Can God make mistakes?
I think so.
First, if God can't make mistakes, then there would be something he couldn't do. Yet God can do anything. Thus God can make mistakes.
One might object that though the person of God can make mistakes, he would cease to be God were he ever to make one (just as, by analogy, a bachelor can acquire a wife, but he ceases to be a bachelor when or if he does so). So, the person of God can make mistakes, but not 'as God'. (All one is admitting here is that God has the ability to cease to be God).
But I don't think that's true either. That is, I think God - as God - can make mistakes.
First, to make a mistake, it seems to me, requires a false belief. So can God have a false belief? Yes, why not?
Well, one might think that God cannot have a false belief for God is all knowing. However, as I have pointed out in another thread, to be all knowing is to be in possession of all knowledge. And knowledge involves having a justified 'true' belief. So, God could be in possession of all justified true beliefs, and also have some false beliefs as well. For an analogy: let's say I own all the world's Rembrandts. Well, does that mean I own no fake Rembrandts? No, for the claim that I own all the world's Rembrandts is entirely consistent with me also owning some fake Rembrandts.
Nevertheless, one might object that to be all knowing is to know all true propositions.
But that is false, for a) knowledge is made not just of true beliefs, but of justified true beliefs. So knowledge has at least two ingredients, not one. And thus being in possession of all knowledge is not equivalent to knowing all true propositions. It is to be in possession of all 'justified' true propositions. And b) there are clearly true propositions that it seems impossible to know. For example, take the proposition "It is raining, but no one believes it is raining". That proposition is capable of being true. Yet to believe it is to falsify it; and as knowledge cannot involve a false belief, that proposition - if or when it is true - cannot be known.
Thus, being all knowing does not involve knowing all true propositions. It involves knowing all 'justified' true propositions. At this point, then, it seems consistent with being all knowing that one has some false beliefs in addition to all the justified true ones.
However, one might object that God would nevertheless have to know that those false beliefs of his were false - for otherwise there would be something he did not know. But again, that's false and fails to take the above lesson. If God has a false belief P, then although the proposition "God's belief that P is false" is true, that is not sufficient to qualify it as an item of knowledge. Again, for a proposition to qualify as an item of knowledge, it has to be 'justified'. It is not sufficient that it be true.
What is a justification made of? Well, a justification is made of God's attitudes. That is, to be 'justified' in believing something is for God to favour you believing it. If that's true, then if God believes P, then God favours himself believing it, else he wouldn't believe it. And similarly, God disfavours himself believing not-P. And thus the proposition "God's belief that P is false" is one that God does not favour himself - or anyone else - believing. It is true. But it is not justified. And thus God, in not believing it, does not manifest a deficiency in knowledge.
Thus, I can see no compelling reason to think that God cannot make mistakes. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. But possession of those qualities seems - at this point in my reflections anyway - to be consistent with making mistakes.
First, if God can't make mistakes, then there would be something he couldn't do. Yet God can do anything. Thus God can make mistakes.
One might object that though the person of God can make mistakes, he would cease to be God were he ever to make one (just as, by analogy, a bachelor can acquire a wife, but he ceases to be a bachelor when or if he does so). So, the person of God can make mistakes, but not 'as God'. (All one is admitting here is that God has the ability to cease to be God).
But I don't think that's true either. That is, I think God - as God - can make mistakes.
First, to make a mistake, it seems to me, requires a false belief. So can God have a false belief? Yes, why not?
Well, one might think that God cannot have a false belief for God is all knowing. However, as I have pointed out in another thread, to be all knowing is to be in possession of all knowledge. And knowledge involves having a justified 'true' belief. So, God could be in possession of all justified true beliefs, and also have some false beliefs as well. For an analogy: let's say I own all the world's Rembrandts. Well, does that mean I own no fake Rembrandts? No, for the claim that I own all the world's Rembrandts is entirely consistent with me also owning some fake Rembrandts.
Nevertheless, one might object that to be all knowing is to know all true propositions.
But that is false, for a) knowledge is made not just of true beliefs, but of justified true beliefs. So knowledge has at least two ingredients, not one. And thus being in possession of all knowledge is not equivalent to knowing all true propositions. It is to be in possession of all 'justified' true propositions. And b) there are clearly true propositions that it seems impossible to know. For example, take the proposition "It is raining, but no one believes it is raining". That proposition is capable of being true. Yet to believe it is to falsify it; and as knowledge cannot involve a false belief, that proposition - if or when it is true - cannot be known.
Thus, being all knowing does not involve knowing all true propositions. It involves knowing all 'justified' true propositions. At this point, then, it seems consistent with being all knowing that one has some false beliefs in addition to all the justified true ones.
However, one might object that God would nevertheless have to know that those false beliefs of his were false - for otherwise there would be something he did not know. But again, that's false and fails to take the above lesson. If God has a false belief P, then although the proposition "God's belief that P is false" is true, that is not sufficient to qualify it as an item of knowledge. Again, for a proposition to qualify as an item of knowledge, it has to be 'justified'. It is not sufficient that it be true.
What is a justification made of? Well, a justification is made of God's attitudes. That is, to be 'justified' in believing something is for God to favour you believing it. If that's true, then if God believes P, then God favours himself believing it, else he wouldn't believe it. And similarly, God disfavours himself believing not-P. And thus the proposition "God's belief that P is false" is one that God does not favour himself - or anyone else - believing. It is true. But it is not justified. And thus God, in not believing it, does not manifest a deficiency in knowledge.
Thus, I can see no compelling reason to think that God cannot make mistakes. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. But possession of those qualities seems - at this point in my reflections anyway - to be consistent with making mistakes.
Comments (148)
This reminds me of an argument I made earlier based on Dostoevsky's quote,
[quote=Dostoevsky]If there is no God, everything is permitted.[/quote]
There's one other object that has a similar effect viz. a logical contradiction per ex falso quodlibet. My initial thoughts were that the state there is no God(Dostoevsky) is indistinguishable from a contradiction. That's the only explanation for everything is permitted.
It fascinates me to no end that there is God also entails contradictions as via omnipontence.
Dostoevsky then is faced with the following puzzle,
1. There is God or there is no God
2. If there is God, everything is permitted (omnipotence)
3. If there is no God, everything is permitted (Dostoevsky)
4. Everything is permitted or everything is permitted (1, 2, 3 CD)
Ergo,
5. Everything is permitted (4 Taut)
Another point worth mentioning is the notion of a Theory Of Everything (TOE). If God's definition allows a contradiction and a contradiction entails anything and everything, God is a TOE as God explains everything.
Pedant corner. This wording does not appear in Dostoevsky; the actual quote:
He laughed. 'But what will become of men then?' I asked him, 'without God and immortal life? All things are lawful then, they can do what they like?' 'Didn't you know?' he said laughing, 'a clever man can do what he likes,' he said. '
Zizek actually improved the accuracy of the 'quote' - "If there is a god then anything is permitted."
E.g., burning witches, heretics, unfaithful wives, non-virgin daughters who marry, people who blaspheme.
First, for God to have a false belief, he cannot do so in ignorance of its falsity (condition of omniscience). He knows it's a false belief, therefore he cannot believe it: it makes no sense to claim to believe something and hold that it is a false belief -- such a God would be lacking in reasoning power which he supposedly is not (condition of omnipotence).
And if he chose to cease to be God in order to make a mistake, it cannot be a mistake since he chose to alter his condition in order to make it, i.e. it was intended.
Does God exist?
Why do you think making a mistake requires a false belief ?
Quoting Bartricks
Why do you think so ?
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Reasoning is an ability, while knowledge is more of an object, so God having all justified true beliefs does not imply that he is perfectly rational.
Furthermore, if God is unchanging and eternal, his beliefs too would be unchanging, so he wouldn't need reason to establish his beliefs, as he would've believed only true things for an eternity.
1. one doesn't know and have not proved God exists.
2. doesn't know which God he is talking about.
That's not the argument I made. The argument I made works even if one thinks God is restricted by logic.
I literally - literally - argued carefully that this is not so. Did you read the OP at all? I feel like I am presenting arguments at an old people's home.
Read. The. OP.
Yes.
Now, focus on the OP. What's wrong with you people?! Focus!
Why wouldn't I?
Quoting Hello Human
Why do you think not?
Quoting Hello Human
Knowledge is more of an object? What? I told you what knowledge involves: it involves true belief and justification. That's all my argument requires and that's not in dispute.
Quoting Hello Human
I didn't say God is unchanging and eternal. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Those are the essential features of God. I am arguing that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person can still make mistakes consistent with possessing all of those features.
No, Corvus. What you're dealing with is some heavy-duty reasoning that's above your intellectual pay grade, that's all.
God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. That's a definition.
Can a being possessed of such qualities make mistakes? That's called a philosophical question.
Not if God is omniscient. An omniscient god will know -- have a justified true belief -- that it is raining, and so "but no one believes it is raining" will be false.
Perhaps it's not them. They may have a better grasp of the problem than you. But by 'you peopling' them you'll never find out. What is it with you people who you people people!
Sorry, Bartricks. I was under impression that if you begin with false definition or supposition, then you will end up with false arguments and conclusion. :) That's me trying to be philosophical :D
That's quite profound. Most people think God can't make mistakes. I am showing that he can - that being all knowing is compatible with having any number of false beliefs. Isn't that interesting?
And knowledge involves a true belief and a justification, yes? Maybe it involves more than that, but it involves at least that.
All of those definitions are entirely uncontroversial.
It follows that being all knowing does not necessarily involve believing all truths. It involves believing all justified true beliefs. That, then, is entirely consistent with not knowing some true propositions, and compatible with believing many false ones. Hence, an omniscient being can make mistakes.
I am not sure where you picked up the definition. Maybe from the books, internet sites or even the Bible? But if you are philosophical, then you shouldn't accept the definition like that just because it is in the books, or someone says that it is not controversial. You have to be sceptical until it is totally clear beyond any possibility of doubt - just like Descartes had done a few hundred years ago about EVEN his own existence.
"possessing all the knowledge"? for example what? what knowledge in details?
My book has just arrived this morning, which I ordered a couple of days ago. What book is it?
Only I know. Would anyone else know about it if I had NOT told what book it is?
Would God know it? How can you prove he does?
Want to know how? Read the OP.
Then, I'm not wrong! :sweat:
Sounds like a self-contradictory statement to me. But that is what I feel about it. Will read the OP again, and see what I can find more. Thanks.
"Some paintings" is unclear, what it actually denotes in the statement, therefore is not meaningful.
Is fake real? Of course not. Has the speaker meant by "every Rembrandts" also to include fake Rembrandts? Not clear on that either. Therefore not a meaningful or logical statement.
If I own all of the Rembrandt paintings in the world, does that mean I own every painting in the world? Er, no. "I own every Rembrandt painting in the world" does not mean the same as "I own every painting in the world". Obviously.
And if I own all Rembrandt paintings does that mean I don't also own some fakes? No, obviously not. I can own every Rembrandt and some fake Rwmbrandts.
Now, read the op carefully and stop quickly deciding that my statements are meaningless.
Fake Rembrandts are also real Rembrandts? To me, it is not. If you said it is, to you, they are. But you didn't.
I explicitly argued that to have all knowledge is NOT equivalent to believing all true propositions. I raised and addressed the very point you have just made. Yes, if God falsely believes that p, then the proposition 'not p' is true. Does that mean God believes 'not p'. Er, no.
[quote=A feminist with an amazing sense of humor]First, God made woman then God made man. Hell, everyone makes mistakes![/quote]
Mistakes are a subclass of false beliefs.
Quoting Bartricks
I did. I'm explaining politely why it's bullshit. You didn't argue carefully, you paved over cracks. Yes, God might choose to become an error-prone, lesser being. But he'd still have to know what error he's choosing to make before he becomes so. Engage brain, then only when that fails resort to twattery.
1. To claim that God exists, you must supply some sort of arguments, proofs or theories, why it does, and how, otherwise, the whole thread quickly spirals into a Religious one. Because as Mr Flew has said some in his books(?? I cannot recall which book it was), that default position in philosophical debates in any religious topic is atheism. It is up to the theist to prove that God exist, prior to any further progression of debates or argument.
2. If God is omni x1 x2 x3 ... according to your definition, if we accept that definition and premises, then God cannot make mistake in his decisions or knowledge. If he did, then his omni x1, x2, x3 ... does not stand logical ground for being omni x1 x2 x3 ... etc.
He does not have to know that they're false beliefs. They're just false beliefs. He thinks they are true. They aren't. That doesn't mean he lacks some knowledge.
You don't seem to understand the difference between a true belief and knowledge. Think.
As for your second 'point'- read the OP and address something I argued. All you've done is tell me I am wrong. Address my case.
Bartricks!
I'm thinking the term 'mistakes' may need a bit more relevancy. Based on your Omni-3/OP, I don't think it follows that God is capable of making 'mistakes' per your definitions. Conversely, what does seem to follow, is that God is all knowing of every 'mistake' that is made. Maybe that also means a world of contingency and a world of necessity.
That's because per Omni-3 logic (logical impossibility v. Ontological logical necessity), the reason for its own existence is contained within itself, there is no choice in the matter. A necessary thing can make no references time, change, contingency, free will/choice, etc. (Platonism, mathematical truths, and so on). It's a closed and complete loop of explanation. 'Mistakes' then from your OP, would mean a problem with reconciling a world of changing things v. unchanging things.
What would be an interesting argument, would be to argue that God is the exact opposite of Omni-3. But then, there would be no reason to posit God in the first place.
:snicker:
Engage with something I argued.
Okay let me be less diplomatic an excruciatingly direct.
For the reasons I stated, your argument in the OP seems to link logical impossibility (Omniscience) to free will, volition, and finitude ("mistakes") and other ethical choices that people make.
Henceforth, how do you go from Omniscience to an Ontological God who makes mistakes?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think others are struggling with your OP as well... Just take a deep breath and sift through the comments and concerns if you will... .
Your tasks, should you be willing to accept them:
1. Learn to read English
2. Read the OP.
3. Understand what is being argued. That voice in your head - the one that's telling you I am saying things I am not saying - turn it off. Read my words. Don't substitute them for yours. Try and follow the argument - my argument. Stop trying to second guess it.
4. Address what I have argued
This is what you and others are doing - "oh, he's talking about omniscience and God. I will just say some random things about that and ignore entirely what has been carefully argued in the OP. Tralalalala"
Dude, good luck with that :razz:
I read it twice the first time and I still can't make sense of it. You're trying to posit an ontological God who makes mistakes, and it's just not following.
(You've given analogies to the human condition, but failed to describe/reconcile God's qualities, features etc. Oh, and when you did, you hinted at the ontological argument-see your first paragraph.)
"I am trying to posit an ontological God"?!? What the hell are you on about? Stop trying to sound clever - it isn't working.
Read it again and try and understand it. Christ. And stop throwing in 'logical' and 'ontological' arbitrarily. It just makes you sound dumb. They're not in the OP are they?
I understand the relationship between them. I was asking a very targeted question for which, like everyone else defending a position of magical nonsense, your response is evasion over clarification or defence. If you calm down and take the the time to absorb the question, and not just cling desperately and angrily to the fact that you papered over it, it would be interesting to discuss it, but horses, water, etc.
DearGod: "You are trying ontologically to posit a pizza without a box. Amen"
No, that's just some nonsense. A kind of word fart. Try and focus. Pizza. Two components. Base. Topping.
Now it is going to get tricky. Summon all your intellectual powers and focus them on what I am about to say. A pizza base by itself is not a pizza. And a topping by itself is not a pizza either.
So, if someone has just pizza base, then they not have pizza. In other words if customer - sorry, 'money-giving person' or 'other side window talky person' order pizza and DearGod gives customer pizza base without topping, DearGod done a bad bad. If DearGod just give topping and no base to other side window talky person DearGod done a bad bad.
Now, and this is probably too much at once, here's a question for you. If I have the only pizza in my house, does that mean that I have the only pizza base in my house? Think about what we learned. A pizza is a pizza base AND a topping. So, if I have the only pizza in the house, then I have the only pizza-base and topping combination in the house. But a pizza base by itself is not a pizza. So, if I own the only pizza in the house, can you conclude that there is only one pizza base in the house and that I own it?
It's 'no'. Think about it. Understand why it is no. Do you understand why it is 'no'? Do you understand how owning the only pizza in the house does not preclude there being a pizza base in the house that you do not own?
At this point, it seems that you're taking this way too personally. I know it's frustrating.
Monder: Ontological God and Omnipotent God. In other words, logical necessity and logical impossibility respectively. Ontology relates to the nature of being.
You're not making it clear how, why, what and where, God is able to make your so-called "Mistakes" in the OP. This may help some:
[b]on·tol·o·gy
/än?täl?j?/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.
2.
a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them.
"what's new about our ontology is that it is created automatically from large datasets"[/b]
So, can I presume that you also understand that this means possessing all knowledge is not equivalent to possessing all true beliefs? Can I presume that, or was that a bridge to far?
It's irrelevant whether I agree with a particular epistemology or not, I'm always happy to tackle the argument on its arguer's own terms. My question concerned specifically knowledge, the totality of which is the criterion of omniscience. Equivocating over belief will not aid you in answering the question, which is presumably why you're so affronted at being asked it.
Pizza = base plus topping.
If I own all the pizzas in the world, do I own all the pizza bases in the world?
Oh dear oh dear. Well, I suppose armies need people to fling at enemies.
The answer, Kiddo, is 'no'. Because a pizza has two components (don't - don't - dispute this, we don't need to start talking about pizzas, even though I am sure you're more on your home turf there), owning all the world's pizzas does not entail that one owns all the world's pizza bases. One might, one might not. It is entirely possible that a person may own all the world's pizzas, yet not own some of the world's pizza bases, for there may be pizza bases that are not pizzas (due to not having toppings on them - I am holding your hand).
Shall we now apply this to knowledge? Because knowledge has two components too, doesn't it? So, if a person is in possession of all the world's knowledge, does it follow that this person in possession of all true beliefs?
No. Right? They may be, they may not be. We can't tell for certain, because a true belief by itself doesn't qualify as knowledge, just as a pizza base by itself does not qualify as a pizza.
Thus, someone could be in possession of all knowledge, yet not be in possession of all true beliefs.
See?
That was in the OP. I'm just repeating it because you and most others here seem incapable of understanding it at a first pass.
Now.....what does that mean? That means God, though omniscient, does not necessarily possess all true beliefs. So, being omniscient is compatible with being ignorant of some truths, namely those that lack justifications (just as owning all pizzas is compatible with not owning some pizza bases, namely those that lack toppings).
And thus, God can make mistakes. Now that - that - is some philosophy there!
Quoting Kenosha Kid
A dog barking at the Mona Lisa.
Where’d you get this?
It follows from being omnipotent. To be omnipotent requires being the source of all normative reasons. Epistemic reasons - which is what justifications that create knowledge are made of - are normative reasons. Thus an omnipotent being will be the arbiter of justifications.
And as normative reasons are favouring relations - that is, for there to be an epistemic reason to believe a proposition, is for that proposition to be one we are favoured believing - then there needs to be an agent, Reason, who is its source. And that agent will be God.
This explains how it is that God is omniscient. God has all knowledge, for whatever God believes, God favours himself believing. And thus whatever God believes, he is justified in believing. And thus when - and only when - God favours the believing of a true belief, will that true belief qualify as knowledge.
If one is a fool, one will reject all of that in some flippant way. But even if one does, it remains the case that being all knowing is not equivalent to knowing all true propositions, for the reason I have already given.
What the above does is simply explain what is already apparent to reflection. Namely, that being in possession of all knowledge is not equivalent to being in possession of all true beliefs.
Where did you get this?
Quoting Bartricks
As you say, people can just choose not to believe what they have normative reason for believing or not do what they have normative reason for doing. And normative reasons don't give you any power over rocks or animals either.
So it doesn't seem like being the arbiter of normative reasons gives you much power. Nor does it seem required for omnipotence in any way, why would it be?
Ratiocination.
Omnipotence - it means being able to do anything at all. Only someone who had control over the laws of Reason would be able to do anything at all. Thus, if there is an omnipotent person, that person is Reason. Reason controls Reason and answers to no one.
And that person would also be omniscient, for reasons just explained.
And we can go the other way. That is, we can arrive at God from Reason rather than starting with God and concluding that God is Reason.
Normative reasons exist. That isn't in dispute. Normative reasons are favouring relations. That too is not in dispute. Only a mind can favour something. Nutters think otherwise, but nutters are not reasonable.
Thus, the source of normative reasons - Reason - is a mind. And that mind would be......omnipotent and omniscient.
So, take home message: epistemic justification - which is what a true belief needs to have before it can qualify as an item of knowledge - is made of God's attitudes.
Thus, any belief God has, is justified by virtue of him having it (for God does not have beliefs he does not want to have).
And thus, once more, if God believes something true, then that true belief qualifies as an item of knowledge.
Quoting khaled
I didn't say that. But yes, it is true. And irrelevant. People can be stupid. So, someone could read my argument and think it is shit. That person would be stupid. There are a lot of them around.
Quoting khaled
Er, yes it does. It gives you total power. A person who had to believe all true beliefs would be less powerful than one who doesn't have to.
And it is required for omnipotence because the person whose willings constitutively determine what there is reason to do and believe has control over everything. There is nothing they cannot do.
The laws of reason aren't "out there". Reasoning is a capacity, like sight. Rocks don't fall down because they are following the laws of reason.
This is like thinking that someone that has the ability to control what you see can change reality to whatever they want it to be.
Quoting Bartricks
False. See above.
This is how the last conversation ended too. You can't show that a mind that commands people to follow the laws of Reason is omnipotent in any way. I asked you before and you refused to do so. For one, that mind can't even move a rock, you need a body to do that and your God doesn't have one (unless you believe in telekinesis).
Quoting Bartricks
But it shows that God has no power over those people. He can change the normative reasons all he wants but that won't affect people that ignore them. Or rocks plants and animals. Your omnipotent God is powerless for people who choose to ignore him/her, nor can he even lift a rock.
Quoting Bartricks
Again, they can't lift a rock, or get stupid people to do anything, or tell an animal or plant to do anything.
Very far from omnipotent.
Yes they are. They are favouring relations. Do you know what one of those is? It isn't an object. It is a relation.
Quoting khaled
There is sight, which is a faculty; and there is seeing, which is what we're doing when we use our faculty of sight; and then there is what is seen with our sight when we are seeing something. They are all different. One is a faculty, one an activity, and the other an object of awareness.
Now, likewise there is our reason - which is faculty - and there is reasoning - which is an activity we're engaging in when we use our reason; and then there is what that faculty gives us an awareness of, which is reasons to do and believe things.
What you're doing is confusing all three - confusing reasons, our reason and reasoning. Which is like confusing sight, seeing and the seen. Stop it. Stop being so confidently confused. It's tedious.
Quoting khaled
It doesn't show that at all. He allows people to ignore him if they want. That's not a lack of power. He doesn't want to make people do things. He could. He doesn't want to. This isn't hard to understand.
Now, I have explained to you why Reason would be all powerful. You believe rocks fall to the ground because of gravity, right? Do you have reason to believe that or no reason to believe it?
Quoting Bartricks
I do have reason to believe it.
But regardless of whether or not I do believe it, or whether or not I have reason to believe it, the rock will still fall. In any case, whether or not the rock falls, my belief and the reasons for my belief don't affect the rock.
In short:
1- God can move a rock
2- If the mind that issues normative reasons is God, then the mind that issues normative reasons can move a rock.
3- The mind that issues the laws of reason cannot affect a rock in any way (since rocks aren't affected by normative reasons).
4- Therefore the mind that issues normative reasons is not God.
Which premise do you disagree with?
Really it is, if there are humans, any sort of interpersonal or group violence or mistreatment will be permitted by a significant number.
Quoting Bartricks
You can always tell the weakest point of someone's argument from how much effort they put into avoiding that point, and you went from 0 to 60 in a second to avoid this one :rofl: But I'm seeing a similarity between you and 3017amen, in that you both think that responding to questions with more energetic, not very relevant questions is a defense. Which it is in a way, if you're uninterested in philosophy.
The question doesn't require any gymnastics of epistemology. 'Omniscient' doesn't refer to belief generally, rather to knowledge. An omniscient being has at their disposal the set of all knowledge. Whatever else it contains (viz your desperate "look elsewhere" fuckaboutery), it contains any knowledge about what God is going to do with it, and why, and what the outcome will be.
If e.g. he chooses to make a mistake, or to become less than God in order to make a mistake, then however you rationalise him doing that, he must have prior knowledge of future him doing that.
Or, to put it another way, God might be allowed false beliefs, but if he doesn't know which of his beliefs are true and which are false, which of his beliefs are justified and which unjustified, then he doesn't have all knowledge -- he doesn't have knowledge about his knowledge -- in which case he is not omniscient.
Some other general points... JTP cannot hold for an omniscient being. For a belief to be justifiable, it must also be potentially unjustifiable, i.e. the believer (and this might go over your head, sorry) must have the potential to doubt her belief in order for it to be justifiable. An omniscient being already has all knowledge: that knowledge cannot be doubted and therefore cannot be justified since it is already, by definition, knowledge (whatever other beliefs the omniscient being might have). So an omniscient being's knowledge is knowledge according to different criteria than a mere ignorant human like yourself. Man makes God in his image though, what!
You have been arguing with yourself not reading my points.
An intelligent being would listen, debate intelligently and correct the logical problems in his OP, when it is proven unclear and unintelligent.
Maybe it would be possible for God making mistakes, if it were the Gods in Greek Myths. So that is why it would have been good to specify which God is being focused in the OP too.
But then the Greek Gods are not supposed to be Omni xn, so it wouldn't make sense to bring them into here.
An arrogant fool with no proper philosophical training would, by contrast, invest no real effort in trying to understand the OP and would interpret their consequent confusion as irrefutable evidence that the OP writer has made mistakes.
Try understanding something. Try not just thinking 'er, dur, if someone is omniscient they have no false beliefs' and repeating that over and over. That isn't argument. It's just a confused thought on repeat. I show - demonstrate it - to be confused in the OP.
Here's a basic IQ test question: if I own all the world's Rembrandt paintings, do I own any fake Rembrandt paintings?
Is the answer 'yes', 'no' or 'can't tell'?
And don't answer (you will, of course) 'dur, why are you talking about Rembrandts? Your question is epistemologically ontological and blah beep doobeedoo'
I note you haven't answered the little IQ test....
If I have in my possession all the world's Rembrandt paintings, do I have any fake Rembrandts? Yes, no, or maybe? Which is it?
Now, you haven't answered a simple IQ test question.
If I own all the world's Rembrandt paintings, do I own any fake Rembrandts? Yes, no, or can't tell?
Answer it. Then read the OP.
God can make mistakes. Did Russell demonstrate that? No. Bartricks did.
Brahms: here's a piano concerto. I call it no. 2.
Dumbartonshire: isn't that just a collection of piano noises? Didn't Beethoven already make some of those? You're just doing Beethoven piano noises, that's all. Same noises, different tune. Yawn.
Read more books and try to learn.
And I couldn't care less about IQ and have no idea what mine is. I think I'd break the test, don't you? But it strikes me as a simple IQ test-type question to which the answer is obvious. And yet you can't answer it.
Of course, IQ tests are tests of intellectual acceleration rates, not top speeds. A Ferrari will beat a TGV train getting to 100kmph, but the TGV can do double the Ferrari's top speed. But you've had yonks now and there does come a point where one has to conclude that one is dealing with a 10 kmph tricycle and not a 600kmph TGV.
I want to say Russell specifically demonstrated "it is what it is" as the third law of thought. Which is a bit too ironic.
Quoting Bartricks I have never suspected anyone of being a linguistic AI before, but the combinations of content and positions don't seem to be possible with a human who has both sides of their brain connected.
Anyhow, keeping on insisting IQ tests in Philosophical forum, is very unusual. Very weird. If you blindly believe, and are judging people by IQ tests (I don't know who even manufactured IQ tests), I do sincerely feel that you sure are not a philosopher, but a business man, and should not be in Philosophical forum. Philosophers are not that low level.
Have you read any Freud? Of course, you said you don't read books. Never mind. Good luck.
If I have read every book written by a Freud, have I read any books that are not by a Freud?
Your feelings are wrong. But as long as they're sincere, that's all that matters, right? A businessman - how vulgar. No, I am about as far from a businessman as it is possible to be. I am what you feel I am not.
Sorry to butt in.
But you are right,many posters who discuss in this overemotional and obsessive way are expressing their fear that if their theory is wrong they will feel super anxious.
This makes them unable to discuss calmy.
He needs to chill out,and then discuss calmly.
Anyway, if I have read all of Clement's cook books have I read any of Nigelka Lawson's?
Engage with the OP. Rest assured that I will be delighted if someone raises a good objection to what I have argued. I love - love - a good objection.
No one should be judged by any system or any one. People need respect, not judgement.
Get over it, and escape from your Rembrandt's self assembled maze.
Philosophy boils down to psychology monsieur.
Oh no, not the Bartricks IQ test, I need that! (I need that, right?)
Okay so let's say your a genius and I'm a dribbling idiot. I clearly didn't understand the OP and I couldn't answer your super-relevant question. So your job now as a clearly sterling pedagogue and all-round decent chap is to explain it to me in a way I can understand, right?
So I get that you think omniscience allows for false beliefs in addition to justified true beliefs but, like I said, even if God errs, be it through becoming less than God or by acting on a false belief, he still must know prior to his erring a) that he will err, b) what his error will be, c) why he would err in this way, right?
Adding false beliefs is going to add more true beliefs about those false beliefs: God can't be ignorant of the falseness of his beliefs.
And remember, I'm the drooling idiot here, so you have to explain it to me, not just ask me questions or insist that it's explained already when I clearly didn't get it.
No, Lucian Freud. He might be more exciting.
People are taught this concept called mistake but that doesn't mean anything . it is a word for when things don't go as we have planed, especially it it surprises us in a negative way.
Burning the cake isn't a mistake because the world has burnt cakes in it and the physical matter is capable of being burnt and so if it's able to burn and it does burn then it's no mistake that the ignorant person forgot the cake in the oven to long
Its just the persons opinion that it's a mistake but fundamentally there's no such thing.
But it has occurred to me that there are some positively mistaken beliefs that God will have (or can reasonably be expected to have). And those would be the belief that he is not omniscient and the belief that he is not omnibenevolent and the belief that he is not omnipotent. For a good person is humble. So God is humble, or so we can reasonably infer. But one is not humble if one believes oneself to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Thus, God will not believe such things. God, in other words, will not believe he is God. Which is a false belief. God mistakenly believes he is not God. Which is, as I have argued, entirely consistent with God being God. God is not only capable of making mistakes - and capable of making them and remaining God - he positively does make some. God is mistaken about who he is. Which is, when you think about it, quite a whopper of a mistake.
Happy to be of service. :grin:
And do you have reason to believe that, or no reason to believe it?
Plus truth itself seems essentially to involve Reason.
I don't think you begin to appreciate the power being Reason gives to that person. Like I say, they can do anything. And nothing you believe will be justified unless or until she favours you believing it; and nothing you do will be rational unless or until she favours you doing it. And arguably - I would argue - no proposition would even be true unless she made it so.
As for this:
Quoting khaled
3 is clearly false. Even if rocks are not affected by normative reasons, it doesn't follow that the mind whose attitudes constitute such reasons is unable to affect rocks. For instance, rocks are not affected by my hopes. But it doesn't follow that I cannot affect a rock.
So that argument is clearly unsound. But note too that my main case does not depend upon identifying Reason and God. Identifying Reason and God serves to explain what would otherwise seem inexplicable. But it is not essential to my case. My case requires only that we acknowledge that being omniscient involves possessing all items of knowledge, and that knowledge has at least two components: justification and true belief.
One of the stranger things I've been told to do.
Regardless, that doesn't affect the rock. Are you questioning this belief? Do you think our beliefs can affect the rock? Yes or no?
And regardless, you haven't answered the critique that even if God changes the normative reasons, he can't do anything to those who ignore them. Your God cannot affect a single person, animal, plant or object reliably. Yet he/she is omnipotent somehow.
All being able to change normative reasons can do is change most people's beliefs and actions. That's it. Very far from omnipotence.
Quoting Bartricks
Here it is assumed that this mind is disembodied and that all it can do is issue normative reasons. You say that the mind which issues normative reasons is omnipotent. So we must assume that that is all that mind can do to test the hypothesis. You must get omnipotence out of just the ability to issue normative reasons. That you cannot do, without believing in telekinesis of some sorts.
Unless you meant to say that the mind that issues normative reasons (assuming it's just one) just so happens to also be omnipotent. In which case you're being arbitrary as you have no proof of that statement.
You must get omnipotence out of JUST being able to issue normative reasons. That you cannot do, despite being asked repeatedly to do it.
A mind that only issues normative reasons can't move a rock. So it can’t be God.
Quoting Bartricks
It also requires that the source of justification be God. Being able to justify a belief based on just whether or not one wants to believe it seems to be something you share with your God...
Quoting Bartricks
1- Reason is a faculty (your words)
2- God is a person (your words)
3- Persons aren't faculties (obviously)
4- Therefore God is not Reason
Finished polishing your halo? And don't thank me for finding the gaping rents in everything you've said and thereby helping you to fix them.
Now I think that throughout this thread your reasoning has been malfunctioning badly and I can fix it. To do that, first tell me what's the answer to this simple question:
If I own all the world's Rembrandt paintings, do I own any fake Rembrandts? Yes, no or maybe?
This is really off topic, as I've already explained that my case does not depend upon identifying God with Reason. God is by definition able to do anything. By identifying Reason and God I am giving an explanation of how it is that God is omnipotent. But 'that' he is, is not in dispute.
But once more, just for good measure. To be omnipotent - and remember, it is not in dispute that God is omnipotent - one cannot be 'bound' by the laws of logic. How could there be a being who is not bound by them? The being in question would need to be the author of them. That is, the being would need to be Reason.
What you're doing is focussing on normative reasons - which Reason will also be the source of and by dint of which she has colossal power - and not on the rational landscape more generally, all of which is a creature of her will (I too am focussing on normative reasons becuase it is from a subset of those - namely, epistemic reasons - that justifications are made and justifications are an essential component of knowledge). So, basically you're not focussing on the relevant issue. I can explain the mechanics of omnipotence, but here is not the place. Focus on the relevant issue.
Quoting khaled
Er, no, I did not say 'Reason is a faculty'. I said 'our reason' is a faculty. Christ, you people are soooo sloppy.
Shall I say the same bloody thing again and again and again and again until some penny drops somehwere??
Reason is a person. Got it? A person. God. A person. Not a faculty. A person. A mind. A subject. A thinking thing.
'Our reason', or 'your reason' is a 'faculty'. I said this explicitly. There was no room for misinterpretation. Reason with a capital R is the name we of the source of reasons. Reasons, plural, are normative reasons - favouring relations. 'Our reason' is a faculty.
YOu seem to be able to comprehend this with sight, so what's your problem? Is it, perhaps, that you're determined I'm wrong and think I don't know my stuff?
Anyway, learn to focus on the relevant issue. My case here - in this thread - depends crucially on two claims: that being omniscient involves possessing all knowledge and that knowledge has at least two components - justification and truth.
Explaining the omnipotence of God is 'not' the issue. Can't you see this? The omnipotence is taken for granted. The only - only - reason I am talking about normative reasons is that they are what justifications are made of.
If there are no mistakes, how do we explain you?
Quoting MAYAEL
Did i make a mistake somewhere then? I thought mistakes don't exist.
Well I had explicitly stated "There is no reason out there, reasoning is a faculty". Sure the use of "reasoning" as opposed to "reason" was a mistake, but otherwise I thought you agreed that "our reason is a faculty".
So you're proposing that there is a person called Reason, that is the source of reasons? Is there a Mr. Sight and Ms. Taste too?
Quoting Bartricks
I don't believe in Mr. Sight. So no I don't agree with this "setup" where you make faculties persons so you can play word twister.
Quoting Bartricks
False. You just can't remember as far as 2 comments back in a conversation.
Quoting khaled
Quoting Bartricks
So it is crucial for you that your God is omnipotent, as apparently being the source of justifications follows from being omnipotent (which in itself is very stupid but if we stopped to critique every mistake we'll never get anywhere). However you continue to fail to show said omnipotence.
Quoting Bartricks
No you can't. As in every place you were asked to show that the mind that issues normative reasons is omnipotent you refused to do so.
If you can, show it. As this is clearly the place, since being the source of justifications follows from being omnipotent apparently. And your proof requires that God be the source of justifications.
Quoting Bartricks
Thus, again, she can't move a rock. Since rocks aren't rational. Even if she made 2+2=5, she can't lift a rock with that ability.
This will go nowhere. I give up on you.
You make a very good case for antinatalism and that God can make mistakes!
Now, Reason is a person, not a faculty. 'Our reason' is a faculty. 'Reasoning' is what you are doing when you use it (I recommend it - try it). And normative reasons and imperatives and other such rational impedimenta are what our faculty allows us to detect. Pointless me saying that because it is all just so much noise in your head, yes? Lalalala, loolooloo, traalalalala. I could have said that to the same effect. So, you know, whatever. If you want to know why Reason will be omnipotent, search through my discussions and find the answer.
This thread is about whether God can make mistakes. I have argued that he can and my argument depends on the credibility of two claims. First, that omniscience involves being in possession of all knowledge. Second, that knowledge has at least two components, true belief and justification.
Now off you trot and go and be confused all over someone else's thread.
And so I'll just leave the conversation for now because nothing productive can be gained from this. If you can't understand a basic concept like what I stated and see how it applies in your life then we can't have a conversation so until the shields are down have a good day
I wrote an OP. Read it and make a philosophical criticism of something in it, or query something in it. YOu haven't done that. You've just said something out of left-field that made no sense and then accused my OP of being 'retarded' - without providing any evidence of retardation whatever.
So get down off your high horse and say something philosophically worthwhile that engages with the OP.
Quoting MAYAEL
Oh nooo, please impart to me your wisdom oh great one. I will lay down my shield and take off my breast plate so that you may run me through with your spear of knowledge. Impale me!!!
The truth is you don't want to learn so there's nothing for me to tell you that you're going to absorb and somehow integrate into your life because you only want to validation for your pseudo concepts. And I've already explained why you're retarded concepts and claims don't hold water and you're literally too dumb to understand them hence why I said I'd talk to you later. and why am I replying? Well quite simple I don't like to see people get hurt and with a mouth like yours you're most definitely going to get hurt if you ever choose to talk that way outside in public and especially if you have a family it would be tragic for you to leave them suddenly because a broken home is never a good thing.
So hopefully your estrogen levels will level out soon and your mind will open and your intelligence will increase as your smart-assness decreases and you might actually understand a thing or two about reality and I've read every one of your replies on here and I would have to agree with everybody else that they do in fact get dumber the more you talk. Just think for a second that if everybody says you're an idiot and you're the only one that says you're not an idiot then there's a good chance you're the idiot. just food for thought
Endocrine burn
If God does not believe 'not p' then he does not know 'not-p'. However, not-p. Therefore he is not omniscient.
Quoting Bartricks
There is nothing someone with a stupid argument expends more energy on than avoiding defending it. At least it shows you know it's a stupid argument.
But what about propositions that are true, but not knowable? (Like your example.) Sure, that's a problem. But it doesn't follow that an omniscient being can have false beliefs. It follows only that omniscience is knowing everything that can be known. Things that can't be known (or can't be believed) are not within the competence and capacity of a merely omniscient being. Similarly an omnipotent being can do everything that can be done. But he can't do the things that can't be done. Like, for example, knowing something that is false.
The problem with us people is that we see problems where others don't and fail to see problems where others do. Which make you one of us people, I suppose - it's the risk of debating anything.
But back to the topic- do you have anything coherent to say about the argument in the OP? So far all you have said is that it is impossible to make mistakes - so presumably that means I have made none - and that if most people think I am an idiot that's good evidence I am an idiot. That seems false - I mean, what if they're all idiots? Take my argument. You think it is the argument of an idiot. Ok. Explain. Is there a fault in my reasoning or is there a false premise?
If I own all the world's pizzas, do I own all the world's pizza bases?
An omniscient being does not lack knowledge, for all items of knowledge are in their possession. But they can lack - and I think will lack - some true beliefs. True beliefs by themselves are not items of knowledge though, as you acknowledge. So we cannot validly conclude from that person's failure to believe them that they lack knowledge.
You say that it doesn't follow that an omniscient being will have any false beliefs. Yes, I agree. But it is compatible with having some. That is, one can be omniscient and have any number of false beliefs. Just as one can own all the world's pizzas and in addition own any number of pizza bases.
Plus I argued on independent grounds that God probably does have some positively false beliefs. He probably doesn't believe he is God, for instance.
it's like trying to get a woman pregnant by masturbating by yourself it's a similar effort but it's not going to yield the right desired outcome no pun intended.
perhaps you should accept the fact that you're going to get opinions that you don't understand and you don't like but that doesn't mean they're not valid try stepping outside of your bubble. And if your eyes are open as opposed to closed with your mouth open you would have noticed that I explained why fundamentally there's no such thing as a mistake. And don't change the subject to pizzas I don't play those stupid games that have nothing to do with the actual conversation you can masturbate by yourself
But let's not take your word for it - why not demonstrate your reasoning skills by answering this simple question:
If I own all the world's Rembrandt paintings, do I own any fake Rembrandts? Tmyes, no, or maybe?
For instance, why are you not answering my simple question about Rembrandt ownership? Because you know that if you do you'll either confirm a double digit iq or you'll have to accept the validity of my argument, yes?
Top reading skills there, fella.
And why do you want me to answer question about Rembrandt paintings I mean is there any possible way to get you to accept any of the information anybody has said to you on here? Do you think you're smarter than all of the people that have commented on this thread? Why did you even post this cuz you're clearly not looking for improvement on your concept and you hate scrutiny.
You say you're open to logical and constructive evaluations of your theories and if somebody objects to it that it needs to be irrational objection that makes sense and yet when people do that you deny it because for some reason you think that we should carry the same logic that you carry when logic is not fundamentally a thing in itself it's kind of like liquid it changes with society.
Now your Rembrandt painting question is a very easy question to answer so I'm assuming somebody has already properly answered it so before I answer I'm going to go back and see if anybody has given the answer that I am fairly confident is the right answer and if they have then I don't know what to tell you
>>>First, if God can't make mistakes, then there would be something he couldn't do. Yet God can do anything. Thus God can make mistakes.<<<
I'm sure the flower power hippie all is love people would disagree with you on this but I actually agree with you on it. assuming there's a sky Daddy that is.
>>>One might object that though the person of God can make mistakes, he would cease to be God were he ever to make one (just as, by analogy, a bachelor can acquire a wife, but he ceases to be a bachelor when or if he does so). So, the person of God can make mistakes, but not 'as God'. (All one is admitting here is that God has the ability to cease to be God).<<<
I don't know why people continually make this God figure into a singular type of sky daddy being with a human mind and human limitations and attributes with a sprinkle of woden style.
>>>But I don't think that's true either. That is, I think God - as God - can make mistakes.<<<
like an infection people let whatever their perspective on reality is bleed into any thought experiment they have so much so that they might as well be the character that they're pretending to exercise in the experiment.
they use their own logic whatever is popular at the time in their social culture so their middle class rights and their modern wrongs they were taught by their parents so on and so forth become the backbone of the very thing that somehow created all of existence which includes things they are completely unaware of due to its vast complexity that will never be comprehended by a single person yet they've somehow compacted it into this Starbucks at lunch break sized concept that's easily digestible.
>>>First, to make a mistake, it seems to me, requires a false belief. So can God have a false belief? Yes, why not?<<<
well of course he could assuming sky daddy existed he would have to be able to have everything. I thought that was an obvious.
>>>Well, one might think that God cannot have a false belief for God is all knowing. However, as I have pointed out in another thread, to be all knowing is to be in possession of all knowledge. And knowledge involves having a justified 'true' belief. <<<
why do you keep humping this concept that knowledge has to have justified true belief? you keep bringing up justified true belief.
define justification? do you think there is a fundamental justification that's the same across the board therefore can be applied to all scenarios of knowledge to then say this is justified true belief and that is not a justified true belief?
>>>So, God could be in possession of all justified true beliefs, and also have some false beliefs as well. <<<
why do you think he has beliefs at all? beliefs are something human beings have out of ignorance mainly but sometimes out of necessity so they think but a belief is kind of like shoes although it makes you feel much more comfortable you don't have to have them to walk and most other mammals as far as I know don't have them.
>>>For an analogy: let's say I own all the world's Rembrandts. Well, does that mean I own no fake Rembrandts? No, for the claim that I own all the world's Rembrandts is entirely consistent with me also owning some fake Rembrandts.<<<
obviously I'm not sure what the confusion there was. perhaps people misunderstood you in thinking you said you owned all Rembrandt's and nothing else?
under the vague limitations of your statement one could conclude that you own all of the worlds Rembrandt's as well as any given number of fake Rembrandt's.
>>>Nevertheless, one might object that to be all knowing is to know all true propositions.
>>>But that is false, for a) knowledge is made not just of true beliefs, but of justified true beliefs. <<<
there you go again with that Idiocracy why do you keep saying that? is there a philosopher of the past you have a crush on? did he say it?. do you really think there isn't knowledge out there that's not true or justifiable? you don't think that there's knowledge that's untrue and not justifiable?, really?.
>>>So knowledge has at least two ingredients, not one. And thus being in possession of all knowledge is not equivalent to knowing all true propositions. It is to be in possession of all 'justified' true propositions. And b) there are clearly true propositions that it seems impossible to know. For example, take the proposition "It is raining, but no one believes it is raining". That proposition is capable of being true. Yet to believe it is to falsify it; <<<
so much salad nothing worth commenting on.
>>>and as knowledge cannot involve a false belief, that proposition - if or when it is true - cannot be known.<<<
where on Earth were you molested to get that concept? can you validate that apparent precious concept of yours?.
Thus, being all knowing does not involve knowing all true propositions. It involves knowing all 'justified' true propositions. At this point, then, it seems consistent with being all knowing that one has some false beliefs in addition to all the justified true ones.
However, one might object that God would nevertheless have to know that those false beliefs of his were false - for otherwise there would be something he did not know. But again, that's false and fails to take the above lesson. If God has a false belief P, then although the proposition "God's belief that P is false" is true, that is not sufficient to qualify it as an item of knowledge.<<<
so much salad I just don't care.
>>>Again, for a proposition to qualify as an item of knowledge, it has to be 'justified'. It is not sufficient that it be true.<<<
why on Earth does it have to be justified in order to be knowledge? who taught you that? and can I beat them with a wiffle ball bat? , explain please.
>>>What is a justification made of? Well, a justification is made of God's attitudes. That is, to be 'justified' in believing something is for God to favour you believing it. <<<
that is borderline made up troll content it is so bad I'm about to just write you off as a troll because that was a very very dumb statement I don't even know how you could rephrase that to make it make sense.
>>>If that's true, then if God believes P, then God favours himself believing it, else he wouldn't believe it. And similarly, God disfavours himself believing not-P. And thus the proposition "God's belief that P is false" is one that God does not favour himself - or anyone else - believing. It is true. But it is not justified. And thus God, in not believing it, does not manifest a deficiency in knowledge.
Thus, I can see no compelling reason to think that God cannot make mistakes. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. But possession of those qualities seems - at this point in my reflections anyway - to be consistent with making mistakes.<<<
it's pretty sad when a being that is not all of those attributes but possesses lesser attributes will conceptualize this idea of a being that does have those attributes and thinks that he understands those attributes and can apply them to this sky Daddy it's just ridiculous how can something lesser grasp the something greater? it's like picking yourself up from your own bootstraps grunt all you want but you're not picking yourself up likewise you're not going to conceptualize the thing that is the reason for all existence no matter how hard you try.
Perhaps the best we can get is that if S can make mistakes, then we can never know that S can or does make them - because if we could know it then S could know it and then there would no longer be a mistake to know.
For instance, I don't think God knows he's God. That is, one of the false beliefs God has, is that he is not God. Someone who thinks they are not God - and thus thinks they are not omniscient - can surely believe that an omniscient person can and will have some false beliefs? I mean, I believe I am not God, and I also believe that an omniscient being can have false beliefs. So I see no problem with someone who mistakenly thinks that are not God believing that God will have some false beliefs.
But even if God does know he's God, I don't see a problem, for he would just believe that he himself is capable of having, and does have, some false beliefs. I think I am capable of having, and no doubt do have, some false beliefs. So I don't see why God could not believe the same about himself.
So I am not yet seeing a problem as such....
There was more sky-daddying and cod psychology of the sort that suggests you have some sort of inferiority complex. And I assume that by 'word salad' you mean to express that you could not follow the relevant section?
Anyway, ignoring all that, what do we find? Well, not exactly high brow stuff.
Quoting MAYAEL
Er, it's just what knowledge involves. It was first articulated by Plato. There's dispute over whether knowledge involves more than this - whether there is another ingredient - but there isn't serious dispute over whether it involves possessing a justified true belief. There's a debate over whether you need to be aware of the justification in question and there are debates over the mechanics of how you need to have arrived at a belief in order for it to count as justified in the right kind of way - debates prompted by Gettier's famous article. But that it involves true belief and justification is not in dispute. And that's all my argument requires.
Quoting MAYAEL
Yes. That is, they were being stupid (well, if they'd dared to answer - they didn't, presumably because they were foxed by it). If I say "if I own all the world's Rembrandt paintings, do I own any fake Rembrandts? Yes, no, or maybe?" and someone doesn't know the answer or thinks it is something other than 'maybe', then they are, well, just dumb, at least on that occasion (everyone has bad days, of course).
For instance, that same person would no doubt think this argument valid:
1. If P, then Q
2. Q
3. Therefore P.
Whereas it is not. This is:
1. If and only if P, then Q
2. Q
3. Therefore P
Someone who cannot distinguish between 'if P then Q' and 'if and only if P, then Q' is just not that good at philosophy becuase they're impatient and sloppy and don't care about important distinctions.
Now, obviously I am pleasantly surprised that you recognize that if I own all the world's Rembrandts, that leaves open the possibility that I may also own some fake Rembrandts. Well done! Give yourself a big macho pat on the back. Hang on, I'll try and talk bloke: "Alwight mate!! Nice one!" No, that's all I've got.
Now apply that to knowledge: if I am in possession of all the world's justified-true-beliefs (Rembrandt paintings), do I have any false beliefs (fakes)? Yes, no, or maybe?
The answer is maybe.
A clever person might object that this may not be the case - that the answer could be a decisive 'no' - because if you have a false belief, then there's a true belief you lack. And they may think that if you are in possession of all items of knowledge, then you are eo ipso in possession of all true beliefs. And thus your possession of all true beliefs precludes you having any false ones.
But that's why I started by demonstrating how possessing all the world's knowledge is compatible with not being in possession of all the world's true beliefs. (I think my fictional critic's claim is dubious anyway, but rather than bother exploring it I can just sidestep it with the move I made).
So, step one: show that having all-knowledge does not necessarily involve having all the world's true beliefs. That's what the pizza example showed. Knowledge has at least two components, and thus having all knowledge is akin to having all the world's pizzas. But if one has all the world's pizzas one does not necessarily have all the world's pizza bases, for a pizza base without a topping is not a pizza and thus not necessarily something one owns.
Thus, having all knowledge is compatible with not having all the world's true beliefs.
With that in the bank, the way is now clear to show that having all knoweldge is compatible with having some positively false beliefs. That was step two.
And then I showed that God positively would have some false beliefs, such as believing that he is not God.
I would have thought that you would have justified your claim toward knowledge by grounding it somewhere in your own personal experience and not just in some philosopher dude from the past named after modeling clay I mean come on you're alive he's dead it's your turn so don't take a dead man's concepts as stupid as they may be and try to coin them in an argument make up your own for the love of God
On a more serious note, I believe there's an important issue underlying @Bartricks question, "Can God make mistakes?" Let's call the witnesses, shall we? 1. Hypnos (sleep) and 2. Thanatos (death).
Consider now the following:
1. X can sleep (the ability to sleep has a positive valence)
2. X can die (mortality is a disability, has a negative valence)
3. X can't sleep (X has a disability, negative valence)
4. X can't die (X is immortal, an ability, positive valence)
As you can see, X can't do Y can either be a positive trait (X can't die - immortality is an ability) or a negative trait (X can't sleep - insomnia is a disability).
You're equivocating between these two ways of looking at CANNOT/CAN'T. God's omnipotency is enhanced rather than diminished if God can't make mistakes.
The court thanks the witnesses for their cooperation. I rest my case!
If you can destroy yourself if you want to, you have an ability. If you can't, you lack one.
If you can make mistakes if you want to, then you have an ability. If you can't, you lack one.
And so on.
Being unable to make mistakes is a lack of an ability.
God has the ability not to make any mistakes. That's an ability. He also has the ability to make them. That's another.
So, I guess Gods can make mistakes.
OK, I get your point about acknowledging our own false beliefs. Yes, we do have false beliefs. But crucially, we don't know which ones are false. There is no belief which we hold such that we can say 'I believe that p; and ~p.' This is Moore's paradox. It can be true that it's raining and that I don't believe it's raining. But for me to say 'It is raining and I do not believe it is raining' is, whilst not a logical contradiction, still a behavioural contradiction, both expressing and denying a belief. The case with S (or G) is different. He would know which of his beliefs would be false if he held them - he knows everything that can be known together with all the justifications for believing it.
As for G not knowing that he is G, that must be because it's not a knowable proposition (since he knows everything knowable) and if it's not knowable then we can't know it either.
This line of thinking leads to a paradox and I have a hunch that you, like me, have a thing for paradoxes.
If God can make mistakes then God has an ability (your claim). However, if God can make mistakes, God can't always be right and that means God has a disability. Ergo, if God can make mistakes, God has an ability & God has a disability (contradiction). Note: the ability/disability refers to God being able to (can) make mistakes.
1. If God can make mistakes then God has an ability (your claim)
2. If God can make mistakes then God has a disability (see above)
Note: The ability/disability refers to the same thing - God can make mistakes
3.God can make mistakes (assume for reductio ad absurdum)
4. God has an ability (1, 3 MP)
5. God has a disability (2, 3 MP)
6. God has an ability and God has a disability (4, 5 Conj)
Ergo,
7. God can't make mistakes (3 - 6 reductio ad absurdum)
You proceed as follows,
8. If God can't make mistakes then God is not omnipotent (your claim)
9. God is omnipotent (definition of God)
Ergo,
10. God can make mistakes (8, 9 MT)
However, in my previous post I pointed out that cannot/can't can either possess a positive valence (power) or a negative valence (weakness). Your premise 8 assigns a negative valence (weakness) to can't instead of the correct positive valence (power). Ergo, your premise 8 is false.
Especially when you say god can make mistakes because a mistake is just a concept this society uses especially the Western society but it doesn't actually exist as a thing separate from the social constructs of society
And for someone to say a mistake was made they are implying that there is a law in place Rather be written or verbal that states that what was done should not have been done which also implies that there is a higher power that implemented said law and if we're talking about the all creator where there is nothing above him /it then whatever he does is not a mistake because there is no higher power above him there is no law that he has to abide by.
(Assuming it was a sky daddy that cared about social constructs.)
Ps you keep saying I'm taking people's phrases could you please point out who's phrase I'm stealing when I say sky daddy? Because I thought I was original in saying that but then again I am using the English language and I do believe all these words have been said before by somebody else. And it's a little hypocritical seeing as how your entire concept is just a molested version of other people's concepts
I hear 'skydaddy' all the bloody time. It's not original. It's tedious. If only there was some kind of device - a 'search engine' (I have coined that term) - whereby one could establish if it has been used by millions of others?? Hmmmmmm.
God is not my daddy and he's not in the sky. So it doesn't make sense - not addressed to me. Address it to someone who thinks the sistine chapel lacks a ceiling
or maybe youre perfect and just dont realize it
Or maybe you just didnt understand the sarcasm.
there is no mistakes
every "mistake" you ever made was perfect.
you just choose to try to argue with people probably so you can have something to masturbate too since you lost that taboo picture of your mom to jack off to I'm not sure but either way I'm done with your kiddish ass