Page 1 of 1


Posted: Mon May 16, 2011 8:37 pm
by Dolkras
Hey everyone,

I'm new here. Recently I've become interested in the topic of omniscience and the various philosophical views on that topic.

So, naturally, like all lazy people these days, I went to Wikipedia as a first step to get started. I expected it to be fairly simple stuff with no real complex arguments but I was somewhat caught off guard by the information contained within the page for Omniscience:

It is basically advocating a form of solipsism from a Divine perspective (sorry for it being so long, but I feel like you need the proper background to understand the conclusion of the argument):

"The Omniscience Paradox can be defined by these questions,

"Can an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, timeless, boundless, limitless, and uncontained Entity create that which it doesn't already know?"

"If information is the substance and causation to all that exists, would an omniscient entity not literally be everything and anything in, or of existence?"

Well if such an entity is boundless and limitless to which is uncontained, its omniscience would thus need to be infinite. Thus saying it could create that which it doesn't already know would defy its omniscience on an equally infinite scale. If it were omniscient without bounds or limits, it would defy its omnipotence, boundlessness, and limitlessness. It would even collapse its status of being uncontained. And if it where eternally Omniscient without bounds or limits, how could it create anything at all? If information theory is correct, would not this entity be the sum total of all that exists?

This also brings us to the question of how one can "know" how to create the following, which also seems to be the foundation of cause to our own existence. That is, how can an entity design and bring all the following listed objects or concepts into existence, when it requires, or may require them to exist itself? How can one thus be omniscient without them?

Logic and mathematics
Time (the process to create time would in itself require time)
The five basic senses (Touch, Smell, Hear, Sight, Taste) (In order to be an observer, and know anything including its own existence, a conscious mind will require the tools of observation in order to know, experience, perceive, respond, or act)

When we approach this subject of the paradox of knowledge, or the creation of, we can notice many of these problem areas that concern omniscience and knowledge in regards to such supposed omniscient entities. Thus it can be said that such an argument self-collapses in every area of the supposed attributes given when anyone of them is taken out of the equation by another conflicting attribute. Especially in the case or state of absolute Omniscience. We can explore these problems in religious ideologies such as Christianity (as an example amongst others). In Orthodox Christianity there is a set of specific attributes to which they use to describe their God with. Among these attributes are as follows:

St John of Damascus, The Fount of Knowledge:

Abstract 1:
"The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the boundless, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefinable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing, the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and communicating, the containing and sustaining all things, and the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by His nature. They are not received from any other source; on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each."

Abstract 2:
"And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once"

The containing and sustaining of all things

These seven attributes also led many to question if those with such religious beliefs are unaware that they are seemingly depositing the idea of pure solipsism. Here the argument can be made that even if such an entity would deny the existence of other minds or not, it would still be solipsism. Under this argument in regards to omniscience, one person just stating there isn't any other individual minds would be equal to said entity saying there are no other individual minds. Thus we have to consider that all minds that exist are of this entity's own mind. In light of this, anyone arguing against the argument would be The entity arguing with itself just for the sake of doings so, or for the amusement of doing so. Regardless of what reply anyone might have to this, the six attributes on that list can only mean pure Solipsism in order to be Omniscient without bounds, limits, or containment. This includes number 5 on the list in regards to containing and sustaining all things. These attributes also directly conflict with inherent omniscience stance, or our own individualism since it would be placing limits to a said to be limitless, uncontained, boundless God. However, the worst part isn't any of the above. The worst part is that even if one would argue that such an entity was only to be all knowing in regards to what is knowable, or existent, it would still be depositing the idea of Solipsism as noted in the example below:

Omniscient Solipsism from a Designers Perspective:
(This as if you are the Omniscient Entity about to design and create something into existence. Such as a human being)

I =: reference to all information that gives I an Identity, substance, dimension, value, an awareness, an existence, an intelligence, or a consciousness.

I'm Omniscient
I have an idea of something I want to build, construct, or make existent
I know infinitely everything about this thing, person, or place infinitely before, and infinitely after I have constructed it, or even thought of it.
I would know in my design everything it will infinitely ever do.
I would know everything about my design's essence or being to the point of actually, and literally being that of my design (object, entity, thing, or place) in every infinitely literal way. (and we must pay close attention to the term infinite)
I would know all the above infinitely in the past, present, and future.
This thing I designed would only be able to do what it was designed to do, and what I already infinitely know it will do, even to the point of it actually being literally me, and literally me doing all those things myself in every infinite way imaginable.
Even if I wanted to state that I am only omniscient to which is knowable, 5, 6 (past, and present), and 7 would all be knowable. Omniscience would translate to I, the said entity being existence itself in the best case possible, or everything that is existent in every infinite way."

Now, I have to say, I don't really agree with what is said here. I still think we're probably overlooking some information that can allow us to define omniscience in such a way as to not warrant a belief in solipsism. Would you guys like to help with this?

Thanks to everyone who wants to add their viewpoint,


Re: Omniscience

Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 6:03 am
by Kurieuo
Which part would you like help with? There are many different theological views on God's relationship to His creation.

Re: Omniscience

Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 10:48 am
by PaulSacramento
God's "allknowingness":
God knows all he wants to know about His Creation.
Being outside of time as we know it, God has "access" to all possibilities of our freewill driven choices.
He knows what we will do because he knows all the possible choices we can make and where they will lead.

Re: Omniscience

Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 7:22 pm
by kevdog19
I believe that I've experienced omniscience on 2 occasions, the unconcious mind contains a map to the universe. Both times I felt utterly overwhelmed, and physically my spine went completely straight like I had to sit straight up and it felt if I bent at all my spine would break.

Re: Omniscience

Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 11:22 pm
by Seraph
One problem with too many psychadelic drugs is that you begin to fail to seperate illusions from reality. Just because you think you tapped into a map of the universe doesn't mean you actually did. I'm fairly sure that the "tapping into the unconsious mind" that I hear a lot of drug users talk about is basically just a self induced delusion. Same goes with the supposed invoking and domination over Satan. Drugs make you hallucinatate by altering the chemical makeup of your brain. They don't make you "realize" anything, quite the opposite.

What happened then, did you lose all the knowledge you gained once you came back?

Re: Omniscience

Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 11:30 am
by kevdog19
well I couldn't keep track of most of it. Like an endless page of writing moving so fast you can only read a is or a the before it's gone. Maybe it wasn't omniscience, just viewing the akashic record. I don't need drugs to tap into the unconcious mind, that was like 5 years ago, give me alittle credit.