questfortruth
Well-Known Member
That word "waffle" has reminded me of the court scene:you can't use is unsupported assertion and waffle, which is all that was in your original post.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That word "waffle" has reminded me of the court scene:you can't use is unsupported assertion and waffle, which is all that was in your original post.
Let me illustrate:you can't use is unsupported assertion and waffle, which is all that was in your original post.
As follows ...Well, what are the logical problems with my arguments again?
To know everything that means spanning infinity.
I think it would be impossible for such a being to exist.
This is correct, because assumed probability is not certainty, and without certainty, all possibilities remain viable (regardless of presumed probability).No, it is possible, because you are not sure.
If you are perfectly sure, only then it is impossible in your opinion.
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.
That word "waffle" has reminded me of the court scene:
Let me illustrate:
It is an understandable situation because we do not live in Paradise yet. This means,So for me, the possibility of such a God existing remains open
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.PLEASE TELL ME ABOUT THE INFINITE LOOPS, THAT YOU HAVE MENTIONED.
What are you basing that assertion on? I'm just talking about what is technically possible, not what actually does or doesn't exist.The Omnipresent Being stores information directly in nature.
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.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.
The Omnipresent Being stores information directly in nature. For example, if I live a Bible in a closed room. Then during 10 years, the Bible will hold its position. So, there is no need to remember the position of the Bible, all I have to do is open the room and see the position of the Bible. But God is a time-traveler like Dr. Who from series of fantastic aliens. So, God can travel backward in time for 10 years, open the room, and see the position of the Bible.What are you basing that assertion on? I'm just talking about what is technically possible, not what actually does or doesn't exist.
Where would the Omnipresent Being be "stored"? Where would their knowledge of where/when to look for each piece of information be stored?The Omnipresent Being stores information directly in nature.
Nature is the Information. God is well alive 10 years ago, now, and 10 years in the future. God is here and on Mars. God has no need to store information. The 4-dimensional (space+time) Nature itself is Informative enough.Where would the Omnipresent Being be "stored"?
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.
The Omnipresent Being stores information directly in nature. For example, if I live a Bible in a closed room. Then during 10 years, the Bible will hold its position. So, there is no need to remember the position of the Bible, all I have to do is open the room and see the position of the Bible. But God is a time-traveler like Dr. Who from series of fantastic aliens. So, God can travel backward in time for 10 years, open the room, and see the position of the Bible.
There is also the problem of an omniscient being would also have to know everything about itself, (including what it was going to do, so it could have no free will)
This is nowhere near knowing everything and doesn't address the problems raised.
God is Absolute Freedom. Hence, starting from His Freedom, the restrictions on our freedom and restrictions on our animals, are being built up. Freedom is the free act within God's Laws. For example, you are not free to fly like a bird (if you have not airplane). The satan is slavery itself. The sin is not a free deed, it is the deed of satan's slave.
The problem of omniscience: "how would the omniscient being know that
there was nothing he didn't know?"
Perhaps, there is an infinite amount of conjectures, problems, and tasks.
But we can select some 10 or more problems into a set.
Consider any finite set of problems, for example, 1000. The God has solved
them all. Hence His effectiveness is 100%. And hence this percentage
does not depend on the choice of set, then the God must know all (infinite)
knowledge. God is Spirit (Concept of Love is God and God is Love),
and not a machine. Hence, He can have an infinite IQ.
Nature is the Information. God is well alive 10 years ago, now, and 10 years in the future. God is here and on Mars. God has no need to store information. The 4-dimensional (space+time) Nature itself is Informative enough.
That's faith, not logic. Your inability to put the former aside makes this entire discussion pointless.Nature is the Information. God is well alive 10 years ago, now, and 10 years in the future. God is here and on Mars. God has no need to store information. The 4-dimensional (space+time) Nature itself is Informative enough.
For example, I know all seven Millennium Prize Problems, and I know much about myself. I know:the actual problems with knowing everything (including everything about itself).
For example, I know all seven Millennium Prize Problems, and I know much about myself. I know:
1. Solutions to the problems.
2. that I have legs, head, brain, etc.
No infinite loop here. And even if there is a loop, it does not mean, that I do not exist.
Translation, please?Why are you just repeating the same irrelevant waffle? Try reading what has been said and thinking about it.
None of this changes the fact that your attempt to prove the existence of a omniscient being was nothing remotely like a proof.
You failed in your initial attempt and now you're ignoring the problems inherent in the concept and just repeating irrelevant waffle about subsets of knowledge that do not involve said problems.