Well this kind of dogmatism is part of the problem with religion (in many ways especially Christianity).
In any event I, like Thomas Jefferson, admire the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus while having considerable doubts about his divinity. To many, of course, this means I am not a Christian, but I think following the teachings is more important than believing in God taking human form, and what one does in this life is more important than precisely what one believes..

Nothing I said was dogmatism; it was rationality. So, stop erroneously attacking my argument when you didn't even address it in that post.

And we weren't even discussing how one should lead their life. So, that was irrelevant.

I think to say there is just one God and He/she/it must be omnipotent and omniscient, is fairly dogmatic.
In any event I don't think this will be a productive conversation. Strange because I actually regard myself as a theist (and have strong religious inclinations) but who do dogmatic theists hate more than atheists? Other theists with competing religious views.

, you found us! Welcome to. And what the heck took you so long? :)

you found us! Welcome to. And what the heck took you so long? :) — jorndoe

I was lost/wandering in the wilderness. I can attest this is the best site (posters) after some experience elsewhere.

No, it's not dogmatic; its just a specific theistic belief. Polytheism can be dogmatic, and you're making it such by attacking my monotheistic argument.

No, it's not dogmatic; its just a specific theistic belief. Polytheism can be dogmatic, and you're making it such by attacking my monotheistic argument. — John Harris

You seem to be saying God must be omnipotent and omniscient and that any other conception is not God. You seem to be saying also that Jesus is God in the flesh and omnipotent and that other conceptions have to be in error. If you are saying something else please elaborate otherwise I find these proclamations, although orthodox, also dogmatic.

You seem to be saying God must be omnipotent and omniscient and that any other conception is not God. You seem to be saying also that Jesus is God in the flesh and omnipotent and that other conceptions have to be in error

I never said either of those things and you haven't shown I have. Try to stop straw-manning me and read my posts better.

If you are saying something else please elaborate otherwise I find these proclamations, although orthodox, also dogmatic.

You've just shown you read my posts poorly, so what you find is irrelevant and doesnt' matter to me.

Also, you didn't address my point. I know something about U- that U is logically possible. — Chany

Just because you know something is possible doesn't mean you know it in the general sense of the word ''knowledge''. Knowledge is a justified true belief. As you can see U isn't known to be true (it's only possible) and so doesn't count as knowledge or something known.

What's self-contradcictory about O? — Chany

O can't check all universes, which I've shown is infinite, for the existence of U. So, O is NOT omniscient. If U exists then O is not omniscient.

U is the assumption. O is a real possibility. We can both play this game — Michael

This can't be done because the possibility of U derives no contradiction. However the existence of O results in one.

Please read my OP.

It doesn't answer my question - at least I assume (and hope) your comment was a reply to my last comment of p1 and not the one on p2.

O can't check all universes, which I've shown is infinite, for the existence of U. So, O is NOT omniscient. If U exists then O is not omniscient.

O can do anything it wants, and it doesn't have to check infinite universe, for the existence of U, as it knows everything at all times and knows there is no U.

This can't be done because the possibility of U derives no contradiction. However the existence of O results in one. — TheMadFool

The existence of O doesn't result in a contradiction. Or at least you haven't presented an argument that it does. All you've shown is that the existence of O is incompatible with the possibility of U. But whereas you're asserting that U is possible and so O can't exist, I'm turning it around and asserting that O exists and so U can't be possible.

The basic point is that the possibility of U not deriving a contradiction isn't sufficient to assert that U is possible. Even if the possibility of U doesn't derive a contradiction, it might nonetheless be impossible – which it is if O exists. Therefore your assertion that U is possible begs the question by assuming that O doesn't exist.

Just because you know something is possible doesn't mean you know it in the general sense of the word ''knowledge''. Knowledge is a justified true belief. As you can see U isn't known to be true (it's only possible) and so doesn't count as knowledge or something known. — TheMadFool

Aside, your definition of knowledge is highly suspect. I'll roll with it for now.

Modal facts about possibility, contigency, necessity, and impossibility are facts.Take a unicorn, a horse-like being with human cognitive abilities, a horn on its head, and magical powers. Unicorns are logically possible, as they are concievable and not self-contradictory. To use possible world semantics, there exists a possible world in which unicorns exist. This possible world does not have to be the actual world. Unicorns may not be contigent (actual), but they are possible. From this, we can list a number of things about unicorns. Unicorns:

1) are horse-like beings.
2) have horns.
3) have human cognitive abilities.
4) have magical powers.
5) are logically possible.

All these statements are true, per how I defined unicorns. Just because something is logically possible does not mean we cannot have justified true beliefs about it. Onto U. Assume U is true. U:

1) is something about which nothing can be known.
2) logically possible.

The first statement is true by the definition provided. The second statement, according to you, is true because there is nothing self-defeating about U. Therefore, in the same way I know about unicorns, I know facts about U. I can add another fact to the list of facts about U. U:

3) is something about which something is known.

The third statement contradicts the first statement. Therefore, U is logically impossible, as U is self-contradictory.

O can't check all universes, which I've shown is infinite, for the existence of U. So, O is NOT omniscient. If U exists then O is not omniscient. — TheMadFool

If the omniscient being is similiar to God, then the being does not need to search for any true statement. The being just knows it all already.

U is self-contradictory. — Chany

U isn't self-contradictory. That's why you accepted it as a possibility. About possibility consider this: ''It'll rain tomorrow'' is a possibility but it isn't true. We're merely entertaining possibilities here. Truth comes later. Truth needs to be established with evidence.

However, U contradicts O. And O being the weaker assumption compared to U it becomes necessary to abandon O. Why is O weaker? Because the mere possibility of U is enough to contradict O. The converse isn't true because U can't check infinite universes.

The being just knows it all already. — Chany

Infinity can't be known like the number 2 or 3,000. It simply extends without end. Asking O to give us the largest natural number will elicit the response that no such number exists. So, there are limits to knowledge but that, in my opinion, doesn't devalue omniscience. It's simply the nature of infinity.

You don't read replies, do you?

You don't read replies, do you? — Chany

Sorry. Perhaps I misunderstood but...

1) Your claim that U is self-contradictory is false.

2) Infinity doesn't have an end. So I don't know what you mean by ''

The being just knows it all already — Chany

Can you clarify.

Also thanks for your criticism. I think it would be better to define U as something about which something can't be known instead of U = something about which nothing can be known. If you like we can go with definition viz. U2 = something about which something can't be known.

1) Your claim that U is self-contradictory is false. — TheMadFool

I provided an argument showing U is actually incoherent when you analyze it. Modal facts about logical possibility are facts. The statement "it is logically possible that it will rain tomorrow" can be true or false. "Unicorns are logically possible" can be true or false.

"U is logically possible" can be true or false. If this statement is false, then it is no threat to omniscience. If it is true, my argument shows it self-contradicts, as I know facts about U.

Can you clarify. — TheMadFool

God (under common definitions) cannot gain knowledge via learning. To do so would mean God did not know something at some point in time, meaning God was not omniscient at some point in time. God's knowledge is simply known. There was never a time when God had to work to access knowledge.

Also thanks for your criticism. I think it would be better to define U as something about which something can't be known instead of U = something about which nothing can be known. If you like we can go with definition viz. U2 = something about which something can't be known. — TheMadFool

If there is nothing, there is not something. They operate indentically. U2 is a rephrasing of U.

Infinity can't be known like the number 2 or 3,000. It simply extends without end. Asking O to give us the largest natural number will elicit the response that no such number exists. So, there are limits to knowledge but that, in my opinion, doesn't devalue omniscience. It's simply the nature of infinity. — TheMadFool

Knowing infinity and knowing an infinite amount of things are two completely different things. O can't know infinity as a number but infinity can logically speaking refer to an amount and O can possess an infinite amount of knowledge.

I provided an argument showing U is actually incoherent when you analyze it. Modal facts about logical possibility are facts. The statement "it is logically possible that it will rain tomorrow" can be true or false. "Unicorns are logically possible" can be true or false.

"U is logically possible" can be true or false. If this statement is false, then it is no threat to omniscience. If it is true, my argument shows it self-contradicts, as I know facts about U. — Chany

Thanks again for your valuable criticism. I offer you two options:

1. Let's change the definition of U as something about which something can't be known. If U is defined this way then O can't exist because either U exists or U does not. If U exists then there's something which O can't know. And O can never know that U doesn't exist because there are an infinite number of universes to check.

2. Let's stick to the original definition of U i.e. U = something about which nothing can be known. The only thing we know about U is that it is possible. I'll agree with you in that we do know that U is possible. So, it is a fact which is true. However I have a small problem with this counting as knowledge of U. Take for example the case of unicorns. Unicorns are logically possible. This is a fact and I admit we know it. However, in the general sense of the term "knowledge" it doesn't pass muster. From the fact that you know unicorns are possible can you describe any of its real properties? Take another example: We know angels are possible.. Does this count as knowledge of angels?

In essence, I'm drawing a distinction between knowledge of possibility and knowledge of existence. The former is meta-knowledge, if you will and the latter is what we actually refer to when we say knowledge is true justified belief.

U = a thing about which nothing can be known
U is possible because there's no contradiction in positing a U. So, it is possible for U to exist in one of the infinitely possible worlds (argument A) — TheMadFool

There are ineffable numbers.

Just look at Richard's paradox. The short of the story is that language expressions are countable, while real numbers are uncountable. Hence, there are real numbers that exist but cannot be expressed in language.

That obviously says something about the tool of language. It therefore says something about the users of the tool of language, i.e. humanity.

There exists ineffable knowledge.

This knowledge is not accessible if you are limited to using the tool of language, but not necessarily so, if you happen not to be subject to that limitation.

Omniscience and free will is mutually incompatible. So take your pick.

No they arent. Knowledge of what someone is going to choose to do doesnt effect whether or not they have a choice. If you think they have a choice to start with, someone else knowing what they will choose doesnt magically take that away.
For example, if offered vanilla or chocolate ice cream and I choose chocolate cuz I hate vanilla, thats my exercise of free will (if you believe we actually have it to start with). Foreknowledge doesnt change that, how would it (unless you share your foreknowledge with me and that effects my choice but then thats MY foreknowledge of my choice effecting things.)?

No they arent. Knowledge of what someone is going to choose to do doesnt effect whether or not they have a choice — DingoJones

Come again? If it is predetermined what you chose, how is it still a choice? Think!

You first lol
How about you address the rest of my post? The part you quoted is my claim, what follows is the reasoning for that claim. That reasoning is what you need to address.
My point is, knowledge of what someone is going to choose does not predetermine what they will choose. Its just knowledge of what they will choose.
Ill try another example.
If you come up to me and ask me for a cookie, and I know that you are sincere in your desire for me to give you a cookie, then I know you are going to take the cookie when I take it out of my cookie bag and offer it to you. I know you will take the cookie because you sincerely asked me for the cookie. You’ve still made the choice, i just knew what it was going to be.
The knowledge and the free will are not mutually exclusive, as you claimed.
Now, maybe you do not believe in free will in which case your initial statement makes no sense. Omniscience is mutually exclusive with something you dont think exists? That would be gibberish. (Im just covering the bases, im not saying you dont believe in free will but in case you dont’t...your statement is nonsense).

Argument A: Infinitely many possible universes
Let us take a mathematical variable x and assign to it values from the set of natural numbers {1, 2, 3,...}
For x = 1, one possible world exists. Let's call it A1. Now, x = 2 can't exist in A1 because that would entail the contradiction x = 1 and not x = 1 (where x = 2). So, x = 2 must be in another possible world A2, and so on, ad infinitum

Argument B: Omniscience is impossible
U = a thing about which nothing can be known
U is possible because there's no contradiction in positing a U. So, it is possible for U to exist in one of the infinitely possible worlds (argument A)

Imagine now an omniscient being O. What does O know about U?

Either such a thing as U exists or not.

If U exists then by definition nothing can be known about U. So, O is not omniscient because there exists something about which nothing can be known viz U.

O can't know U doesn't exist because there are an infinite number of universe O must check before O can determine the nonexistence of O. That's not possible because infinity has, by definition, no end. So, O is not omniscient.

Therefore, O, an omniscient being, cannot exist.

Is my argument sound? Is there a simpler proof for the nonexistence of an omniscient being? — TheMadFool

I actually agree with this. I guess the better way to put it is if the lady across the table is better than everyone else at chess and she consistently beats everybody including the big name software A.I. programs, i would imagine her winning streak will continue on for a very long time.

The most common way professional chess players win is through essentially memorizing millions of patterns on the board (and also knowing the game rules), and the much less used method is calculating a vast majority of the future patterns at crunch time. You don't have to know everything, you just have to run faster than the other guy being chased by the bear.

How about you address the rest of my post? The part you quoted is my claim, what follows is the reasoning for that claim. That reasoning is what you need to address. — DingoJones

The "reasoning for the claim" is a repetition of the same claim, not proof of any sort.
So again: Yes, me knowing what you are going to choose by definition means that what you going to chose is already determined, ergo no free will.

Are you restricted to a one paragraph reading limit? Respond to the rest of what I said. At least show you understand the analogy. Thats literally the least you could do and have it still be considered a discussion.

Are you restricted to a one paragraph reading limit? Respond to the rest of what I said. — DingoJones

The "rest of what you said" was:
For example, if offered vanilla or chocolate ice cream and I choose chocolate cuz I hate vanilla, thats my exercise of free will (if you believe we actually have it to start with). Foreknowledge doesnt change that, how would it (unless you share your foreknowledge with me and that effects my choice but then thats MY foreknowledge of my choice effecting things.)?

As I said, that is simply a re-statement of the claim, and not proof of anything. You san"Foreknowledge doesnt change that" and I say yes it does.

By the way, this question has been argued many times before (see Wikipedia entry on "argument from free will"), and I think you see which side I find convincing and which not. And trust me, others have presented your view better than you with your vanilla ice cream.