• Bartricks
    6k
    I think so.

    First, if God can't make mistakes, then there would be something he couldn't do. Yet God can do anything. Thus God can make mistakes.

    One might object that though the person of God can make mistakes, he would cease to be God were he ever to make one (just as, by analogy, a bachelor can acquire a wife, but he ceases to be a bachelor when or if he does so). So, the person of God can make mistakes, but not 'as God'. (All one is admitting here is that God has the ability to cease to be God).

    But I don't think that's true either. That is, I think God - as God - can make mistakes.

    First, to make a mistake, it seems to me, requires a false belief. So can God have a false belief? Yes, why not?

    Well, one might think that God cannot have a false belief for God is all knowing. However, as I have pointed out in another thread, to be all knowing is to be in possession of all knowledge. And knowledge involves having a justified 'true' belief. So, God could be in possession of all justified true beliefs, and also have some false beliefs as well. For an analogy: let's say I own all the world's Rembrandts. Well, does that mean I own no fake Rembrandts? No, for the claim that I own all the world's Rembrandts is entirely consistent with me also owning some fake Rembrandts.

    Nevertheless, one might object that to be all knowing is to know all true propositions.

    But that is false, for a) knowledge is made not just of true beliefs, but of justified true beliefs. So knowledge has at least two ingredients, not one. And thus being in possession of all knowledge is not equivalent to knowing all true propositions. It is to be in possession of all 'justified' true propositions. And b) there are clearly true propositions that it seems impossible to know. For example, take the proposition "It is raining, but no one believes it is raining". That proposition is capable of being true. Yet to believe it is to falsify it; and as knowledge cannot involve a false belief, that proposition - if or when it is true - cannot be known.

    Thus, being all knowing does not involve knowing all true propositions. It involves knowing all 'justified' true propositions. At this point, then, it seems consistent with being all knowing that one has some false beliefs in addition to all the justified true ones.

    However, one might object that God would nevertheless have to know that those false beliefs of his were false - for otherwise there would be something he did not know. But again, that's false and fails to take the above lesson. If God has a false belief P, then although the proposition "God's belief that P is false" is true, that is not sufficient to qualify it as an item of knowledge. Again, for a proposition to qualify as an item of knowledge, it has to be 'justified'. It is not sufficient that it be true.

    What is a justification made of? Well, a justification is made of God's attitudes. That is, to be 'justified' in believing something is for God to favour you believing it. If that's true, then if God believes P, then God favours himself believing it, else he wouldn't believe it. And similarly, God disfavours himself believing not-P. And thus the proposition "God's belief that P is false" is one that God does not favour himself - or anyone else - believing. It is true. But it is not justified. And thus God, in not believing it, does not manifest a deficiency in knowledge.

    Thus, I can see no compelling reason to think that God cannot make mistakes. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. But possession of those qualities seems - at this point in my reflections anyway - to be consistent with making mistakes.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    God's defined as, inter alia, omnipotent which basically means fae can defy logic. Thus, in the context of your argument, God both can make mistakes and not make them. Both are true but more importantly no amount of reasoning, done in even the most rigorous of ways, can aid us in understanding God.

    This reminds me of an argument I made earlier based on Dostoevsky's quote,

    If there is no God, everything is permitted. — Dostoevsky

    There's one other object that has a similar effect viz. a logical contradiction per ex falso quodlibet. My initial thoughts were that the state there is no God(Dostoevsky) is indistinguishable from a contradiction. That's the only explanation for everything is permitted.

    It fascinates me to no end that there is God also entails contradictions as via omnipontence.

    Dostoevsky then is faced with the following puzzle,

    1. There is God or there is no God
    2. If there is God, everything is permitted (omnipotence)
    3. If there is no God, everything is permitted (Dostoevsky)
    4. Everything is permitted or everything is permitted (1, 2, 3 CD)
    Ergo,
    5. Everything is permitted (4 Taut)

    Another point worth mentioning is the notion of a Theory Of Everything (TOE). If God's definition allows a contradiction and a contradiction entails anything and everything, God is a TOE as God explains everything.
  • Tom Storm
    9.1k

    If there is no God, everything is permitted. — Dostoevsky

    Pedant corner. This wording does not appear in Dostoevsky; the actual quote:

    He laughed. 'But what will become of men then?' I asked him, 'without God and immortal life? All things are lawful then, they can do what they like?' 'Didn't you know?' he said laughing, 'a clever man can do what he likes,' he said. '

    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.
  • Kenosha Kid
    3.2k


    First, for God to have a false belief, he cannot do so in ignorance of its falsity (condition of omniscience). He knows it's a false belief, therefore he cannot believe it: it makes no sense to claim to believe something and hold that it is a false belief -- such a God would be lacking in reasoning power which he supposedly is not (condition of omnipotence).

    And if he chose to cease to be God in order to make a mistake, it cannot be a mistake since he chose to alter his condition in order to make it, i.e. it was intended.
  • Corvus
    3.2k
    I think so.Bartricks

    Does God exist?
  • Hello Human
    195
    First, to make a mistake, it seems to me, requires a false beliefBartricks

    Why do you think making a mistake requires a false belief ?

    That is, to be 'justified' in believing something is for God to favour you believing itBartricks

    Why do you think so ?

    such a God would be lacking in reasoning power which he supposedly is not (condition of omnipotence)Kenosha Kid

    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.

    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.
  • Corvus
    3.2k
    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.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    God's defined as, inter alia, omnipotent which basically means fae can defy logic. Thus, in the context of your argument, God both can make mistakes and not make them. Both are true but more importantly no amount of reasoning, done in even the most rigorous of ways, can aid us in understanding God.TheMadFool

    That's not the argument I made. The argument I made works even if one thinks God is restricted by logic.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    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.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Does God exist?Corvus

    Yes.

    Now, focus on the OP. What's wrong with you people?! Focus!
  • Bartricks
    6k
    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.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    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.
  • Michael
    15.6k
    For example, take the proposition "It is raining, but no one believes it is raining". That proposition is capable of being true.Bartricks

    Not if God is omniscient. An omniscient god will know -- have a justified true belief -- that it is raining, and so "but no one believes it is raining" will be false.
  • Cuthbert
    1.1k
    What's wrong with you people?! Focus!

    Perhaps it's not them. They may have a better grasp of the problem than you. But by 'you peopling' them you'll never find out. What is it with you people who you people people!
  • Corvus
    3.2k
    God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. That's a definition.Bartricks

    Sorry, Bartricks. I was under impression that if you begin with false definition or supposition, then you will end up with false arguments and conclusion. :) That's me trying to be philosophical :D
  • Bartricks
    6k
    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?
  • Bartricks
    6k
    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.
  • Corvus
    3.2k
    What did I define incorrectly? Omniscient? That means all knowing, yes? What does that mean? That means possessing all knowledge, yes?Bartricks

    I am not sure where you picked up the definition. Maybe from the books, internet sites or even the Bible? But if you are philosophical, then you shouldn't accept the definition like that just because it is in the books, or someone says that it is not controversial. You have to be sceptical until it is totally clear beyond any possibility of doubt - just like Descartes had done a few hundred years ago about EVEN his own existence.

    "possessing all the knowledge"? for example what? what knowledge in details?
    My book has just arrived this morning, which I ordered a couple of days ago. What book is it?
    Only I know. Would anyone else know about it if I had NOT told what book it is?
    Would God know it? How can you prove he does?
  • Bartricks
    6k
    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.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Zizek actually improved the accuracy of the 'quote' - "If there is a god then anything is permitted."Tom Storm

    Then, I'm not wrong! :sweat:
  • Corvus
    3.2k
    A person who is in possession of all knowledge can still not know things and have false beliefs.Bartricks

    Sounds like a self-contradictory statement to me. But that is what I feel about it. Will read the OP again, and see what I can find more. Thanks.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    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".
  • Corvus
    3.2k


    "Some paintings" is unclear, what it actually denotes in the statement, therefore is not meaningful.
    Is fake real? Of course not. Has the speaker meant by "every Rembrandts" also to include fake Rembrandts? Not clear on that either. Therefore not a meaningful or logical statement.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    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.
  • Corvus
    3.2k
    "does not own some paintings" is not clear which paintings he is talking about. Paintings of Picasso? Miro? Shargal? It is because the premise said that he owns "every paintings of Rembrandts", it already implied not to include Rembrandts in the following point of "does not own some paintings". There was a clear paradox in that already.

    Fake Rembrandts are also real Rembrandts? To me, it is not. If you said it is, to you, they are. But you didn't.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    look, this isn't working out. It's not me, it's you.
  • Corvus
    3.2k
    Sorry, I was just trying to clarify your points which looked unclear. Will go back and read the OP, and see what I can find more. Please carry on. Thanks.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    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.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    I think so.Bartricks

    First, God made woman then God made man. Hell, everyone makes mistakes! — A feminist with an amazing sense of humor
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.