In this context, the universe is everything and there can't be anything outside it. The knowledge of everything simply can't exist.

It'd be like using a ruler to measure itself.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
I'm not claiming to disprove anything, just stating basic logical facts.

You can't store all the information about the entire universe inside the universe because the information about the contents of the universe would bigger than the contents themselves. You can't start talking about anything "outside the universe" either because then you wouldn't be talking about "everything". In this context, the universe is everything and there can't be anything outside it. The knowledge of everything simply can't exist.

It'd be like using a ruler to measure itself.

PLEASE TELL ME ABOUT THE INFINITE LOOPS, THAT YOU HAVE MENTIONED.

The Omnipresent Being stores information directly in nature. For example, I was on the corner of a street today, and it seems, that I have survived the danger of being contaminated with covid 19. That information is recorded in the past history of the universe, directly on the place I was standing.

A scientist might say, that I might be wrong, regardless of my very
logical arguments. But because some scientists trust in the existence
of an all-knowing being, then I must have a chance in their judgment
of my arguments. But it is hard work of the highest IQ genius to convince
everybody of the all-knowing principle, because ``the mind is being used
in the sole purpose to justify the feelings'' (Albert Einstein).
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Well, what are the logical problems with my arguments again?

It simply isn't a logical argument. It doesn't even look as if it might possibly be a logical argument. A logical argument has premises and valid logical steps that lead to the conclusion. You have only posted some unsupported assertions and then just asserted the 'conclusion' without any connecting logic at all.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
It simply isn't a logical argument. It doesn't even look as if it might possibly be a logical argument. A logical argument has premises and valid logical steps that lead to the conclusion. You have only posted some unsupported assertions and then just asserted the 'conclusion' without any connecting logic at all.
But it is hard work of the highest IQ genius to convince
everybody of the all-knowing principle, because ``the mind is being used
in the sole purpose to justify the feelings'' (Albert Einstein).
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
But it is hard work of the highest IQ genius to convince
everybody of the all-knowing principle...

There are whole books on how you can logically prove things - here's one for free: Critical Thinking (pdf). You could, for example, use categorical logic or truth-functional logic, but what you can't use is unsupported assertion and waffle, which is all that was in your original post.

``the mind is being used
in the sole purpose to justify the feelings'' (Albert Einstein)

[citation missing]
 
Top