Philosophy to me is the most rewarding when you stumble upon people who you respect that are thinking about the same things as you, so that you get a sense that you are a decent thinker, but it also leaves a space of humility because they are better than me at articulating the thoughts and getting to the precise conclusions. Really loved this talk, I'm not quite a theist but I find myself agreeing with Josh on many issues. Also I love when you have him on since you guys have developed such a fruitful friendship, it's quite wholesome to see your chemistry.
Let's assume logic is just a description of reality and descriptions/properties are menal constructs. The paradoxes in the video are just showing that our description of reality is flawed when dealing with self referential ideas or descriptions/properties. The fault lies not in the stars but in ourselves.
My biggest disagreement is actually about what’s at stake. If we examine humans, it seems that we say a human knows a proposition whenever they have the ability to bring that proposition into their awareness. We do not base claims of their knowledge on whether or not they actually *are* aware of the truths of those propositions. For example, you can know “7+5=12” even if what’s in your awareness only consists about dinner plans, because if I asked you what 7+5 was, you could easily bring that into your awareness. So, even if God cannot be aware of the truth values of all propositions simultaneously, He can still know them in virtue of possessing the ability to bring them into His awareness.
Squared have you made any videos on problems of divine psychology yet? It’s been a topic I’ve had on mind and wondered if you had or could direct me to any theist responses to it?
I'd argue the problem is exactly opposite. I'll grant you that a hypothetical god's consciousness could be _aware_ of all true propositions simultaneously. The problem arises with justification of those propositions. Even if this god is aware of all true propositions and believes his knowledge is exhaustive there is no way to justify that. You could claim that this god has exhaustive knowledge of himself, and exhaustive knowledge of his creation (though that has a tremendous philosophical cost too) but God has no way of knowing that he's the only entity out there making creations. So at the end of the day, this god would still be faced with the same epistemological problems we do. Things like Descartes' Demon and the problem of hard solipsism prevent God from justifying (and therefore knowing) everything. Certainly you could dilute the definitions of omniscience and god to the point where the can be reconciled and coherent, but at the end of the day you end up with something that isn't very god-like that doesn't know everything.
@@ajhieb doesn't these have to be argued for or demostrated in some way or another? why couldn't God know that he is the only one making creation? would such even count as lack of knowleadge? same goes for the demon and the solipsism issues.
@@jonathacirilo5745 _"why couldn't God know that he is the only one making creation?"_ Because no one can ever know anything they don't have any access to. And there is always a possibility that there is something you don't have any access too, so knowledge is always going to be incomplete. That is to say you don't know what you don't know. So even if God was correct in assuming he was the only creator, he still couldn't know it. (the problem being justification, not truth)
@@ajhieb I see(I think), but the part about this counting or not seems to remain tho. like, maybe we can't really know if we are in a simulation, of it a demon is tricking us, or if this is in our brains, but we can reasonably enought rule out these due to the issues they suffer right? so maybe the same is true for God, assuming that he too has indeed no way of knowing these things.
I absolutely loved to hear the intellectual honesty expressed in this discussion and the fact that this is an honest pursuit of truth and not an exercise in justifying any preconceived world view conclusion. Both are prepared to be persuaded by reason and both are prepared to revise their views based on reason alone. A thoroughly enjoyable discussion! Well done both of you. Im very impressed as such honesty and lack of dogmatism is so incredibly rare and hence so refreshing to see! 👍👍👍
What if the proposition was...I am everything and I know myself? because it sounds like you are both the package and everything inside of it. or do we still run into this cyclical problem?
I wonder: if we take a classical, non-propositional view of God's knowledge (according to which God knows everything by knowing his own nature), doesn't this remove the problem of self-reference? For on this view, we don't have God being aware of everything, and then ALSO being aware of his own act of awareness (which would seem to divide God's knowledge up into separate chunks); rather, we just have God knowing his own nature, THROUGH which he knows everything else (since it all results from his creative act). Or, to put it another way, instead of starting with God's knowledge of the world, and then moving on to God knowing that he knows the world (etc.), we START with God's knowledge of himself (including his own omniscience), and it being through this that he knows the world. It seems like this might reverse the order of explanation, so as to remove the vicious circularity.
I think the problem there remains, because God's knowledge of self would precede the self, which makes no sense. There are other problems as well, such as evil, since according to this view, evil too would be part of God's nature, but how is he omnibenevolent then?
Maybe I'm missing something here, but! Just because we can label things as packages, it doesn’t follow there are instantiated into reality these packages e.g. we can have a line and we can imagine an infinite number of points between the lines, but it doesn’t follow there are these points. It just seems to me that we are over thinking things, the propositions I exist, doesn’t mean there is a proposition of a proposition that I know, that I know I exist to infinity, we just automatically accept the thought is fundamental or basic. Why can't God’s omnipotence just be a basic fundamental?
We have no problem seeing that the statement “every ball is twice as big as itself” makes no sense. It doesn’t trouble us that it is nonsensical. The barber’s paradox is a similar nonsensical statement, it just takes a little longer to work out that it’s nonsense. The logical reply to in both cases is that the statement is nonsensical. I don’t see that it’s any deeper than that. The fact that a statement that initially sound like it makes sense, on closer inspection turns out does not make sense, does not tell us anything meaningful about either the world or human reasoning
To my mind the barber’s paradox is simply a linguistic quirk. All it shows is that some sentences are inconsistent if applied to the real world. It doesn’t tell us anything about the world in itself
1. That starting assumption begins with "for any things xs" - what kind of a quantifier is that? I understand "for any thing x", or "for any set of things S" - those are well-defined. But "for any things"? What operations are allowed to be used on this "xs" thing? I know the operations that are allowed to be used on _sets,_ but this seems to mean something other than a set. If so, what _does_ it mean? Until someone provides a definition that is at least as rigorous as set theory (we already know, from "naive set theory", that less rigorous definitions won't work), I have no reason to allow such a quantifier in my logic. 2. Even for collections that are actually sets, we already know that some of them are _genuinely indescribable._ The set of "all programs that halt" is the prime example, but there are also many theorems of the form "almost every such-and-such is indescribable". So I think the transition from "there is this set of things" to "there is a proposition which is about those and only those things" is not just unjustified, but evidently false.
I think about the old attage of not confusing the map and the terrain. Whilst the terrain cannot be right/wrong/contradictory/self-referential Our thinking and talking and conceptualising about it can be. Take the barberer paradox. Our description of the situation cannot be the case but this puts no constraints on the barberer. He can shave whomever he wants and nothing contradictory will happen.
I don't like the barber example because the very concept of barber implies more than one person. One becomes a barber to service others, not oneself. Even if it does parallel the more technical issue at hand.
Also, it seems as though Rasmussen's objection to the simplicity solution still turns on a propositional view of knowledge. See this passage in his essay: "Suppose God is automatically aware of everything, including God’s own awareness. Then there are self-including awareness facts. For example, there is the fact that God is aware of all facts about awareness, including that same fact. It follows that there is this paradoxical fact: the fact that God is aware of the awareness facts that are not self-including." But surely, if God's knowledge is non-propositional, then this objection doesn't work, because God's knowledge is not constituted by a set of facts (which seems to be necessary for the self-reference problem to get off the ground).
There's certainly room here to explore. My concern is that even if God's knowledge is not propositional, ours is, and the paradox can be set up in terms our own propositions... But I don't want to overstate that: doors and corridors on this path remain open.
@@WorldviewDesignChannel Thanks for the reply! I wonder if you have any thoughts on what I said in my other comment: specifically, couldn't the classical theist say that God knows everything via his knowledge of his own nature, of which everything else (including the act of creation) is merely an expression (i.e. Aquinas' view)? It seems like this would reverse the order of explanation; that is, instead of God knowing the world, and then knowing that he knows the world (etc.), we have God's single act of knowing himself, and everything else thereby. Though perhaps you would say that we could still have God knowing that he knows himself, and thus generate the problem?
@@WorldviewDesignChannel I wonder could you think about an argument for Gods omnipotence i think that would be fun and please critique my argument for it by the way I do not support divine simplicity, but rather that Allah is all power all knowing, will over everything and above his throne as suits his majesty and not everywhere in the sense that he himself is everywhere, rather his power or will and knowledge is over everything, and he looks nothing like his creation but has a face and other characteristics that suit his majesty, like a dog and me have a face but it isn't the same, it's incomprehensible, or a tree and me breathe but they don't have lungs
@@WorldviewDesignChannel Allahs omnipotence is proven because of the fact that there must be a self sufficient and eternal foundation to reality, now however you may go about knowing if its alive or mechanical, I don't care, right now I recognise that IF it is Allah, then it must be omnipotent, this is demonstrated by him creating, if he creates and doesn't weaken whether in capacity to create more or that he doesn't become lesser capable if he continued, meaning he doesn't grow weary or tired or fatigued or sleepy or hungry or thirty ect, if he doesn't ever reach this point when he is using his power to create, that would mean then that if he created more at infinity that he wouldn't be diminished as he already prior not even in the slightest degree was, it's like drinking out of a cup and finding that the water within its quality and or quantity has remained the same, meaning no matter how much pours out, it never ends, now if it was limited in power, then eventually to even the slightest degree it would grow weary or weakened or stop due to incapacity rather than wilfully, however the limited can't provide a never ending amount, much like the water bottle example, had there been limited water in, even in great amounts, you would find that the water eventually declines, as it already was slowly, but if Allah is proven to have always be using his power in some type of way then it would mean that as he is using his power in that way, its going to be the same or similar to him using power to create in the sense that both are using power, so this would be proven by Allahs awareness, his awareness of anything, whether himself, the nothingness or his potentially infinite knowledge which I believe he has, and if he didn't have any power in the slightest then he wouldn't even be weak, it would be more similar to say he wouldn't be anything or incapable of everything for thoughts of knowledge and awareness of things and creating require some degree of power, some capacity or capability, some control or influence or force to say you have none is to say you are pretty much nothing, humans beings need power to think even if you do nothing all day, you eventually need to eat or sleep, even for inanimate objects, they can eventually erode, even things like black holes eventually need to disappear or erode away via hawking radiation, and for the most part that I know of, anything that lasts here was created, so even if a hypothetical human didn't need to eat sleep and other needs, they were in need to be created, and so they arent truly self sufficient, but Allah has no beginning nor end, no needs, so he is truly the ever living and self sufficient one, imagine it in the sense of if humans had no capability or capacity or power then could they even be aware or think, those very things require power, require the innate capacity to do them and so if he has continually used power such as in his awareness of things which must have power to whatever degree it does reason again being if he had no power at all he couldn't remain aware or if he had limited power it would be exhausted before eternity comes to an end, and since he has eternally continually used it much like in the hypothetical that if he continually creates without being diminished he must be infinite in his capacity to create and therefore infinite his ability of power, then he must be omnipotent, for if he was eternal there's nothing he relies on, if I was to say a tree was eternal, and it needs a sun that is eternal, does that even make any sense, how can an eternal thing be dependent on another eternal thing when both were without beginning without the need to be brought into existence as they already were, how could this relationship even occur outside of mere thought experiments, 2 simultaneously eternally things existing and one depending on the other, it doesnt work, for as far as we can tell things are dependent come after what they are dependent upon originally for their existence, other than that they may need maintenance or are dependent on other things such as food, but I'm talking about original points of origin, if there never was any origin then they have no need to rely on anything outside of themselves for they never needed it, if somehow there are 2 eternal things, and one is dependent upon the other for its maintenance, what perhaps makes Allahs attributes different here is that they are eternal and exist together not in need of anything outside of themselves, or Allah is as he is without any need for externals, perhaps this works as an argument im not sure though, are his characteristics dependent upon him eternally or is it that he eternally is dependent upon the characteristics but to be honest neither makes much sense, as its describing the same thing, Allah is all of his characteristics and all of his characteristics or the sum of all of them are him, Allah is as he describes himself and has eternally been so, that's all I can say of it truly, arguing which eternals are dependent if it's already not impossible is beyond us to figure out, Allah and how he has described himself is eternally been as it is without diminishing in the slightest degree nor is Allah depending on anything outside of himself, I mean really what is Allah seperate from his characteristics or what are his characteristics separate from him, I can always say this is a something of Allah's, try to make them sound like different entities dependent it a bit incomprehensible a bit, because it seems that you are just describing the same being But to wrap up, continuous use of power without diminishing in anyway of the one who uses it, neither relying upon externals as sources of power to carry on, and having used power continually for eternity implies that he is omnipotent as he never was exhausted from being aware forever which itself it a type of capacity or capability or power which Allah has used without end much like how he has used other capabilites and arguably forms of power to create such as his knowledge, Will, Power, the power of being aware for ever without exhaustion would imply that if power is being used else where to create it also wouldn't be exhausted no matter how intense the quality or how numerous the quantity of the creation would be, it's like if a human being used there arm eternally to punch, they never took breaks in between nor replenished themself, nor did they need to, that would imply that if they started to run they would never lose the power to stop running, as they never did prior, or if they could punch eternally without a need for anything outside of themself to replenish them nor did they diminish in power or were exhausted no matter how long they did it, if that same person was to run forever they wouldn't stop as implied by the hypothetical prior stating they punched forever without end, so they most definitely could do the same in other capacities which would exhaust us but not the hypothetical person, this proves that Allah must be omnipotent otherwise its a contradiction to assume he is limited for how could he continually without outside help or assistance or replenishment of some kind continue to use his power eternally, and if he was limited it would imply that eventually he would be weakened from his use of power or that the moment he does use power something within his innate capacity must fatigue or slow down even if it's to slightest degree as eventually if he carried on it becomes so that he would be exhausted of his capabilities
Enjoying this. LOTS to ponder. There are obviously some philosophical aspects/principles at work that I'm not familiar with but nonetheless thought-provoking. I paused the video to mention one thing that I'd be curious to know whether Josh has considered. Josh talked about God being more than "just does" in the sense of omniscience and that having "no adventure". I've been giving a lot of thought lately to what Imago Dei means. And how much of what we are is reflective of God with us having been made in His image. For example, my latest ponderings dealt with Repentance and how God commands Man to repent. Logically God does not command Man to do something he is not able to do. There are several places in Scripture where God "repented" or, IOW, changed His mind. Therefore it follows that being made in His image is one of the reason we have the ability to change our mind. No, that being said, is Mankind naturally adventurous because we are made in His image and He is adventurous? If that be the case then what does that say about God "taking chances" and thusly His "Omniscience"? Secondarily to the Scriptures that clearly state God did not know something, it is these kind of questions that move me to prefer the term "Maximally Knowing" over "Omniscient".
Joe , Do you think that any Paradox about mathematical sets or Paradox of self referential can be an interesting objection against omnipotence or omniscience ??
I mean, if there are things that are not packaged, then they're not in the package of things that we can talk about, nor in the package of things that we can think about, nor in the package of things that we can make arguments about, etc... So it's not even clear to me that this argument is actually talking about those things. But even just conceiving of something that isn't packaged seems unsuccessful for me, I just seem unable to conceive of such a thing, a bit like I can't conceive of a square-circle. Which would make sense, they're not in the package of things that we can conceive of after all.
I've gone down roads of paradoxes of omniscience in a more rudimentary way, just because it's fun. It leads me to questions like how would god know he's not being deceived into thinking he's omniscience by a trickster super god?
Good sir, you are going to go far if you stick with this! (And the great thing about Metaphysics is that we can lol) This is the type of philosophical discussions we need more of. I was just introduced to you so I haven’t been able to go through your entire library yet but I would be ever so intrigued to hear a discussion about Kant’s metaphysic’s.
This is definitely something I'm going to have come back to. On first hearing "God doesn't know, and couldn't know everything" you start to freak out and worry. But I wonder if it truly is something to worry about. Really awesome material here. Doing great work. God bless you 41:05
When I heard that God does not know everything, I had never thought of that but I did not freak out as a theist. This is consistent with the fact that God cannot do anything, fact that has been known forever in philosophy and it is in the Bible. God cannot do contradictory things.So the video is only an example of this. Knowing all packages is a contradictory thing so it is one of the things God cannot do
Just as you don’t freak out when someone says “God didn’t create Himself”, you don’t need to freak out when someone says “God doesn’t know Himself”, because God’s knowledge isn’t a mere awareness of a truth. It is the creation & sustaining of a truth. So, “God knows Himself” is the same proposition as “God creates Himself”.
I think the mere attempt to put the things that do not belong to their own package in a package is contradictory. We should not expect to get a non-contradictory result from a contradictory attempt. Have I undertood it well? if not please correct me. I think logic can go beyond imagination so we should not think about logical concepts by imagining concepts. For example we deductively know that natural numbers are infinite; this infinity per se cannot be imagined but it can be ascertained. We know every single number that belongs to this category but we have not imagined its infinity. So the first attempt to presume a package for things then arguing based on limited imagined packages (some of which are in fact infinite) is contradictory. To me there is no contradiction except in the argument itself.
Hey Joe great video! Unrelated questions but what are your thoughts on the problem of epistemic peer disagreement in philosophy? I know this isn't your area of specialization, but Im curious about your thoughts on it or if you know of any good papers on the issue.
@@MajestyofReason I'd be really cool to see you make a full video about this at some point in the future like you mention in the video. I find this topic fascinating :)
@@jd-un9cg episteme: Greek for “knowledge”. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It is concerned with the mind’s relation to “reality” (ontology). Because we humans are situated in the relative sphere, absolute knowledge is absolutely impossible. The only fact we can know for certain is the fact that we are aware of being aware. All other knowledge is necessarily imperfect and cannot be absolutely reliable. Some of the most popular schools of epistemology in the Western tradition include empiricism, rationalism, scepticism, pragmatism, relativism, probability theory, and idealism. Some of these schools have strong equivalences in the traditions of Indian philosophy. According to some authorities, specifically those in Indian philosophical traditions, there are (depending on the particular school in question) up to six “proofs”, or “instruments of knowledge”, or “means of right information” (“pramāṇa”, in Sanskrit), as follows: 1. Pratyakṣa (Perception) - Acquiring knowledge from experience via sense perceptions and mental/intellectual acuity. 2. Anumāṇa (Inference) - Gaining right knowledge from logical conclusions, as far as human understanding allows. 3. Upamāṇa (Comparison) - Learning by observing similarities or analogies between two objects. 4. Arthāpatti (Postulation) - Supposition of a fact to support a well-established fact; derivation from circumstances. 5. Anupalabdhi (Non-apprehension) - Understanding non-existence by non-perception (e.g. there is no such being as God). 6. Śabda (Verbal testimony) - Gaining authentic knowledge from spoken and written words composed by reliable authorities.
Seems like you don't need to throw out self reference. You could instead throw out "not". God is often explained by saying that negative attributes don't exist, they are merely the absence of a positive.
I already watched the entire thing. Good stuff, man. It seems like Josh is basically who you would be if you were a theist 😂. It seems like he's the theist you agree the most with. I think that most traditional classical theists can also get around this problem without accepting dynamic knowledge in God. Under CT, God IS His knowledge and the content of His knowledge is extrinsic. Entities simply have the real relation of being known by God. There doesn't seem to be a difference between God's awareness of X and X itself. All entities neccesarly have the property of being known by God. That's all God's awareness of Creation consists in. Is God aware of His awareness? I'm not sure what that would mean under CT. He knows Himself and He IS His knowledge. Do you get my point? I'm just not sure that the worry would even arise. There would simply be entities that have the property of being known by Him. Also, what is your favourite model of theism?
Then I create a rule that says that everything must be contained in a container. But that rule is impossible to follow. When I pack something, the container is not packed. It would be equivalent to saying that I want to create something that has no outer part. That is not paradoxical. It is not following the rules of reality. Knowledge is not a container. Knowledge is a representation. It is a different relationship. The first is topological and the second is not. A duplicate is the best representation. God can know everything about the universe. It is enough for him to have an identical representation. He also has the original. In humans, knowledge is representation (one cannot contain a chair to know that it is a chair) but the concept of god does not contain that limit.
A perfectly fascinating video! Now, Mr. Schmidt, I want to openly admit to you that I don't believe that giraffes evolved long necks because they needed to reach even higher leaves. Scientists may infer that reason, but I don't believe they are correct about it. I have my own personal theories about why giraffes have long necks. Most biologists would disagree with me. You have a choice. Omniscience is impossible because God is limited by being Perfect. I tried to look to Hindu mythology to resolve this conflict, and their actual answer was that, among the Creator, the Sustainer, and the Father gods, only the Father is truly infinite. He's also the Lord of Demons. And because he's not Perfect or limited by perfection, he has *exactly* the perfect amount of knowledge. You always give me hearts, so I wrote you a real response.
how would evolution even know if the giraffes needed longer necks, why wouldnt evolution make them shorter, evolution doesnt know anything, so how can it know if the tree are too high or too low.
@@ceceroxy2227 , the correct answer is Death, @ceceroxy, which is the ultimate test in the battle for truth. When Death learns the true reason why giraffes have long necks, then the strategy ceases to function. It's not about getting leaves. That's what I'll tell you about them.
@@ceceroxy2227 I'd also like to point out that Death is one of those divine packages. He murders everyone, but he cannot kill himself. And therefore he is limited and could be Perfect.
“because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” Romans 1:21-25 KJV
It's part of the concept of God that God is omniscient. So, it's an _a priori_ (conceptual) truth that God is not subject to Cartesian scenarios (if he was, he wouldn't be 'God'). God knows that he's not a brain in the vat in the same way he knows any other _a priori_ truth (e.g., that numbers are not made of wood).
@Chris Taylor If God were alone, then it would certainly *not* be "logically possible" for him to be deceived by a demon (there wouldn't be any demons at all!). So that's off the table. As I said, it's meaningless for God to be deceived. The sentence 'God is deceived' involves a contradiction: an omniscient being doesn't know something. Asking how God knows that he isn't deceived is akin to asking how God knows that squares aren't round. Do you see what I mean? I'll add that this objection has no force against the classical view which denies that God's knowledge is ‘knowledge-that’ (I don't like the phrase "propositional knowledge"). But, whatever the case, it just isn't a problem for any version of theism.
@Chris Taylor But Chris, if 'creation' includes everything other than God (as it does in classical theism), then 'sans creation' just means 'without anything other than God'. How is this not just God being alone? Nonetheless, I do see your point about begging the question. Could you perhaps spell out this inference from 'God is alone' to 'God is subject to cartesian scenarios' in more detail? Why would that follow?
@Chris Taylor No, I don't agree that "if internalism is true then cartesian _scenarios_ are logically possible". It's clear that God being deceived by a demon is logically impossible. God would have to create such a demon first, knowing in advance that it would deceive him. But then, how could it deceive him? I confess I'm a little puzzled, since you seem to be switching from the question of whether cartesian *scenarios* are logically possible for God given internalism, to whether cartesian *doubt* is logically possible for God given internalism. These are just different questions. As for the latter one, doubt needs reasons. What reasons could God have for "cartesian doubt"? As for "the basis of God's knowledge/beliefs", I think God's knowledge is just innate (being an essential property of God). Since God doesn't have beliefs, there's no question about justification. While beliefs require justification, knowledge does not, and knowledge is not a species of belief.
18:52 Things can exist as a concept (idea, thought, imagination) and yet not exist in reality. For example, the Pegasus. It does not exist in reality, yet it does exist conceptually. God is the same, a concept created by man, yet does not exist in reality.
@@ceceroxy2227 Thoughts are electrochemical reactions that take place within the brain. An MRI scan can show them. Thoughts exist within the physical realm.
Is omniscience possible? Yes, of course. After you read a fiction book you are completely omniscient about its content. Is that satisfying? Usually not.
It seems wrong on the face of it to say we can argue “from the armchair” so to speak that God or anyone for that matter in principle cannot know everything in any sense of the word “know”. I think back to videos you have done about the possibility of an infinite past, and it just doesn’t seem like your bringing the same incredulity to this discussion that you brought to that one. I don’t understand how anyone could take seriously the idea that an omniscient being is prima facie impossible in reality. I agree with you on the infinite past but it just seems like there is a lack of creativity here in constructing different notions of how a being could “know”, that you do have when it comes to thinking about an infinite past.
1. If God knows everything, then God knows what it is like to be me 2. What it is like to be me is being me 3. God isn't me 4. God can't know everything
Ok, but that's a perceptualist understanding of omniscience rather than a conceptualist understanding of omniscience. God doesn't need to be you to know what it is like to be you, because omniscience just means knowing all true propositions, not experiencing everything. For example, you might ask the question, has someone who already knows everything about the colour red learnt anything by seeing the colour red for the first time? The majority of philosophers would say 'no', because the appearance of the colour red merely concerns one's sensory reaction to the colour and so exists only in relation to someone else, not the colour itself--in other words, the appearance of the colour red is not an internal property of that colour, and thus it's not a true proposition. Similarly, 'what it's like being you' is a set of true propositions, but the 'experience of being you', which is what would really be incompatible with God not being you, is no set of true propositions, because it's what you perceive--objective truths are conceived. The only one of your premises that I deny (4 is the conclusion obviously), therefore, is premise 2--knowing what it is like to be someone entails being that person only if one's knowledge is limited, because there are no objective experiential truths, only objective propositions drawn from those truths. God can know the objective truths related to 'what it's like being you' without being you, because he is not limited by lack of knowledge like we are as humans.
It's always so hard for Platonists to come up with even a fair description of nominalism its kind of funny, IMHO for nominalists, the truehmaker is the subject, there is no ontological commitment on predicates on the subjects, the truth about snow being white is in the snow. Our lenguaje about it is nothing but a proxy to describe the things that exist in reality. If it is true that Joe holds a belief about x, then that is just part of Joe. Now whether that belief is actually true will depend on what that belief is about, aka the subject.If it is true that a rose is red, then what make that true is the rose (truthmaker) and when we talk or think about it we are reference "that", so for a fictionalist propositions are a fiction. So groups are but useful fictions, and as such they are problematics, implies contradictions, and they have to deal with external/internal certainties, which in my opinion is not a problem for fictionalism Ofc, as always there is a lot to be said either case
My preferred solution is trinitarianism. The defender of omniscience can say that God knows the maximal set of true propositions where the maximal knowledge is understood as "avoiding contradiction". But God can know his own knowledge. God knowing his own knowledge is, I think, the basis for the Church's doctrine of the Trinity - the divine processions. God knowing Himself the procession from the Father to the Son.
I think Joe answers this in his video "Why Am I Agnostic?" Joe doesn't say he doesn't know. Just that he's undecided whether the proposition is true or false. I suspect he wouldn't bet either way. I've heard him say he's 'positive' towards theism - meaning that he would like theism to be true. So I wouldn't be surprised if he were to bet theism is true (assuming he must choose one way or the other).
@@peterevans1572 I am asking if he had to bet his entire life savings on what is true, not what he wished to be true. What would Joe bet on, I think deep down he believes God exists, but I do think part of him doesnt want God to exist, I think alot of people say they want God to exist, but that's just a smokescreen. Joe is very very smart, one of the few agnostic or atheists that I respect.
@@absolutelyoptimistictheology yep. Here's a syllogism !. God does not exist 2. If something does not exist it didnt command anything 3. There for God did not command anything.
@@absolutelyoptimistictheology are you an atheist. I dont know what God did or didnt do, I am not God's spokesperson, or judge. If God does not exist, as Richard Dawkins said there is no good or evil, just pittiless indifrerence.
@@absolutelyoptimistictheology Because there are moral realists who are philosophers, doesnt make there position tenable. There are people who dont believe they exist like alex rosenberg, daniel dennett and sam harris. A person can say he believes moral realism is true even without God, but I see that is just not a possibility. If moral platonism is true, which i find highly inplausible that there is this abstract realm of things like justice, love and friendship or hatred, selfishness and narcissism. Why would anyone have any moral obligation to one set of moral principles over the other. Well you bring up good questions about who God is, what God will do, and what is God really like. I ask myself the same questions. Maybe God does or does not rehabilitate everyone, many of the angels left and rebelled of their own volition.
Of course God can exercise omniscience , the problem is humanity, theyre limited to understanding omniscience...😁. How's my philosophy? I mean think about it, how can humans understand godliness if they're mortal themselves...
It’s certainly incompatible with timelessness; but it it’s perfectly compatible with eternality in the sense of never beginning and never ending. Merely from the fact that God changes in some respect, it doesn’t follow that he ever began to exist or ever will cease to exist. And in any case, God isn’t timeless.
@@MajestyofReason But God can not change in any respect. Since God is perfect and perfection can not be more or less perfect, God can change iff HE cannot change -- a contradiction, no?
@@mathewsamuel1386 You're assuming that any change must either add to or diminish something's greatness. But that assumption is mistaken. For instance, I don't get better or worse simply because I changed in the following respect: I went from being close to a leaf blowing in the wind to being far away from a leaf blowing in the wind. Here I have gained (or lost) a relational property and hence I've changed, but clearly I didn't get better or worse as a result :)
@@MajestyofReason Wow! That blows me away! I could hardly have thought about it like this. Good to learn. But I'm wondering if that can apply to God? I mean, you're not omnipresent, right? So changing your position doesn't change anything intrinsic about you. But omnipresence is an intrinsic property of God, and if God would have undergone the sort of change in your hypothetical example, there would be a contradiction, no?
@@mathewsamuel1386 Happy to blow people away! Haha. I agree that God cannot go from being close to a leaf to being far away from the leaf. But that was just an example of the general point that merely from the fact that something changes, it doesn't follow that it gets better or worse. Here's one way this could apply to God: God could go from sustaining Abraham Lincoln in existence to not sustaining Abraham Lincoln in existence (once Lincoln dies). But this change doesn't seem to make God better or worse! (Alternatively, God can change from knowing it's now 9:14 pm in Princeton to knowing it's now 9:15 pm in Princeton. But this doesn't make God better or worse; it simply preserves his status as all-knowing.)
Philosophy to me is the most rewarding when you stumble upon people who you respect that are thinking about the same things as you, so that you get a sense that you are a decent thinker, but it also leaves a space of humility because they are better than me at articulating the thoughts and getting to the precise conclusions. Really loved this talk, I'm not quite a theist but I find myself agreeing with Josh on many issues.
Also I love when you have him on since you guys have developed such a fruitful friendship, it's quite wholesome to see your chemistry.
Let's assume logic is just a description of reality and descriptions/properties are menal constructs. The paradoxes in the video are just showing that our description of reality is flawed when dealing with self referential ideas or descriptions/properties. The fault lies not in the stars but in ourselves.
My biggest disagreement is actually about what’s at stake. If we examine humans, it seems that we say a human knows a proposition whenever they have the ability to bring that proposition into their awareness. We do not base claims of their knowledge on whether or not they actually *are* aware of the truths of those propositions. For example, you can know “7+5=12” even if what’s in your awareness only consists about dinner plans, because if I asked you what 7+5 was, you could easily bring that into your awareness. So, even if God cannot be aware of the truth values of all propositions simultaneously, He can still know them in virtue of possessing the ability to bring them into His awareness.
Squared have you made any videos on problems of divine psychology yet? It’s been a topic I’ve had on mind and wondered if you had or could direct me to any theist responses to it?
I'd argue the problem is exactly opposite. I'll grant you that a hypothetical god's consciousness could be _aware_ of all true propositions simultaneously. The problem arises with justification of those propositions. Even if this god is aware of all true propositions and believes his knowledge is exhaustive there is no way to justify that. You could claim that this god has exhaustive knowledge of himself, and exhaustive knowledge of his creation (though that has a tremendous philosophical cost too) but God has no way of knowing that he's the only entity out there making creations.
So at the end of the day, this god would still be faced with the same epistemological problems we do. Things like Descartes' Demon and the problem of hard solipsism prevent God from justifying (and therefore knowing) everything.
Certainly you could dilute the definitions of omniscience and god to the point where the can be reconciled and coherent, but at the end of the day you end up with something that isn't very god-like that doesn't know everything.
@@ajhieb doesn't these have to be argued for or demostrated in some way or another? why couldn't God know that he is the only one making creation? would such even count as lack of knowleadge? same goes for the demon and the solipsism issues.
@@jonathacirilo5745 _"why couldn't God know that he is the only one making creation?"_ Because no one can ever know anything they don't have any access to. And there is always a possibility that there is something you don't have any access too, so knowledge is always going to be incomplete. That is to say you don't know what you don't know. So even if God was correct in assuming he was the only creator, he still couldn't know it. (the problem being justification, not truth)
@@ajhieb I see(I think), but the part about this counting or not seems to remain tho. like, maybe we can't really know if we are in a simulation, of it a demon is tricking us, or if this is in our brains, but we can reasonably enought rule out these due to the issues they suffer right? so maybe the same is true for God, assuming that he too has indeed no way of knowing these things.
I absolutely loved to hear the intellectual honesty expressed in this discussion and the fact that this is an honest pursuit of truth and not an exercise in justifying any preconceived world view conclusion. Both are prepared to be persuaded by reason and both are prepared to revise their views based on reason alone.
A thoroughly enjoyable discussion! Well done both of you. Im very impressed as such honesty and lack of dogmatism is so incredibly rare and hence so refreshing to see! 👍👍👍
❤️❤️❤️
One of my favorite videos in your channel. So much staff to think about. Thank you and Josh!
What if the proposition was...I am everything and I know myself? because it sounds like you are both the package and everything inside of it. or do we still run into this cyclical problem?
I wonder: if we take a classical, non-propositional view of God's knowledge (according to which God knows everything by knowing his own nature), doesn't this remove the problem of self-reference? For on this view, we don't have God being aware of everything, and then ALSO being aware of his own act of awareness (which would seem to divide God's knowledge up into separate chunks); rather, we just have God knowing his own nature, THROUGH which he knows everything else (since it all results from his creative act). Or, to put it another way, instead of starting with God's knowledge of the world, and then moving on to God knowing that he knows the world (etc.), we START with God's knowledge of himself (including his own omniscience), and it being through this that he knows the world. It seems like this might reverse the order of explanation, so as to remove the vicious circularity.
I think the problem there remains, because God's knowledge of self would precede the self, which makes no sense. There are other problems as well, such as evil, since according to this view, evil too would be part of God's nature, but how is he omnibenevolent then?
Maybe I'm missing something here, but! Just because we can label things as packages, it doesn’t follow there are instantiated into reality these packages e.g. we can have a line and we can imagine an infinite number of points between the lines, but it doesn’t follow there are these points. It just seems to me that we are over thinking things, the propositions I exist, doesn’t mean there is a proposition of a proposition that I know, that I know I exist to infinity, we just automatically accept the thought is fundamental or basic. Why can't God’s omnipotence just be a basic fundamental?
We have no problem seeing that the statement “every ball is twice as big as itself” makes no sense. It doesn’t trouble us that it is nonsensical. The barber’s paradox is a similar nonsensical statement, it just takes a little longer to work out that it’s nonsense. The logical reply to in both cases is that the statement is nonsensical. I don’t see that it’s any deeper than that. The fact that a statement that initially sound like it makes sense, on closer inspection turns out does not make sense, does not tell us anything meaningful about either the world or human reasoning
I envy everyone who has Josh as their professor. I just started the video and it's looking good.
To my mind the barber’s paradox is simply a linguistic quirk. All it shows is that some sentences are inconsistent if applied to the real world. It doesn’t tell us anything about the world in itself
1. That starting assumption begins with "for any things xs" - what kind of a quantifier is that? I understand "for any thing x", or "for any set of things S" - those are well-defined. But "for any things"? What operations are allowed to be used on this "xs" thing? I know the operations that are allowed to be used on _sets,_ but this seems to mean something other than a set. If so, what _does_ it mean? Until someone provides a definition that is at least as rigorous as set theory (we already know, from "naive set theory", that less rigorous definitions won't work), I have no reason to allow such a quantifier in my logic.
2. Even for collections that are actually sets, we already know that some of them are _genuinely indescribable._ The set of "all programs that halt" is the prime example, but there are also many theorems of the form "almost every such-and-such is indescribable". So I think the transition from "there is this set of things" to "there is a proposition which is about those and only those things" is not just unjustified, but evidently false.
I think about the old attage of not confusing the map and the terrain.
Whilst the terrain cannot be right/wrong/contradictory/self-referential
Our thinking and talking and conceptualising about it can be.
Take the barberer paradox. Our description of the situation cannot be the case but this puts no constraints on the barberer. He can shave whomever he wants and nothing contradictory will happen.
God can know everything if everything comes from him. Materialists forget that idealism is possible.
Awesome discussion. It was the highlight of my day
Awesome! Gonna watch this later.
This is such an excellent channel, well done 👍
I understood the contradiction in the third premise the first time itself
I'm feeling smart
I don't like the barber example because the very concept of barber implies more than one person. One becomes a barber to service others, not oneself. Even if it does parallel the more technical issue at hand.
@tkwtg I totally get it. I just dislike when philosophical concepts get crowded out by culture ;)
Also, it seems as though Rasmussen's objection to the simplicity solution still turns on a propositional view of knowledge. See this passage in his essay: "Suppose God is automatically aware of everything, including God’s own awareness. Then there are self-including awareness facts. For example, there is the fact that God is aware of all facts about awareness, including that same fact. It follows that there is this paradoxical fact: the fact that God is aware of the awareness facts that are not self-including."
But surely, if God's knowledge is non-propositional, then this objection doesn't work, because God's knowledge is not constituted by a set of facts (which seems to be necessary for the self-reference problem to get off the ground).
There's certainly room here to explore. My concern is that even if God's knowledge is not propositional, ours is, and the paradox can be set up in terms our own propositions... But I don't want to overstate that: doors and corridors on this path remain open.
@@WorldviewDesignChannel Thanks for the reply! I wonder if you have any thoughts on what I said in my other comment: specifically, couldn't the classical theist say that God knows everything via his knowledge of his own nature, of which everything else (including the act of creation) is merely an expression (i.e. Aquinas' view)? It seems like this would reverse the order of explanation; that is, instead of God knowing the world, and then knowing that he knows the world (etc.), we have God's single act of knowing himself, and everything else thereby. Though perhaps you would say that we could still have God knowing that he knows himself, and thus generate the problem?
@@WorldviewDesignChannel I wonder could you think about an argument for Gods omnipotence i think that would be fun and please critique my argument for it by the way I do not support divine simplicity, but rather that Allah is all power all knowing, will over everything and above his throne as suits his majesty and not everywhere in the sense that he himself is everywhere, rather his power or will and knowledge is over everything, and he looks nothing like his creation but has a face and other characteristics that suit his majesty, like a dog and me have a face but it isn't the same, it's incomprehensible, or a tree and me breathe but they don't have lungs
@@WorldviewDesignChannel Allahs omnipotence is proven because of the fact that there must be a self sufficient and eternal foundation to reality, now however you may go about knowing if its alive or mechanical, I don't care, right now I recognise that IF it is Allah, then it must be omnipotent, this is demonstrated by him creating, if he creates and doesn't weaken whether in capacity to create more or that he doesn't become lesser capable if he continued, meaning he doesn't grow weary or tired or fatigued or sleepy or hungry or thirty ect, if he doesn't ever reach this point when he is using his power to create, that would mean then that if he created more at infinity that he wouldn't be diminished as he already prior not even in the slightest degree was, it's like drinking out of a cup and finding that the water within its quality and or quantity has remained the same, meaning no matter how much pours out, it never ends, now if it was limited in power, then eventually to even the slightest degree it would grow weary or weakened or stop due to incapacity rather than wilfully, however the limited can't provide a never ending amount, much like the water bottle example, had there been limited water in, even in great amounts, you would find that the water eventually declines, as it already was slowly, but if Allah is proven to have always be using his power in some type of way then it would mean that as he is using his power in that way, its going to be the same or similar to him using power to create in the sense that both are using power, so this would be proven by Allahs awareness, his awareness of anything, whether himself, the nothingness or his potentially infinite knowledge which I believe he has, and if he didn't have any power in the slightest then he wouldn't even be weak, it would be more similar to say he wouldn't be anything or incapable of everything for thoughts of knowledge and awareness of things and creating require some degree of power, some capacity or capability, some control or influence or force to say you have none is to say you are pretty much nothing, humans beings need power to think even if you do nothing all day, you eventually need to eat or sleep, even for inanimate objects, they can eventually erode, even things like black holes eventually need to disappear or erode away via hawking radiation, and for the most part that I know of, anything that lasts here was created, so even if a hypothetical human didn't need to eat sleep and other needs, they were in need to be created, and so they arent truly self sufficient, but Allah has no beginning nor end, no needs, so he is truly the ever living and self sufficient one, imagine it in the sense of if humans had no capability or capacity or power then could they even be aware or think, those very things require power, require the innate capacity to do them and so if he has continually used power such as in his awareness of things which must have power to whatever degree it does reason again being if he had no power at all he couldn't remain aware or if he had limited power it would be exhausted before eternity comes to an end, and since he has eternally continually used it much like in the hypothetical that if he continually creates without being diminished he must be infinite in his capacity to create and therefore infinite his ability of power, then he must be omnipotent, for if he was eternal there's nothing he relies on, if I was to say a tree was eternal, and it needs a sun that is eternal, does that even make any sense, how can an eternal thing be dependent on another eternal thing when both were without beginning without the need to be brought into existence as they already were, how could this relationship even occur outside of mere thought experiments, 2 simultaneously eternally things existing and one depending on the other, it doesnt work, for as far as we can tell things are dependent come after what they are dependent upon originally for their existence, other than that they may need maintenance or are dependent on other things such as food, but I'm talking about original points of origin, if there never was any origin then they have no need to rely on anything outside of themselves for they never needed it, if somehow there are 2 eternal things, and one is dependent upon the other for its maintenance, what perhaps makes Allahs attributes different here is that they are eternal and exist together not in need of anything outside of themselves, or Allah is as he is without any need for externals, perhaps this works as an argument im not sure though, are his characteristics dependent upon him eternally or is it that he eternally is dependent upon the characteristics but to be honest neither makes much sense, as its describing the same thing, Allah is all of his characteristics and all of his characteristics or the sum of all of them are him, Allah is as he describes himself and has eternally been so, that's all I can say of it truly, arguing which eternals are dependent if it's already not impossible is beyond us to figure out, Allah and how he has described himself is eternally been as it is without diminishing in the slightest degree nor is Allah depending on anything outside of himself, I mean really what is Allah seperate from his characteristics or what are his characteristics separate from him, I can always say this is a something of Allah's, try to make them sound like different entities dependent it a bit incomprehensible a bit, because it seems that you are just describing the same being
But to wrap up, continuous use of power without diminishing in anyway of the one who uses it, neither relying upon externals as sources of power to carry on, and having used power continually for eternity implies that he is omnipotent as he never was exhausted from being aware forever which itself it a type of capacity or capability or power which Allah has used without end much like how he has used other capabilites and arguably forms of power to create such as his knowledge, Will, Power, the power of being aware for ever without exhaustion would imply that if power is being used else where to create it also wouldn't be exhausted no matter how intense the quality or how numerous the quantity of the creation would be, it's like if a human being used there arm eternally to punch, they never took breaks in between nor replenished themself, nor did they need to, that would imply that if they started to run they would never lose the power to stop running, as they never did prior, or if they could punch eternally without a need for anything outside of themself to replenish them nor did they diminish in power or were exhausted no matter how long they did it, if that same person was to run forever they wouldn't stop as implied by the hypothetical prior stating they punched forever without end, so they most definitely could do the same in other capacities which would exhaust us but not the hypothetical person, this proves that Allah must be omnipotent otherwise its a contradiction to assume he is limited for how could he continually without outside help or assistance or replenishment of some kind continue to use his power eternally, and if he was limited it would imply that eventually he would be weakened from his use of power or that the moment he does use power something within his innate capacity must fatigue or slow down even if it's to slightest degree as eventually if he carried on it becomes so that he would be exhausted of his capabilities
@@Abdullah21038 Too short.
Enjoying this. LOTS to ponder. There are obviously some philosophical aspects/principles at work that I'm not familiar with but nonetheless thought-provoking. I paused the video to mention one thing that I'd be curious to know whether Josh has considered.
Josh talked about God being more than "just does" in the sense of omniscience and that having "no adventure". I've been giving a lot of thought lately to what Imago Dei means. And how much of what we are is reflective of God with us having been made in His image. For example, my latest ponderings dealt with Repentance and how God commands Man to repent. Logically God does not command Man to do something he is not able to do. There are several places in Scripture where God "repented" or, IOW, changed His mind. Therefore it follows that being made in His image is one of the reason we have the ability to change our mind.
No, that being said, is Mankind naturally adventurous because we are made in His image and He is adventurous? If that be the case then what does that say about God "taking chances" and thusly His "Omniscience"? Secondarily to the Scriptures that clearly state God did not know something, it is these kind of questions that move me to prefer the term "Maximally Knowing" over "Omniscient".
Thanks for this Joe
Joe , Do you think that any Paradox about mathematical sets or Paradox of self referential can be an interesting objection against omnipotence or omniscience ??
Listening to this I can't help keep thinking, "isn't this just an unsatisfiable pair?"
Is god unfalsifiable? No, of course not. All gods are inventions of man and false by design.
I mean, if there are things that are not packaged, then they're not in the package of things that we can talk about, nor in the package of things that we can think about, nor in the package of things that we can make arguments about, etc... So it's not even clear to me that this argument is actually talking about those things.
But even just conceiving of something that isn't packaged seems unsuccessful for me, I just seem unable to conceive of such a thing, a bit like I can't conceive of a square-circle. Which would make sense, they're not in the package of things that we can conceive of after all.
Great video
I've gone down roads of paradoxes of omniscience in a more rudimentary way, just because it's fun. It leads me to questions like how would god know he's not being deceived into thinking he's omniscience by a trickster super god?
Joe, could you share the link of the presentation?
36:00 "I leave some things open for discovery". This is described in Caitanya Vaishnava theology. God is always expanding.
19:24 oh shit
Awesome discussion
(Illiterate in philosophy/sophomore in high school here) Would this paradox defeat the argument from motion?
34:30 wow - fundamentalists have to deny this I guess
Good sir, you are going to go far if you stick with this! (And the great thing about Metaphysics is that we can lol) This is the type of philosophical discussions we need more of.
I was just introduced to you so I haven’t been able to go through your entire library yet but I would be ever so intrigued to hear a discussion about Kant’s metaphysic’s.
Much love, and welcome aboard!!! Enjoy your stay🙂❤️
This is definitely something I'm going to have come back to. On first hearing "God doesn't know, and couldn't know everything" you start to freak out and worry. But I wonder if it truly is something to worry about. Really awesome material here. Doing great work. God bless you
41:05
When I heard that God does not know everything, I had never thought of that but I did not freak out as a theist. This is consistent with the fact that God cannot do anything, fact that has been known forever in philosophy and it is in the Bible. God cannot do contradictory things.So the video is only an example of this. Knowing all packages is a contradictory thing so it is one of the things God cannot do
Just as you don’t freak out when someone says “God didn’t create Himself”, you don’t need to freak out when someone says “God doesn’t know Himself”, because God’s knowledge isn’t a mere awareness of a truth. It is the creation & sustaining of a truth. So, “God knows Himself” is the same proposition as “God creates Himself”.
I think the mere attempt to put the things that do not belong to their own package in a package is contradictory. We should not expect to get a non-contradictory result from a contradictory attempt. Have I undertood it well? if not please correct me. I think logic can go beyond imagination so we should not think about logical concepts by imagining concepts. For example we deductively know that natural numbers are infinite; this infinity per se cannot be imagined but it can be ascertained. We know every single number that belongs to this category but we have not imagined its infinity. So the first attempt to presume a package for things then arguing based on limited imagined packages (some of which are in fact infinite) is contradictory. To me there is no contradiction except in the argument itself.
Hey Joe great video! Unrelated questions but what are your thoughts on the problem of epistemic peer disagreement in philosophy? I know this isn't your area of specialization, but Im curious about your thoughts on it or if you know of any good papers on the issue.
I discuss that debate and my view(s) therein in my video with Josh linked in the description! :)
@@MajestyofReasonThanks I'll check it out :)
@@MajestyofReason I'd be really cool to see you make a full video about this at some point in the future like you mention in the video. I find this topic fascinating :)
@@jd-un9cg
episteme:
Greek for “knowledge”. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It is concerned with the mind’s relation to “reality” (ontology).
Because we humans are situated in the relative sphere, absolute knowledge is absolutely impossible. The only fact we can know for certain is the fact that we are aware of being aware. All other knowledge is necessarily imperfect and cannot be absolutely reliable.
Some of the most popular schools of epistemology in the Western tradition include empiricism, rationalism, scepticism, pragmatism, relativism, probability theory, and idealism. Some of these schools have strong equivalences in the traditions of Indian philosophy.
According to some authorities, specifically those in Indian philosophical traditions, there are (depending on the particular school in question) up to six “proofs”, or “instruments of knowledge”, or “means of right information” (“pramāṇa”, in Sanskrit), as follows:
1. Pratyakṣa (Perception) - Acquiring knowledge from experience via sense perceptions and mental/intellectual acuity.
2. Anumāṇa (Inference) - Gaining right knowledge from logical conclusions, as far as human understanding allows.
3. Upamāṇa (Comparison) - Learning by observing similarities or analogies between two objects.
4. Arthāpatti (Postulation) - Supposition of a fact to support a well-established fact; derivation from circumstances.
5. Anupalabdhi (Non-apprehension) - Understanding non-existence by non-perception (e.g. there is no such being as God).
6. Śabda (Verbal testimony) - Gaining authentic knowledge from spoken and written words composed by reliable authorities.
the formula for the magic of libertarian freewill to create or invent ideas.
Both your voices sound artificially lower, like they were lowered in post
🤷♂️
Seems like you don't need to throw out self reference. You could instead throw out "not". God is often explained by saying that negative attributes don't exist, they are merely the absence of a positive.
Aren't these now and before issues just further examples of unsatifiable pairs?
I already watched the entire thing. Good stuff, man. It seems like Josh is basically who you would be if you were a theist 😂. It seems like he's the theist you agree the most with.
I think that most traditional classical theists can also get around this problem without accepting dynamic knowledge in God. Under CT, God IS His knowledge and the content of His knowledge is extrinsic. Entities simply have the real relation of being known by God. There doesn't seem to be a difference between God's awareness of X and X itself. All entities neccesarly have the property of being known by God. That's all God's awareness of Creation consists in. Is God aware of His awareness? I'm not sure what that would mean under CT. He knows Himself and He IS His knowledge. Do you get my point? I'm just not sure that the worry would even arise. There would simply be entities that have the property of being known by Him.
Also, what is your favourite model of theism?
27:53 Why wouldn't conceptualism be contingent ?
Josh's voice sounds strange. Is this video pitch shifted down a bit?
Then
I create a rule that says that everything must be contained in a container.
But that rule is impossible to follow. When I pack something, the container is not packed.
It would be equivalent to saying that I want to create something that has no outer part.
That is not paradoxical. It is not following the rules of reality.
Knowledge is not a container. Knowledge is a representation. It is a different relationship. The first is topological and the second is not.
A duplicate is the best representation.
God can know everything about the universe. It is enough for him to have an identical representation. He also has the original.
In humans, knowledge is representation (one cannot contain a chair to know that it is a chair) but the concept of god does not contain that limit.
A perfectly fascinating video! Now, Mr. Schmidt, I want to openly admit to you that I don't believe that giraffes evolved long necks because they needed to reach even higher leaves. Scientists may infer that reason, but I don't believe they are correct about it. I have my own personal theories about why giraffes have long necks. Most biologists would disagree with me. You have a choice.
Omniscience is impossible because God is limited by being Perfect. I tried to look to Hindu mythology to resolve this conflict, and their actual answer was that, among the Creator, the Sustainer, and the Father gods, only the Father is truly infinite. He's also the Lord of Demons. And because he's not Perfect or limited by perfection, he has *exactly* the perfect amount of knowledge.
You always give me hearts, so I wrote you a real response.
how would evolution even know if the giraffes needed longer necks, why wouldnt evolution make them shorter, evolution doesnt know anything, so how can it know if the tree are too high or too low.
@@ceceroxy2227 , the correct answer is Death, @ceceroxy, which is the ultimate test in the battle for truth. When Death learns the true reason why giraffes have long necks, then the strategy ceases to function. It's not about getting leaves. That's what I'll tell you about them.
@@ceceroxy2227 I'd also like to point out that Death is one of those divine packages. He murders everyone, but he cannot kill himself. And therefore he is limited and could be Perfect.
if the future exists you are already dead,buried,or resurrected to an afterlife which lasts foreve Yikes!
“because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”
Romans 1:21-25 KJV
Why did you find it relevant to quote this passage?
How does God know that he isn't subject to cartesian scenarios ?
It's part of the concept of God that God is omniscient. So, it's an _a priori_ (conceptual) truth that God is not subject to Cartesian scenarios (if he was, he wouldn't be 'God'). God knows that he's not a brain in the vat in the same way he knows any other _a priori_ truth (e.g., that numbers are not made of wood).
@Chris Taylor
If God were alone, then it would certainly *not* be "logically possible" for him to be deceived by a demon (there wouldn't be any demons at all!). So that's off the table.
As I said, it's meaningless for God to be deceived. The sentence 'God is deceived' involves a contradiction: an omniscient being doesn't know something. Asking how God knows that he isn't deceived is akin to asking how God knows that squares aren't round. Do you see what I mean?
I'll add that this objection has no force against the classical view which denies that God's knowledge is ‘knowledge-that’ (I don't like the phrase "propositional knowledge"). But, whatever the case, it just isn't a problem for any version of theism.
@Chris Taylor
But Chris, if 'creation' includes everything other than God (as it does in classical theism), then 'sans creation' just means 'without anything other than God'. How is this not just God being alone?
Nonetheless, I do see your point about begging the question. Could you perhaps spell out this inference from 'God is alone' to 'God is subject to cartesian scenarios' in more detail? Why would that follow?
@Chris Taylor
No, I don't agree that "if internalism is true then cartesian _scenarios_ are logically possible". It's clear that God being deceived by a demon is logically impossible. God would have to create such a demon first, knowing in advance that it would deceive him. But then, how could it deceive him?
I confess I'm a little puzzled, since you seem to be switching from the question of whether cartesian *scenarios* are logically possible for God given internalism, to whether cartesian *doubt* is logically possible for God given internalism. These are just different questions. As for the latter one, doubt needs reasons. What reasons could God have for "cartesian doubt"?
As for "the basis of God's knowledge/beliefs", I think God's knowledge is just innate (being an essential property of God). Since God doesn't have beliefs, there's no question about justification. While beliefs require justification, knowledge does not, and knowledge is not a species of belief.
I'm not convinced. Suppose he knows everything including the fact that he knows everything. How is this a contradiction?
18:52 Things can exist as a concept (idea, thought, imagination) and yet not exist in reality. For example, the Pegasus. It does not exist in reality, yet it does exist conceptually. God is the same, a concept created by man, yet does not exist in reality.
God may not exist in physical reality, just like your thoughts are not physical, its possible there is a non physical realm beyond the physical.
@@ceceroxy2227 Do you have evidence for this?
@@eriks.6283 Bring me a thought so i can see it, and then you will have convinced me thoughts are physical
@@ceceroxy2227 Thoughts are electrochemical reactions that take place within the brain. An MRI scan can show them. Thoughts exist within the physical realm.
@@eriks.6283 ok if you say so
If you ever become theist, I could imagining you being a lot like Dr. Rasmussen haha
No dialetheism??? 😢
He Leaves Town To Shave Himself :P
Is omniscience possible? Yes, of course. After you read a fiction book you are completely omniscient about its content. Is that satisfying? Usually not.
It seems wrong on the face of it to say we can argue “from the armchair” so to speak that God or anyone for that matter in principle cannot know everything in any sense of the word “know”.
I think back to videos you have done about the possibility of an infinite past, and it just doesn’t seem like your bringing the same incredulity to this discussion that you brought to that one.
I don’t understand how anyone could take seriously the idea that an omniscient being is prima facie impossible in reality. I agree with you on the infinite past but it just seems like there is a lack of creativity here in constructing different notions of how a being could “know”, that you do have when it comes to thinking about an infinite past.
1. If God knows everything, then God knows what it is like to be me
2. What it is like to be me is being me
3. God isn't me
4. God can't know everything
That is subjective knowledge.
If God knows that " I am Justus " , then that is a false proposition.
This is a relative proposition.
Ok, but that's a perceptualist understanding of omniscience rather than a conceptualist understanding of omniscience. God doesn't need to be you to know what it is like to be you, because omniscience just means knowing all true propositions, not experiencing everything. For example, you might ask the question, has someone who already knows everything about the colour red learnt anything by seeing the colour red for the first time? The majority of philosophers would say 'no', because the appearance of the colour red merely concerns one's sensory reaction to the colour and so exists only in relation to someone else, not the colour itself--in other words, the appearance of the colour red is not an internal property of that colour, and thus it's not a true proposition. Similarly, 'what it's like being you' is a set of true propositions, but the 'experience of being you', which is what would really be incompatible with God not being you, is no set of true propositions, because it's what you perceive--objective truths are conceived. The only one of your premises that I deny (4 is the conclusion obviously), therefore, is premise 2--knowing what it is like to be someone entails being that person only if one's knowledge is limited, because there are no objective experiential truths, only objective propositions drawn from those truths. God can know the objective truths related to 'what it's like being you' without being you, because he is not limited by lack of knowledge like we are as humans.
It's always so hard for Platonists to come up with even a fair description of nominalism its kind of funny, IMHO for nominalists, the truehmaker is the subject, there is no ontological commitment on predicates on the subjects, the truth about snow being white is in the snow. Our lenguaje about it is nothing but a proxy to describe the things that exist in reality. If it is true that Joe holds a belief about x, then that is just part of Joe. Now whether that belief is actually true will depend on what that belief is about, aka the subject.If it is true that a rose is red, then what make that true is the rose (truthmaker) and when we talk or think about it we are reference "that", so for a fictionalist propositions are a fiction.
So groups are but useful fictions, and as such they are problematics, implies contradictions, and they have to deal with external/internal certainties, which in my opinion is not a problem for fictionalism
Ofc, as always there is a lot to be said either case
My preferred solution is trinitarianism. The defender of omniscience can say that God knows the maximal set of true propositions where the maximal knowledge is understood as "avoiding contradiction". But God can know his own knowledge. God knowing his own knowledge is, I think, the basis for the Church's doctrine of the Trinity - the divine processions. God knowing Himself the procession from the Father to the Son.
Why not more than 3? Just curious. My personal opinion is that the Trinity is an incoherent concept.
does God exist, that's the question I would ask Joe. If Joe had to bet his life on it, what would his answer be. And I dont know doesnt count.
I think Joe answers this in his video "Why Am I Agnostic?"
Joe doesn't say he doesn't know. Just that he's undecided whether the proposition is true or false. I suspect he wouldn't bet either way.
I've heard him say he's 'positive' towards theism - meaning that he would like theism to be true. So I wouldn't be surprised if he were to bet theism is true (assuming he must choose one way or the other).
@@peterevans1572 I am asking if he had to bet his entire life savings on what is true, not what he wished to be true. What would Joe bet on, I think deep down he believes God exists, but I do think part of him doesnt want God to exist, I think alot of people say they want God to exist, but that's just a smokescreen. Joe is very very smart, one of the few agnostic or atheists that I respect.
@@absolutelyoptimistictheology yep.
Here's a syllogism
!. God does not exist
2. If something does not exist it didnt command anything
3. There for God did not command anything.
@@absolutelyoptimistictheology are you an atheist.
I dont know what God did or didnt do, I am not God's spokesperson, or judge.
If God does not exist, as Richard Dawkins said there is no good or evil, just pittiless indifrerence.
@@absolutelyoptimistictheology Because there are moral realists who are philosophers, doesnt make there position tenable. There are people who dont believe they exist like alex rosenberg, daniel dennett and sam harris. A person can say he believes moral realism is true even without God, but I see that is just not a possibility. If moral platonism is true, which i find highly inplausible that there is this abstract realm of things like justice, love and friendship or hatred, selfishness and narcissism. Why would anyone have any moral obligation to one set of moral principles over the other.
Well you bring up good questions about who God is, what God will do, and what is God really like. I ask myself the same questions. Maybe God does or does not rehabilitate everyone, many of the angels left and rebelled of their own volition.
Of course God can exercise omniscience , the problem is humanity, theyre limited to understanding omniscience...😁. How's my philosophy? I mean think about it, how can humans understand godliness if they're mortal themselves...
Does God know what it's like to not know something? Yes or no, there's something God does not know.
But if God has a potential, that means HE can change, which is incompatible with HIS imutability!
It’s certainly incompatible with timelessness; but it it’s perfectly compatible with eternality in the sense of never beginning and never ending. Merely from the fact that God changes in some respect, it doesn’t follow that he ever began to exist or ever will cease to exist. And in any case, God isn’t timeless.
@@MajestyofReason But God can not change in any respect. Since God is perfect and perfection can not be more or less perfect, God can change iff HE cannot change -- a contradiction, no?
@@mathewsamuel1386 You're assuming that any change must either add to or diminish something's greatness. But that assumption is mistaken. For instance, I don't get better or worse simply because I changed in the following respect: I went from being close to a leaf blowing in the wind to being far away from a leaf blowing in the wind. Here I have gained (or lost) a relational property and hence I've changed, but clearly I didn't get better or worse as a result :)
@@MajestyofReason Wow! That blows me away! I could hardly have thought about it like this. Good to learn. But I'm wondering if that can apply to God? I mean, you're not omnipresent, right? So changing your position doesn't change anything intrinsic about you. But omnipresence is an intrinsic property of God, and if God would have undergone the sort of change in your hypothetical example, there would be a contradiction, no?
@@mathewsamuel1386 Happy to blow people away! Haha. I agree that God cannot go from being close to a leaf to being far away from the leaf. But that was just an example of the general point that merely from the fact that something changes, it doesn't follow that it gets better or worse. Here's one way this could apply to God: God could go from sustaining Abraham Lincoln in existence to not sustaining Abraham Lincoln in existence (once Lincoln dies). But this change doesn't seem to make God better or worse! (Alternatively, God can change from knowing it's now 9:14 pm in Princeton to knowing it's now 9:15 pm in Princeton. But this doesn't make God better or worse; it simply preserves his status as all-knowing.)
Amazing video