Not quite so. There is a lot of nearly-impossible things, and you are good to call them “impossible”, even if technically they aren’t. Likewise, some things are so certain that you are good to call them “absolutely certain” even if technically they aren’t. See possibility, antiprediction, fallacy of gray, technical explanation, absolute certainty.
Ah, but you see, I was arguing at the technical level, not on the “it’s good to call it this” level.
I believe that absolute certainty is required. Not in all, and probably not even in most things. But absolute certainty has to be possible, because without it, I must give technical possibility to self-contradicting statements like this one:
“God exists, he is omniscient, infallible, and he can make a boulder that he cannot lift.”
Can you tell me that all the pieces of that statement are technically possible?
P.S. I don’t think I commit the fallacy of gray. I accept that there are varying shades of gray. But I believe that there must be a black and a white as well. I also apologize if I seem aggressive. I don’t read or post much here. Only when I see something I believe is wrong because I, like you, want there to be less wrong.
P.P.S. I am a beginner Objectivist, so my acceptance of black, white, and gray may be subject to change as I learn more.
“God exists, he is omniscient, infallible, and he can make a boulder that he cannot lift.”
You screwed that up, there is no contradiction there. God must too be omnipotent to make the argument you are looking for.
And really, it’s not a contradiction any way. If he is all powerful, then certainly he has the ability to make a rock that he cannot lift if he so chooses. But, since he is all powerful, he can just as easily make that rock liftable again.
When you are given an absurd premise, absurd outcomes are logical.
Deductive conclusions are only absolute certainties relative to their premises. That is, the conclusion can never be more certain than the premise In fact, it will be at least as uncertain as the uncertainty of both premises combined. Since the premises can never be certain, the result of deductive reasoning is never certain either, only valid or invalid.
I’m curious why this was voted down. If it was because my language was a little harsh, I assure you I did not mean to offend, I simply meant he made a mistake in the wording of the argument—omniscient means “all-knowing”, omnipotent means “all-powerful”. I’d be surprised to be voted down even though I was right on this matter.
If there is a problem with my reasoning after that, please do point it out to me rather than just voting me down. I’m new to Bayes, and as the Amanda Knox Test demonstrated, I often fail at reasoning. If this is such a case I would very much like to know about it. I can’t see where I made the mistake though.
[Edit to change the Amanda Knox link to the original, instead of the spoiler]
Please tell us when you are posting a spoiler for a rationality exercise. I clicked through your link and didn’t catch that it was a spoiler fast enough for the exercise itself not to be spoiled.
I’m very sorry, I didn’t consider that. I actually got to the original Amanda Knox post through the spoiler, but I stopped reading at the mention of the original and went straight to that one first.
I’ll change the link so it doesn’t trip anybody else up.
God must too be omnipotent to make the argument you are looking for.
Your reasoning is correct. The below quote is not self contradictory. You may consider substituting the ‘too’ with ‘also’ or moving the word order around to make the sentence flow better. When you are saying things forcefully as with “you screwed that up” it pays to be extra careful with wording—higher standards are expected.
“God exists, he is omniscient, infallible, and he can make a boulder that he cannot lift.”
I was a little careless with “you screwed that up”; I honestly did not intend for it to sound mean, and I could have chosen better words. I simply meant he obviously intended to use the word omnipotent instead of omnipresent.
Regarding the word too, however, I completely disagree. That is a valid use of the word, unconventional sure, but valid. I’ve always enjoyed seeing it employed in such a manner.
[Edit] Maybe putting “too” before “must” would sound a little nicer to some, but I liked the way “God must too” sounded in my head.
Maybe putting “too” before “must” would sound a little nicer to some, but I liked the way “God must too” sounded in my head.
The order affects the meaning: “must too” doesn’t mean “must also”; it means “on the contrary, must!” (Cf. “did too!”) I don’t think that’s the meaning you wanted here.
Just noticed this comment when I was looking through my messages for an old comment, and I wanted to respond.
It is the word “too” that is important there, and the usage you describe is only used as an affirmative for contradicting a negative statement (at least, that’s proper grammar anyway).
For example, if the original statement had been “God must not make a boulder he cannot lift!” and I had responded with “God must too make a boulder he cannot lift!” you would be right, but the original statement is an affirmative statement (“God can make a boulder he cannot lift.”), my own sentence before it is an affirmative (in the grammatical sense—not so much in the “uplifting” sense), so trying to contradict either with an affirmative doesn’t make any sense.
Also, I did a Google search, and while using “too” between must and another verb is not common, using “must too” to mean “must also” is by far the most common usage I could find. I do admit that other combinations of verb “too” verb seem to imply contradicting a negation even without the proper context, so that usage is definitely not as clear as I originally thought it would be. I still think it’s pretty, though.
Regarding the word too, however, I completely disagree. That is a valid use of the word, unconventional sure, but valid. I’ve always enjoyed seeing it employed in such a manner.
You were curious as to why you were downvoted. That wording would, I predict, have been a contributing factor. Wording significantly influences tone. That wording came across as more petulant or crude as a follow up to ‘screwed up’ than an alternative would have.
I still don’t see it as a very good reason for a down vote when nothing in the post is considered incorrect.
I expect not to be up voted if I’m being rude and technically correct, but I don’t expect to be down voted. Usually when I’m down voted it is because I’m either factually wrong or I’ve failed at reasoning. Getting down voted for a phrasing that someone considers a little rude seems odd on this particular website. And honestly, I was not intending to be rude in any way, it is a common phrase when someone makes a mistake. I did not intend to imply anything other than the fact that he used the wrong word in his paradox.
In any case, the points aren’t a big deal, and someone corrected it anyway. I was just curious if I had made a mistake, because I didn’t see one even after looking over what I wrote a second and third time.
Under most conceptions, omnipotence certainly entails at least the ability to become omniscient. It doesn’t work the other way—knowing how to shoot a three-point shot in basketball doesn’t help an omniscient cantaloupe.
If you are going to take the premise that information is the substance and causation of all that exists, then yes, an omniscient being must also be omnipotent. You need that premise first, though, or the omniscient is simply a know-it-all (literally). If no condition exists to change its lack of omnipotence given its current abilities, then no amount of knowledge will allow it to become omnipotent.
Omnipotence does not necessarily imply the knowledge necessary to create omniscience, either. The ability is certainly there, but the knowledge may not be. I’m sure if the omnipotent being were clever it could figure out a way to make it happen, though.
Usually when someone dreams up an all powerful being, they make it all knowing as a matter of course, and vice versa. At least they do these days, anyway. The Greeks liked their gods to have serious flaws, and I can appreciate that.
Not quite so. There is a lot of nearly-impossible things, and you are good to call them “impossible”, even if technically they aren’t. Likewise, some things are so certain that you are good to call them “absolutely certain” even if technically they aren’t. See possibility, antiprediction, fallacy of gray, technical explanation, absolute certainty.
Ah, but you see, I was arguing at the technical level, not on the “it’s good to call it this” level.
I believe that absolute certainty is required. Not in all, and probably not even in most things. But absolute certainty has to be possible, because without it, I must give technical possibility to self-contradicting statements like this one:
“God exists, he is omniscient, infallible, and he can make a boulder that he cannot lift.”
Can you tell me that all the pieces of that statement are technically possible?
P.S. I don’t think I commit the fallacy of gray. I accept that there are varying shades of gray. But I believe that there must be a black and a white as well. I also apologize if I seem aggressive. I don’t read or post much here. Only when I see something I believe is wrong because I, like you, want there to be less wrong.
P.P.S. I am a beginner Objectivist, so my acceptance of black, white, and gray may be subject to change as I learn more.
You screwed that up, there is no contradiction there. God must too be omnipotent to make the argument you are looking for.
And really, it’s not a contradiction any way. If he is all powerful, then certainly he has the ability to make a rock that he cannot lift if he so chooses. But, since he is all powerful, he can just as easily make that rock liftable again.
When you are given an absurd premise, absurd outcomes are logical.
Deductive conclusions are only absolute certainties relative to their premises. That is, the conclusion can never be more certain than the premise In fact, it will be at least as uncertain as the uncertainty of both premises combined. Since the premises can never be certain, the result of deductive reasoning is never certain either, only valid or invalid.
I’m curious why this was voted down. If it was because my language was a little harsh, I assure you I did not mean to offend, I simply meant he made a mistake in the wording of the argument—omniscient means “all-knowing”, omnipotent means “all-powerful”. I’d be surprised to be voted down even though I was right on this matter.
If there is a problem with my reasoning after that, please do point it out to me rather than just voting me down. I’m new to Bayes, and as the Amanda Knox Test demonstrated, I often fail at reasoning. If this is such a case I would very much like to know about it. I can’t see where I made the mistake though.
[Edit to change the Amanda Knox link to the original, instead of the spoiler]
Please tell us when you are posting a spoiler for a rationality exercise. I clicked through your link and didn’t catch that it was a spoiler fast enough for the exercise itself not to be spoiled.
I’m very sorry, I didn’t consider that. I actually got to the original Amanda Knox post through the spoiler, but I stopped reading at the mention of the original and went straight to that one first.
I’ll change the link so it doesn’t trip anybody else up.
Your reasoning is correct. The below quote is not self contradictory. You may consider substituting the ‘too’ with ‘also’ or moving the word order around to make the sentence flow better. When you are saying things forcefully as with “you screwed that up” it pays to be extra careful with wording—higher standards are expected.
I was a little careless with “you screwed that up”; I honestly did not intend for it to sound mean, and I could have chosen better words. I simply meant he obviously intended to use the word omnipotent instead of omnipresent.
Regarding the word too, however, I completely disagree. That is a valid use of the word, unconventional sure, but valid. I’ve always enjoyed seeing it employed in such a manner.
[Edit] Maybe putting “too” before “must” would sound a little nicer to some, but I liked the way “God must too” sounded in my head.
The order affects the meaning: “must too” doesn’t mean “must also”; it means “on the contrary, must!” (Cf. “did too!”) I don’t think that’s the meaning you wanted here.
Just noticed this comment when I was looking through my messages for an old comment, and I wanted to respond.
It is the word “too” that is important there, and the usage you describe is only used as an affirmative for contradicting a negative statement (at least, that’s proper grammar anyway).
For example, if the original statement had been “God must not make a boulder he cannot lift!” and I had responded with “God must too make a boulder he cannot lift!” you would be right, but the original statement is an affirmative statement (“God can make a boulder he cannot lift.”), my own sentence before it is an affirmative (in the grammatical sense—not so much in the “uplifting” sense), so trying to contradict either with an affirmative doesn’t make any sense.
Also, I did a Google search, and while using “too” between must and another verb is not common, using “must too” to mean “must also” is by far the most common usage I could find. I do admit that other combinations of verb “too” verb seem to imply contradicting a negation even without the proper context, so that usage is definitely not as clear as I originally thought it would be. I still think it’s pretty, though.
You were curious as to why you were downvoted. That wording would, I predict, have been a contributing factor. Wording significantly influences tone. That wording came across as more petulant or crude as a follow up to ‘screwed up’ than an alternative would have.
I still don’t see it as a very good reason for a down vote when nothing in the post is considered incorrect.
I expect not to be up voted if I’m being rude and technically correct, but I don’t expect to be down voted. Usually when I’m down voted it is because I’m either factually wrong or I’ve failed at reasoning. Getting down voted for a phrasing that someone considers a little rude seems odd on this particular website. And honestly, I was not intending to be rude in any way, it is a common phrase when someone makes a mistake. I did not intend to imply anything other than the fact that he used the wrong word in his paradox.
In any case, the points aren’t a big deal, and someone corrected it anyway. I was just curious if I had made a mistake, because I didn’t see one even after looking over what I wrote a second and third time.
Downvotes for rudeness are pretty common. Especially after Defecting by Accident
Are omnipotence and omniscience logically distinct? One can “know how to do something” or “be able to learn something.”
Yes, they are distinct. One can “know it is impossible to do something”, for example.
Under most conceptions, omnipotence certainly entails at least the ability to become omniscient. It doesn’t work the other way—knowing how to shoot a three-point shot in basketball doesn’t help an omniscient cantaloupe.
You don’t think it could think its way out of the box? Is causally discrete omniscience really omniscience?
If you are going to take the premise that information is the substance and causation of all that exists, then yes, an omniscient being must also be omnipotent. You need that premise first, though, or the omniscient is simply a know-it-all (literally). If no condition exists to change its lack of omnipotence given its current abilities, then no amount of knowledge will allow it to become omnipotent.
Omnipotence does not necessarily imply the knowledge necessary to create omniscience, either. The ability is certainly there, but the knowledge may not be. I’m sure if the omnipotent being were clever it could figure out a way to make it happen, though.
Usually when someone dreams up an all powerful being, they make it all knowing as a matter of course, and vice versa. At least they do these days, anyway. The Greeks liked their gods to have serious flaws, and I can appreciate that.