GOD NEVER BECOMES FULLY IGNORANT

[Gary Childress]

Sorry, I've had it with humans trying to explain God. Let's all pretend we're agnostic and HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON BEYOND THIS WORLD!!! At least then theists will be honest for the first time in their lives.

[LuckyR]

Sorry, I've had it with humans trying to explain God. Let's all pretend we're agnostic and HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON BEYOND THIS WORLD!!! At least then theists will be honest for the first time in their lives.

I completely disagree. Since gods exist inter-subjectively, but not objectively, humans are exactly the entity to define what constitutes their creations, including the intricacies of their details.

[Gary Childress]

Sorry, I've had it with humans trying to explain God. Let's all pretend we're agnostic and HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON BEYOND THIS WORLD!!! At least then theists will be honest for the first time in their lives.

I completely disagree.

Then you're a moron. My final word on the matter. Do what you do best and go speculate on the unknowable if that floats your boat. Maybe you can get a better price on eggs than the "unholy" if you wear a halo to the market on Sundays?

[LuckyR]

Sorry, I've had it with humans trying to explain God. Let's all pretend we're agnostic and HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON BEYOND THIS WORLD!!! At least then theists will be honest for the first time in their lives.

I completely disagree.

Then you're a moron. My final word on the matter. Do what you do best and go speculate on the unknowable if that floats your boat. Maybe you can get a better price on eggs than the "unholy" if you wear a halo to the market on Sundays?

I guess in some circles bravado passes for logic. Sounds like you probably kick serious butt on the middle school playground.

Since I stipulated that gods don't exist objectively, your halo comment makes no sense.

[Gary Childress]

I completely disagree.

Then you're a moron. My final word on the matter. Do what you do best and go speculate on the unknowable if that floats your boat. Maybe you can get a better price on eggs than the "unholy" if you wear a halo to the market on Sundays?

I guess in some circles bravado passes for logic. Sounds like you probably kick serious butt on the middle school playground.

Since I stipulated that gods don't exist objectively, your halo comment makes no sense.

Fair enough. Since you intend to discuss what is unknowable to us, then how do you know that no gods "exist objectively"?

[rootseeker]

But NOT 'if' 'it' IS True.

Which 'it' IS.

Therefore, the 'if' word WAS UNNECESSARY in 'your sentence'. Although, and OBVIOUSLY, FROM 'your perspective' 'you' ARE STILL UNAWARE OF what IS ACTUALLY True AND Right here, correct?


Which IS GREAT.

BUT, ONCE one ALREADY KNOWS the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth, then 'they' CAN, obviously, NARROW 'things' down, somewhat.

But writing FROM the ABSOLUTE Truth, FROM 'one's OWN perspective anyway', which does NOT DISAGREE WITH ANY one "else's" perspective, like 'you' did there, is GREAT TO SEE, as 'it' VERY RARELY HAPPENS and OCCURS here, in this forum. I was just ASKING A CLARIFYING QUESTION in regards to what 'you' SAID, and WROTE. Which you ALSO ANSWERED VERY Honestly, and which I THANK you FOR AS WELL.

I believe God is omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful) in the universe in which we reside.

Okay. But WHAT 'Thing/s', EXACTLY, could be 'omniscient' AND 'omnipotent'?

Which, by the way, the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE ANSWER TO IS ALREADY KNOWN. But we are JUST WAITING TO SEE IF 'you' KNOW, AS WELL.

Also, how MANY 'Universes' do you think or IMAGINE there IS, EXACTLY?

However, I do not claim any knowledge of whether or not there are truly (and completely in every way) disconnected universes to which even God does not interact with.

So, if you do NOT have ANY knowledge about such 'things', then WHY even bring 'them' up and talk about 'them'?

But I also don't suppose to seek any knowledge regarding an entirely disconnected entity anyways, so do not care to believe one way or another regarding such theoretical universes.

Do you REALIZE that you were the ONLY one who INTRODUCED and BROUGHT UP DIFFERENT 'universes?'

Either way, what even FOR, EXACTLY?

The type of thing(s) that could be omniscient and omnipotent depend on the definition of thing. If the definition of thing includes person, then only people could be omniscient and omnipotent. Only a being external to a world as an independent observer could be omniscient and omnipotent. A virtual world computer programmer would be a metaphor to describe the situation. The virtual world programmer is omniscient and omnipotent over the video game world. The number of universes I imagine there to be is between two and a Googolplex, but my confidence of that interval is very low. I brought it up this different but related topic because you asked about omniscience. The number of universes is relevant to any being claiming omniscience. If a being claims to be omniscient, but lacks knowledge of fully and completely disconnected universe(s) then they have only relative omniscience rather than absolute omniscience.

[Gary Childress]

I believe God is omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful) in the universe in which we reside.

Okay. But WHAT 'Thing/s', EXACTLY, could be 'omniscient' AND 'omnipotent'?

Which, by the way, the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE ANSWER TO IS ALREADY KNOWN. But we are JUST WAITING TO SEE IF 'you' KNOW, AS WELL.

Also, how MANY 'Universes' do you think or IMAGINE there IS, EXACTLY?

However, I do not claim any knowledge of whether or not there are truly (and completely in every way) disconnected universes to which even God does not interact with.

So, if you do NOT have ANY knowledge about such 'things', then WHY even bring 'them' up and talk about 'them'?

But I also don't suppose to seek any knowledge regarding an entirely disconnected entity anyways, so do not care to believe one way or another regarding such theoretical universes.

Do you REALIZE that you were the ONLY one who INTRODUCED and BROUGHT UP DIFFERENT 'universes?'

Either way, what even FOR, EXACTLY?

The type of thing(s) that could be omniscient and omnipotent depend on the definition of thing. If the definition of thing includes person, then only people could be omniscient and omnipotent. Only a being external to a world as an independent observer could be omniscient and omnipotent.

Why do you say, "If the definition of thing includes person, then only people could be omniscient and omnipotent." Why do you say that if people are INCLUDED in the category omniscient and omnipotent, then ONLY they can be so? Doesn't it depend logically on what else is "included" in the category? For example, if people (P) and widgebobs (W) are both "included" in the category "omniscient and omnipotent" then wouldn't it be the case that BOTH P and W are "omniscient and omnipotent". If you say people are "included" in that category, then what else do you suggest is included along with people or do you mean to say that only people are included in that category? Or do you wish to say that NO people are included in that category?

[LuckyR]

Then you're a moron. My final word on the matter. Do what you do best and go speculate on the unknowable if that floats your boat. Maybe you can get a better price on eggs than the "unholy" if you wear a halo to the market on Sundays?

I guess in some circles bravado passes for logic. Sounds like you probably kick serious butt on the middle school playground.

Since I stipulated that gods don't exist objectively, your halo comment makes no sense.

Fair enough. Since you intend to discuss what is unknowable to us, then how do you know that no gods "exist objectively"?

Uummm... because metaphysical entities aren't physical. Does the value of a dollar exist objectively? Does Germany exist objectively?

Hint: they're all inter-subjective entities.

[Gary Childress]

I guess in some circles bravado passes for logic. Sounds like you probably kick serious butt on the middle school playground.

Since I stipulated that gods don't exist objectively, your halo comment makes no sense.

Fair enough. Since you intend to discuss what is unknowable to us, then how do you know that no gods "exist objectively"?

Uummm... because metaphysical entities aren't physical. Does the value of a dollar exist objectively? Does Germany exist objectively?

Hint: they're all inter-subjective entities.

You have a different definition of "subjective" and "objective", then. My idea of "objective" is a God that is impartial and doesn't play favorites and who is entirely INDEPENDENT of human beings ("objective"). I admit it could be that God really does pick "chosen" people. But I don't think that would be a very fair or impressive designer of the entire universe. But, of course, I could be wrong. Maybe the God you imagine is The One True God or whatever you fancy the case to be.

[LuckyR]

Fair enough. Since you intend to discuss what is unknowable to us, then how do you know that no gods "exist objectively"?

Uummm... because metaphysical entities aren't physical. Does the value of a dollar exist objectively? Does Germany exist objectively?

Hint: they're all inter-subjective entities.

You have a different definition of "subjective" and "objective", then. My idea of "objective" is a God that is impartial and doesn't play favorites and who is entirely INDEPENDENT of human beings ("objective"). I admit it could be that God really does pick "chosen" people. But I don't think that would be a very fair or impressive designer of the entire universe. But, of course, I could be wrong. Maybe the God you imagine is The One True God or whatever you fancy the case to be.

I guess you're right.

You are free to (inter-subjectively) choose to create gods that act any which way, including the exact way you describe. Of course, others can and will create gods that act very differently to your choice. I have no particular preference of one over the other.

My point is that while some may choose to imagine gods that are beyond imagination, it is very common (and superficially logical) for humans as the inventors of gods, to expect to be able dictate the details of their creations.

Oh and BTW, "inter-subjective" is not equivalent to "subjective". I'm not implying that you didn't know that already.

[Age]

I believe God is omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful) in the universe in which we reside.

Okay. But WHAT 'Thing/s', EXACTLY, could be 'omniscient' AND 'omnipotent'?

Which, by the way, the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE ANSWER TO IS ALREADY KNOWN. But we are JUST WAITING TO SEE IF 'you' KNOW, AS WELL.

Also, how MANY 'Universes' do you think or IMAGINE there IS, EXACTLY?

However, I do not claim any knowledge of whether or not there are truly (and completely in every way) disconnected universes to which even God does not interact with.

So, if you do NOT have ANY knowledge about such 'things', then WHY even bring 'them' up and talk about 'them'?

But I also don't suppose to seek any knowledge regarding an entirely disconnected entity anyways, so do not care to believe one way or another regarding such theoretical universes.

Do you REALIZE that you were the ONLY one who INTRODUCED and BROUGHT UP DIFFERENT 'universes?'

Either way, what even FOR, EXACTLY?

The type of thing(s) that could be omniscient and omnipotent depend on the definition of thing.

There is only One 'Thing' that could be, and ACTUALLY IS, 'omniscient' and/or 'omnipotent'.

And, WHY do you say and claim what you do here? What has the definition of the word 'thing' got to do with absolutely ANY 'thing' here?

If the definition of thing includes person, then only people could be omniscient and omnipotent.

1. The word 'thing' refers to ALL, and EVERY,which obviously includes ANY and ALL 'persons'.

2. WHY did you SAY, and then CLAIM, what you did here?

From my perspective, just because 'you', a 'person', IS 'a thing', then 'this' in NO way means 'people' ARE 'omniscient' NOR 'omnipotent' AT ALL.

Only a being external to a world as an independent observer could be omniscient and omnipotent.

When you say, 'a world', here are you talking of places like, 'wally world', 'disney world, or the 'earth world' for example, or are you talking about the 'Universe', Itself?

Because there can NOT be an 'independent observer' 'external' to the last one. And,

An 'external' to the other three 'world's' 'independent observer', by itself, would NEVER necessarily mean that 'that one' could be 'omniscient' NOR 'omnipotent' AT ALL

A virtual world computer programmer would be a metaphor to describe the situation. The virtual world programmer is omniscient and omnipotent over the video game world.

Maybe, or maybe NOT.

The number of universes I imagine there to be is between two and a Googolplex, but my confidence of that interval is very low.

Well considering what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, what you IMAGINE is WAY OFF.

I brought it up this different but related topic because you asked about omniscience. The number of universes is relevant to any being claiming omniscience. If a being claims to be omniscient, but lacks knowledge of fully and completely disconnected universe(s) then they have only relative omniscience rather than absolute omniscience.

LOL,

So, you IMAGINE that there is more than One Universe, and BELIEVE that ANY 'omniscient' 'being/thing' WOULD HAVE TO BE existing OUTSIDE, YET BOTH ARE IMPOSSIBLE, TO EXIST.

[Gary Childress]

Uummm... because metaphysical entities aren't physical. Does the value of a dollar exist objectively? Does Germany exist objectively?

Hint: they're all inter-subjective entities.

You have a different definition of "subjective" and "objective", then. My idea of "objective" is a God that is impartial and doesn't play favorites and who is entirely INDEPENDENT of human beings ("objective"). I admit it could be that God really does pick "chosen" people. But I don't think that would be a very fair or impressive designer of the entire universe. But, of course, I could be wrong. Maybe the God you imagine is The One True God or whatever you fancy the case to be.

I guess you're right.

You are free to (inter-subjectively) choose to create gods that act any which way, including the exact way you describe. Of course, others can and will create gods that act very differently to your choice. I have no particular preference of one over the other.

My point is that while some may choose to imagine gods that are beyond imagination, it is very common (and superficially logical) for humans as the inventors of gods, to expect to be able dictate the details of their creations.

Oh and BTW, "inter-subjective" is not equivalent to "subjective". I'm not implying that you didn't know that already.

I am not "free". I am bound to my commitment to do what is the right thing to do.

[rootseeker]

Okay. But WHAT 'Thing/s', EXACTLY, could be 'omniscient' AND 'omnipotent'?

Which, by the way, the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE ANSWER TO IS ALREADY KNOWN. But we are JUST WAITING TO SEE IF 'you' KNOW, AS WELL.

Also, how MANY 'Universes' do you think or IMAGINE there IS, EXACTLY?


So, if you do NOT have ANY knowledge about such 'things', then WHY even bring 'them' up and talk about 'them'?


Do you REALIZE that you were the ONLY one who INTRODUCED and BROUGHT UP DIFFERENT 'universes?'

Either way, what even FOR, EXACTLY?

The type of thing(s) that could be omniscient and omnipotent depend on the definition of thing. If the definition of thing includes person, then only people could be omniscient and omnipotent. Only a being external to a world as an independent observer could be omniscient and omnipotent.

Why do you say, "If the definition of thing includes person, then only people could be omniscient and omnipotent." Why do you say that if people are INCLUDED in the category omniscient and omnipotent, then ONLY they can be so? Doesn't it depend logically on what else is "included" in the category? For example, if people (P) and widgebobs (W) are both "included" in the category "omniscient and omnipotent" then wouldn't it be the case that BOTH P and W are "omniscient and omnipotent". If you say people are "included" in that category, then what else do you suggest is included along with people or do you mean to say that only people are included in that category? Or do you wish to say that NO people are included in that category?

Sometimes when someone says the word "thing", they are implying exclusion of people from their reference. If you do a web search for "people are not things" in quotes, you'd find plenty of circumstances in which that is the case. I avoid guessing which people are using that definition in a philosophy discussion.

Omniscience means all-knowing. Knowing requires sentience. Sentience means being a person. Therefore all omniscient "things" as entities are people.

Omnipotence means all-powerful. All powerful includes the ability to pass a sentience test. Being sentient means being a person. Therefore all omnipotent entities as "things" are people.

[Gary Childress]

The type of thing(s) that could be omniscient and omnipotent depend on the definition of thing. If the definition of thing includes person, then only people could be omniscient and omnipotent. Only a being external to a world as an independent observer could be omniscient and omnipotent.

Why do you say, "If the definition of thing includes person, then only people could be omniscient and omnipotent." Why do you say that if people are INCLUDED in the category omniscient and omnipotent, then ONLY they can be so? Doesn't it depend logically on what else is "included" in the category? For example, if people (P) and widgebobs (W) are both "included" in the category "omniscient and omnipotent" then wouldn't it be the case that BOTH P and W are "omniscient and omnipotent". If you say people are "included" in that category, then what else do you suggest is included along with people or do you mean to say that only people are included in that category? Or do you wish to say that NO people are included in that category?

Sometimes when someone says the word "thing", they are implying exclusion of people from their reference. If you do a web search for "people are not things" in quotes, you'd find plenty of circumstances in which that is the case. I avoid guessing which people are using that definition in a philosophy discussion.

Omniscience means all-knowing. Knowing requires sentience. Sentience means being a person. Therefore all omniscient "things" as entities are people.

Omnipotence means all-powerful. All powerful includes the ability to pass a sentience test. Being sentient means being a person. Therefore all omnipotent entities as "things" are people.

So you are saying that people are all-powerful and all-knowing? Can you point to any of these all-powerful and all-knowing people? Perhaps name a few?

If there is a God, does that therefore make God a "person"?

[rootseeker]

Okay. But WHAT 'Thing/s', EXACTLY, could be 'omniscient' AND 'omnipotent'?

Which, by the way, the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE ANSWER TO IS ALREADY KNOWN. But we are JUST WAITING TO SEE IF 'you' KNOW, AS WELL.

Also, how MANY 'Universes' do you think or IMAGINE there IS, EXACTLY?


So, if you do NOT have ANY knowledge about such 'things', then WHY even bring 'them' up and talk about 'them'?


Do you REALIZE that you were the ONLY one who INTRODUCED and BROUGHT UP DIFFERENT 'universes?'

Either way, what even FOR, EXACTLY?

The type of thing(s) that could be omniscient and omnipotent depend on the definition of thing.

There is only One 'Thing' that could be, and ACTUALLY IS, 'omniscient' and/or 'omnipotent'.

And, WHY do you say and claim what you do here? What has the definition of the word 'thing' got to do with absolutely ANY 'thing' here?

If the definition of thing includes person, then only people could be omniscient and omnipotent.

1. The word 'thing' refers to ALL, and EVERY,which obviously includes ANY and ALL 'persons'.

2. WHY did you SAY, and then CLAIM, what you did here?

From my perspective, just because 'you', a 'person', IS 'a thing', then 'this' in NO way means 'people' ARE 'omniscient' NOR 'omnipotent' AT ALL.

Only a being external to a world as an independent observer could be omniscient and omnipotent.

When you say, 'a world', here are you talking of places like, 'wally world', 'disney world, or the 'earth world' for example, or are you talking about the 'Universe', Itself?

Because there can NOT be an 'independent observer' 'external' to the last one. And,

An 'external' to the other three 'world's' 'independent observer', by itself, would NEVER necessarily mean that 'that one' could be 'omniscient' NOR 'omnipotent' AT ALL

A virtual world computer programmer would be a metaphor to describe the situation. The virtual world programmer is omniscient and omnipotent over the video game world.

Maybe, or maybe NOT.

The number of universes I imagine there to be is between two and a Googolplex, but my confidence of that interval is very low.

Well considering what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, what you IMAGINE is WAY OFF.

I brought it up this different but related topic because you asked about omniscience. The number of universes is relevant to any being claiming omniscience. If a being claims to be omniscient, but lacks knowledge of fully and completely disconnected universe(s) then they have only relative omniscience rather than absolute omniscience.

LOL,

So, you IMAGINE that there is more than One Universe, and BELIEVE that ANY 'omniscient' 'being/thing' WOULD HAVE TO BE existing OUTSIDE, YET BOTH ARE IMPOSSIBLE, TO EXIST.

When defining a universe as an energy system following a specific set of laws of physics, there is more than one universe. Specifically if a human creates a virtual world using a computer, they create a virtual universe. In the Mario Bros. video game, Mario's "gravity" is part of a different set of laws than human's gravity. Likewise, if God creates a realm operating in a way analogous to a human creating a video game, then there would be at least two realms... the realm in which God exists and the realm in which the created realm exists. In such a creation, God would exist in an external realm relative to the created realm. In such a realm, God would be an independent external observer.

Abrahamic perspective of God is that God's root realm of being is in another realm as humans. The idea that God is summarily defined as "the universe" is considered more of a pantheist perspective of God and considers humans and God to share the same home realm. Most monotheistic perspectives of God place God in another realm of existence which is not subject to Earth's laws of physics. The realms are connected but do not have the same operating principles. And so in that way are considered to be different universes.

Given two truly and totally unconnected realms of existence of Realm A and Realm B, it seems physically impossible to know whether Realm A exists from Realm B or vice versa. Why would such disconnected realms be impossible?