Yes, that was what I have been saying too. Emotions seem have taken over the reasoning. :)

Clement? You think reading Clement Freud will help me uncover my motives in drawing attention to your double digit IQ? I don't think so. It might help me cook salmon in an interesting way. But do I want to cook salmon like a pervert, that's the question I'd be asking myself. — Bartricks

No, Lucian Freud. He might be more exciting.

I believe that philosophy is not for those who are intelligent beings, but for those who are seeking truths. If I were intelligent, I wouldn't be here, but gone to politics or business forums, and debate on how to get elected as an MP or make a mega dosh easy and quick.

nice

Shirley you're joking! But, yes, the OP attests to the fact that you don't need to be a genius to post here ;)

I think that everyone is overlooking a vital realization and that is that "mistake" fundamentally isn't real ,
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.

Thought it would tell something about what people think of intelligence when they are blindly smitten by it. :D Yes, the OP, quite surprising actually. If someone pointed out any logical problems with my OP, I would have been very impressed and thankful to the poster, because that means he paid attention to my OP, and read it albeit from different point of view. I would never declare my perfect logic, or upset by me having made something unclear or illogical. Because it is all a process of life.

Yeah, I don't know whether it's the lapsed academic in me, but most of my OPs are there to invite criticism, look for holes, find the weakest points and, if possible, help me fix them. And perhaps it's the scientist in me that is okay with rejecting my own hypotheses. That's quite an exciting thing to do. In fact, my first or second thread was over really quickly when the consistently helpful @Pfhorrest sunk the hypothesis in about three posts flat. I liked that. Saves wasting time believing in things erroneously.

I will deal with you noobs above shortly when I am at my computer and not stabbing away at a phone.
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.

Well That sounds about as retarded as any of the other retarded beliefs stated here today

Oddly compelling.

In fact, my first or second thread was over really quickly when the consistently helpful Pfhorrest sunk the hypothesis in about three posts flat. I liked that. Saves wasting time believing in things erroneously. — Kenosha Kid

Happy to be of service. :grin:

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. — khaled

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:

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? — 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.

Get over it, and escape from your Rembrandt's self assembled maze. — Corvus

One of the stranger things I've been told to do.

And do you have reason to believe that, or no reason to believe it? — Bartricks

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.

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. — 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.

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. — 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...

But note too that my main case does not depend upon identifying Reason and God. — 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

Yeah, I don't know whether it's the lapsed academic in me, but most of my OPs are there to invite criticism, look for holes, find the weakest points and, if possible, help me fix them. — Kenosha Kid

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?

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. — khaled

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.

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 — 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.

Its just the persons opinion that it's a mistake but fundamentally there's no such thing. — MAYAEL

If there are no mistakes, how do we explain you?

Well That sounds about as retarded as any of the other retarded beliefs stated here today — MAYAEL

Did i make a mistake somewhere then? I thought mistakes don't exist.

Er, no, I did not say 'Reason is a faculty'. I said 'our reason' is a faculty. Christ, you people are soooo sloppy. — Bartricks

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?

YOu seem to be able to comprehend this with sight, so what's your problem? — 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.

Explaining the omnipotence of God is 'not' the issue. Can't you see this? — Bartricks

False. You just can't remember as far as 2 comments back in a conversation.

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.
— Bartricks

Where’d you get this? — khaled

Ratiocination.

It follows from being omnipotent. — 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.

I can explain the mechanics of omnipotence, but here is not the place. — 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.

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 — 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!

As ever, you fail to focus on the relevant issue. I considerately answered your off-topic questions, and told you - several times now - that they were off topic and what the relevant issues were, but you simply won't be told.

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.

you seem to be at a place in your mind where you cannot except any new info whatsoever and have your survival shield up to protect your precious understanding of the world for whatever reason

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

And you seem to think you have important information to give and that I have misunderstood something. I see no evidence in support of either claim.

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.

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 — 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!!!

It appears that we need to appreciate the difference between us, mere mortals, and God, a perfect being. The gap between humans and God is HUGE and that's an understatement. Even if God makes mistakes, for us they wouldn't be mistakes.

He's such a genius that even his bad ideas are good ideas

you talk a lot of crap for somebody that's hiding behind a keyboard you know that right? Now I'm sure the women in your life henpeck you into this beta passive little man that you are and that you don't realize that you would have your face reformed if you talked with this much attitude to somebody actual face.

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

So hopefully your estrogen levels will level out soon — MAYAEL

Endocrine burn

Yes, if God falsely believes that p, then the proposition 'not p' is true. Does that mean God believes 'not p'. Er, no.

If God does not believe 'not p' then he does not know 'not-p'. However, not-p. Therefore he is not omniscient.

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. — Kenosha Kid

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: — 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.

Truth of a proposition is not sufficient for knowledge, as you say. But lack of knowledge of a true proposition is sufficient for non-omniscience. Some proposition is true. But the guy who knows everything doesn't know it. So he's not omniscient.

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.

You sound like you're snorting and frothing at the mouth. And all this status talk and henpecking anxiety - it all sounds very farmyardy. I take it that in this farmyard you see yourself as an alpha-male cock? That certainly sounds partly right.
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?

You say that lacking knowledge of a proposition's truth is evidence of lack of omniscience. But that's question begging because whether it constitutes a lack of knowledge, as opposed to a lack of true belief, is precisely what's at issue.
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.