(25-10-2013 12:56 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: A concept is an abstract idea. The moment you have a thought about something which doesn't exist, you've created a concept.

Yes that is what EK is saying. By creating a new concept you have begun to think about something which hitherto no one else had thought about.

He said you could have a thought about something and that thought not be a concept....which is ludicrous. When you begin to think about something hitherto no one else has thought about, you create a concept. Initially it might not be fully formed or "fleshed out"....but it is a concept the moment it comes into existence.

(24-10-2013 06:38 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: Let me start making a point that while is obvious is often overlooked. In order to have knowledge about something, that something must exist. For instance in order to have knowledge about unicorns....unicorns must exist. You might be thinking, "Heywood you are a buffoon, unicorns do not exist yet I know they look like horse with a single horn in the middle of their head....I have knowledge about them". You don't have knowledge about unicorns because unicorns don't exist. What you have knowledge about is the concept of unicorns. Unicorns don't exist so there isn't any knowledge about them. The concept of unicorns exists so there is knowledge about that...and you might be privy to it.

What does this have to do with God? God isn't excluded from this brute fact of logic. For God to have knowledge about anything, that thing must exist. For God to know about unicorns, those horse like creatures with single horns on their heads, they must exist. If they do not exist, God can't know about them, He can only know about the concept of unicorns because the concept of unicorns exists.

If God knows all that is knowable, then in order for Him to have knowledge about Unicorns....God must create them.

I have heard many atheist claim that God is possible, but the Christian God is not. Well in order for God to know about a world governed by the rules of the Christian God, God has create a world and govern it as the Christian God. In order for God to know about a world governed by the Buddhist God, God must create that world and govern it as a Buddhist God.

It could be that this world is indeed governed by the Christen God even though you see no evidence for it. Why? Because in order for God to have knowledge about a world which is governed by the rules of Christianity, yet has no evidence of the veracity of Christianity, God has to create it.

If you are an atheist, who acknowledges the possibility of Gods existence, you have to also acknowledge the possibility you are living in a world governed by the rules of Christianity(without any evidence thereof) simply for the sake of God wanting to have knowledge about such a world. If you acknowledge that God might be possible, you have to acknowledge that it might be possible you are on the road to hell.

First of all, you blithely assume that God exists near the starts of your logics. You avoid giving even the pretense of consideration to the possibility that will be obvious and most compelling to any atheist: that only the concept of God exists. Clearly, you are not attempting to construct an argument that we will believe. This after going to such lengths to draw the distinction between something existing versus only its concept existing.

... and then... wait... wait a minute...

... this is just Pascal's Fucking Wager again, isn't it? Yes! Yes it is! It's Pascal's Fucking Wager with a very inept attempt at obfuscation through bad epistemology. Didn't we just have this thread? Like, three times? Also, your obfuscatory maneuvers actually present the perfect counterargument of, "what if this hypothetical God wanted to know about a world where Christians got sent to Hell and atheists got sent to Heaven? It's not like you're making any sort of arguments here about probabilities, just possibilities, and if God's omniscient then He's got to know about that type of world, right?" Not that I believe in any of your premises, but really, you're pretty much setting that bank shot up for me, I might as well pick up the last of my solids and sink the 8-ball too.

.... also, since when does Buddhism have a god? Buddhism pretty much says, "okay, maybe gods exist, but we're not about that," and that's all it says about gods, save maybe mentioning them in the cycles of reincarnation, I think? No worship, I don't think even any naming or identifying of particular gods. Care to link something on Buddhism that says otherwise, or are you just making shit up about other religions to support your point? Because made-up support just screams "solid argument", let me tell you.

(25-10-2013 12:57 AM)Chippy Wrote: The OP--HJ--believes that without creating what is imagined (by humans) God will not have real/authentic/complete knowledge of that thing imagined. I don't think that this makes sense and may entail that humans can control God's actions by causing Him to create things.

What premise is flawed or what prevents the conclusion from following?

Also I am not claiming any of this to be true. Its an exploratory discussion. I don't think it entails that humans can control God's action, but rather instead God has created all possibilities. Kind of a many worlds interpretation.

(25-10-2013 01:16 AM)Reltzik Wrote: First of all, you blithely assume that God exists near the starts of your logics. You avoid giving even the pretense of consideration to the possibility that will be obvious and most compelling to any atheist: that only the concept of God exists. Clearly, you are not attempting to construct an argument that we will believe

The bolded portion should be obvious. The first few premises, including "God exists" are for the sake of argument. You should only accept the argument if you believe the premises(or at least believe it is possible for the premises to be true).

I think the argument is more potent against organized religion than atheism. An atheist should only be worried if he/she acknowledge the possibility of a God with the qualities outlined in the initial premises.

(24-10-2013 07:34 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: If God knows about them, then they must exist....somewhere......otherwise God only knows about the concept of them.

But if something only has a conceptual existence then there is nothing more to know about it once the concept has been exhausted. We can learn everything there is to know about ewoks by reading everything that has been written on them. There is nothing more to learn about them because they exist only on paper, in film and in the imaginations of people. Why would God not simply avail Himself of that same knowledge? God need only know what has been written on ewoks to preserve His omniscience because there is nothing more substantive to know.

Also, since no one has provided a complete specification of an ewok God must be filling in the gaps Himself, e.g. cardiac morphology, neurology, in which case isn't God making up his own ewok-like-thing rather than making an ewok as such. If He is supplying the details then what is He actually learning--assuming that an omniscient being can learn? This too doesn't make sense. God would know the result because He is supplying the details that contribute to the final product.

(25-10-2013 01:19 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: What premise is flawed or what prevents the conclusion from following?

The premise that an omniscient person would need to realise a concept to learn all that can be known about it. What you are describing is a process of learning. An omniscient person--by definition--doesn't learn.

Quote:Also I am not claiming any of this to be true. Its an exploratory discussion. I don't think it entails that humans can control God's action, but rather instead God has created all possibilities. Kind of a many worlds interpretation.

There may be a conceptually exhaustive ensemble of alterantive universe but they wouldn't need to exist to create the deitiy's omniscience. An omniscient person would know everything that could be known reagrdless of such a ensemble of universes.

(25-10-2013 12:40 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote: So...HJ will you not even attempt to answer my questions?

Nope

I'm not interested in discussing the existence of God, but rather what if He exists and has these qualities.

It is not about discussing the existence of god. You have already said for the sake of the argument we will believe that is it possible that a god could exist.
My reason for asking the questions is because your theory makes no sense to me. You cannot say that something must exist for an all knowing god to know about it.
1 In order for a person to have knowledge about something that thing (or at least a concept if that thing) must exist.
A god is a god though. We do not know or understand a gods powers or knowledge. A god does not need something to exist in order to know about it. A god is a god. A god can do anything. Even things that make no sense to us.

2 if something does not exist then why i it not acceptable to know nothing about it? It seems safe to argue that one can know nothing about nothing(or the non existent) and still know everything about everything.

3 god does not exist. Most atheist do not accept the possibility that a god could exist. We do not care if a fake god has to create unicorns in order to have knowledge about them.

4 it is 4 am and I have wasted hours waiting for you to make a valid point. You have not done so. This thread is no longer amusing to me now that you tell me I cannot live in a world with sexy super powers so I am done. Goodnight