Might I be God?

Bartricks

I do not think I am God. (By 'God' I mean an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person). But can I rule it out entirely? No, I do not think so. And everything I am about to say will apply to you as well.

For instance, can I be absolutely sure I'm not omnipotent? I think so at first, because there are many things that seem self-evidently beyond my ability and plenty of other things that I have tried to do and failed.

But although that's pretty good evidence that I am not omnipotent, it does not prove it. It could just be that I do not know how to do those things. That is, I have the ability, I just do not know how to exercise it. I didn't seem to have the ability to ride a bike until I figured out how to do it. So, I don't think the fact I have tried to x and failed demonstrates categorically that I lack the ability to do x.

Does the fact I don't know how to exercise many of my abilities itself show that I am not God? That is, is there some contradiction involved in the idea of a person who is able to do anything not knowing how to exercise that ability?

Again, no. If I am omnipotent, then I have the ability to know how to exercise my ability to do anything, for that is one of the things an omnipotent person is able to do. But once more, not knowing how to exercise that ability is not cast iron evidence that one lacks it, for it is consistent with not knowing how to do something that one nevertheless has the ability to do it.

What about omniscience? Surely if one does not know how to exercise one's ability to do anything, then one manifests a lack of knowledge. And isn't that evidence that one is not God? For does not God know everything?

God is in possession of all knowledge. That's sufficient to qualify as omniscient. But as I have argued before, being in possession of all knowledge is consistent with being ignorant of any number of truths. For knowledge involves justified true belief, and so an omniscient person is in possession of all justified true beliefs. But that does not mean they are in possession of all truths - or at least, it does not necessarily entail that - for it could be that there are true beliefs that are not justified. And in fact, if I am God then I will be the arbiter of justifications. But what that means is that those true beliefs of mine that I approve of myself believing will be the sum total of knowledge at that time. And thus even if I also have lots of false beliefs and fail to have lots of true ones, I will not fail to qualify as omniscient. And so, once more, it seems I cannot be completely sure that I am not omniscient, even though I appear to be ignorant of a great deal and to have many false beliefs.

What about omnibenevolence? Can I be absolutely certain that I am not morally perfect? Well, as with knowledge, if I am omnipotent then I will be the arbiter of right and wrong, good and bad. That is, my own attitudes towards things will constitutively determine what is right, wrong, good and bad. And assuming that whatever I do on any particular occasion is something I approve of myself doing - at least at that very moment - then everything I do will be right. And if I disapprove of some character trait, then I nevertheless approve of myself disapproving of it, and so it seems that if I am omnipotent, then I will be morally perfect as well.

I think until I can prove that I am not omnipotent, then I can't be completely certain that I am not also omniscient and omnibenevolent. And I don't seem able to prove that I am not omnipotent. All I can do is put it beyond a reasonable doubt; but I can't demonstrate that my being omnipotent involves some kind of contradiction.

BC

You might be God, but in a just universe, definitely not. I, on the other hand, am entirely suitable as a supreme being in a just universe. You being a lesser being, god, cat, whatever... wouldn't recognize Me. Now go back to your room and finish your catechism lesson.

Kuro

God is in possession of all knowledge. — Bartricks

I think there can be two readings of omniscience. If we just take it to be the possession of knowledge, then the rest of what you said follows. However, perhaps a more intuitive notion that captures what theists usually mean by 'God' is K(God, p) ⟷ p (if something is true, then God knows that it, and vice versa). Generally, lots of theists will want to say that there are is no lack of awareness diagnosing their God, no truths he is unaware are true. In any case, they'll take your God to be 'less perfect' than theirs in this respect.

But allow me to take your analysis as a pretense and forget what I'll said. I'll give you a reason that satisfies your Cartesian hunger even with the stipulation of your analysis of omniscience, where, as an omniscient agent, I only know things which are in principle knowable, i.e., can have a justification.

Surely, this is the case for any arithmetic operation on the natural numbers 1, 2, 3, ... and so on: there is a mathematical method to derive the result of any of said basic arithmetic operations, and thus a way to justify (and know). But I can introspectively access the fact that I would not know what (49082423 / 234765) x 54 equals: I know that I do not know this because I do not even have any belief on any simplified expression that is equal to this expression, and surely a belief is one of the first prerequisites for my knowledge of anything.

In fact, since I can be introspectively aware of what I believe, disbelief, and lack an attitude of belief on, then the very fact of me knowing that I lack both belief & disbelief (i.e. withhold judgement) on arbitrarily many matters, like, "what is the first letter of the 3rd chapter in Harry Potter?" (I haven't even read Harry Potter!) allows me to verify that I am not omniscient.

Noble Dust

I do not think I am God. — Bartricks

You're not close.

Outlander

even if I also have lots of false beliefs and fail to have lots of true ones, I will not fail to qualify as omniscient — Bartricks

Hm. An omniscient being that knows all there is to know yet "fails to have many true beliefs". Sounds a bit iffy to me. Sort of like not knowing "that thing you know how to do" happens to makes a whistling noise yet knowing "anything is possible" thus emulating a kind of omniscience where you both know and don't know how to whistle? :chin:

Bartricks

↪Kuro

I think there can be two readings of omniscience. — Kuro

Omniscience means 'all knowledge'. If - as many contemporary theists foolishly do - one defines it to mean 'all truth beliefs' then one is simply misusing a term (for one can be in possession of all true beliefs and yet not be in possession of all knowledge). Certainly it is no abuse of the term 'omniscience' to use it to label someone who is in possession of all knowledge.

Furthermore, if one defines God as a person who is in possession of all true beliefs, then one runs into difficulties, for that seems incompatible with omnibenevolence. God would turn out to have true beliefs about my bowel habits and my inner most secret thoughts - all of which are things a good person would not wish to acquire true beliefs about, due to it disrespecting another's privacy. And God would also have to believe that he is morally perfect, which is incompatible with being morally perfect (you're not humble if you believe you're morally perfect, yet humility is something a morally perfect person would need).

So, the contemporary theist is simply abusing language and abusing it to no advantage, as their abuse makes their view incoherent.

Anyway, like I say, it is no abuse of the term 'omniscient' to use it to denote someone who is in possession of all knowledge - after all, what else would one call such a person?

But you are willing to grant me this and think that I can still know that I am not omniscient in this (correct) sense of the term. But in fact you swapped my definition of omniscience for another and said that it is to be in possession of all potential knowledge. To be omniscient is to be in possession of all actual knowledge, not all possible knowledge. If a true belief is a possible item of knowledge, yet does not yet qualify as such, then lacking it does not make one lacking in knowledge. If I own all the world's trees, but not all the world's acorns, I still own all the world's trees, even though i do not own all the potential trees.

So, the fact that I do not know what 175 x 345 = does not necessarily entail a lack of knowledge on my part, for if I am omnipotent - something I can't establish with certainty that I am not - then I am the arbiter of knowledge and thus when or if I figure out what 175 x 345 is and favour myself believing it, there is no knowledge of what that sum equals, only true and false beliefs about it.

Bartricks

↪Outlander

Hm. An omniscient being that knows all there is to know yet "fails to have many true beliefs". Sounds a bit iffy to me. — Outlander

That's solely due to conflating true beliefs with knowledge. They're not the same. One can be in possession of all true beliefs and not be omniscient. What if, by pure luck, one just accurately guesses all the truths there are and comes to believe them? Well, that person does not know a thing, yet they are in possession of all true beliefs.

Furthermore, there is good reason to think that God isn't in possession of all true beliefs, for that'd mean he has true beliefs about everything everyone has done and thought etc. No good person who had the power to resist acquiring such beliefs would acqurie them, as that'd be a gross invasion of other people's privacy.

Kuro

Omniscience means 'all knowledge'. If - as many contemporary theists foolishly do - one defines it to mean 'all truth beliefs' then one is simply misusing a term (for one can be in possession of all true beliefs and yet not be in possession of all knowledge). Certainly it is no abuse of the term 'omniscience' to use it to label someone who is in possession of all knowledge. — Bartricks

This is just etymologically branded linguistic prescriptivism. Regardless, I already granted your analysis as you pointed out

But in fact you swapped my definition of omniscience for another. To be omniscient is to be in possession of all actual knowledge, not all possible knowledge. — Bartricks

I made the most charitable interpretation. If you truly mean 'all of actual knowledge' by omniscience then this is an awfully trivial definition wholly divorced from what anyone means by 'omniscient', since, I, like many other living people, know everything that I actually know, which has virtually nothing to do with knowing everything that is knowable (which was my initial charitable interpretation) let alone knowing every truth (what most theists think). This just prima facie renders anyone that knows anything to be omniscient, since they know everything they actually know.

Bartricks

↪Kuro

This is just etymologically branded linguistic prescriptivism. Regardless, I already granted your analysis as you pointed out — Kuro

Omni is latin for 'all' and scientia is latin for 'knowledge'. So historically it has meant 'all knowledge'.

If one wants one can define omniscience as 'in possession of a potato'. Hell, one can define 'God' as a potato and then insist that you just dug God up in the vegetable patch.

I have also justified this use of the term: if you define it differently, you'll get an incoherent collection of attributes, for it does not seem possible for a person to be omnipotent, and omnibenevolent and in possession of all truths.

I made the most charitable interpretation. If you truly mean 'all of actual knowledge' by omniscience then this is an awfully trivial definition wholly divorced from what anyone means by 'omniscient', since, I, like many other living people, know everything that I actually know, which has virtually nothing to do with knowing everything that is knowable (which was my initial charitable interpretation) let alone knowing every truth (what most theists think). This just prima facie renders anyone that knows anything to be omniscient, since they know everything they actually know. — Kuro

It's not at all charitable and you've ignored what I said. It is not charitable to attribute to someone a view they did not express and furthermore a view that doesn't make sense.

I'll simply repeat what I said: to be in possession of all trees does not require being in possession of all potential trees. LIkewise, to be in possession of all knowledge dose not require being in possession of all potential knowledge. We're all potential murderers - should we all be locked up for actual murder?

And my definition of omniscience is clearly not trivial. How is it trivial?

Yohan

Like many philosophy questions, there is a risk of confusing the map and the territory.
When Buddhists talk about no self and emptiness, they are referring to the map, as I understand it.

So if by "I" you mean the territory I, then maybe that is pure awareness, and pure awareness is what the map called God is a representation of.

Bartricks

↪Yohan

I do not understand what you mean. I am saying that I cannot seem to rule out - not categorically- that I may have the properties of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. And thus I cannot completely rule out that I am God. I do not see how what you have said engages in any way with the case I made.

Outlander

It's not at all charitable and you've ignored what I said. It is not charitable to attribute to someone a view they did not express and furthermore a view that doesn't make sense.

I'll simply repeat what I said: to be in possession of all trees does not require being in possession of all potential trees. LIkewise, to be in possession of all knowledge dose not require being in possession of all potential knowledge. We're all potential murderers - should we all be locked up for actual murder?

And my definition of omniscience is clearly not trivial. How is it trivial? — Bartricks

If I may. I too was thinking along the lines he mentioned. From what I gather the conflicting premise is when someone says someone "knows everything" it, absent of sarcasm, typically means or implies anything that will or can happen which includes the product of 175 x 345 and whether or not it will or will not come to exist and if so what it's projected value is anyway. The idea of loose definitions and semantics is confusing, but from what I gather you assert that an omniscient omnipowerful being can define what is and what isn't knowledge per reason of creating new knowledge, essentially anything, at will, changing current meanings or realities, or destroying knowledge due to its intrinsic nature as omnipowerful ie. the number 2 doesn't exist unless it wants it to and if it does it can equal 3? Sorry if I'm muddying the waters or missing the point entirely. Men have debated this for millennia. It's confusing, lol.

Yohan

↪Yohan I do not understand what you mean. I am saying that I cannot seem to rule out - not categorically- that I may have the properties of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. And thus I cannot completely rule out that I am God. I do not see how what you have said engages in any way with the case I made. — Bartricks

Apologies.
Ignore my comment.

bert1

By 'God' I mean an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person — Bartricks

How do you feel about omnipresence? Omni-gods are sometimes omnipresent, sometimes omnibenevolent, but curiously not often both in these kinds of discussions.

bert1

And so, once more, it seems I cannot be completely sure that I am not omniscient, even though I appear to be ignorant of a great deal and to have many false beliefs. — Bartricks

Don't put yourself down Bartricks. You can take humility too far.

Bartricks

↪bert1

I've defined God as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. Omnipresence is not a God-making property and seems positively incompatible with omnibenevolence as it would mean God watches us shower.
An omnipotent being has the ability to be omnipresent, but they would not exercise it.

dimosthenis9

↪Bartricks

So if I understood well, since you don't have enough proofs for the opposite, you do leave an open window as to you to be the actual God indeed aw??

Bartricks

↪dimosthenis9

Yes. It's not remotely reasonable to believe one is God. After all, my arguments apply to us all, and there are billions of us and only one God, so the odds are at least billions to one. But still, it can't be ruled out entirely.

dimosthenis9

After all, my arguments apply to us all, and there are billions of us and only one God, so the odds are at least billions to one. — Bartricks

So you are sure that God must definitely be one of us walking around somewhere on earth,"dressed up"like a human. So why not you to be that one? Ok. No further questions.

bert1

I've defined God as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. Omnipresence is not a God-making property and seems positively incompatible with omnibenevolence as it would mean God watches us shower.
An omnipotent being has the ability to be omnipresent, but they would not exercise it. — Bartricks

You can choose whatever omnis you like for your definition, of course. You prefer benevolence to presence, I was just wondering why. Is benevolence simply more traditional? Or you feel it is more consistent with the others? Seems to be that latter.

For me presence seems to be the most important one, and the one that generates the most difficulties if left out.

Bartricks

↪bert1

It's not a God making property. If I am omnipresent it does not follow that I am God, nor does a lack of it imply i am not God. Any number of persons can be omnipresent, but there is only one God and so on.
If you want you can insist that having red hair is the God making, but then you are simply using the term God to denote red headed people and are not using it as I am.

Bartricks

↪dimosthenis9

No, I did not say that. But I think that someone who thinks I did is not worth debating with as they will misunderstand every single thing i say.

Jack Cummins

↪Bartricks

I am not sure that what I am saying is part of your philosophy. However, many Christian believers may see Jesus as the son as God; as having the share with God, the Father, in the source of omniscient knowledge. This may miss the way in which everyone is a Son ot God. Carl Jung spoke of the image of God evolving through human consciousness and understanding, which may involve human beings as consciousness, perhaps in conjunction with Schopenhauer's understanding of human consciousness and will, as an interpretation of Kant's 'thing in itself', as the transcendent, which may be what is deemed as the absolute source, as God.

Bartricks

↪Outlander

No, I did not say that. I define omniscience as being in possession of all knowledge. Someone who is in possession of all knowledge is omniscient.
Possible knowledge is not actual knowledge. A possible murderer is not an actual murderer. These are not trivial differences.
I did not say that God changes the definitions. My point was that an omnipotent being will be the arbiter of knowledge for the presence or absence of a justification for a belief will rest in their hands. And thus their own attitudes determine what does and doesn't qualify as an item of knowledge. The definition of knowledge has not changed and nor has the definition of omniscience.

dimosthenis9

No, I did not say that — Bartricks

Yes. It's not remotely reasonable to believe one is God. After all, my arguments apply to us all, and there are billions of us and only one God, so the odds are at least billions to one. But still, it can't be ruled out entirely. — Bartricks

Bartricks

↪Jack Cummins

I have about 13 sachets of sugar in my coffee when I drink out and it causes problems as a mountain of spent paper cartridges builds up around my cup and it invariably draws comment. But I am not sure if that is relevant to this discussion.

Bartricks

↪dimosthenis9

Yes, what I said isn't what you attributed to me.

bert1

It's not a God making property. If I am omnipresent it does not follow that I am God, nor does a lack of it imply i am not God. Any number of persons can be omnipresent, but there is only one God and so on.
If you want you can insist that having red hair is the God making, but then you are simply using the term God to denote red headed people and are not using it as I am. — Bartricks

Oh, OK. You think omnipresence is neither necessary nor sufficient for God, but the other onmis are both necessary and sufficient? Is that your position?

Bartricks

↪bert1

Yes, my definition of God entails that. That's why I said right at the outset that by God I mean an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. It follows that to qualify as God you need those properties and that having those properties makes one God. All you needed to do was read my OP.

bert1

Yes, my definition of God entails that. That's why I said right at the outset that by God I mean an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. It follows that to qualify as God you need those properties and that having those properties makes one God. All you needed to do was read my OP. — Bartricks

Oh, but that's not right. I did read your OP. From this:

It's not a God making property. If I am omnipresent it does not follow that I am God, nor does a lack of it imply i am not God. Any number of persons can be omnipresent, but there is only one God and so on. — Bartricks

You are clearly saying it is not just a matter of arbitrary stipulation that God need not be omnipresent. You give reasons for its exclusion other than its not meeting your stipulated definition. Namely, that omnipresence is consistent with multiplicity, but God is one. But not according to your definition, which you are taking as primary! You didn't include uniqueness in your original stipulation.

Jack Cummins

↪Bartricks

I am a bit of a caffeine fan, not much of a sugar freak though, although I am having a glass of red wine as I speak. It may not be relevant to the discussion, except in terms of states of consciousness, and, perhaps, in making thinking about philosophy more intense and enjoyable.

Might I be God?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions