Questions for God

[Truthseeker]

The Baháʼí Faith regards the Ark and the Flood as symbolic. In Baháʼí belief, only Noah's followers were spiritually alive, preserved in the ark of his teachings, as others were spiritually dead.

Noah - Wikipedia​

By gosh, that is really there in the Wikipedia article. Good one!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have you ever seen the deity go on trial in a court of law? No, because any rational person knows that adult humans are responsible for their own actions.

That's certainly a take on things.

Another - IMO more accurate - take: because nothing that has ever happened can be proven to the standard of a courtroom to be an act of God.

 

[Truthseeker]

I watched an episode of Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman last night where the preacher went blind suddenly due to inflammation of his retina, a rare condition that often reverses itself, but in his case it was not reversed so he remained blind. Dr. Quinn questioned how a loving God would allow such a thing, and so did I. Many people questioned why God would allow such a thing, but since there were many God-fearing Christians in that town, most of them did not blame God. In the end, everyone accepted this man's plight, including the preacher, but this is only a TV program. I did not accept it, and I could not sleep after that. Even though I know it was only a TV program, things like this happen in real life.

Jane Seymour is a good actress that received a number of nominations, and I found her portrayal of an evil Cathy in East of Eden convincing, and she won an emmy for that. I found her evilness sexy in that. Jane Seymour is not her real name. She thought that naming herself after the third wife of Henry VIII would be saleable. I just found that out. What! She was in the play Amadeus as the wife of Mozart! I didn't know that. This was before the movie. She posed for Playboy at 67 in 2018? Married and divorced 4 times? Not a good reflection on her private life.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am using this because I see no symbol for funny.

There is a symbol for funny but that post was not intended to be funny so that symbol would be inappropriate.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's certainly a take on things.

Another - IMO more accurate - take: because nothing that has ever happened can be proven to the standard of a courtroom to be an act of God.

That certainly is a good take on things.

Another take: because God is not subject to prosecution since God is not responsible for anything that happens.

 

[PearlSeeker]

"Information" has two senses ─ that which informs (a brain, or an information-gathering tool); and as an alternative word for "data".

"Information" and "data" have in common that they're abstractions, names of categories. And as you know, abstractions, generalizations, categories, are all concepts with no real counterpart, so "information" and "data" only exist in individual brains that happen to know those concepts.

Yes, information exists in my brain, on paper, screen, storage device... Nature stores information in DNA... Storage/representation/medium is physical but information itself is an abstract entity.

Do abstract entities exist only in brains? For example 1 + 2 = 3. It was 3 long before anyone realized it, and would remain so forever even if all humans died out.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, information exists in my brain, on paper, screen, storage device... Nature stores information in DNA... Storage/representation/medium is physical but information itself is an abstract entity.

Nature simply arranges atoms and molecules in patterns that, in the particular circumstances of the instant, are the most energy-efficient.

That this is 'information' is a personal human judgment, and 'information' is a category that speakers of English have found convenient.

Do abstract entities exist only in brains? For example 1 + 2 = 3. It was 3 long before anyone realized it, and would remain so forever even if all humans died out.

Yes, numbers only exist as concepts in brains. That's why you'll never see an uninstantiated 2 running around in the wild.

Not only that, but you can't have an instantiated 2 without your human judgment. In order to count, YOU must decide, first, WHAT you want to count, and second, the FIELD in which you want to count it ─ how many PIGS in the BARN? How many LETTER Qs in THE RISE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Yes, numbers only exist as concepts in brains. That's why you'll never see an uninstantiated 2 running around in the wild.

Not only that, but you can't have an instantiated 2 without your human judgment. In order to count, YOU must decide, first, WHAT you want to count, and second, the FIELD in which you want to count it ─ how many PIGS in the BARN? How many LETTER Qs in THE RISE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE?

In order to count we must somehow know numbers. How do we know numbers if they don't run around in the wild? Where does this knowledge come from? When we see a pair of things how do we know it's a pair?

 

[blü 2]

In order to count we must somehow know numbers. How do we know numbers if they don't run around in the wild? Where does this knowledge come from? When we see a pair of things how do we know it's a pair?

It comes, I think, from the way we've evolved. If you've ever watched an infant in arms with a carer, you'll likely see some interesting products of evolution. The first is that the carer (usually female but not necessarily, as I can vouch) will speak to the infant in motherese, a particular way of talking. This is universal ie has versions in all languages.

And this is relevant because it's part of the instinctive acquisition of language. The infant will tend to look where the carer points, and repeat what the carer says eg car, or flower, or dog or daddy or Jill. The infant will then from there quite rapidly come to sort out names that are unique ('Jill') and names that are generic ie refer to categories ('car', 'flower') and this will soon become more subtle so that we have from early the difference between 'this chair' and 'a chair', effortlessly interchangeable eg 'mummy' and 'Bill's mummy'.

Thus from the start we think in both concrete terms and abstractions, very usually without noticing. And we come to numbers by being taught to chant the count, as we likewise chant the alphabet, and after that relate them to figures on the page as we learn to read and write.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In order to count we must somehow know numbers. How do we know numbers if they don't run around in the wild? Where does this knowledge come from? When we see a pair of things how do we know it's a pair?

Do you think the same applies to, say, a Royal Flush?

It also "exists as concept" that we can compare actual hands of cards to.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Do you think the same applies to, say, a Royal Flush?

It also "exists as concept" that we can compare actual hands of cards to.

I don't know. I wold say it's a combination of discovered and invented - a priori and a posteriori knowledge.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In order to count we must somehow know numbers.

How about a little history of counting, and how it led to addition, other arithmetic, and then algebra?

What we understand intuitively is equal and unequal, and in the case of latter, more and fewer. Also, one and more than one. These are probably the first mathematical intuitions - one, many, equal, more, and fewer, the first level of abstraction - but we don't have counting yet. Other numbers after one come later.

Next, imagine a primitive tribe that has no numbering system yet and therefore can't count. But they can do 1:1 correspondence by putting a stone in a bag for every sheep leaving the corral, and then removing a stone from the bag for each sheep that returns. Without knowing how many sheep there are, they can know that they all came back, or if there is now one more stone than sheep that one is missing, and even that one was added if the bag of stones is used up counting all but one sheep. That's the next level of abstraction - stones standing for sheep.

We can even do something that is approaching arithmetic. If you have a bag of stones that equal your sheep herd and I have another herd and bag of stones, we can combine the herds, combine the bags, and still expect a 1:1 correspondence between the combined bags and herds, but we still don't know how many sheep that is.

Next comes ordering of the unequals by doing something similar with bags. Bags with one stone always run out before bags with two stones, and bags with two stones always run out before bags with three. There's the second level of abstraction - just stones, and no sheep involved. Stones symbolize anything that can be counted.

Now give these bags names: one stone, two stones, three stones. Then drop the stones: 1, 2, 3. Now, we have counting.

Ready to move on to addition? We note that combining a bag of two stones with one containing three stones reliably yields a bag of five stones. Then get rid of the stones again. Subtraction follows, then multiplication and division (arithmetic). Next stop: variables and algebra.

You might be interested to know that this kind of analysis led to a very counterintuitive understanding of infinity, namely, that there are infinities that are infinitely larger than other infinities, such as the number of decimal numbers possible compared to the number of counting numbers, but none that are half or twice as large, meaning that even though there are an infinite number of odd numbers and an infinite number of even numbers, and that these infinities are equal, but when you combine them to form the infinite set of all numbers odd or even, you get the same number. There are exactly as many even numbers as total numbers. How do we know? We can match every number odd or even with an even number: 1 with 2, 2 with 4, 3 with 6, 4 with 8.

We're back to stones, sheep, and 1:1 correspondence. If I can pair every member of one set with a single specific member of another set, their quantity (cardinality in math) is equal.

 

[setarcos]

Therefore you claim to know HOW God knows there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know, then?

Not at all. I'm not God, I don't know what it would be like to be God, and I can't grasp the totality of how reality works. I can only make finite conjecture.
What I can do is make axiomatic presumptions and or follow yours in order to formulate logically cohesive guesswork. Which I have done.
I'm not going to go over it again when you can reread what I've posted in answer since you've yet to comment upon it with counterpoints.

I'm not making a claim; I'm examining the question HOW God can know know there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know.

You yourself admit a claim.
setarcos said:
"What you have done is make a claim that omniscience is unsustainable."
In response...

blü 2 said:​

"Yes, IF its supporters can't answer the question, How does God know there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know? Otherwise okay until some other problem may arise."

Seems in anti-theists over zealous rush to prove theists logically weak minded or just plain "nuts" they often forget or avoid admitting that they themselves often make claims which need to be justified but aren't. Why? I think its because once an anti-theist admits to making a claim they get cornered into having to defend it and often find they can't. This puts a dent in anti-theists thinking that theists fail because of their lack of absolute proof while ignoring their own. They demand an answer but upon receiving one its often ignored because of one excuse or another.
Here's an example...
Unbeliever: Why do you believe in God, there's no proof.
Believer: Why don't you, there's no proof God doesn't exist and I feel interpretively compelled internally and externally to believe.
Unbeliever: There's no evidence that God exists and I feel interpretively compelled to believe God doesn't exist.
Believer: Fair enough. One of us must be right but which one is as yet undetermined.
Unbeliever: Absolutely undetermined perhaps but there's plenty of evidence that God doesn't exist, what evidence have you that it does exist?
Believer: The evidence you speak of is interpretable, not incompatible with a God existing viewpoint, and some evidence makes it statistically more likely that some kind of super intelligent, supernatural being exists which has involved itself in creation.
Unbeliever: Hogwash, you've made an unsubstantiated claim that bares the burden of proof!
Believer: I've made a claim that is interpreted as statistically substantiated without a proven counter claim and whose counterpoints are themselves interpretive.
Unbeliever: God doesn't exist because there is no proof that it does!
Believer: Is that a claim?
Unbeliever : NO! I make no claims!
Believer: Then God might exist and I've chosen to interpret the evidence which allows for that possibility as evidence that it does.
Unbeliever: Oh shut up, you've proven nothing and apparently don't understand.
Believer: Whatever dude.
A touch of humor...

The word is Latin for 'all-knowing'. We're focusing on each of the two elements.

Yes. Indeed. But lets examine what is meant here, there are subtleties that at first glance many simply take for granted.
For instance its not possible to know what it would be like for a contradiction to actually have effective existence in reality because contradictions cannot exist in reality effectively. They are meaningless. Yet we can describe them. So does all-knowing include contradictions? Only in contradistinction between what is meaningful and what isn't. So all-knowing does not include knowledge of what cannot exist in reality simply because there's nothing existent to know.
Lets say nothing existed. Is there any meaning in non-existence which could be known? Of course not since if nothing exists, nothing would exist to be known. So when we say "all" we don't mean those things which are without meaning such as contradictions. We can't "know" meaninglessness. We can only know the terms we use to describe the boundaries between the meaningful and the meaningless.
Likewise we can't know infinity. We can only know the terms we use to describe its meaning. Its important to note at least 2 differences here though. That is, there is no known reason that infinity and all the information it may contain may not be known given infinite capacity to do so and there is no reason infinities cannot exist in reality.
WE can't know infinity simply because we are finite and haven't the capacity nor can we originate such infinities, but God as defined can.
Lets conjecture a scenario in which there is a one to one correspondence between Gods awareness(G) and the smallest unit of reality(r) which can carry meaning and since creation originates from God in this scenario reality consists of God and its Creation and nothing else. Or (G) and the set (C).
Lets further say that this one to one correspondence between (G) and all (r)'s contained within the set (C)reation is represented by an unknown number of elements (I)nformation which represents this correspondence between the knower(G)od and the known(r) within creation.
If reality consists of (G)od and the extension of Gods creative act into reality which we call (C)reation, then all knowable elements of (C) and (G) can be representationally summed by the following (a-temporal) -meaning its summation is taken to be a instantaneous process, not accumulated or summed over time - formula...

This says that if we take the smallest unit of meaningful reality (r) - multiplied by the Informational content contained within the direct correspondence between Gods awareness and (r) - summed to infinity the result is Gods omniscience.
God can know it knows everything because there is simply nothing that can exist beyond an infinite one to one informational awareness between God and meaningful reality.
Again...we establish our existence via our self awareness. Along the lines of Descartes's thinking - Our self awareness proves the case since existence is required for self awareness to question its own reality. We self evidently exist.
Similarly, we think. And because we think but don't truly "know" anything beyond what is self evidently impressed upon us we are self evidently aware of our limitations. And it is because of that awareness that the case of our limited knowledge is proven.
Likewise Gods existence is proven (in this scenario) self evidently by its self awareness.
However, unlike human beings, God doesn't "think" but Knows and knows infinitely and is consequently, self evidently aware of its own unlimited knowledge. Since this self aware infinity cannot know self limitation without contradiction such described limitation would be a contradiction and cannot effectively exist within reality. Thus God through its own unlimited knowledge of what can meaningfully exist in reality also self evidently knows that there is nothing that can have meaning that it doesn't know. IF infinity can know itself then there's your answer. Infinity leaves no rooms outside of itself for the unknown. Therefore the unknown cannot exist for a being of infinite capacity.
Now....lets be honest here. This is pure conjecture for the sake of discussion. I cannot possibly know the actual answer to your first question. I can't even be certain that your question has meaningful content since it seems to be attempting to extend beyond its own reach for an answer.
Omniscience = All-knowing
By definition one of Gods attributes is omniscience.
Then you ask how omniscience is even possible, even further than that, implying that omniscience isn't possible by posing a seemingly contradictory question concerning it.
The problem is your question is only meaningfully apt for the occasion if you can show why all meaningful things cannot be known. Easily demonstrated for finite creatures. But not so easily demonstrated for proposed beings with infinite capacities.

 

[blü 2]

Not at all. I'm not God,

My mistake ─ apologies.

etarcos said:
"What you have done is make a claim that omniscience is unsustainable."
In response...

blü 2 said:​

"Yes, IF its supporters can't answer the question, How does God know there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know? Otherwise okay until some other problem may arise."

The point being that without the missing part, the claim is mere assertion.

once an anti-theist admits to making a claim they get cornered into having to defend it and often find they can't.

I don't see that problem here. It's up to those who assert omniscience to show that such a claim is even possible, which it can't be if there's no explanation for how God can know there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know.

Here's an example...
Unbeliever: Why do you believe in God, there's no proof.
Believer: Why don't you, there's no proof God doesn't exist and I feel interpretively compelled internally and externally to believe.
Unbeliever: There's no evidence that God exists and I feel interpretively compelled to believe God doesn't exist.
Believer: Fair enough. One of us must be right but which one is as yet undetermined.
Unbeliever: Absolutely undetermined perhaps but there's plenty of evidence that God doesn't exist, what evidence have you that it does exist?
Believer: The evidence you speak of is interpretable, not incompatible with a God existing viewpoint, and some evidence makes it statistically more likely that some kind of super intelligent, supernatural being exists which has involved itself in creation.
Unbeliever: Hogwash, you've made an unsubstantiated claim that bares the burden of proof!
Believer: I've made a claim that is interpreted as statistically substantiated without a proven counter claim and whose counterpoints are themselves interpretive.
Unbeliever: God doesn't exist because there is no proof that it does!
Believer: Is that a claim?
Unbeliever : NO! I make no claims!
Believer: Then God might exist and I've chosen to interpret the evidence which allows for that possibility as evidence that it does.
Unbeliever: Oh shut up, you've proven nothing and apparently don't understand.
Believer: Whatever dude.

My dialog is different.

Theist: God exists.
Me: What real thing ─ what thing with objective existence, found in the world external to the self ─ do you intend to denote when you say "God"? Or do we agree that God exists (and supernatural beings overall exist) solely as ideas, concepts, things imagined in individual brains?

For instance its not possible to know what it would be like for a contradiction to actually have effective existence in reality because contradictions cannot exist in reality effectively.

Yes, contradictions are clashes of ideas, of statements.

They are meaningless.

I don't thing concepts are meaningless. Rather I'd say (off the cuff here) that they're the basis of all meanings.

So does all-knowing include contradictions?

Well, I've encountered my fair share of contradictions, so if we postulate a god, I see no impediment to giving [him] contradictions as part of [his] experience. But contradictions imply that at least one, and perhaps all, views on the table are wrong, are ruled out by reason.

Only in contradistinction between what is meaningful and what isn't. So all-knowing does not include knowledge of what cannot exist in reality simply because there's nothing existent to know.

All-knowing isn't limited to reality. An omniscient God can recite all the Harry Potter books backwards should the mood take [him], and all the inferences arising from the text about the Potterverse.

Lets say nothing existed. Is there any meaning in non-existence which could be known?

The first question might be, what exactly doesn't exist? A universe? Atom registered number AA1305Ks***1233099964? And when it's named, does it exist as a concept with no real counterpart, which is how in my view supernatural beings exist?

WE can't know infinity simply because we are finite

Infinity is (once again) a concept, not a thing with objective existence. As are all of Cantor's infinities.

and haven't the capacity nor can we originate such infinities, but God as defined can.

Of course we can ─ infinities are simply ideas and we're employing those ideas now in this conversation.

Lets conjecture a scenario in which there is a one to one correspondence between Gods awareness(G) and the smallest unit of reality(r) which can carry meaning and since creation originates from God in this scenario reality consists of God and its Creation and nothing else. Or (G) and the set (C).

God being omniscient would also know the exact relationship of any 2, 3, ... n rs throughout the duration of the universe, and the same for any combination of rs up to 100% of them.

Lets further say that this one to one correspondence between (G) and all (r)'s contained within the set (C)reation is represented by an unknown number of elements (I)nformation which represents this correspondence between the knower(G)od and the known(r) within creation.

All rs and all combinations of rs, okay.

If reality consists of (G)od and the extension of Gods creative act into reality which we call (C)reation, then all knowable elements of (C) and (G) can be representationally summed by the following (a-temporal) -meaning its summation is taken to be a instantaneous process, not accumulated or summed over time - formula...
View attachment 86535
This says that if we take the smallest unit of meaningful reality (r) - multiplied by the Informational content contained within the direct correspondence between Gods awareness and (r) - summed to infinity the result is Gods omniscience.

But God's omniscience isn't limited to this universe. Perhaps there are things in this universe that God doesn't know [he] doesn't know, and perhaps there are other universes and other states of existence corresponding to universes &c &c. God has to have perfect knowledge of all of them too. The parts [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know could be anywhere and everywhere.

So what God needs here is a clear method that will make certain there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know.

What is that method?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Not according to the scriptures, which give an account of a very distinct unique, supernatural Creator God outside of the material world, revealing Himself to and interacting with humans.

God literally goes on a walk through the Garden of Eden and later has breakfast with Abraham.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And yet Jesus said that people do not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, meaning that eternal life and what is necessary to sustain that is more important that this brief physical life.

All Jesus has to say is that he doesn’t want to help.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Individuals who willingly chose to trust Jesus Christ, rather than self rule

But since they wanted the carrot of eternal life, they WERE thinking about themselves.

 

[Muffled]

If God created humans and free will, then any product of humans' free will would ultimately be the responsibility of God.

I believe it is a balancing act: take away freedom and we have no free will; take away restraint and He is being irresponsible. I think what we witness is something in between.

 

[Muffled]

God literally goes on a walk through the Garden of Eden and later has breakfast with Abraham.

I believe literal does not necessarily mean material. There are a number of anthropomorphisms in the Bible and this could be one of them. The Abraham visit is more apt to be material.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe it is a balancing act: take away freedom and we have no free will; take away restraint and He is being irresponsible. I think what we witness is something in between.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post. Granting "free will" - however we define it - doesn't absolve God of responsibility.

It doesn't even necessarily mean God can't predict what his creations with free will are going to do. I mean, even we can predict the actions of humans pretty well, whether that means marketing projections, traffic forecasts, economic forecasts, etc.