you will only accept knowledge from other people so long as it fits your criteria and your understanding which will not better you in any way

it's like trying to get a woman pregnant by masturbating by yourself it's a similar effort but it's not going to yield the right desired outcome no pun intended.

perhaps you should accept the fact that you're going to get opinions that you don't understand and you don't like but that doesn't mean they're not valid try stepping outside of your bubble. And if your eyes are open as opposed to closed with your mouth open you would have noticed that I explained why fundamentally there's no such thing as a mistake. And don't change the subject to pizzas I don't play those stupid games that have nothing to do with the actual conversation you can masturbate by yourself

You possess knowledge do you? I don't think you do. I think there's ample evidence from the content of your posts here that your wisdom comes from the back of a cereal packet and that nothing you think stands up to any real rational scrutiny.
But let's not take your word for it - why not demonstrate your reasoning skills by answering this simple question:
If I own all the world's Rembrandt paintings, do I own any fake Rembrandts? Tmyes, no, or maybe?

That's just bad psychology. If someone expends a lot of effort defending a view it is more likely due to the fact they sincerely think it worth defending - and are finding the objections misguided and incompetent and are hungry for some good ones - than that they think the view is false.
For instance, why are you not answering my simple question about Rembrandt ownership? Because you know that if you do you'll either confirm a double digit iq or you'll have to accept the validity of my argument, yes?

That's just bad psychology. If someone expends a lot of effort defending a view it is more likely due to the fact they sincerely think it worth defending — Bartricks

Top reading skills there, fella.

of course I have knowledge because knowledge is information and last time I checked I have a memory and therefore I have knowledge now wisdom is when you're able to apply knowledge in the present time in order to get a desired outcome in the future so in other words wisdom is the ability to implement the knowledge you have and get specific desired outcomes from that knowledge in other words it's the applicability.

And why do you want me to answer question about Rembrandt paintings I mean is there any possible way to get you to accept any of the information anybody has said to you on here? Do you think you're smarter than all of the people that have commented on this thread? Why did you even post this cuz you're clearly not looking for improvement on your concept and you hate scrutiny.

You say you're open to logical and constructive evaluations of your theories and if somebody objects to it that it needs to be irrational objection that makes sense and yet when people do that you deny it because for some reason you think that we should carry the same logic that you carry when logic is not fundamentally a thing in itself it's kind of like liquid it changes with society.

Now your Rembrandt painting question is a very easy question to answer so I'm assuming somebody has already properly answered it so before I answer I'm going to go back and see if anybody has given the answer that I am fairly confident is the right answer and if they have then I don't know what to tell you

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.<<<

I'm sure the flower power hippie all is love people would disagree with you on this but I actually agree with you on it. assuming there's a sky Daddy that is.


>>>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).<<<


I don't know why people continually make this God figure into a singular type of sky daddy being with a human mind and human limitations and attributes with a sprinkle of woden style.

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


like an infection people let whatever their perspective on reality is bleed into any thought experiment they have so much so that they might as well be the character that they're pretending to exercise in the experiment.
they use their own logic whatever is popular at the time in their social culture so their middle class rights and their modern wrongs they were taught by their parents so on and so forth become the backbone of the very thing that somehow created all of existence which includes things they are completely unaware of due to its vast complexity that will never be comprehended by a single person yet they've somehow compacted it into this Starbucks at lunch break sized concept that's easily digestible.



>>>First, to make a mistake, it seems to me, requires a false belief. So can God have a false belief? Yes, why not?<<<
well of course he could assuming sky daddy existed he would have to be able to have everything. I thought that was an obvious.

>>>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. <<<

why do you keep humping this concept that knowledge has to have justified true belief? you keep bringing up justified true belief.

define justification? do you think there is a fundamental justification that's the same across the board therefore can be applied to all scenarios of knowledge to then say this is justified true belief and that is not a justified true belief?


>>>So, God could be in possession of all justified true beliefs, and also have some false beliefs as well. <<<

why do you think he has beliefs at all? beliefs are something human beings have out of ignorance mainly but sometimes out of necessity so they think but a belief is kind of like shoes although it makes you feel much more comfortable you don't have to have them to walk and most other mammals as far as I know don't have them.

>>>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.<<<

obviously I'm not sure what the confusion there was. perhaps people misunderstood you in thinking you said you owned all Rembrandt's and nothing else?

under the vague limitations of your statement one could conclude that you own all of the worlds Rembrandt's as well as any given number of fake Rembrandt's.

>>>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. <<<

there you go again with that Idiocracy why do you keep saying that? is there a philosopher of the past you have a crush on? did he say it?. do you really think there isn't knowledge out there that's not true or justifiable? you don't think that there's knowledge that's untrue and not justifiable?, really?.



>>>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; <<<

so much salad nothing worth commenting on.



>>>and as knowledge cannot involve a false belief, that proposition - if or when it is true - cannot be known.<<<

where on Earth were you molested to get that concept? can you validate that apparent precious concept of yours?.


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.<<<

so much salad I just don't care.


>>>Again, for a proposition to qualify as an item of knowledge, it has to be 'justified'. It is not sufficient that it be true.<<<

why on Earth does it have to be justified in order to be knowledge? who taught you that? and can I beat them with a wiffle ball bat? , explain please.

>>>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. <<<

that is borderline made up troll content it is so bad I'm about to just write you off as a troll because that was a very very dumb statement I don't even know how you could rephrase that to make it make sense.

>>>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.<<<


it's pretty sad when a being that is not all of those attributes but possesses lesser attributes will conceptualize this idea of a being that does have those attributes and thinks that he understands those attributes and can apply them to this sky Daddy it's just ridiculous how can something lesser grasp the something greater? it's like picking yourself up from your own bootstraps grunt all you want but you're not picking yourself up likewise you're not going to conceptualize the thing that is the reason for all existence no matter how hard you try.

Suppose your conclusion follows - that ominiscient subject S can hold false beliefs. You have given a justification of your conclusion in the OP and you believe your conclusion and (if it is true and your argument is sound) you have knowledge of your conclusion. In that case, S, being omniscient, also has knowledge of your conclusion. So the omniscient S is in a position of being able to believe a false proposition whilst knowing (in the same way that you know) that some belief would be a false one if he held it. But (according to the additional claim to the conclusion) he goes ahead and believes it anyway. S may be omniscient but he seems to have some confused ideas about belief and knowledge. Which suggests - perhaps - that the original argument was not quite so sound after all.

Perhaps the best we can get is that if S can make mistakes, then we can never know that S can or does make them - because if we could know it then S could know it and then there would no longer be a mistake to know.

Hmm, well I agree that the belief that an omniscient being can and will have some false beliefs is justified and thus an item of knowledge. And I agree that means God will believe it too, as God is in possession of all knowledge. But I don't yet see a problem.

For instance, I don't think God knows he's God. That is, one of the false beliefs God has, is that he is not God. Someone who thinks they are not God - and thus thinks they are not omniscient - can surely believe that an omniscient person can and will have some false beliefs? I mean, I believe I am not God, and I also believe that an omniscient being can have false beliefs. So I see no problem with someone who mistakenly thinks that are not God believing that God will have some false beliefs.

But even if God does know he's God, I don't see a problem, for he would just believe that he himself is capable of having, and does have, some false beliefs. I think I am capable of having, and no doubt do have, some false beliefs. So I don't see why God could not believe the same about himself.

So I am not yet seeing a problem as such....

Why do you think that the all creator just so happens to sound a lot like a human? Aka Sky Daddy

Stop squawking other people's slogans, farmyard cockerel. Engage with the OP. That is, try and argue something. I argued something. Try and argue back.

Oh, I see that you did attempt to do this above. It failed abysmally.

There was more sky-daddying and cod psychology of the sort that suggests you have some sort of inferiority complex. And I assume that by 'word salad' you mean to express that you could not follow the relevant section?

Anyway, ignoring all that, what do we find? Well, not exactly high brow stuff.

why do you keep humping this concept that knowledge has to have justified true belief? you keep bringing up justified true belief. — MAYAEL

Er, it's just what knowledge involves. It was first articulated by Plato. There's dispute over whether knowledge involves more than this - whether there is another ingredient - but there isn't serious dispute over whether it involves possessing a justified true belief. There's a debate over whether you need to be aware of the justification in question and there are debates over the mechanics of how you need to have arrived at a belief in order for it to count as justified in the right kind of way - debates prompted by Gettier's famous article. But that it involves true belief and justification is not in dispute. And that's all my argument requires.

obviously I'm not sure what the confusion there was. perhaps people misunderstood you in thinking you said you owned all Rembrandt's and nothing else? — MAYAEL

Yes. That is, they were being stupid (well, if they'd dared to answer - they didn't, presumably because they were foxed by it). If I say "if I own all the world's Rembrandt paintings, do I own any fake Rembrandts? Yes, no, or maybe?" and someone doesn't know the answer or thinks it is something other than 'maybe', then they are, well, just dumb, at least on that occasion (everyone has bad days, of course).

For instance, that same person would no doubt think this argument valid:

1. If P, then Q
2. Q
3. Therefore P.

Whereas it is not. This is:

1. If and only if P, then Q
2. Q
3. Therefore P

Someone who cannot distinguish between 'if P then Q' and 'if and only if P, then Q' is just not that good at philosophy becuase they're impatient and sloppy and don't care about important distinctions.

Now, obviously I am pleasantly surprised that you recognize that if I own all the world's Rembrandts, that leaves open the possibility that I may also own some fake Rembrandts. Well done! Give yourself a big macho pat on the back. Hang on, I'll try and talk bloke: "Alwight mate!! Nice one!" No, that's all I've got.

Now apply that to knowledge: if I am in possession of all the world's justified-true-beliefs (Rembrandt paintings), do I have any false beliefs (fakes)? Yes, no, or maybe?

The answer is maybe.

A clever person might object that this may not be the case - that the answer could be a decisive 'no' - because if you have a false belief, then there's a true belief you lack. And they may think that if you are in possession of all items of knowledge, then you are eo ipso in possession of all true beliefs. And thus your possession of all true beliefs precludes you having any false ones.

But that's why I started by demonstrating how possessing all the world's knowledge is compatible with not being in possession of all the world's true beliefs. (I think my fictional critic's claim is dubious anyway, but rather than bother exploring it I can just sidestep it with the move I made).

So, step one: show that having all-knowledge does not necessarily involve having all the world's true beliefs. That's what the pizza example showed. Knowledge has at least two components, and thus having all knowledge is akin to having all the world's pizzas. But if one has all the world's pizzas one does not necessarily have all the world's pizza bases, for a pizza base without a topping is not a pizza and thus not necessarily something one owns.

Thus, having all knowledge is compatible with not having all the world's true beliefs.

With that in the bank, the way is now clear to show that having all knoweldge is compatible with having some positively false beliefs. That was step two.

And then I showed that God positively would have some false beliefs, such as believing that he is not God.

Yes I'm very aware of Play-Doh and his Idiocracy but I was hoping you with his arrogant as you are walking around like you have a 1" cock and you know how to use it

I would have thought that you would have justified your claim toward knowledge by grounding it somewhere in your own personal experience and not just in some philosopher dude from the past named after modeling clay I mean come on you're alive he's dead it's your turn so don't take a dead man's concepts as stupid as they may be and try to coin them in an argument make up your own for the love of God

To err is human, to forgive divine — Alexander Pope

On a more serious note, I believe there's an important issue underlying @Bartricks question, "Can God make mistakes?" Let's call the witnesses, shall we? 1. Hypnos (sleep) and 2. Thanatos (death).

Consider now the following:
1. X can sleep (the ability to sleep has a positive valence)
2. X can die (mortality is a disability, has a negative valence)
3. X can't sleep (X has a disability, negative valence)
4. X can't die (X is immortal, an ability, positive valence)

As you can see, X can't do Y can either be a positive trait (X can't die - immortality is an ability) or a negative trait (X can't sleep - insomnia is a disability).

You're equivocating between these two ways of looking at CANNOT/CAN'T. God's omnipotency is enhanced rather than diminished if God can't make mistakes.

The court thanks the witnesses for their cooperation. I rest my case!

No, if you can't get to sleep if you want to, you lack an ability. If you can get to sleep whenever you want to, you have one.
If you can destroy yourself if you want to, you have an ability. If you can't, you lack one.
If you can make mistakes if you want to, then you have an ability. If you can't, you lack one.
And so on.
Being unable to make mistakes is a lack of an ability.
God has the ability not to make any mistakes. That's an ability. He also has the ability to make them. That's another.

You are referring to the most high all creator nothing came before him he created all things and blablabla am i correct ?

Well, God made made me.
So, I guess Gods can make mistakes.

Bartricks, I'm referring omniscient subject S rather than 'God' because the aspect I'm addressing is about the concepts of omniscience, belief, knowledge, mistake etc rather than the nature of 'the most high all creator'.

OK, I get your point about acknowledging our own false beliefs. Yes, we do have false beliefs. But crucially, we don't know which ones are false. There is no belief which we hold such that we can say 'I believe that p; and ~p.' This is Moore's paradox. It can be true that it's raining and that I don't believe it's raining. But for me to say 'It is raining and I do not believe it is raining' is, whilst not a logical contradiction, still a behavioural contradiction, both expressing and denying a belief. The case with S (or G) is different. He would know which of his beliefs would be false if he held them - he knows everything that can be known together with all the justifications for believing it.

As for G not knowing that he is G, that must be because it's not a knowable proposition (since he knows everything knowable) and if it's not knowable then we can't know it either.

Ha ha ha! well said

I am talking about an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent person.

God can make mistakes. But he didn't make you. For that would have been immoral.

No, if you can't get to sleep if you want to, you lack an ability. If you can get to sleep whenever you want to, you have one.
If you can destroy yourself if you want to, you have an ability. If you can't, you lack one.
If you can make mistakes if you want to, then you have an ability. If you can't, you lack one.
And so on.
Being unable to make mistakes is a lack of an ability.
God has the ability not to make any mistakes. That's an ability. He also has the ability to make them. That's another. — Bartricks

This line of thinking leads to a paradox and I have a hunch that you, like me, have a thing for paradoxes.

If God can make mistakes then God has an ability (your claim). However, if God can make mistakes, God can't always be right and that means God has a disability. Ergo, if God can make mistakes, God has an ability & God has a disability (contradiction). Note: the ability/disability refers to God being able to (can) make mistakes.

1. If God can make mistakes then God has an ability (your claim)

2. If God can make mistakes then God has a disability (see above)

Note: The ability/disability refers to the same thing - God can make mistakes

3.God can make mistakes (assume for reductio ad absurdum)

4. God has an ability (1, 3 MP)

5. God has a disability (2, 3 MP)

6. God has an ability and God has a disability (4, 5 Conj)

Ergo,

7. God can't make mistakes (3 - 6 reductio ad absurdum)

You proceed as follows,

8. If God can't make mistakes then God is not omnipotent (your claim)

9. God is omnipotent (definition of God)

Ergo,

10. God can make mistakes (8, 9 MT)

However, in my previous post I pointed out that cannot/can't can either possess a positive valence (power) or a negative valence (weakness). Your premise 8 assigns a negative valence (weakness) to can't instead of the correct positive valence (power). Ergo, your premise 8 is false.

you are now begging the question by confusing knowing everything with knowing all true propositions. I have argued that these are not the same and so you need to refute that case. That is, you cannot just assume that God knows which of his beliefs are true and which ones false. He is 'able' to know, of course. But you can't just assume he does without thereby assuming 'omniscient' and 'believing all truths and no falsehoods' are the same. Which they demonstrably are not. Or at least, I appear to have demonstrated them not to be. But you are not entitled to just assume they're the same until or unless you show a flaw in my demonstration.

So like I previously said it's nonsensical to assign a thinking human mind with human morals and human opinion to the thing that created existence itself

Especially when you say god can make mistakes because a mistake is just a concept this society uses especially the Western society but it doesn't actually exist as a thing separate from the social constructs of society

And for someone to say a mistake was made they are implying that there is a law in place Rather be written or verbal that states that what was done should not have been done which also implies that there is a higher power that implemented said law and if we're talking about the all creator where there is nothing above him /it then whatever he does is not a mistake because there is no higher power above him there is no law that he has to abide by.

(Assuming it was a sky daddy that cared about social constructs.)


Ps you keep saying I'm taking people's phrases could you please point out who's phrase I'm stealing when I say sky daddy? Because I thought I was original in saying that but then again I am using the English language and I do believe all these words have been said before by somebody else. And it's a little hypocritical seeing as how your entire concept is just a molested version of other people's concepts

I don't know what you are saying. It doesn't engage with the OP.

I hear 'skydaddy' all the bloody time. It's not original. It's tedious. If only there was some kind of device - a 'search engine' (I have coined that term) - whereby one could establish if it has been used by millions of others?? Hmmmmmm.

God is not my daddy and he's not in the sky. So it doesn't make sense - not addressed to me. Address it to someone who thinks the sistine chapel lacks a ceiling

Well, God made made me.
So, I guess Gods can make mistakes. — Kinglord1090

or maybe youre perfect and just dont realize it

Or maybe you just didnt understand the sarcasm.

Or maybe you just didnt understand the sarcasm. — Kinglord1090

there is no mistakes

every "mistake" you ever made was perfect.

so like a coward you're going to avoid the main point of my reply and highlight something pointless like sky daddy?what a narcissistic coward okay I guess our conversation is done especially seeing as everybody here has proved you wrong on every point

you just choose to try to argue with people probably so you can have something to masturbate too since you lost that taboo picture of your mom to jack off to I'm not sure but either way I'm done with your kiddish ass