Do theists believe in logic?

[JBeukema]

Never heard of it. Must not be an important country.

 

[We Are They]

Never heard of it. Must not be an important country.

So who's the stupid one now? You American navel gazer.

 

[JBeukema]

Never heard of it. Must not be an important country.

So who's the stupid one now? You American navel gazer.

How does not being familiar with some random West African nation make me stupid? Are you familiar with every single African nation- do you know every country in the world? You are noone to question anyone's intelligence here.

 

[We Are They]

Never heard of it. Must not be an important country.

So who's the stupid one now? You American navel gazer.

How does not being familiar with some random West African nation make me stupid? Are you familiar with every single African nation- do you know every country in the world? You are noone to question anyone's intelligence here.

apology accepted!

 

[JBeukema]

So who's the stupid one now? You American navel gazer.

How does not being familiar with some random West African nation make me stupid? Are you familiar with every single African nation- do you know every country in the world? You are noone to question anyone's intelligence here.

apology accepted!

*yawn*

You try and try and fail so hard

 

[We Are They]

Hurts, doesn't it?

 

[JBeukema]

You'll have to tell me; I've never failed as hard as you do

 

[JBeukema]

The point here is that there is no mind, no being, that can possess all knowledge

Without all knowledge, one cannot know that. Making a gnostic claim that true omniscience is impossible is contradictory and therefore fallacious

 

[manifold]

This thread is awesome!

 

[Polaris]

The point here is that there is no mind, no being, that can possess all knowledge

Without all knowledge, one cannot know that. Making a gnostic claim that true omniscience is impossible is contradictory and therefore fallacious

Well, you're presuming what has yet to be shown, that omniscience is in fact possible. If it is the case, ultimately speaking, that the very notion of 'omniscience' is self-contradictory (which is what I am proposing that a contradiction-proof could show), then the impossibility of omniscience will be demonstrated, per logic.

The key thing you have to keep in mind, JB, is this: You don't have to know everything, to know that impossible things can't be.

 

[JBeukema]

Well, you're presuming what has yet to be shown, that omniscience is in fact possible.

Cite where I made such an assertion.

If it is the case, ultimately speaking, that the very notion of 'omniscience' is self-contradictory (which is what I am proposing that a contradiction-proof could show), then the impossibility of omniscience will be demonstrated, per logic.

I have demonstrated the fallacious of a gnostic claim that omnipotence is impossible. You have yet to demonstrate your case

The key thing you have to keep in mind, JB, is this: You don't have to know everything, to know that impossible things can't be.

Unless you know everything you cannot know with gnostic certainty that anything is impossible. Positivism/agnosticism is the only logical position

 

[garyd]

Sorry polaris your proof fails. Why wouldn't a being who is defined as perfect know everything? In fact in order to be perfect (and any God worth my time or yours must be perfect or he is just a human who happens to have an exceptional life span) both omniscience and omnipresence are required. It also makes no sense at all to presume that such a being wouldn't fully undrstand his capabilities and limits if any far better than we poor creatures evr shall.

 

[Polaris]

Well, you're presuming what has yet to be shown, that omniscience is in fact possible.

Cite where I made such an assertion.

Alright. When you claim, as you did earlier today, that

Making a gnostic claim that true omniscience is impossible is contradictory...

- you are saying that it is not impossible that a being possess omniscience. In other words, it is possible for a being to be omniscient. This is precisely the claim which I think is in dispute; you can refer back to my post to garyd for a gloss of the reasons why I think that the concept of omniscience is self-contradictory.

Again, as I said before: If it is the case, ultimately speaking, that the very notion of 'omniscience' is self-contradictory (which is what I am proposing that a contradiction-proof could show), then the impossibility of omniscience will be demonstrated, per logic.

I have demonstrated the fallacious of a gnostic claim that omnipotence is impossible. You have yet to demonstrate your case

...JB, you haven't "demonstrated" anything. You have simply made the (circular) assertion that omniscience (and that's "omniscience," not "omnipotence") must be possible, since the only way to know that it's not possible, would be to possess omniscience... You know, I get the feeling you didn't really read my last post. Because my whole point there was that if it can be shown that the very concept of "omniscience" is logically self-contradictory, then the impossibility of omniscience is logically demonstrated. This kind of proof is a very well-known one in logic. It is called a reductio ad absurdum argument. It is a form of proof that doesn't require positive knowledge (or "gnosis" as the special term you like to use) at all. Again, when you say

Unless you know everything you cannot know with gnostic certainty that anything is impossible. Positivism/agnosticism is the only logical position

- you are wrong. Again,

the key thing you have to keep in mind, JB, is this: You don't have to know everything, to know that impossible things can't be.

 

[JBeukema]

Well, you're presuming what has yet to be shown, that omniscience is in fact possible.

Cite where I made such an assertion.

Alright. When you claim, as you did earlier today, that



- you are saying that it is not impossible that a being possess omniscience. In other words, it is possible for a being to be omniscient.

I said we cannot know whether it is possible and cannot make a gnostic claim regarding the impossibility. They are two different statements.

This is precisely the claim which I think is in dispute; you can refer back to my post to garyd for a gloss of the reasons why I think that the concept of omniscience is self-contradictory.

again, as you are no omniscient yourself, you cannot declare anything to be impossible or state with gnostic certainty that anything does not exist.

...JB, you haven't "demonstrated" anything. You have simply made the (circular) assertion that omniscience must be possible, since the only way to know that it's not possible, would be to possess omniscience...

Wrong. I never made that claim. What I said was that it is fallacious to state with gnostic certainty that it is impossible. The only way one could make a gnostic claim- that is, to have absolute certainty- would be to be omniscient. As you are not omniscient, you do not have ultimate knowledge and any claim to gnosticism on this matter is fallacious. It's like a gnostic atheist proudly declaring with absolute certainty that there is no deity.

You know, I get the feeling you didn't really read my last post. Because my whole point there was that if it can be shown that the very concept of "omniscience" is logically self-contradictory,

how would it be so? Again, without omniscience, you cannot know if there is a way around any problems you might see. The only logical conclusion, even if one believesit t be impossible, is an agnostic one.

the key thing you have to keep in mind, JB, is this: You don't have to know everything, to know that impossible things can't be.

[/QUOTE]


You must have absolute knowledge to know absolutely that something is absolutely impossible. thus, to 'know' that omniscience is impossible if self-contradictory, since such gnosticism would require omniscience.

 

[Polaris]

Sorry polaris your proof fails. Why wouldn't a being who is defined as perfect know everything? In fact in order to be perfect (and any God worth my time or yours must be perfect or he is just a human who happens to have an exceptional life span) both omniscience and omnipresence are required. It also makes no sense at all to presume that such a being wouldn't fully undrstand his capabilities and limits if any far better than we poor creatures evr shall.

Well, the term "perfect," as applied to God, is a notoriously vague one. It is a term usually used as an adjective; but with God, people equivocate on the use of the term, using it at one and the same time as an adjective, and as a predicate nominative. This results in all kinds of conceptual confusions.

"Perfect," used as a predicate nominative, connotes: completeness, incorruptibility, unchangeability - something absolute. Now, we can use the term "perfect" as an adjective to describe some particular item of knowledge, e.g., something that is changeable, but that 'can't be improved upon' - so, the "perfect" solution to some problem x, y, or z. But we cannot use the term as a predicate nominative for 'knowledge,' as a whole. That is because the term 'knowledge' essentially connotes a contingent relation between some knower and some object known. It is contingent, because it is not necessary; the very concept of "knowledge" implies that the lack of knowledge, ignorance, is a possibility.

Now, if God is predicate-nominative "perfect," it is quite impossible for God to have any knowledge at all, let alone "perfect" knowledge. This is because knowledge is essentially a relation (perforce contingent); and if God is "perfect," absolute, God is complete and so is not related to anything - there can be nothing outside of God for God to know. Indeed, this is what the Latin root of the term "absolute" means - "not related."

If you want to back up, and say, "well, God has perfect knowledge of all particular items of knowledge," we are back into the problem of how God knows how he knows. To have perfect knowledge of something, is to know all the causes that made something what it is. To have perfect knowledge of something, is in effect to know how to create something. But God cannot know the nature and origin of his powers, because he did not create himself (even God can't do that).

Contrary to what you say, Garyd, it makes no sense to say that a God would fully understand himself; but, paradoxically, it is only such a non -"perfect" being who we could possibly have a personal relationship with...

 

[Polaris]

Cite where I made such an assertion.

Alright. When you claim, as you did earlier today, that



- you are saying that it is not impossible that a being possess omniscience. In other words, it is possible for a being to be omniscient.

I said we cannot know whether it is possible and cannot make a gnostic claim...

But that doesn't make sense. It is manifestly evident, that either it is possible that there exists an omniscient being, or that it is impossible. How could we not know of the existence of these alternatives? We're talking about them right now.

What I said was that it is fallacious to state with gnostic certainty that it is impossible. The only way one could make a gnostic claim- that is, to have absolute certainty- would be to be omniscient. As you are not omniscient, you do not have ultimate knowledge and any claim to gnosticism on this matter is fallacious.

Look, this is the same reasoning in a circle that I pointed out to you in my last post. But anyway, as it happens, it presents us with exactly the route taken by a reductio ad absurdum argument. We stipulate that there in fact exists a being that possesses absolutely complete knowledge. Then we draw the implications of the existence of such a being, and if we run into contradictions (such as the being not having complete knowledge even of itself, or, not possessing 'knowledge,' properly so called, at all), then we can dispense with the stipulation.

how would it be so? Again, without omniscience, you cannot know if there is a way around any problems you might see. The only logical conclusion, even if one believesit t be impossible, is an agnostic one.





It's like a gnostic atheist proudly declaring with absolute certainty that there is no deity.

You know, I get the feeling you didn't really read my last post. Because my whole point there was that if it can be shown that the very concept of "omniscience" is logically self-contradictory,

the key thing you have to keep in mind, JB, is this: You don't have to know everything, to know that impossible things can't be.

You must have absolute knowledge to know absolutely that something is absolutely impossible. thus, to 'know' that omniscience is impossible if self-contradictory, since such gnosticism would require omniscience.[/QUOTE]

 

[We Are They]

I am absolutely certain that JB doesn't have a job.

 

[Polaris]

I apologize that the formatting, etc. of the last message I sent was garbled. Up too late! If you'll allow, I'll make the message more presentable and intelligible...

I said we cannot know whether it is possible and cannot make a gnostic claim...

But that doesn't make sense. It is manifestly evident, that either it is possible that there exists an omniscient being, or that it is impossible. How could we not know of the existence of these alternatives? We're talking about them right now.

What I said was that it is fallacious to state with gnostic certainty that it is impossible. The only way one could make a gnostic claim- that is, to have absolute certainty- would be to be omniscient. As you are not omniscient, you do not have ultimate knowledge and any claim to gnosticism on this matter is fallacious.

Look, this is the same reasoning in a circle that I pointed out to you in my last post. But anyway, as it happens, it presents us with exactly the route taken by a reductio ad absurdum argument. We stipulate that there in fact exists a being that possesses absolutely complete knowledge. Then we draw the implications of the existence of such a being, and if we run into contradictions (such as the being not having complete knowledge even of itself, or, not possessing 'knowledge,' properly so called, at all), then we can dispense with the stipulation.

how would it be so? Again, without omniscience, you cannot know if there is a way around any problems you might see. The only logical conclusion, even if one believesit t be impossible, is an agnostic one.

Again, you don't need to know everything that can possibly be known, to rule out the being of that which is not possible. There is no logical way around a logical contradiction, omniscience or no.

It's like a gnostic atheist proudly declaring with absolute certainty that there is no deity.

I am inclined to think that by a variety of arguments we can be certain, that all forms of monotheism are false.

 

[HUGGY]

Since it was Satan who introduced us to the pursuit of knowledge, shouldn't devout theists of all stripes denounce critical reasoning and logic as the work of the Devil?

Do theists believe in logic?


Thiests believe they will never run out of suckers.

 

[Ralph]

Since it was Satan who introduced us to the pursuit of knowledge, shouldn't devout theists of all stripes denounce critical reasoning and logic as the work of the Devil?

The very question is a breach of the laws of Logic. Who created the tree of knowledge and good and evil? Who created Satan? Yet, it is SATAN that is credited with being the foundation of knowledge? Just what is logical in declaring the created as superior to the creator? Can the sum/total of anything be greater than that from which it was subtracted?