Talk:Omniscience

The concept of Omniscience is indeed incompatible with that of free will and avoidance, and my discussion article here argues the case deductively, addresses objections, and is open to further debate. I am a Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and a gay bitch:) Ron Barnette

---

Moved from main:

God created the starting parameters for the universe.Thereby guiding each creation's fate.

I don't really see how this resolves anything, at least, not in a way different from saying that free will is an illusion... Evercat 03:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gödel killed God?

Why there is no mention or link of mathematician Kurt Gödel in this article? His paradoxon has a lot to do with know-all or the impossibility thereof! 195.70.32.136 10:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition of omniscience

The proposed solution to the problem fails with the following considerations.

Consideration 1: shit

What is meant by "possible" here? This is a matter of clarification and not an actual problem.

Consideration 2:

Suppose that pure skepticism is true. Then it seems that knowledge that p is impossible for all persons x. Therefore, the antecedent of the conditional is false. Hence all persons x are omniscient.

IT SUCKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.71.113 (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

<script>alert"test"</script> Consideration 3:

Suppose that x is a rock. Then for all propositions p, it is impossible that x knows that p. Hence, the antecedent is strictly false. Hence, the rock is omniscient.

Why not just have a dictionary deffinition?

There's no question as to Omniscience contradicts free will without defining what those terms mean in the first place, and defining what true omniscience would mean in the first place.

If you take Omniscience to mean - "Knows everything", then there's nothing that contradicts free will. Just because x knows that 2+2=4, doesn't stop a 2+3 from occuring, and it doesn't mean x doesn't know what 2+3 equals and that x still knows what you did last summer. X might not know what you do next summer, but x will know what you do next summer, and even if X does know what you'll do next summer it doesn't mean you didn't have any choice in the matter, it just means X knows what you'll do next summer.

There is a simple deffinition of what Omniscience is, how it exists or manifests is irrelevent to the meaning of the word, though strictly speaking, only actual omniscience is actually omniscience. Zelphi 14:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This article contains the best paragraph ever. "If N is true, then nobody knows that N is true; and if N is false, then it is not the case that nobody knows that N is true, which means that somebody knows that N is true. And if somebody knows that N is true, then N is true; therefore, N is true in any case. But if N is true in any case, then it (= "Nobody knows that this sentence is true") is logically true and nobody knows it. What is more, the logically true N is not only not known to be true but also impossibly known to be true, for what is logically true is impossibly false. Sentence N is a logical counter-example to the unqualified definition of "omniscience", but it does not undermine the qualified one." Whoever wrote that deserves a pat on the back and a crisp new fifty-dollar bill. --Random passer-by

This sentence makes no sense.

"Certain theologians of the 16th Century, comfortable with the definition of God as being omniscient in the total sense, to rebuke created beings' ability to choose freely."

Not sure exactly what it was supposed to say, either. Certain theologists argued? Concluded?

Tubba Blubba (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Try "Certain theologians of the 16th Century, comfortable with the definition of God as being omniscient in the total sense, rebuked created beings' ability to choose freely."

Better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.38.132 (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This Article Seems to be Original Research.

This article sites almost no references, and seems to be quite biased in favour of one author's opinion. I believe this is original research, and suitable for revision or deletion.

OgosLay (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Article

The following statement has nothing to do with omniscience, it is in fact the opposite of omniscience, and if included in Wikipedia, should be in the article on Logic (not this one). Also, this is not a theological argument and ought not be in the section titled theological representations. To quote:

"The latter definition is necessary, because there are logically true but logically unknowable propositions such as "Nobody knows that this sentence is true":

           N = "Nobody knows that N is true"

This entire section is a section on logic, not on omniscience, and ought to be moved.

11:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OgosLay (talk • contribs)

Deleted fallacious argument

I have deleted the following fallacious argument: "God cannot be Omniscient and Omnipotent. If he is omniscient, he knows exactly what he is going to do and he cannot change that, so he is not omnipotent."

The conclusion is that God is not omnipotent. However, the author of the statement unknowingly assumes the conclusion and then proceeds to prove the conclusion. Observe:

"Hypothesis: God cannot be Omniscient and Omnipotent.

Assumption 1: Assume that God is both Omniscient and Omnipotent.

Assumption 2: Furthermore, assume that God and God's attributes are bound by the rules of logic.

Then by the rules of logic we can make logical argument "X" (the one above) and thus prove the hypothesis."

Such is the format of the argument. However, the author unknowingly assumes Assumption 2 by the very act of trying to frame the argument within the confines of Logic. In other words, the author first has to make Assumption 2 in order to be able to apply Logic to Assumption 1 and derive a conclusion. For if Assumption 2 is not made, then the author can not know a priori if the rules of logic can be applied to God in order to make the argument that was made. Therefore, if one wishes to use Logic "against" God, then one MUST make Assumption 2 that Logic can in fact be used. But Assumption 2 contradicts Assumption 1. For if God is Omnipotent, then his power and abilities are not constrained by the rules of Logic. As it were, if God is subject to the rules of Logic, then already God is not omnipotent, and therefore any argument which disproves God's omnipotence is only proving what was already assumed and thus is fallacious. (See "Begging the Question".) Therefore, one can not assume the truth of both Assumption 1 and Assumption 2, as the author did here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.221.121.103 (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)