THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

Suppose this:
God exists. We call him God1. He is omniscient omnipotent all the yadda yadda of the theists.
Now God1 creates God2 with all those same powers EXCEPT in regards to God1. Meaning God2 knows everything except that God1 exists. God2 is almighty except over Gos1 and God1 is almighty over God2 etc. God2 does not know that God1 exists.
Now God2 creates the universe and experiences himself as almighty God but everything he does could be undone at the snap of a finger by God1.
NOW:
How does God1 know that he is not an equally conditioned being to a potential God0, who also cannot know etc.?

Now the theists will probably answer that God2 isn't the real god they worship and they by definition only worship the final Urgott we will call godhead the actual source of everything.
But that doesn't solve the problem because even if God were the godhead he could never know he has to consider himself the godhead axiomatically because how God1 and God2 (and God0...) experience themselves is exactly identical.
tl;dr Omniscience is impossible.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Now God1 creates God2 with all those same powers EXCEPT in regards to God1
    This is a contradiction.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No it isn't.
      Say omnipotence is p then God1 has p and gives God2 q(p-power over God1)
      The issue is not that p=q but that p and q will be experienced equally.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >No it isn't.
        Yes it is.
        Less than omnipotent, less than omniscient, less than eternal= not these things.
        Your thought experiment is "consider a creature which has nothing in common with God. Now, pretend it's God"
        >The issue is not that p=q but that p and q will be experienced equally.
        Except that they won't, by virtue of not being equal.

        [...]
        The point is not that there is an infinite regree above God. The point is that such a regress can be assumed as a possibility which Gid can never falsify.
        God1: I am allknowing (unless God0 exists and hides himself from me)

        >The point is that such a regress can be assumed as a possibility which Gid can never falsify
        God is not like a creature, He does not "falsify"
        >God1: I am allknowing (unless God0 exists and hides himself from me)
        By definition, omniscience is knowledge of absolutely everything. By asking us to consider omniscience "except for some things", you are asking us not to consider omniscience. You have proven that things which are not omniscient are not omniscient.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Less than omnipotent, less than omniscient, less than eternal= not these things.
          Yes. I didn't say God2 is omniall these things. He is almost that except in his relation to God1
          >Except that they won't, by virtue of not being equal.
          Not a necessary conclusion because all limitations to p of q are hidden from God2 who only experiences subjectively omnipotence.

          >God is not like a creature, He does not "falsify"
          Pure speculation based on nothing.

          >By definition, omniscience is knowledge of absolutely everything. By asking us to consider omniscience "except for some things", you are asking us not to consider omniscience. You have proven that things which are not omniscient are not omniscient.
          The point is the fact that omniscience would require an impossible to know lack of unknown things makes it impossible.
          Easy put how does God know he is omniscient
          >he can't
          Noone can. Ergo it's impossible.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes. I didn't say God2 is omniall these things
            Which is why it's a contradiction
            >He is almost that except in his relation to God1
            The difference between "almost" and "exactly" is infinite.
            >Not a necessary conclusion because all limitations to p of q are hidden from God2 who only experiences subjectively omnipotence.
            Meaningless gibberish. Merely suggesting it's "hidden" from this creature is describing a fundamental difference.
            >Pure speculation based on nothing.
            Pure non-argument based on cope. You are attacking a strawman.
            >impossible to know
            Possibly impossible for a fallible creature. Not impossible for an omniscient God. You are attacking a strawman of omniscience.
            >Easy put how does God know he is omniscient
            The question underlines your ignorance. The driving force of this error is the failure to appreciate that you are not like God. You do not know things like God knows things, "what it's like to be God" is incomprehensible to your creaturely mind. God knows everything, and everything He knows, He knows by nature. Anything short of this is a strawman.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're clinging to pretending there is some error in my logic only to defend your axiomatic claim that omniscience is possible.
            My point is omniscience requires a knowledge of omniscience that is logically impossible.

            >God knows everything, and everything He knows, He knows by nature. Anything short of this is a strawman.
            He objectively can't. Omniscience requires a logically impossible condition. It is as impossible as "A god that doesn't exist exists".

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >He objectively can't. Omniscience requires a logically impossible condition
            Omnipotence as well. It all goes back to semantics defining god as all-transcendent, by which logic god is unbound by logic itself.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You are struggling

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >By asking us to consider omniscience "except for some things", you are asking us not to consider omniscience.
          Bravo, absolutely SHITCANNED OP is one post. Thread done.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >tl;dr Omniscience is impossible.
    ...the basis of this conclusion being a thought experiment about a creature that is explicitly not omniscient

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The theist would probably say something along the lines of
    >A god who is all powerful and all knowing can be whatever it wants at all times while also deciding to be none of those things

    It doesn't make sense because we arent god. But to a god it makes perfect sense

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/9BQZALW.png

      >tl;dr Omniscience is impossible.
      ...the basis of this conclusion being a thought experiment about a creature that is explicitly not omniscient

      The point is not that there is an infinite regree above God. The point is that such a regress can be assumed as a possibility which Gid can never falsify.
      God1: I am allknowing (unless God0 exists and hides himself from me)

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe this formulation works better:
    We define the totality of all knowledge A
    The totality of possible knowledge is B
    For God to be omniscient we require A=B which requires knowledge that there is no knowledge outside of B and we call this knowledge C.
    C is a part of A because A is all knowledge but C cannot be a part of B because to know C we already need to know that A=B.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      God possesses A, B is a category error applied to God.
      >to know C we already need to know that A=B.
      God knows this

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >God possesses A,
        He can't.
        >B is a category error applied to God.
        No it's not.
        >God knows this
        He can't. You're just continuing to repeat your claims without substaantiation or engaging with the problem. Why you do this is beyond me but I don't expect you to deliver a qualified response anyhow. If you were you would have noticed I engaged with all that under the section regarding a hypothetical godhead.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >trying to apply infinite recursion and ordinal measure theory on vague concepts such as God
    Go back to your maths course moron.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Got a better way of objectively understanding God?

      It's a good thread OP. I'm picking up what you're putting down. However, what is meant here when you say "God1 is omniscient". Is the implicit assumption here that he is actually all-knowing, or are you leaving room for the possibility of error in your original assumption? It seems like, if the former, then he would necessarily know he was the ultimate God. If the latter, then you haven't involved what we normally consider "omniscience" in your thought experiment in any way. You are just talking about near-omniscience, which is basically nothing.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What I mean to express is that God1 experiences himself as omniscient. There is nothing outside of him nothing not in his power etc. He could create the multiverse and simultaneously know every thing about every atom that ever occurs.
        HOWEVER he is not omniscient because he cannot know if his set of knowledge is all knowledge because all knowledge includes the knowledge that there is no outside knowledge.
        Hence in the example. God2 who we all agree is not omniscient experiences himself as omniscient because the knowledge he lacks is hidden from him.
        IF God zero exists there would be no difference in how God1 experiences the world therefore God1 has to assume the possibility of knowledge beyond his set pf knowledge.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          *Whether or not God0 exists would not change how God1 experiences himself.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >HOWEVER he is not omniscient because he cannot know if his set of knowledge is all knowledge because all knowledge includes the knowledge that there is no outside knowledge.
          Okay, but we as outside observers in this situation can presumably tell if he is real-omniscient or pretend-omniscient. So is your assumption that he is real-omniscient to begin with, or pretend-omniscient? Or are you saying that WE can't know if he is real-omniscient vs. pretend-omniscient? Because that is a whole separate issue.

          >A way of understanding God
          None exists, all is cope until he shows his transcendental mug here on earth

          Even if he shows up on Earth, how can you trust you didn't temporarily hallucinate him? This is the problem with experiential "proof" of God -- the problem of induction.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Even if you don't have good answers to this OP, it's fun to think about. Again, thanks for the thread.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Okay, but we as outside observers in this situation can presumably tell if he is real-omniscient or pretend-omniscient. So is your assumption that he is real-omniscient to begin with, or pretend-omniscient? Or are you saying that WE can't know if he is real-omniscient vs. pretend-omniscient? Because that is a whole separate issue.
            He has all possible knowledge B. But all knowledge A entials the knowledge that A=B which is impossible.
            So God2 has all possible knowledge B2 but B2 has strong limitations because God1is hidden from God2. God1 has B1 but he cannot know if B1 is also limited by a God0.
            True omniscience thus requires a knowledge of omniscience that cannot be gained.

            How do you know God2 would experience himself as almighty God without noticing the defect of being caused?

            If God1 is almighty I'm sure he can find a better answer than me.

            >By asking us to consider omniscience "except for some things", you are asking us not to consider omniscience.
            Bravo, absolutely SHITCANNED OP is one post. Thread done.

            I have already explained that.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So God2 has all possible knowledge (for him) B2*
            With the difference between B and B2 being God1's existence actions etc.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >A way of understanding God
        None exists, all is cope until he shows his transcendental mug here on earth

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How do you know God2 would experience himself as almighty God without noticing the defect of being caused?

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >“god is a bearded grandpa in the sky” fallacy

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Unfortunately you are trying to apply boundaries to an idea which inherently is boundless. The answer to your questions would be:

    "I worship a God which fullfills all of the logical conditions to be omnipotent."

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Now the theists will probably answer that God2 isn't the real god they worship and they by definition only worship the final Urgott we will call godhead the actual source of everything.
      >But that doesn't solve the problem because even if God were the godhead he could never know he has to consider himself the godhead axiomatically because how God1 and God2 (and God0...) experience themselves is exactly identical.
      Do you worship an abstract idea or a concrete divine person? In the latter case we will have to ask how does God know he fullfilla all the logical conditions.
      If you worship the godhead by default and only use the divine person as an approximation I guess this doesn't apply to you hence I used Meister Eckhart in the OP.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God1 could ask God3 if God0 exists.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Who is God3? And if God0 were almighty he could hide from God3 just the same.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Only if the ignorance of every previous god is not compounding

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A bunch of gods creating each other in a big gay mantrain. Excellent bait, fricking navelgazers

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You completely miss the point. God2 is just to demonstrate the potential relationship to God0 of whom God1 doesn't know if he exists.

      If I was God1, I would make something to piss off God0 in order to see whether he would undo my "bait". I suppose it wouldn't prove that God0 doesn't exist in case nothing happened but at least it would decrease the probability

      Didn't alex jones basically say this is where reality comes from? God running all the simulations.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think god doesn't exist at all. I just like calling you gay.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If I was God1, I would make something to piss off God0 in order to see whether he would undo my "bait". I suppose it wouldn't prove that God0 doesn't exist in case nothing happened but at least it would decrease the probability

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what you're arguing for is sinilar to what gnosticism teaches
    nobody can tell you which scenario is true, whether we should believe in something higher than god or not
    its your descision

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe God himself needs faith to believe he's the final God

    Or just say you worship God -∞ (lazy mode)

    Seems like the answer to this question is probably buried in some Hindu text

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *