If ''god'' knows everything, does he know what he doesn't know?

Mors Victrix
Mors Victrix's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2010-09-17
User is offlineOffline
If ''god'' knows everything, does he know what he doesn't know?

''What can he/it not know if he/it knows everything?'' you may ask. Well why don't we ask the christian Bible...

In my experience it is assumed by many Christians that their ''god'' thingy knows everything. A study of the supposed word of the ''god'' thingy they believe in, will show that this assumption is without (their) scriptural foundation. The bible makes many simple statements that limit ''god'' thingys knowledge. I think there would be no sense to such passages if we take them figuratively. There would be no object in ''god'' thingys saying such things about him/itself if they were untrue.

''God'' thingy finds out things concerning the free moral actions and decisions of people just as we do (Gen. 6:5-7; 11:5-7; 18:19,21; 22:12; 2 Chron. 16:9; Zech. 4:10; Job 12:22; 24:23; Ps. 7:9; 44:21; Psa. 139:1-6; Pro. 24:12; Jer. 17:10; Ezek. 11:5; Rom. 8:27; 1 Thes. 2:4). Several times ''god'' thingy, him/itself, said of certain events that they did not even come into his/its mind (Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35; 44:21). ''God'' thingy did not know beforehand that men would become so wicked (Gen. 6:5-7); that they would plan Babel (Gen. 11:5-7); that Sodom would be so wicked (Gen. 18:21, 26, 28-32); that Abraham would actually proceed to offer up Isaac (Gen. 22:12). ''God'' thingy did not know whether it would take one or two or three signs to make Israel believe in him/it (Ex. 4:1-12); or whether testing Israel would cause them to obey him/it, or not (Dt. 8:2). He/it did not know that Israel would backslide as far as she did (Dt. 31:21; 32:19-29; Isa. 59:15-19). Furthermore, he/it searches to find men whom he/it can bless (2 Chron. 16:9); he/it discovers deep things (Job 12:22); tries the hearts and reins of men so that he/it may know them (Psa. 7:9; 26:2; 44:21; 139:1-6, 23-24; Jer. 17:10; 1 Chron. 28:9; 29:17; 2 Chron. 32:31; Rom. 8:27; 1 Cor. 2:10; 1 Thes. 2:4; Rev. 2:23), proving or testing men for the same reason (Ex. 16:4; 20:20; Dt. 8:2, 16; 13:3; Jud. 2:22; 3:1,4; Psa. 17:3; 66:10; 81:7).

''God'' thingy does not personally take care of every detail of his/its vast business in his/its Creation, universe, and kingdom. ''god'' thingy sends out messengers (i.e. ''angel'' thingys) throughout the Earth to find out for him/it what he/it wants to know, the same as the head of any other business would be likely to do, so that plans may be made and actions taken accordingly. They report to him/it constantly of all they are in charge of, as seen in Gen. 18:21-22; Dan. 10:13-21; 11:1; 12:1; Zech. 1:7-11; 6:1-8; Matt. 18:10-11; Heb. 1:14; 2:2; Rev. 1:1; 7:1-3; 8:2-13; 9:1; 14:6-20; 15:1-8; 16:1-21; 18:21; 22:6, 8-9, 16. His/its agents help him/it throughout the universe doing missions for him/it. ''Angel'' thingys are supposedly responsible to ''god'' thingy for carrying out his/its will in infinite detail concerning the billions of planets, stars, suns, etc. and among all the free moral agents (i.e. human beings, ''angel'' thingys, ''demon'' thingys) in the world. This ''god'' thingy does not personally do everything that is done in all acts and events, nor has he/it known, elected, chosen, or predestined all the acts and events from all eternity past.

The 6,468 commands in the Bible regulating man as to his part in the eternal plan of the ''god'' thingy, and setting forth his responsibility to ''god'' thingy and man, the 1,260 promises of curses and blessings, rewards or loss of rewards, the hundreds of warnings, curses, blessings and dealings of ''god'' thingy on the basis of conformity to his/its will, the 1,522 "if"s and the many hundreds of conditional requirements of ''god'' thingy throughout Scripture are sufficient proof that the ''god'' thingy does not cause all acts and events by his/its own decrees - and sufficient proof that he/it changes his/its own dealings with men, as they conform or refuse to conform to his/its will. Such facts and many others make it clear that ''god'' thingy does not know from all eternity what any one man will do, much less what different types and dispositions of men will do under various circumstances that are not yet present to deal with.

The English dictionary says to “know” is “to perceive or understand as fact or truth or apprehend with clearness or certainty, to be cognizant, aware, acquainted with a thing or person through sight, experience, observation or report”. The Greek lexicon basically says the same thing.

''God'' thingy sovereignly determined to give us free will to make our own moral choices, and the ''god'' thingy could not “know” what choices we would make until he/it could “perceive or become acquainted with that person through sight, experience, observation or report”. He/it has to do it the same way we do. ''God'' thingy cannot know all things unless there is predictability involved… either because the events are governed by laws (like how the universe operates) or because he/it wills to do something himself or have it work a certain way (i.e. prophecy)...or because he/it observes it. Giving freewill to people prevents the predictability in them that even a ''god'' thingy needs in order to know a future event regarding the choices they will make until he/it sees a pattern in their behavior with which he/it might predict what they will do. To this the many scriptures you have read above attest to.

We have no statement in the entire Bible saying that the ''god'' thingy knows or even would like to know all acts and particular events of all vast creations of free moral agents from all eternity past; or that he/it has fixed decrees choosing and predestinating all the thoughts, acts, and deeds of free wills from all eternity past to all eternity future.

''God'' thingy's eternal plan for man is known from the beginning to the end and what he/it plans to bring to pass on Earth he/it has power to do, but concerning the free actions of free moral agents he/it does not know from all eternity what they will do before they are in existence and are here to have a part in his/its plan. He/it does not know which ones will be saved and which ones will be lost. He/it has made a plan for all to be saved alike and all who conform to his/its plan are blessed with the predestined blessings. Those who willfully rebel will be cursed with the predestined punishments according to the plan. It is the plan that is known from the beginning to the end, not the individual conformity to it by free moral agents. It is left up to each person to choose his/its own destiny. ''God'' thingy wills all men to be saved but if man does not choose to be saved that is his responsibility (Lk. 19:10; Jn. 3:16; 12:32; Rom. 5:11; 1 Tim. 2:1,4; 4:10; Titus 2:11; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 John 2:2; Rev. 22:17).

p.s.: I have read the bible, but I still have no clue what this ''god'' thingy is supposed to be anyway. Can anyone help? All I need is an explanation of the word in such a way, it has some relation to reality, has a referent, describes some objective feature of the world we live in, or something along the lines of that. Also, sorry for the potential spelling or grammar mistakes, I'm not from an english speaking country.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Mors Victrix wrote:p.s.: I

Mors Victrix wrote:

p.s.: I have read the bible, but I still have no clue what this ''god'' thingy is supposed to be anyway.

It's a tool to manipulate the young, the powerless and the weak to control their behaviors in ways that benefit those that push the religion. For the leaders, 'god' is just whatever is convenient.

Mors Victrix wrote:

Can anyone help? All I need is an explanation of the word in such a way, it has some relation to reality, has a referent, describes some objective feature of the world we live in, or something along the lines of that.

It is deliberately made vague, because if people know too much, everyone would see it makes no sense. All one needs to know is that god is all powerful, all knowing so it can achieve maximum manipulation.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Mors Victrix
Mors Victrix's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2010-09-17
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: It's a tool to

EXC wrote:
It's a tool to manipulate the young, the powerless and the weak to control their behaviors in ways that benefit those that push the religion. For the leaders, 'god' is just whatever is convenient.

I would agree it is when we are talking about organised religion, but there are people who have personal beliefs and personal ''god'' thingys (by the way, I'm taking a noncognitivist position in my first post, this is why I use such ''expressions''), so there's probably more to it. I think it has a lot to do with a the individuals inability or averseness to face certain cruel facts of reality. The trauma of the real if you will. I was thinking a lot about this myself though, and believing something just because it sounds nice is one thing, but wasting your life for a false belief that sounds nice is just scary to me. You waste a great part of your one and only life, just because your can't accept the cruel facts of reality. But by doing so your reality is actually even more cruel, not less, you are just not facing it too see it...

If I look at the christian religion for example, to me it is one of the scariest religions, because you are born a sinner and it is in fact almost impossible to live your life in this modern world without being a sinner (according to it). So you go to churh, feel guilty, repent, and you don't enjoy your life as much as you could. Not to mention the time you spend on it, when you could do something else, something that would enrich your life and make it more enjoyable. The whole religion, the way I see it (no offence intended to christians), is one giant guilt trip, based on veneration of martyrdom instead of life, and the joys you can/could experience on this short trip to nothingness.

If you know it's your one and only life, you know living it to the fullest is the only right thing to do. Life without afterlife gains in worth, becomes the most precious thing you or anyone - anything has. This means you also know killing someone, something, or yourself, is the most terrible and irrational decision you could make (unless it's to protect your own life that is).
 

EXC wrote:
It is deliberately made vague, because if people know too much, everyone would see it makes no sense. All one needs to know is that god is all powerful, all knowing so it can achieve maximum manipulation.

I agree, if one has at least basic understanding about human suggestibility, how manipulation, hypnosis and neuro linguistic programming works, about the basic understanding of the nature of human hypnotic states, one can find many parallels between that knowledge and religious services and rituals, the repetition involved in such processes (suggestions). That and the dogmatic, authoritative and threatening principles with which they force you to take part of such brainwashing a process.


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
The God "thingy" would

The God "thingy" would punish you for questioning him


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
This is the same old spin on

This is the same old spin on "Can god make a boulder so big even he couldn't lift it"

But let me put a spin on the OP, because I think this road taken in the OP is even a better example.

If someone claims that god is "all powerful" then the ability to be ignorant of something has to fall under the word "all" by proxy of definition.

So god has to be capable of knowing everything and being ignorant of everything at the same time, otherwise once you set a limit on the word "all" you have ceased to fit the word, by definition.

"all" is an absurd concept because even in science you don't get 100% input producing 100% output. No god can ever make a perpetual motion machine because like god, such a machine is an absurd concept.

The cop out arguments have been "he can do what he wants" and "god said he wouldn't do that". Which are both naked assertions which have nothing to do with what we ask here which is about ABILITY.

So if god exists it has to have the "all powerful" power to contradict himself. He has to have the ability to be evil.

What makes much more sense is that humans project human behaviors on their wishful thinking and call it god while ignoring the harm the belief in the concept itself has on logic and reason.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Mors Victrix
Mors Victrix's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2010-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Re: Brian37

Brian37 wrote:
This is the same old spin on "Can god make a boulder so big even he couldn't lift it"

Ermm... no, not quite, because I am proving god doesn't know everything according to the christian holy scritpture (I could do the same with him being all-powerful, all-good or all-loving), and not that he can't know everything, which is the only possibility according to logic and gibberish according to noncognitivism, and also to me to a certain degree (depends on how you imagine/define certain elements of the OP). This way we exclude any possible counterargument from metaphysics and irrationalism. Laughing out loud

 

Brian37 wrote:
But let me put a spin on the OP, because I think this road taken in the OP is even a better example.

If someone claims that god is "all powerful" then the ability to be ignorant of something has to fall under the word "all" by proxy of definition.

So god has to be capable of knowing everything and being ignorant of everything at the same time, otherwise once you set a limit on the word "all" you have ceased to fit the word, by definition.

Also, even if he was ignorant at the same time as knowing (...), he would still be knowing, so this would make him a liar (sin = evil) everytime he would show lack of knowledge about something without the knowledge of that same something (...). lol

 

Brian37 wrote:
"all" is an absurd concept because even in science you don't get 100% input producing 100% output. No god can ever make a perpetual motion machine because like god, such a machine is an absurd concept.

I would agree to a certain degree. This is why I chose a (semi) noncognitivist stance to this problem. The 'all' can be used only when talking about infinity (of anything), in math for example. It's an abstract idea that scientific empirical methodology could never prove even if it existed, because of infinite regress. One might argue though, that lack of proof because of our inability, is not proof of it not existing. You can counter such an argument only with: ''It's not proof for it's existance either.'' or "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.'' as far as I know.

 

Brian37 wrote:
The cop out arguments have been "he can do what he wants" and "god said he wouldn't do that". Which are both naked assertions which have nothing to do with what we ask here which is about ABILITY.

So if god exists it has to have the "all powerful" power to contradict himself. He has to have the ability to be evil.

Two possible couterarguments as I see it. The first is, I for example also have the possibility of killing people, but that doesn't mean I am a killer or will ever kill anyone. The second one would be that the supposed ''god'' thingy is the one who dictates what is wrong and what is right, so I guess he could make whatever rules he wants about right or wrong, for example the rulles he set could be made only for mortal men and not him (a double standard). I think it is when one adds the ''all-loving'' quality to god, then you can make a good argument against god - problem of evil (you most probably know the argument, but just in case someone doesn't). It is as Epicurus once said: ''Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?'' Click. ^^

 

Brian37 wrote:
What makes much more sense is that humans project human behaviors on their wishful thinking and call it god while ignoring the harm the belief in the concept itself has on logic and reason.

 

I agree, the concept ''god'' has no reference in reality and thus is just fiction untill proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on their side (theists) and they have failed miserably. If one would for a second consider that god exists and then consider the ''relationship'' between us atheists and their ''god'', how we deny him/it only because of the lack of good evidence, I think it is quite clear the burden of proof would be on their ''god'' thingys side and again not ours... If he/it exists, then he/it (according to the abrahamic religions) wants us to burn in hell for not accepting blind or feigned faith, dogmatism, subordinating to religious authoritys and having the luck (if you don't consider it his plan) of being born in a family/society that worships the supposed true deity.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I have yet to see anyone

I have yet to see anyone come up with a credible counter to Epicurus. It is a rock solid criticism to claiming all powerful and all loving as claimed attributes.

The omni- concept of a deity is logically absurd and morally bankrupt.

But I take issue with anyone who says that the omni god cannot be debunked. It is not a matter of the burden being on the skeptic, as I said before, the burden is on the claimant. It is that now that we know biology and science and the human brain are, to suggest a immaterial, invisible magical super dad in the sky, with no body, no brain, no cerebellum, no neurons, should put such an absurd claim in the comic book section where it belongs.

Since history is full of humans believing false things,  mundane human psychology explains why people believe absurd things. Wrapping these claims up in elaborate ornate packaging doesn't change that what is inside the box is still mere junk.

I will not hesitate in the least to say that there is no god/deity/super natural. These are merely the projections of humans of their own human qualities on the wish that a super hero exists.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I don't want

 

some omniprescient god sizing up my thingy.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Mors Victrix
Mors Victrix's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2010-09-17
User is offlineOffline
B the way.. where are the theists? xD

Brian37 wrote:

I have yet to see anyone come up with a credible counter to Epicurus. It is a rock solid criticism to claiming all powerful and all loving as claimed attributes.

The omni- concept of a deity is logically absurd and morally bankrupt.

But I take issue with anyone who says that the omni god cannot be debunked. It is not a matter of the burden being on the skeptic, as I said before, the burden is on the claimant. It is that now that we know biology and science and the human brain are, to suggest a immaterial, invisible magical super dad in the sky, with no body, no brain, no cerebellum, no neurons, should put such an absurd claim in the comic book section where it belongs.

Since history is full of humans believing false things,  mundane human psychology explains why people believe absurd things. Wrapping these claims up in elaborate ornate packaging doesn't change that what is inside the box is still mere junk.

I will not hesitate in the least to say that there is no god/deity/super natural. These are merely the projections of humans of their own human qualities on the wish that a super hero exists.

I agree. I mean, there are possible good arguments for a possibility of something beyond the scope of science and the reality as we know it (theists often use such arguments, the uncaused cause argument for example), but they are all pointless, because none of them prove a god, much less the one they believe in. It's all a form of flawed logic: if science doesn't have the answer - ergo 'god'- an a priori claim, a 'god' of the gaps. That, or ignoring the burden of proof and saying we are the ones who have to prove god doesn't exist. Asking us atheist to disprove their gods existence is the same as if the creator of the comic character superman challenged us to prove his superman actually doesn't exist. There are many indications for non existence of both, but to give empirical, verifiable evidence for this would simply be impossible, for the same reasons and in the same way.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
I don't want some omniprescient god sizing up my thingy

lol xD

 

By the way guys... are there any theists here one can actually have an intelligent discussion? I often wisit atheist forums on facebook, but most of the theists there are just ignorant trolls. Smiling


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I am all for humans

I am all for humans expanding our current knowledge of biology and the universe. But the idea of a brain with no brain is merely a relic of the past based on human ignorance. Simple human psychology explains why people believe false things. God/s/dieties/supernatural are merely gap answers humans invent to placate their own emotions. It is mere superstition, a placebo humans make up because we haven't evolved to put our emotions in check. Protecting the ego is the norm for our species, not introspection.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Mors Victrix
Mors Victrix's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2010-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Brain with no brain - did I understand the argument correctly?

Brian37 wrote:

I am all for humans expanding our current knowledge of biology and the universe. But the idea of a brain with no brain is merely a relic of the past based on human ignorance. Simple human psychology explains why people believe false things. God/s/dieties/supernatural are merely gap answers humans invent to placate their own emotions. It is mere superstition, a placebo humans make up because we haven't evolved to put our emotions in check. Protecting the ego is the norm for our species, not introspection.

Why a brain with no brain? Sorry, don't get the argument, a theist said that? I usually hear them talk of spirits (I ask them if they believe in ghosts, what proof they have for 'spirits' existing etc.) and of 'god' being somekind of synonym for love (a simple neurology lesson and it's refuted) etc. Hmmm. Psychology and cybernetics do talk of AI, but that's different, because it's material. Cognitive science views the brain as a processor and the machine is no monolith. It is made up of many modules designed for specific purposes. As Pinker puts it, the brain  ''is a system of organs of computation, designed by natural selection to solve the kinds of problems our ancestors faced in their foraging way of life, in particular, understanding and outmaneuvering objects, animals, plants, and other people. . . . On this view, psychology is engineering in reverse. In forward-engineering [what evolution did when it created the brain], one designs a machine to do something; in reverse-engineering, one figures out what a machine was designed to do.''. So I guess a 'spirit', if it existed, would have to be without a brain. lol

 

In a way this is probably similar to my argument against the soul. The argument being that science proved our personality = we, is a ''product'' of the brain. Trauma to the brain causes change in the personality. Different drugs can also cause change in the brain chemistry and again you have change in personality. So this is proof enough that we are our brain and when we die, the brain stops working and even if something is left to leave the body, then it most probably isn't us...

My second argument concernig the soul is linked to the experiment where it was proven that the body right after death looses weight (I don't know if you heard of it, but many people use it as an argument for the soul). If we accept the body looses weight because of the soul, then the soul is material or energy. We know it can't be material and I never heard of any good explanation how energy transformed into and lost as thermal energy (heat from your dead body), could take with it your personality (for example). Really doesn't make sense.

Some people say it's consciousness, but even consciousness requires a brain and a nervous system (or something along those lines). With the breakdown of that system comes the breakdown of consciousness as well. Both, personality and consciousness are the process taking place which involves also energy. But electrical impulses and thermal energy are not, in and of themselves consciousness or personality. Otherwise you could simply electrocute a pot of boiling water and say that you had created a mind. Smiling

The most probable explanation of the resaults of the mentioned experiment is in my oppinion energy and moist from the body ''released'' with the dying pearsons last breath.

Some interesting philosophy on the subject:
http://academicearth.org/courses/death
http://www.ghostweb.com/soul.html

Lol, I just realised that I probably answered my own question, which was the reason for even posting a reply. Sorry. Though I'm still not 100% sure I got it right. Anyway, you seem to be quite knowledgeable about psychology Brian, do you study it by any chance?


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
God is some ancient hippie

God is some ancient hippie in the sky. I don't think he bathes regularly and he can't make a sandwich for shit.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


William N Clarke (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm an idiot.

I'm an idiot.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Why a brain with no

Quote:
Why a brain with no brain? Sorry, don't get the argument, a theist said that?

They don't have to.

That is what they refuse to accept that they are postulating.

If not a physical being with a brain, then what would a god think with? If it is immaterial then it can't have a brain, then it is not capable of thought. If it does have a brain, then it has to be material. Where is this "super brain's" location?
 

All you get from believers is that this "thing" is immaterial and has no physical location that resides everywhere and nowhere at the same time. The believer has to wallow in ambiguity in order to keep moving the goal posts.

If this alleged god doesn't have a physical brain, then what does it think with? Especially when it has no physical body or physical organs, much less a brain.

The point being there is no god, never was. Human beings make up gods.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
I wonder if god really knows

I wonder if god really knows that he is more powerful than Satan. I mean why let this guy hang around for so long? I mean take him out already. God must have his doubts.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Some one needs to fly spray

 

William N. Clarke.