Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Never heard of it. Must not be an important country.
Never heard of it. Must not be an important country.
So who's the stupid one now? You American navel gazer.
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.
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!
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.
Well, you're presuming what has yet to be shown, that omniscience is in fact possible.
Cite where I made such an assertion.
Making a gnostic claim that true omniscience is impossible is contradictory...
I have demonstrated the fallacious of a gnostic claim that omnipotence is impossible. You have yet to demonstrate your case
Unless you know everything you cannot know with gnostic certainty that anything is impossible. Positivism/agnosticism is the only logical position
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.
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.
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.
...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...
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,
[/QUOTE]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.
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.
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.
I said we cannot know whether it is possible and cannot make a gnostic 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.
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.
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?
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?