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

Mistakes are a subclass of false beliefs.

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

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.

I have re-read the OP, and came to a couple of points.

1. To claim that God exists, you must supply some sort of arguments, proofs or theories, why it does, and how, otherwise, the whole thread quickly spirals into a Religious one. Because as Mr Flew has said some in his books(?? I cannot recall which book it was), that default position in philosophical debates in any religious topic is atheism. It is up to the theist to prove that God exist, prior to any further progression of debates or argument.

2. If God is omni x1 x2 x3 ... according to your definition, if we accept that definition and premises, then God cannot make mistake in his decisions or knowledge. If he did, then his omni x1, x2, x3 ... does not stand logical ground for being omni x1 x2 x3 ... etc.

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.

Okay, I'm getting the impression this is masturbation, not philosophy. Fill yer boots!

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.

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.

Never said you were wrong. I was giving my points to the OP, and your further points. I could be wrong. I will never say I am right. But those were my points, which I am willing to correct, if proven to be wrong or if there are better points for the topics, and learn from them during and after the discussions.

Bartricks!

I'm thinking the term 'mistakes' may need a bit more relevancy. Based on your Omni-3/OP, I don't think it follows that God is capable of making 'mistakes' per your definitions. Conversely, what does seem to follow, is that God is all knowing of every 'mistake' that is made. Maybe that also means a world of contingency and a world of necessity.

That's because per Omni-3 logic (logical impossibility v. Ontological logical necessity), the reason for its own existence is contained within itself, there is no choice in the matter. A necessary thing can make no references time, change, contingency, free will/choice, etc. (Platonism, mathematical truths, and so on). It's a closed and complete loop of explanation. 'Mistakes' then from your OP, would mean a problem with reconciling a world of changing things v. unchanging things.

What would be an interesting argument, would be to argue that God is the exact opposite of Omni-3. But then, there would be no reason to posit God in the first place.
:snicker:

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.

You aren't engaging with anything I argued.

Okay let me be less diplomatic an excruciatingly direct.

For the reasons I stated, your argument in the OP seems to link logical impossibility (Omniscience) to free will, volition, and finitude ("mistakes") and other ethical choices that people make.

Henceforth, how do you go from Omniscience to an Ontological God who makes mistakes?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think others are struggling with your OP as well... Just take a deep breath and sift through the comments and concerns if you will... .

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"

Dude, good luck with that :razz:

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

I read it twice the first time and I still can't make sense of it. You're trying to posit an ontological God who makes mistakes, and it's just not following.

(You've given analogies to the human condition, but failed to describe/reconcile God's qualities, features etc. Oh, and when you did, you hinted at the ontological argument-see your first paragraph.)

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?

You don't seem to understand the difference between a true belief and knowledge. Think. — Bartricks

I understand the relationship between them. I was asking a very targeted question for which, like everyone else defending a position of magical nonsense, your response is evasion over clarification or defence. If you calm down and take the the time to absorb the question, and not just cling desperately and angrily to the fact that you papered over it, it would be interesting to discuss it, but horses, water, etc.

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?

At this point, it seems that you're taking this way too personally. I know it's frustrating.

Monder: Ontological God and Omnipotent God. In other words, logical necessity and logical impossibility respectively. Ontology relates to the nature of being.

You're not making it clear how, why, what and where, God is able to make your so-called "Mistakes" in the OP. This may help some:

on·tol·o·gy
/änˈtäləjē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.
2.
a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them.
"what's new about our ontology is that it is created automatically from large datasets"

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

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?

So, can I presume that you also understand that this means possessing all knowledge is not equivalent to possessing all true beliefs? — Bartricks

It's irrelevant whether I agree with a particular epistemology or not, I'm always happy to tackle the argument on its arguer's own terms. My question concerned specifically knowledge, the totality of which is the criterion of omniscience. Equivocating over belief will not aid you in answering the question, which is presumably why you're so affronted at being asked it.

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?

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.

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. — Bartricks

Where’d you get this?

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.

It follows from being omnipotent. To be omnipotent requires being the source of all normative reasons. — Bartricks

Where did you get this?

If one is a fool, one will reject all of that in some flippant way. — Bartricks

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. And normative reasons don't give you any power over rocks or animals either.

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?

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.

Only someone who had control over the laws of Reason would be able to do anything at all. — Bartricks

The laws of reason aren't "out there". Reasoning is a capacity, like sight. Rocks don't fall down because they are following the laws of reason.

This is like thinking that someone that has the ability to control what you see can change reality to whatever they want it to be.

And that mind would be......omnipotent and omniscient. — Bartricks

False. See above.

This is how the last conversation ended too. You can't show that a mind that commands people to follow the laws of Reason is omnipotent in any way. I asked you before and you refused to do so. For one, that mind can't even move a rock, you need a body to do that and your God doesn't have one (unless you believe in telekinesis).

So, someone could read my argument and think it is shit. That person would be stupid. There are a lot of them around. — Bartricks

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. Or rocks plants and animals. Your omnipotent God is powerless for people who choose to ignore him/her, nor can he even lift a rock.

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. — Bartricks

Again, they can't lift a rock, or get stupid people to do anything, or tell an animal or plant to do anything.

Very far from omnipotent.

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?