cliche
The complexity of the universe can be understood only at the subatomic level. It is complex enough that no one fully understands it yet.
Someone (God) made the subatomic particles and designed them in such a way as to combine and form the basic atoms of the elements. Because of these amazing subatomic particles the elements form the ionic and covalent bonds that create all the compounds and molecules in our world.
The equations (math, chemistry, or physics) are nothing more than an aid to help understand what we observe

not much time this am, will try to write more this pm, but:

x travels through flat space at 800miles/second
x travels through flat space at 1600miles/second
x travels through flat space at... keep increasing

I'll try to find better examples later. If not, then so long as we assume "walking perpendicular up a wall" has meaning, I'm quite happy to accept another word than "action" if you'll supply me one.

and nietzsche - I was attempting to show exactly the same thing as you; that omniscience and omnipotence are different things. However, during conversation with moonduck I noticed that perhaps we could combine things to suggest that omniscience is impossible.

Crap, walking perpendicular up a wall is an action so long as you consider spiders and other insects beings.

My point is, an action that cannot be achieved by any being is not an action at all, merely an IDEA in the mind.

The impossibility of ominscience is going to take some thought. I think it is key to remember that any being that is omniscient is god, in the concept that humanity in general understands what god is. So proving the impossibility of omniscience would corelate to the proving the impossibility of a god.

My point was not that an action has to be something performable by an actual being, but only by a possible being. (If you'll ignore my ignorance of science), seeing through walls is an actions, because there is a possible being who can do that (X-Ray vision or something). However, there is no actual being who can do that (as far as I know).

First comment: Mondays suck, and Tuesdays aren't much better. I've been too bloody busy to keep up with this thread.

Second comment: This is an amazing conversation. Bravo!

I would say that BIAV simply uses amazingly persuasive discourse learned via omniscience to convince its' Nazi servitors to install said beanie =) Again, I said that omniscience implies omnipotence, but that it does not guarantee instant gratification. That brain is gonna have to sweat! Well, perhaps its' lackeys will sweat for it.

Yes, I'm joking =)

Again, omniscience is ALL knowledge. To me, this means that one would know the path/actions to get whatever desired result one wishes to accomplish, even given limited capacity. It is, simply put, another level of existence from ours.

Given sufficient knowledge and work, anything is possible. I said it, I mean it. There is a quietly implied caveat in that statement, however. It lies in the word "sufficient". Omniscience implies sufficient knowledge as it is all knowledge. I allow that it is possible that a being may be unwilling to take the steps necessary to utilize perfect knowledge. I am still of the opinion that omniscience is not truly omniscience if it is not the all knowledge, including how to surpass one's own limitations.

As I tend to dislike absolutes, seeing this makes me happy.

Nice structure. I like it so far!

I think you've got something. As I said previously, any discussion on such things as omniscience strays into Ludicrous Territory as readily as a discussion that includes a BIAV. If we show that omniscience is logically impossible, which I accept, I think we reach a conclusion we are both satisfied with

Good show!

Is it possible to prove omniscience is impossible without being omniscient?

To be omniscient a being must know everything about everything correct? And to prove an omniscinet being is impossible we must know everything about it (its physics, nature, properties etc) and what it is that makes it impossible. If we knew everything about an omniscient being, wouldn't we ourselves be omniscient?

Im not sure if this is a sound idea, I was just thinking about it at work today.

i haven't read any of this thread, but let me just say you can prove something (logically) without knowing everything about it or knowing every case. for example, you can know Pi is irrational without knowing every digit in order to check. just an example.

I would say that knowing everything about an omniscient being is unnecessary to prove it not omniscient, nor do I think that knowing everything about said being would make one omniscient. It would simply make one amazingly knowledgable about one being.

I wish I had time to actually contruct an argument.

I know God exists but I am not so sure that we do….That is why the Matrix scared me so…I think that we are just a dream….. silly me...

All Im saying is that to discredit a being as omniscient we must be of equal or greater intelligence.

The problem is point one: That the definition of God makes God the greatest possible being. I think when people, even people who ardently believe in God, call God a being, they are being sloppy. God is, so far as I can tell from broad reading in comparative religions, the consciousness of all that exists and does not exist. It's more a property than a being.

Tophat665 we are using Anselm's definition for a god in this argument. Obviously everyone has a varying definition of what a god is to them. The Ontological argument's first point is that "God is a being which no greater can be conceived" It does not necessarily say that this is the god that fair amount of society has come to believe in, just that we coin the being which think to be omniscient and omnipotent, god.

I do agree with your definition in part though!

Lao Tzu told a story once about the great master Con Fu'Tze confounded by the question of a dolt. One of the greatest Chinese Buddhist scholars was the Buddhist Layman Peng, well known for arguments which had established Buddhist masters stumped for answers or comebacks. One needs neither to be great, intelligence, nor well educated, one merely needs to be sufficiently observant to discredit a great being.

I looked through this thread briefly, and am sad that I am so late to the party. There are a number of mistakes made with respect to possible world semantics. But the problem is in the accessibility relation that is defined between the worlds. If we are to assume that every world is accessible from every other world, then it is true that if some statement is necessarily true at one world, then it is true at every other world. But only if our accessibilty relation is defined this way.

When I was studying modal logic, we looked into this problem, and the only thing that can be concluded, using first order modal logic at least, is that if god possibly exists, then god exists necessarily. Or in longhand: if there is a possible world in which god exists, then god exists in every possible world. We can conclude that, but you still have to show me that there is a possible world in which god exists.

dexlargo - I think we've been assuming S5 (or at least S4) in terms of modal logics. And I guess the argument you quote (if God exists, He exists necessarily) has the same form as the one we've been discussing - ie 'existing in all possible worlds is better than existing in one' vs 'existing is better (more perfect) than not existing'...

i'm somewhat mystified by what this thread is attempting to prove...it's very intresting, but i think it's overstated it's goals.

I'm afraid that's a bit of a fallacy. Some people believe God is omniscient. Disproving omniscience cannot prima facie disprove God, becuase that would assume that that limited group of people was correct, that the only thing that could be God is all knowing.

that said, continue to have at it...

Well, I said earlier, anything that's God has to have all perfections. If omniscience is impossible, it's hardly a perfection, so God doesn't have to have it. There are several Christian philosophers who believe something like this. They think that knowledge of the future is incompatible with free will, so God doesn't know the future, he's just a really good guesser (well, that's a bit unfair, but it's not a bad summary).

I never could get past the concept of "being". I gave up on trying to understand what Parmenides etc. meant by "is"...YIKES I sound like Pres.Billy Boy.