Freud? The mucky cook or the artist? Or the PR guru? Or the TV presenter and Curtis wife? Or the fashion designer? Which one? I imagine they've all written books.

If I have read every book written by a Freud, have I read any books that are not by a Freud?

Your feelings are wrong. But as long as they're sincere, that's all that matters, right? A businessman - how vulgar. No, I am about as far from a businessman as it is possible to be. I am what you feel I am not.

I don't read books. I write them. I ain't no reader loser.
And I couldn't care less about IQ and have no idea what mine is. I think I'd break the test, don't you? But it strikes me as a simple IQ test-type question to which the answer is obvious. And yet you can't answer it.
Of course, IQ tests are tests of intellectual acceleration rates, not top speeds. A Ferrari will beat a TGV train getting to 100kmph, but the TGV can do double the Ferrari's top speed. But you've had yonks now and there does come a point where one has to conclude that one is dealing with a 10 kmph tricycle and not a 600kmph TGV.

It is what it is. An astonishingly simple argument for a profound conclusion.
God can make mistakes. Did Russell demonstrate that? No. Bartricks did.

Brahms: here's a piano concerto. I call it no. 2.

Dumbartonshire: isn't that just a collection of piano noises? Didn't Beethoven already make some of those? You're just doing Beethoven piano noises, that's all. Same noises, different tune. Yawn.

You mean it is not healthy for you, as your ego can't cope? You don't want to learn anything, matey. You - like most people - want to be told what you already believe in a new and nice way. Yes?

Now, you haven't answered a simple IQ test question.

If I own all the world's Rembrandt paintings, do I own any fake Rembrandts? Yes, no, or can't tell?
Answer it. Then read the OP.

More fallacious reasoning. I am so good at telling good arguments from bad ones that I do it for a living. You are very bad at it, so you can't see how good at it I am. It's why they don't employ dogs to give restaurant reviews.

I note you haven't answered the little IQ test....

If I have in my possession all the world's Rembrandt paintings, do I have any fake Rembrandts? Yes, no, or maybe? Which is it?

None of your thoughts are accurate. I don't think thinking is your thing.

Again, all you're doing is begging the question. Read the argument I gave in which it is shown exactly why being omniscient does not entail possessing all true beliefs.
Try understanding something. Try not just thinking 'er, dur, if someone is omniscient they have no false beliefs' and repeating that over and over. That isn't argument. It's just a confused thought on repeat. I show - demonstrate it - to be confused in the OP.

Here's a basic IQ test question: if I own all the world's Rembrandt paintings, do I own any fake Rembrandt paintings?

Is the answer 'yes', 'no' or 'can't tell'?

And don't answer (you will, of course) 'dur, why are you talking about Rembrandts? Your question is epistemologically ontological and blah beep doobeedoo'

An intelligent person would recognize that there are no logical problems in the OP.
An arrogant fool with no proper philosophical training would, by contrast, invest no real effort in trying to understand the OP and would interpret their consequent confusion as irrefutable evidence that the OP writer has made mistakes.

It was a simple IQ test, and you couldn't answer it. If your IQ was higher, you'd understand the OP. I have helped you as much as I can, but you are so confident that you are the clever one and me the fool that there is a limit to what I can do. It is a common problem. The less they know, the less they know it.

The question - can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift? - is ambiguous. That is, it admits of two quite different interpretations ('de re' and 'de dicto'). The answer is 'yes' to both. But they are different questions, expressed with the same words.

An example to illustrate - can a bachelor marry? That question is ambiguous in the same way.

It could mean 'does the person who qualifies as a bachelor have the ability to marry?' To which the answer would be yes. It's not as if being a bachelor somehow prevents one marrying. A bachelor who met the woman of his dreams would be manifesting confusion if he said to her upon her proposing marriage 'I'd love to marry you, but I am a bachelor and so can't'

Likewise, 'can an omnipotent being create a stone too heavy for her to lift?' can be interpreted as 'does the person who qualifies as omnipotent have the ability to divest themselves of their omnipotence by creating a rock too heavy for them to lift - in other words, do they have the ability to go from being able to do anything to not being able to do something?' The answer to that is 'yes', for it is confused to think that being omnipotent prevents you from doing things. 'I'd love to create a rock too heavy for me to lift, but I can't because I'm omnipotent' is confused.

Then there's a different question that the same words can be used to express. And that is, can a bachelor, 'as a bachelor' - so qua bachelor - get married? With one exception, the answer to that question is 'no'. For a married bachelor is a contradiction in terms.

So, two very different questions expressed by the same words. And the answer to one is 'yes'and the answer to the other is 'no'.

Applied to 'can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift?' The second interpretation is 'can God, 'as God' create a stone too heavy for him to lift? In other words, can God be God at the same time as there exists a stone too heavy for her to lift?'

Now one might think that the answer to this version of the question is 'no'. For the state of affairs described involves a contradiction, no less than that of a married bachelor.

And many theists - stupid ones - would indeed say that the answer is no. But the answer is 'yes', for God can do anything and thus can create contradictory states of affairs. Many think not, because they think - correctly - that the law of non contradiction forbids this, and think - incorrectly - that the law constrains God. But God is the one exception - he is, by definition, all powerful and thus is bound by nothing.

It is, ironically, those who think God cannot create contradictory states of affairs who think something that violates the law of non contradiction. For they think a being who can do anything is at the same time unable to do some things. That's a contradiction. An actual one, not a potential one.

I think the law of non contradiction is true, and thus I think that God can violate it. And thus I think God can create a stone too heavy for him to lift, and lift it.

So, can a bachelor stop being a bachelor? Yes.

Can God divest himself of his power? Yes.

Can there be a married bachelor? With the exception of God, no.

Can God be both able and unable to do something at the same time? Yes. For God is by definition able to do anything, and thus it would be an actual contradiction to deny that God can violate the law of non contradiction.

What one has to understand is that the law of non contradiction is actually true, but potentially false. Or to put it another way, it is contingently true, not necessarily true. For if God exists there are no necessary truths, and it would violate the law of non contradiction to think otherwise.

Only way to have an intelligent discussion

The laws of reason aren't "out there". — khaled

Yes they are. They are favouring relations. Do you know what one of those is? It isn't an object. It is a relation.

Reasoning is a capacity, like sight. — khaled

There is sight, which is a faculty; and there is seeing, which is what we're doing when we use our faculty of sight; and then there is what is seen with our sight when we are seeing something. They are all different. One is a faculty, one an activity, and the other an object of awareness.

Now, likewise there is our reason - which is faculty - and there is reasoning - which is an activity we're engaging in when we use our reason; and then there is what that faculty gives us an awareness of, which is reasons to do and believe things.

What you're doing is confusing all three - confusing reasons, our reason and reasoning. Which is like confusing sight, seeing and the seen. Stop it. Stop being so confidently confused. It's tedious.

But it shows that God has no power over those people. He can change the normative reasons all he wants but that won't affect people that ignore them. — khaled

It doesn't show that at all. He allows people to ignore him if they want. That's not a lack of power. He doesn't want to make people do things. He could. He doesn't want to. This isn't hard to understand.

Now, I have explained to you why Reason would be all powerful. You believe rocks fall to the ground because of gravity, right? Do you have reason to believe that or no reason to believe it?

Where did you get this? — khaled

Ratiocination.

Omnipotence - it means being able to do anything at all. Only someone who had control over the laws of Reason would be able to do anything at all. Thus, if there is an omnipotent person, that person is Reason. Reason controls Reason and answers to no one.

And that person would also be omniscient, for reasons just explained.

And we can go the other way. That is, we can arrive at God from Reason rather than starting with God and concluding that God is Reason.

Normative reasons exist. That isn't in dispute. Normative reasons are favouring relations. That too is not in dispute. Only a mind can favour something. Nutters think otherwise, but nutters are not reasonable.

Thus, the source of normative reasons - Reason - is a mind. And that mind would be......omnipotent and omniscient.

So, take home message: epistemic justification - which is what a true belief needs to have before it can qualify as an item of knowledge - is made of God's attitudes.

Thus, any belief God has, is justified by virtue of him having it (for God does not have beliefs he does not want to have).

And thus, once more, if God believes something true, then that true belief qualifies as an item of knowledge.

As you say, people can just choose not to believe what they have normative reason for believing or not do what they have normative reason for doing. — khaled

I didn't say that. But yes, it is true. And irrelevant. People can be stupid. So, someone could read my argument and think it is shit. That person would be stupid. There are a lot of them around.

So it doesn't seem like being the arbiter of normative reasons gives you much power. Nor does it seem required for omnipotence in any way, why would it be? — khaled

Er, yes it does. It gives you total power. A person who had to believe all true beliefs would be less powerful than one who doesn't have to.

And it is required for omnipotence because the person whose willings constitutively determine what there is reason to do and believe has control over everything. There is nothing they cannot do.

Ratiocination.

It follows from being omnipotent. To be omnipotent requires being the source of all normative reasons. Epistemic reasons - which is what justifications that create knowledge are made of - are normative reasons. Thus an omnipotent being will be the arbiter of justifications.

And as normative reasons are favouring relations - that is, for there to be an epistemic reason to believe a proposition, is for that proposition to be one we are favoured believing - then there needs to be an agent, Reason, who is its source. And that agent will be God.

This explains how it is that God is omniscient. God has all knowledge, for whatever God believes, God favours himself believing. And thus whatever God believes, he is justified in believing. And thus when - and only when - God favours the believing of a true belief, will that true belief qualify as knowledge.

If one is a fool, one will reject all of that in some flippant way. But even if one does, it remains the case that being all knowing is not equivalent to knowing all true propositions, for the reason I have already given.

What the above does is simply explain what is already apparent to reflection. Namely, that being in possession of all knowledge is not equivalent to being in possession of all true beliefs.

Those aren't arguments! Some of them might feature as premises in arguments against God, but they're not themselves arguments.

Most of them are just silly questions that admit of easy answers. I believe in God, so I'll answer them.

Heavy Rock:

1. Can God create a rock so heavy, he himself cannot lift it? — elucid

Yes. God is all powerful and so can do anything, including making a rock so heavy he cannot lift it. He can lift it too.

Immortal

2. Can God kill an immortal being? — elucid

Yes, see above answer. God can do anything. Anything. Thus he can kill an immortal being.

Perhaps you think that's a contradiction - that 'immortal' means 'incapable of being destroyed'.

But in that case the question presupposes God does not exist, rather than showing it. For God can do anything and thus if God exists no being is immortal.

Note too that even if it did involve a contradiction, that would not prevent God from doing it. For God can make contradictions true. (Banno thinks that means he does - but Banno not very brighto).

Numbers

3. Can God make a number equal to another number? — elucid

Yes. He can do anything. (Bit of a theme developing here).

Maybe you think no one can make a number equal to another number. But in that case you believe there does not exist a person who can do anything, right? So, you haven't shown God not to exist, you've just assumed it.

If God exists, then by hypothesis there exists a person who can do anything. So, if God exists there exists one person who can make a number equal to another number: God.

Geometry

4. Can God make a geometric shape equal to another geometric shape? — elucid

Yes, see above answer.

Larger than space

5. Can God make an eleven feet cube fit in a circle of a three feet diameter? — elucid

Yes, see above answer.

Endless

6. Can God eat all the infinite supply of apples in a machine that dispenses it one at a time? — elucid

Yes, see above answer

Evil

7. If God exists, why then is there evil in the world? — elucid

Because a good person allows other people room to exercise their own free will, and some of them use it to do evil and they get punished by being sent here.

Was that it? Was that the case against God?

You know there's a temporal element to IQ tests?

Oh dear oh dear. Well, I suppose armies need people to fling at enemies.

The answer, Kiddo, is 'no'. Because a pizza has two components (don't - don't - dispute this, we don't need to start talking about pizzas, even though I am sure you're more on your home turf there), owning all the world's pizzas does not entail that one owns all the world's pizza bases. One might, one might not. It is entirely possible that a person may own all the world's pizzas, yet not own some of the world's pizza bases, for there may be pizza bases that are not pizzas (due to not having toppings on them - I am holding your hand).

Shall we now apply this to knowledge? Because knowledge has two components too, doesn't it? So, if a person is in possession of all the world's knowledge, does it follow that this person in possession of all true beliefs?

No. Right? They may be, they may not be. We can't tell for certain, because a true belief by itself doesn't qualify as knowledge, just as a pizza base by itself does not qualify as a pizza.

Thus, someone could be in possession of all knowledge, yet not be in possession of all true beliefs.

See?

That was in the OP. I'm just repeating it because you and most others here seem incapable of understanding it at a first pass.

Now.....what does that mean? That means God, though omniscient, does not necessarily possess all true beliefs. So, being omniscient is compatible with being ignorant of some truths, namely those that lack justifications (just as owning all pizzas is compatible with not owning some pizza bases, namely those that lack toppings).

And thus, God can make mistakes. Now that - that - is some philosophy there!

I did. I'm explaining politely why it's bullshit. You didn't argue carefully, you paved over cracks. Yes, God might choose to become an error-prone, lesser being. But he'd still have to know what error he's choosing to make before he becomes so. Engage brain, then only when that fails resort to twattery. — Kenosha Kid

A dog barking at the Mona Lisa.

it's a basic IQ test. Just answer the question. If knowledge has two components - true belief and justification - then does possessing all knowledge entail possessing all true beliefs? It's just a test of basic reasoning skills. Come on kiddo, what's the answer?

Pizza = base plus topping.

If I own all the pizzas in the world, do I own all the pizza bases in the world?

Really? So you understand, then, that a true belief by itself does not constitute an item of knowledge? You understand that, do you?
So, can I presume that you also understand that this means possessing all knowledge is not equivalent to possessing all true beliefs? Can I presume that, or was that a bridge to far?

Now DearGod, what did I just tell you? I told you to stop using the word 'ontological' didn't I? Naughty.

Shall I try and explain using an example you may be more familiar with because you bake them for a living? Pizzas. A pizza has at least two components - a base and a topping. Base. Topping. Two. Base. That's one. Topping. That's two.

DearGod: "You are trying ontologically to posit a pizza without a box. Amen"

No, that's just some nonsense. A kind of word fart. Try and focus. Pizza. Two components. Base. Topping.

Now it is going to get tricky. Summon all your intellectual powers and focus them on what I am about to say. A pizza base by itself is not a pizza. And a topping by itself is not a pizza either.

So, if someone has just pizza base, then they not have pizza. In other words if customer - sorry, 'money-giving person' or 'other side window talky person' order pizza and DearGod gives customer pizza base without topping, DearGod done a bad bad. If DearGod just give topping and no base to other side window talky person DearGod done a bad bad.

Now, and this is probably too much at once, here's a question for you. If I have the only pizza in my house, does that mean that I have the only pizza base in my house? Think about what we learned. A pizza is a pizza base AND a topping. So, if I have the only pizza in the house, then I have the only pizza-base and topping combination in the house. But a pizza base by itself is not a pizza. So, if I own the only pizza in the house, can you conclude that there is only one pizza base in the house and that I own it?

It's 'no'. Think about it. Understand why it is no. Do you understand why it is 'no'? Do you understand how owning the only pizza in the house does not preclude there being a pizza base in the house that you do not own?

You didn't read it. You looked at the words and then decided it was about free will and said something about that. And now you're saying more things that bear no relation to the OP's content.
"I am trying to posit an ontological God"?!? What the hell are you on about? Stop trying to sound clever - it isn't working.
Read it again and try and understand it. Christ. And stop throwing in 'logical' and 'ontological' arbitrarily. It just makes you sound dumb. They're not in the OP are they?

Even that doesn't make sense. I gave you some tasks. And you reply 'dude, good luck with that'. How do you survive?

Can you read? Free will isn't mentioned.
Your tasks, should you be willing to accept them:
1. Learn to read English
2. Read the OP.
3. Understand what is being argued. That voice in your head - the one that's telling you I am saying things I am not saying - turn it off. Read my words. Don't substitute them for yours. Try and follow the argument - my argument. Stop trying to second guess it.
4. Address what I have argued

This is what you and others are doing - "oh, he's talking about omniscience and God. I will just say some random things about that and ignore entirely what has been carefully argued in the OP. Tralalalala"

You aren't engaging with anything I argued.

I argued carefully in the OP that being all-knowing is entirely compatible with having some false beliefs. Rather than address anything I argued you have just contradicted my conclusion and followed it with some incoherent babble for good measure.

Engage with something I argued.

This thread is not about whether God exists. I have provided a demonstration of God elsewhere. This thread is about whether God can make mistakes. You don't have to prove God exists to answer that question. You just have to think carefully.

As for your second 'point'- read the OP and address something I argued. All you've done is tell me I am wrong. Address my case.

Then you are even more confused than I thought. How on earth is this not philosophy?
You don't seem to understand the difference between a true belief and knowledge. Think.

And what do you think I am?

Shall we recap? Moral norms are directives.

I have asked you who is issuing the directives constitutive of moral directives. And your answer was the insane 'nature'. So nature - mindless objective nature - issues instructions and orders?!?

And your reply to that? The utterly lame 'but, but, there are professors who defend naturalism....so it must be true".

I repeat, I addressed your point in the OP!! Read. It.

He does not have to know that they're false beliefs. They're just false beliefs. He thinks they are true. They aren't. That doesn't mean he lacks some knowledge.

I'll tell you what it is with you people - you don't read the OP. I might as well have said 'God can make mistakes because moo moo moo moo"

I explicitly argued that to have all knowledge is NOT equivalent to believing all true propositions. I raised and addressed the very point you have just made. Yes, if God falsely believes that p, then the proposition 'not p' is true. Does that mean God believes 'not p'. Er, no.

look, this isn't working out. It's not me, it's you.

Absolutely absurd. It is a meaningful statement and it contains no contradictions.

If I own all of the Rembrandt paintings in the world, does that mean I own every painting in the world? Er, no. "I own every Rembrandt painting in the world" does not mean the same as "I own every painting in the world". Obviously.

And if I own all Rembrandt paintings does that mean I don't also own some fakes? No, obviously not. I can own every Rembrandt and some fake Rwmbrandts.

Now, read the op carefully and stop quickly deciding that my statements are meaningless.

It is no more contradictory than "Bartricks owns every Rembrandt painting in the world, but he does not own some paintings and he has some fake Rembrandts in his collection".

It's what omniscient means. It means possessing all knowledge. Maximally knowing. Come up with your own term for it if you like. But it is what I am talking about. Here, just for you - and entirely pointlessly - I will express my point again without using the word omniscient. A person who is in possession of all knowledge can still not know things and have false beliefs.
Want to know how? Read the OP.

What did I define incorrectly? Omniscient? That means all knowing, yes? What does that mean? That means possessing all knowledge, yes?
And knowledge involves a true belief and a justification, yes? Maybe it involves more than that, but it involves at least that.
All of those definitions are entirely uncontroversial.
It follows that being all knowing does not necessarily involve believing all truths. It involves believing all justified true beliefs. That, then, is entirely consistent with not knowing some true propositions, and compatible with believing many false ones. Hence, an omniscient being can make mistakes.

it is them. They don't. And there isn't a problem. I am arguing that God can make mistakes, not trying to solve a problem.
That's quite profound. Most people think God can't make mistakes. I am showing that he can - that being all knowing is compatible with having any number of false beliefs. Isn't that interesting?

I feel all this is just guess work and imagination, if

1. one doesn't know and have not proved God exists.
2. doesn't know which God he is talking about. — Corvus

No, Corvus. What you're dealing with is some heavy-duty reasoning that's above your intellectual pay grade, that's all.

God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. That's a definition.

Can a being possessed of such qualities make mistakes? That's called a philosophical question.

Why do you think making a mistake requires a false belief ? — Hello Human

Why wouldn't I?

Why do you think so ? — Hello Human

Why do you think not?

Reasoning is an ability, while knowledge is more of an object, so God having all justified true beliefs does not imply that he is perfectly rational. — Hello Human

Knowledge is more of an object? What? I told you what knowledge involves: it involves true belief and justification. That's all my argument requires and that's not in dispute.

Furthermore, if God is unchanging and eternal, his beliefs too would be unchanging, so he wouldn't need reason to establish his beliefs, as he would've believed only true things for an eternity. — Hello Human

I didn't say God is unchanging and eternal. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Those are the essential features of God. I am arguing that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person can still make mistakes consistent with possessing all of those features.

Does God exist? — Corvus

Yes.

Now, focus on the OP. What's wrong with you people?! Focus!

First, for God to have a false belief, he cannot do so in ignorance of its falsity (condition of omniscience). — Kenosha Kid

I literally - literally - argued carefully that this is not so. Did you read the OP at all? I feel like I am presenting arguments at an old people's home.

Read. The. OP.