Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[seer]

If you cannot refute it, you could be in the situation I described. It could be the reality about your God.

First Charles, it is not my logic, it is logic....BTW it would be logically impossible for a omniscient being to be deceived, on any level.

[Charles]

First Charles, it is not my logic, it is logic....BTW it would be logically impossible for a omniscient being to be deceived, on any level.

He and you may both think he is omniscient though it is not the case. That could be the case if we are to follow your line of reasoning. You cannot avoid these consequences, seer.

[seer]

He and you may both think he is omniscient though it is not the case. That could be the case if we are to follow your line of reasoning. You cannot avoid these consequences, seer.

No Charles, God is either omniscient, or He is not. If He is then he can not be deceived, if He isn't deception is logically possible. But you keep saying "my logic" or my "line of reasoning." But it is not my logic, it is where actual logic will naturally lead. And you have only confirmed this by not offering a deductive justification for your position. I suspect you knew that there was no defense early on, that is why you keep focusing on consequences - which is not an actual argument, just reflecting your personal distaste.

[Charles]

No Charles, God is either omniscient, or He is not. If He is then he can not be deceived, if He isn't deception is logically possible. But you keep saying "my logic" or my "line of reasoning." But it is not my logic, it is where actual logic will naturally lead. And you have only confirmed this by not offering a deductive justification for your position. I suspect you knew that there was no defense early on, that is why you keep focusing on consequences - which is not an actual argument, just reflecting your personal distaste.

seer, what I was talking about was a being who was deceived into thinking he was omniscient. That is not the same as being omniscient. The difference should be rather obvious.

What I am doing is to present you to the consequences of the statements you have made. There is nothing "personal" in that. And you cannot prove those consequences wrong. And those consequences - if you start to get a hold of them - is part of the reason to put the theory into very critical perspective.

[JimL]

No Charles, God is either omniscient, or He is not. If He is then he can not be deceived, if He isn't deception is logically possible. But you keep saying "my logic" or my "line of reasoning." But it is not my logic, it is where actual logic will naturally lead. And you have only confirmed this by not offering a deductive justification for your position. I suspect you knew that there was no defense early on, that is why you keep focusing on consequences - which is not an actual argument, just reflecting your personal distaste.

I know we've had this discussion before, but if there were an omniscient creator of you and of your world, then you can kiss your notion of free will goodbye. I mean, we may not have free will anyway, it may be an illusion, but a free willed creation contradicts the existence of an omniscient creator.

[seer]

seer, what I was talking about was a being who was deceived into thinking he was omniscient. That is not the same as being omniscient. The difference should be rather obvious.

And again, either God is all knowing or He is not. It is either/or. I would say the same thing for a human being if she was omniscient. Deception would be impossible.

What I am doing is to present you to the consequences of the statements you have made. There is nothing "personal" in that. And you cannot prove those consequences wrong. And those consequences - if you start to get a hold of them - is part of the reason to put the theory into very critical perspective.

Charles because certain consequences make us feel icky, does not undermine the logic of the argument, and the logic is not wrong in this case. You are free to abandon logic on this issue, but make no mistake - that is exactly what you are doing.

[Charles]

And again, either God is all knowing or He is not. It is either/or. I would say the same thing for a human being if she was omniscient. Deception would be impossible.



Charles because certain consequences make us feel icky, does not undermine the logic of the argument, and the logic is not wrong in this case. You are free to abandon logic on this issue, but make no mistake - that is exactly what you are doing.

Regarding the first part it is logically possible for a non omniscient being to be decieved into thinking he is omniscient. That was what I claimed, and you cannot prove it wrong. There is no contradiction.

I am not abandoning logic in this case. You are (see above). I am using logic to show both the consequences and the weaknes of the viewpoint you hold. You cannot even tell us what it is about without contradicting yourself which I have already pointed to. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post455681

So who is trying to abandon logic, seer?

[seer]

I know we've had this discussion before, but if there were an omniscient creator of you and of your world, then you can kiss your notion of free will goodbye. I mean, we may not have free will anyway, it may be an illusion, but a free willed creation contradicts the existence of an omniscient creator.

Nope Jim, we have been through this before. Knowledge is not causation. God knowing my future act is not the cause of said act. Any more than my certain knowledge that Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 was the cause of said act. Never mind the fact that we don't really a clue about time in the first place, and time would be key to this whole discussion.

[JimL]

Nope Jim, we have been through this before. Knowledge is not causation. God knowing my future act is not the cause of said act. Any more than my certain knowledge that Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 was the cause of said act. Never mind the fact that we don't really a clue about time in the first place, and time would be key to this whole discussion.

Knowledge is not causation, we agree on that, and never was that my argument. The reasoning is not that knowledge is the cause of the future, the reasoning is that the omniscient creator is the cause of all that he knows of the future. So you need to abandon that line of defense, because no one has ever argued that knowledge itself is the cause of the future! Its not! But if your future is already known, then you are not the cause of it either.

[Charles]

Charles because certain consequences make us feel icky, does not undermine the logic of the argument, and the logic is not wrong in this case.

Do you mean to imply that it is a given fact that we can know that logical truths would hold no matter what. I mean, you constantly want to allow for the possibility that what goes on in our head would not correspond to reality. How about logic? Either you insist we cannot know whether the logic in our minds corresponds to reality. Then you cannot use logic to defend your view. Or you say logic is universal, could not be different, and thus, at least we know that the logic in our mind corresponds to reality.

Which one do you chose?

And remember part of my reasoning against your line of reasoning is not only that what you claim will have absurd consequences but also lead to contradictions. You should care about those if you want to make sure that "logic is not wrong in this case".

[seer]

Regarding the first part it is logically possible for a non omniscient being to be decieved into thinking he is omniscient. That was what I claimed, and you cannot prove it wrong. There is no contradiction.

Right and I have no problem with this, it logically follows. But an actual omniscient being could not be so deceived.

I am not abandoning logic in this case. You are (see above). I am using logic to show both the consequences and the weaknes of the viewpoint you hold. You cannot even tell us what it is about without contradicting yourself which I have already pointed to.

Charles all are doing is pointing to consequences, you are not making a logical affirmative case. We do not have the kind of certainty that you suggest. We all work off presuppositions that are not provable (in any logical/deductive sense).

So who is trying to abandon logic, seer?

You are Charles, and have.

[seer]

Do you mean to imply that it is a given fact that we can know that logical truths would hold no matter what. I mean, you constantly want to allow for the possibility that what goes on in our head would not correspond to reality. How about logic? Either you insist we cannot know whether the logic in our minds corresponds to reality. Then you cannot use logic to defend your view. Or you say logic is universal, could not be different, and thus, at least we know that the logic in our mind corresponds to reality.

Things like logic and math can be known - I would suggest that it is impossible for 2+2 to equal 5. Or for the law of non-contradiction to be invalid. I can know that I am a thinking entity. But what I'm taking about is sense experience, I smell and see a rose, but I can not logically deduce that I am not being deceived. I trust that I am seeing and smelling a rose - I just can not prove it.

Which one do you chose?

With Descartes, I agree that there are some truths that we can know.

And remember part of my reasoning against your line of reasoning is not only that what you claim will have absurd consequences but also lead to contradictions. You should care about those if you want to make sure that "logic is not wrong in this case".

You have shown no contradiction. You said:

I just don't see how you can avoid contradiction if you say that it is a fact that "we" don't know if what goes on in "our" heads corresponds to reality. In that case, you don't know if I exist and thus there is no "we" that you can talk about with any certainty. You can only talk about yourself. So how can you establish a fact that would go for me given your own statement?

I never said we don't know, I said we can not prove it deductively. It is logically possible that we are being deceived. I do however believe that that my mind does correspond to reality - without logical justifications. Just as you do - without logical justifications.

[Charles]

Charles all are doing is pointing to consequences, you are not making a logical affirmative case. We do not have the kind of certainty that you suggest. We all work off presuppositions that are not provable (in any logical/deductive sense).

I am pointing to logical contradictions. But you want to ignore them. I have pointed to the fact that you cannot even tell what your view is without contradicting yourself and without taking reality for granted though you claim it could be doubted.

Look at your last two sentences. You are so certain when stating that certainty does not exist. What do you build that certainty on if everything is as shaky as you claim? Starting to get the point?

[Charles]

You have shown no contradiction. You said:

Take the whole part: "You cannot both claim it is a possibility that everything that goes on in your brain might be an illusion and at the same time claim certain things to be facts about human reality when you just claimed that all you know about it could be an illusion. I am not quite sure you understand the implications of what you are saying. It seems you want to open the "sceptical" door a little in order to let faith in. I am just not too sure you understand what follows in terms of contradictory logic."

Even if you allow for logic to be universal your statements about what goes for "all" of us still implies we exist. And so does all your statements about facts.

[Charles]

I never said we don't know, I said we can not prove it deductively. It is logically possible that we are being deceived. I do however believe that that my mind does correspond to reality - without logical justifications.

We cannot prove it it deductively according to you. And it is logically possible that we are being deceived according to you. How does that play along with the "I never said we don't know" statement? If it is logically possible that we are deceived and it cannot be proven not to be the case then how would knowledge even be possible? Why is it not fair to conclude that according to you, we do not know? Believing in something is not knowledge.