Do you have reason to believe that or no reason to believe it? — Bartricks

I do have reason to believe it.

But regardless of whether or not I do believe it, or whether or not I have reason to believe it, the rock will still fall. In any case, whether or not the rock falls, my belief and the reasons for my belief don't affect the rock.

In short:

1- God can move a rock
2- If the mind that issues normative reasons is God, then the mind that issues normative reasons can move a rock.
3- The mind that issues the laws of reason cannot affect a rock in any way (since rocks aren't affected by normative reasons).
4- Therefore the mind that issues normative reasons is not God.

Which premise do you disagree with?

Zizek actually improved the accuracy of the 'quote' - "If there is a god then anything is permitted."

E.g., burning witches, heretics, unfaithful wives, non-virgin daughters who marry, people who blaspheme. — Tom Storm

Well, without a god, all things are permitted also.

Really it is, if there are humans, any sort of interpersonal or group violence or mistreatment will be permitted by a significant number.

Wow! I was spot on with the term "masturbation". You've been busy while I slept. (When we both have time, I'll explain time zones to you. We'll work our way up to it, don't worry, but fair warning: it involves the Earth being a spheroid, rather than being flat.)

Just answer the question. — Bartricks

You can always tell the weakest point of someone's argument from how much effort they put into avoiding that point, and you went from 0 to 60 in a second to avoid this one :rofl: But I'm seeing a similarity between you and 3017amen, in that you both think that responding to questions with more energetic, not very relevant questions is a defense. Which it is in a way, if you're uninterested in philosophy.

The question doesn't require any gymnastics of epistemology. 'Omniscient' doesn't refer to belief generally, rather to knowledge. An omniscient being has at their disposal the set of all knowledge. Whatever else it contains (viz your desperate "look elsewhere" fuckaboutery), it contains any knowledge about what God is going to do with it, and why, and what the outcome will be.

If e.g. he chooses to make a mistake, or to become less than God in order to make a mistake, then however you rationalise him doing that, he must have prior knowledge of future him doing that.

Or, to put it another way, God might be allowed false beliefs, but if he doesn't know which of his beliefs are true and which are false, which of his beliefs are justified and which unjustified, then he doesn't have all knowledge -- he doesn't have knowledge about his knowledge -- in which case he is not omniscient.

Some other general points... JTP cannot hold for an omniscient being. For a belief to be justifiable, it must also be potentially unjustifiable, i.e. the believer (and this might go over your head, sorry) must have the potential to doubt her belief in order for it to be justifiable. An omniscient being already has all knowledge: that knowledge cannot be doubted and therefore cannot be justified since it is already, by definition, knowledge (whatever other beliefs the omniscient being might have). So an omniscient being's knowledge is knowledge according to different criteria than a mere ignorant human like yourself. Man makes God in his image though, what!

You aren't engaging with anything I argued. — Bartricks

You have been arguing with yourself not reading my points.

Only way to have an intelligent discussion

Only way to have an intelligent discussion — Bartricks

An intelligent being would listen, debate intelligently and correct the logical problems in his OP, when it is proven unclear and unintelligent.

Forget about intelligent being, going back to God making mistakes, I think it is again absurd to imagine that an omniscient being to make mistakes, because making mistakes implies it was not omniscient, and not intelligent and humanly act rather than God's.

Maybe it would be possible for God making mistakes, if it were the Gods in Greek Myths. So that is why it would have been good to specify which God is being focused in the OP too.

But then the Greek Gods are not supposed to be Omni xn, so it wouldn't make sense to bring them into here.

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.

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.

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'

I don't think you are interested in philosophical debates, but looking and begging for some psychological engaging. Keep on arguing with yourself.

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

When you are that much hyper emotional, obviously you cannot tell good thinking from bad ones. I wouldn't expect that capability from you.

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?

I don't feel it is a good idea to continue arguments for philosophical debates with you. You are too emotional, and egocentric. There is nothing good to learn.

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.

Isn't this just Russell's rejection of the basis of set theory. No set contains the set of things that do not contain themselves. Something to that tune.

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.

Test your own IQ. Sounds like you are deeply obsessed with your own IQ.
Read more books and try to learn.

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. — Bartricks

I want to say Russell specifically demonstrated "it is what it is" as the third law of thought. Which is a bit too ironic.

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. — Bartricks

I have never suspected anyone of being a linguistic AI before, but the combinations of content and positions don't seem to be possible with a human who has both sides of their brain connected.

There are also loads of low standard books for sale obviously written by the writers for making quick and easy money. Sure, they must be written with full of unclear and illogical sophistries, which were never checked out.

Anyhow, keeping on insisting IQ tests in Philosophical forum, is very unusual. Very weird. If you blindly believe, and are judging people by IQ tests (I don't know who even manufactured IQ tests), I do sincerely feel that you sure are not a philosopher, but a business man, and should not be in Philosophical forum. Philosophers are not that low level.

Have you read any Freud? Of course, you said you don't read books. Never mind. Good luck.

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.

Just mentioned Freud, because it could help analyse your unconscious or hidden motives for obsessing yourself with IQ tests. Although, I know it, I will try avoid going ad hominem.

@Corvus
Sorry to butt in.
But you are right,many posters who discuss in this overemotional and obsessive way are expressing their fear that if their theory is wrong they will feel super anxious.

This makes them unable to discuss calmy.

He needs to chill out,and then discuss calmly.

Clement? You think reading Clement Freud will help me uncover my motives in drawing attention to your double digit IQ? I don't think so. It might help me cook salmon in an interesting way. But do I want to cook salmon like a pervert, that's the question I'd be asking myself.

Anyway, if I have read all of Clement's cook books have I read any of Nigelka Lawson's?

Anything philosophical to contribute or just cod psychology?

Engage with the OP. Rest assured that I will be delighted if someone raises a good objection to what I have argued. I love - love - a good objection.

Sounds like IQ test is your God. :D Of course it is full of mistakes and bogus sham system.

No one should be judged by any system or any one. People need respect, not judgement.
Get over it, and escape from your Rembrandt's self assembled maze.

@Bartricks

Philosophy boils down to psychology monsieur.

It was a simple IQ test, and you couldn't answer it. If your IQ was higher, you'd understand the OP. — Bartricks

Oh no, not the Bartricks IQ test, I need that! (I need that, right?)

Okay so let's say your a genius and I'm a dribbling idiot. I clearly didn't understand the OP and I couldn't answer your super-relevant question. So your job now as a clearly sterling pedagogue and all-round decent chap is to explain it to me in a way I can understand, right?

So I get that you think omniscience allows for false beliefs in addition to justified true beliefs but, like I said, even if God errs, be it through becoming less than God or by acting on a false belief, he still must know prior to his erring a) that he will err, b) what his error will be, c) why he would err in this way, right?

Adding false beliefs is going to add more true beliefs about those false beliefs: God can't be ignorant of the falseness of his beliefs.

And remember, I'm the drooling idiot here, so you have to explain it to me, not just ask me questions or insist that it's explained already when I clearly didn't get it.