Is God By Necessity An Atheist?

[atanu]

-- to burst your bubble ..

There is probably no 'my' bubble, but i am the bubble that will burst and there will be luminous.

 

[Penumbra]

identify one thing you don't know"? but, if you don't know it, how can you identify it?

You can easily identify things that you don't know.

I don't know the name of the neighbor that lives two stories directly above me. I do know there's an apartment there, but I don't know who lives there, if anyone.

I have successfully demonstrated that I am not omniscient, since I have identified something I do not know.

Well if it is all knowing, then it does know that it knows, since it knows everything, and it knowing everything is part of the facts of reality. if it doesn't know that it is all-knowing, then it is not all-knowing. Most-knowing would be a different question, how can you know you are most-knowing if you are not all-knowing? how can you be all-knowing if you are not all-powerful? those are less silly questions.

It's easy to put forth a concept that is ill-defined and un-supported (like omniscience) and suggest that it would magically just "know", but it's another thing entirely to put forth an argument for how this is even possible.

A being could be fooled into thinking they are omniscient despite not being so. If that's the case, then some process or methodology must be used by an omniscient being to know for sure that they are omniscient, or their qualities must reasonable rule out the possibility of not knowing something.

For instance, someone could argue that being infinite in scope in all possible ways rules out the possibility of not knowing something. They could argue that a being that exists infinitely in all space, all time, and all dimensions, can perceive that there is no limit to its existence, and then say that if this being observes that it has full knowledge of everything within its infinite perception, then it can logically conclude that it is omniscient. After all, it knows everything in its realm, and its realm is infinite.

I would take such an argument seriously, but would challenge it by asking how the proposed being knows for sure that it is infinite in all possible ways. What if it is infinite in all ways that it knows of, but is not infinite in ways that it doesn't know about?

if something is all-powerful it should be capable of paradoxs and of not being all-power while not being all-powerful, a square circle would be easy for something with every power, such as the one to understand and create square circles.
after all, an infinitly large square and an infinatly large circle are the same thing, are they not?
In the sense that you suggest "all-knowing" doesn't mean all-knowing, it means all-understanding of the things which it is aware of. this sort of definition means it is not all-knowing, since it is not all-aware.

Defining omnipotence this way renders it to being a meaningless concept. The ability to instantly and effortlessly actualize any desired and logical state of affairs, on the other hand, is a meaningful concept to work with.

Attempting to use logic to explain that logic can be avoided, as you've done by suggesting this definition of omnipotence, is self-refuting. It undermines its own credibility. It's like someone who asserts that all things are subjective, as an objective statement, or someone who spells out "bricks don't exist", with bricks.

When logic is proposed to not be absolute, it instantly renders language meaningless, including the language that proposed it.

 

[Luminous]

You can easily identify things that you don't know.

I don't know the name of the neighbor that lives two stories directly above me. I do know there's an apartment there, but I don't know who lives there, if anyone.

But are you aware of the name of your neighbor that lives two stories above you? perhaps you are all-knowing for all of the things that you are aware of.

I have successfully demonstrated that I am not omniscient, since I have identified something I do not know.

so how can something all-knowing, not know itself?

It's easy to put forth a concept that is ill-defined and un-supported (like omniscience) and suggest that it would magically just "know", but it's another thing entirely to put forth an argument for how this is even possible.

A being could be fooled into thinking they are omniscient despite not being so. If that's the case, then some process or methodology must be used by an omniscient being to know for sure that they are omniscient, or their qualities must reasonable rule out the possibility of not knowing something.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, but then this being that is fooled is NOT omniscient

For instance, someone could argue that being infinite in scope in all possible ways rules out the possibility of not knowing something. They could argue that a being that exists infinitely in all space, all time, and all dimensions, can perceive that there is no limit to its existence, and then say that if this being observes that it has full knowledge of everything within its infinite perception, then it can logically conclude that it is omniscient. After all, it knows everything in its realm, and its realm is infinite.

something can be tricked into thinking it is infinite in all possible ways

I would take such an argument seriously, but would challenge it by asking how the proposed being knows for sure that it is infinite in all possible ways. What if it is infinite in all ways that it knows of, but is not infinite in ways that it doesn't know about?

ah you beat me to it.

Defining omnipotence this way renders it to being a meaningless concept. The ability to instantly and effortlessly actualize any desired and logical state of affairs, on the other hand, is a meaningful concept to work with.

my concept of omnipotence still includes your concept within it. but it renders the title of your concept to "logipotent" and a definition of God could even be dwindled down to "maxipotent" a.k.a Most Powerful

Attempting to use logic to explain that logic can be avoided, as you've done by suggesting this definition of omnipotence, is self-refuting.

logic shows its agnosticism very easily actually:

A Loose Foundation Argument

1. logic uses premises to attain a conclusion
2. such premises were once conclusions
3. there must be an Alpha conclusion (first premise)
4. a premise that doesn't flow logically from another premise is not logical
5. the Alpha conclusion did not flow at all from another premise
6. the first premise (Ultimate Axiom) is illogical
7. logic is founded on an illogical premise
8. logic is illogical

A Dictionary Mirage Argument

1. logic is based on deduction
2. deduction is based on gathering information from a conclusion
3. such conclusions were once information from a more universal conclusion
4. there must be a Universal conclusion or Universal conclusions
5. we do not know such universal conclusions
6. our current thoughts are not based on true logic
7. logic is one of our current thoughts
8. logic is not truely logical

A Snake Eyes Argument

1. logic is based on induction
2. induction is the gathering of probable conclusions from limited information
3. probable does not mean actual
4. logic is merely probable not actual
5. logic can be avoided

assumptions are not realities

It undermines its own credibility. It's like someone who asserts that all things are subjective, as an objective statement, or someone who spells out "bricks don't exist", with bricks.

i can see where you are going with this, but I didn't think I was using logic to show that logic could be avoided, as i tried in the three other cases i just put forth, I thought I was using imagination to show that logic is not an objective truth. Infact, our only useable path of logic can only suggest truth but not ensure it and is never false nor true

When logic is proposed to not be absolute, it instantly renders language meaningless, including the language that proposed it.

wrong. I hold that logic is not absolute... It iself seems to agree. I appriciate its honesty, and will continue to define logic as something within the control of an All-Powerful being.
And I maintain my position: something which is all-knowing is by deductive reasoning also all-aware.

 

[Luminous]

It is argued in some circles that god is by necessity an atheist. For, in order to know something objectively, you must stand outside and apart from it. Otherwise, your knowledge of a thing is subjective. Yet, god is infinite, which means god does not stand outside and apart from anything (or else god would be limited, which is opposed to god being infinite). Therefore, since god cannot stand outside and apart from anything, god must not be objective about god, and consequently god must be an atheist about god's own existence. Is this argument conclusive? If so, why? If not why not?

wait... so atheists are not objective about God?

 

[LuisDantas]

God wouldn't be an Atheist. He would have no one to bug him about believing in himself, so he wouldn't bother trying to define himself one way or another.

 

[PolyHedral]

For instance, someone could argue that being infinite in scope in all possible ways rules out the possibility of not knowing something. They could argue that a being that exists infinitely in all space, all time, and all dimensions, can perceive that there is no limit to its existence, and then say that if this being observes that it has full knowledge of everything within its infinite perception, then it can logically conclude that it is omniscient. After all, it knows everything in its realm, and its realm is infinite.

I would take such an argument seriously, but would challenge it by asking how the proposed being knows for sure that it is infinite in all possible ways. What if it is infinite in all ways that it knows of, but is not infinite in ways that it doesn't know about?

Also, if you want to be technical, being infinite in all aspects does not necessarily help. There is a more than infinite amount of things to know.

 

[doorknob]

I think your usage of the word objective is a stretch

Dang it I hate the fact that I can not post a link until 15 posts! who ever made that rule I'd like to know what your reason was! I can't site my sources with out a link! once again a past off the website

noun 1. something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack;the objective of a fund-raising drive.

2. Grammar . a. Also called objective case. (in english and some other languages) a case specialized for the use of a form as the objective of a transitive verb or of a preposition, as him in The boy hit him, or me in He comes to me with his troubles.

b. a word in that case.



3. Also called object glass, object lens, objective lens. Optics . (in a telescope, microscope, camera, or other optical system) the lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays from the object and forms the image in the focal plane of the eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate or screen, as in a camera.

–adjective 4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or ; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).

8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

9. Grammar . a. pertaining to the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition.

b. (in English and some other languages) noting the objective case.

c. similar to such a case in meaning.

d. (in case grammar) pertaining to the semantic role of a noun phrase that denotes something undergoing a change of state or bearing a neutral relation to the verb, as the rock in The rock moved or in The child threw the rock.



10. being part of or pertaining to an object to be drawn: an objective plane.

11. Medicine/Medical . (of a symptom) discernible to others as well as the patient.

that is from dictionary * com

There for no if god does exist then obviously it becomes a fact that he exists there for it is a contradiction to be objective about it. So I'm not sure what the argument is. I love one people become philosophical but fail to go by the definition of the word they are using.

But if we assume that god knows everything then obviously he doesn't need to think much on things because he already knows them. there for there is no need for him (it) to be objective because he already knows. Also it does little good to think about something that is a only a concept for humans. If such a being like that exitsed it has an awareness level on such a level that is far beyond human understanding or comprehension. So with that in mind I think it is highly unlikely that it would bother even making an attempt to communicate with us. And the unlimited definition in no way implies that such a being even created us or has any connection to us in any way. God could be the universe god could be something we look at every day of our lives. It is beyond us to know what a being like that would even look like or the mechanisms behind it's existence. It's is an abstract concept. that's why so many people find it very unbelievable.

it may be fun to think about on a philosophical level. But I don't think there are clear answers nor do I really want to waste a lot of time pondering something I don't know for a fact exists and have no way of even proving it exists. I'd rather focus on things that will be of use to me. But that is only my preference so sure go ahead and have fun thinking about it. At least you are giving some thought to it since I know examples of people who haven't.

 

[Madhuri]

It is argued in some circles that god is by necessity an atheist. For, in order to know something objectively, you must stand outside and apart from it. Otherwise, your knowledge of a thing is subjective. Yet, god is infinite, which means god does not stand outside and apart from anything (or else god would be limited, which is opposed to god being infinite). Therefore, since god cannot stand outside and apart from anything, god must not be objective about god, and consequently god must be an atheist about god's own existence. Is this argument conclusive? If so, why? If not why not?

Perhaps creation is God's way of knowing himself.

 

[doorknob]

Madhuri yes that is possible I don't discount that. how ever just because it is possible doesn't mean that I do or even should believe it. And some do not even agree that it is possible for such a being like that to even exist. It is only because I have small amounts of knowledge about the strange things that happen in quantum physics that I even leave the possibility for god's existence open ended. If all the things in quantum physics which are very hard to understand as they defy every thing we previously though physically possible, then something as strange as god still remains possible. Yet the probability is pretty low.

 

[Penumbra]

wrong. I hold that logic is not absolute... It iself seems to agree. I appriciate its honesty, and will continue to define logic as something within the control of an All-Powerful being.
And I maintain my position: something which is all-knowing is by deductive reasoning also all-aware.

I don't know why you respond with sub-quotes within a quote. Sorry, but I'm not going to individually copy and paste them all in order to respond point by point.

If you do not hold that logic is an axiom, then your arguments concerning how an omniscient god must know everything are self-refuting, since they rely on logic. That's why defining omniscience or omnipotence as being able to defy logic ends the discussion- they are meaningless concepts. God could simultaneously exist and not exist, exist in all possible realms, and never have existed in any realms.

The problem with your deduction, therefore, is the ill-defined nature of "all-knowing". If the concept itself can be shown to be meaningless or impossible, then a god that perceives itself to be all-knowing may or may not truly be so, and it may not have a 100% foolproof way of knowing whether it really is.

 

[Luminous]

I don't know why you respond with sub-quotes within a quote. Sorry, but I'm not going to individually copy and paste them all in order to respond point by point.

If you do not hold that logic is an axiom, then your arguments concerning how an omniscient god must know everything are self-refuting, since they rely on logic. That's why defining omniscience or omnipotence as being able to defy logic ends the discussion- they are meaningless concepts. God could simultaneously exist and not exist, exist in all possible realms, and never have existed in any realms.

The problem with your deduction, therefore, is the ill-defined nature of "all-knowing". If the concept itself can be shown to be meaningless or impossible, then a god that perceives itself to be all-knowing may or may not truly be so, and it may not have a 100% foolproof way of knowing whether it really is.

my reply got erased (twice, -__-) . But in Gist:

1. I didn't have the time to respond formally
2. I do hold logic as an axiom
3. Axioms are not necessarily true
4. omniscience doesn't mean or lead to omnipotence
5. using logic to show logic as true is illogical
6. If omnipotence can end logic, then a discussion in which logic is ended because of omnipotence is illogical. Which means logic can still be relied on as the best assumptive mechanism
7. You have not shown the concept of “all-knowing” to be meaningless or impossible
8. All-knowing means all-knowing and all-aware since awareness’s are part of facts. It is a perfect deductive argument.
9. Your ill-defined term should actually be deemed “all-understanding of the things of which it is aware” which DOES NOT mean all-knowing
10. If you do not believe omniscience is possible, then I still disagree with you
11. If you do not believe omnipotence is possible, then I still disagree with you
12. However, you cannot say that true omnipotence is impossible and then go on a redefine another concept which is not omnipotent as omnipotent.

 

[Penumbra]

my reply got erased (twice, -__-) . But in Gist:

1. I didn't have the time to respond formally
2. I do hold logic as an axiom
3. Axioms are not necessarily true
4. omniscience doesn't mean or lead to omnipotence
5. using logic to show logic as true is illogical
6. If omnipotence can end logic, then a discussion in which logic is ended because of omnipotence is illogical. Which means logic can still be relied on as the best assumptive mechanism
7. You have not shown the concept of “all-knowing” to be meaningless or impossible
8. All-knowing means all-knowing and all-aware since awareness’s are part of facts. It is a perfect deductive argument.
9. Your ill-defined term should actually be deemed “all-understanding of the things of which it is aware” which DOES NOT mean all-knowing
10. If you do not believe omniscience is possible, then I still disagree with you
11. If you do not believe omnipotence is possible, then I still disagree with you
12. However, you cannot say that true omnipotence is impossible and then go on a redefine another concept which is not omnipotent as omnipotent.

5. That's why it's an axiom.

6. No, it can't. If you propose that omnipotence does not adhere to logic, then a being could simultaneously exist and not exist, always have existed in every realm, and never have existed in any realm. It could be omniscient, and simultaneously lack all knowledge. It could know that it is omniscient, and simultaneously not know. All conversation breaks down when logic is no longer in the picture. Reason only works with people who accept reason.

7 and 8. It's not my job to show it's meaningless. My question is simply, if a being perceives that it is omniscient, how can it truly know? The answer that an omniscient being would magically know simply by definition is a non-argument. It's the brushing-aside of a legitimate philosophical question by means of semantics.

 

[atanu]

5. All conversation breaks down when logic is no longer in the picture. Reason only works with people who accept reason.

No doubt there.

7 and 8. It's not my job to show it's meaningless. My question is simply, if a being perceives that it is omniscient, how can it truly know? The answer that an omniscient being would magically know simply by definition is a non-argument. It's the brushing-aside of a legitimate philosophical question by means of semantics.

It is plausible.

Suppose a motivation arises in you to own a house. You see the motivation rising and you shoot it down. Or, you may say "Amen" and thereafter begin to make provisions. May be for 2 years you will put things in place before actually constructing the house. Me, as an outsider not knowing your prior motivation, may find your actions that preceeded the actual emergence of the house as bordering omniscience.

This is just an example. But those who are stationed in the present, are known to appear to outsiders (who are either in past or in future) as doing magical things. Although they do nothing.

I know, that the blue part above may appear numbo-jumbo to those who abide in thoughts and not at the source of thoughts.

 

[Luminous]

5. That's why it's an axiom.

6. No, it can't. If you propose that omnipotence does not adhere to logic, then a being could simultaneously exist and not exist, always have existed in every realm, and never have existed in any realm. It could be omniscient, and simultaneously lack all knowledge. It could know that it is omniscient, and simultaneously not know. All conversation breaks down when logic is no longer in the picture. Reason only works with people who accept reason.

Then accept reason.
something which is omnipotent CAN work within logic.
Something which is omniscient MUST know it is omniscient.

7 and 8. It's not my job to show it's meaningless. My question is simply, if a being perceives that it is omniscient, how can it truly know? The answer that an omniscient being would magically know simply by definition is a non-argument. It's the brushing-aside of a legitimate philosophical question by means of semantics

Very well, your question is very well taken, In that: a thing which MERELY THINKS it is omniscient can still be Agnostic. However, something which is truely omniscient KNOWS it is omniscient. Just because it doesn't work the other way around doesn't mean anything...Oh wait, I see where you are going. How can anything ever truely know that it is omniscient, therefore it is Agnostic. Yes, that is very interesting. Even something which Thinks it knows it is omniscient is still agnostic. Interesting... So is God by Necessity Agnostic? just like Logic and Science?
Well, Agnosticism tells us that If it is truely omniscient it is not agnostic... however, how can it truely know that it is truely omniscient?...it probably couldn't, so it would be Agnostic. Ay Caramba! lol
Yes, I see how these things can get tricky...How would it even know it was omnipotent? Yet if it was omnipotent, then it could make itself truely omniscient...but how would it know it was omnipotent? I am sorry I dismissed your argument... I thought you were trying to say that if something was all-knowing then there was a possibility it wasn't all-knowing. I know understand your stance: mainly, It is impossible to know you are omnipotent, so it is imposible to know you are omniscient. However, if something was truely omnipotent, then it would be possible for it to know it was omnipotent. Ay Caramba! Yes, I think I completely agree with you now. What a messy messy subject indeed. Perhaps ALL beings are Agnostic.

Semantics truely does get in the way of an interesting topic. sorry again. But the question shouldn't be how can something all-knowing know it is all-knowing, it should be how can anything truely know it is all-knowing.
omniscience and omnipotence are illogical, so if something omnipotent existed, it could work outside logic. However, Logic needs to be maintained, so we shouldn't believe in omniscient and omnipotent things. That's cool and all, very true and a seeming logical proof that omnipotence is illogical. however, the truth remains that omnipotence is possible. The only truth maintained in all these paths seems to be Agnosticism. Now Even God could be Agnostic. Only God would know if it was Agnostic. Perhaps that is why it stays out of our affairs. An Agnostic Deistic God.

A Being which IS TRUELY omniscient is SIMPLY getting lucky, and is therefore also Agnostic. What a grand thought, thank you Penumbra!