The fallacy of the omniscience argument

The omniscience proves god doesn't exist argument goes something like this;

"If god was omniscience he would know everything, but we have rejected god and he didn't see that coming! So he cant be omniscience so he therefore cant exist."

This is false because;
1. The user of this argument puts himself in gods position and imagines how he would feel if everyone didn't love him, this is purely projection of the ego and assumes god must have a ego and a thought process like ours, and would be as offended as us if he were unloved.

2. The argument makes the massive asumption that god does not know what is going to happen next and did not know exactly what has happened so far. Again an ego projection that if we dont know the future how can god! and if we cant see a greater reason for something then there cant be one.

3. The argument usually uses old testamnt quotes to support its version of a vengfull god and completely fails to take into account other religions or concepts of what god is / could be.

Therefore the argument is a fallacy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

4. the argument assumes omniscience of God is the definite knowledge of God about future also, discounting that omnipotence of God can create yet nonexisting future as he wishes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The argument is so devoid of logic and philosophic insight that it is less than fallacious, its moronic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no it's not an assumption, it does say god is a jealous god in the bible, that means it has a ego and thought processes like us and would be as offended as us if he were unloved.

see above reply

there you even credit it with an ego

other religions have simular things written of there god or gods, giving egos to all of them.

 

No. The fallacy in the argument as you have presented it is a simple non sequitur. The conclusion "so he therefore can't exist" is unrelated to the argument given.

The argument as follows is logically valid:

God, by definition, must be omniscient.
God didn't know we would reject him.
If God didn't know something he isn't omniscient.
Therefore God doesn't exit.

Of course, you may argue against truth of the premises. You can have a logically valid argument that is false. But given the premises the conclusion is valid.

This is something of a straw-man however. Typically the argument is not against God's existence but about the incompatibility of omniscience with free-will.

~Raithere

 

ACTUAL CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE:

God, by His essence, must be omniscient.
God wants Men to be more like him
Man by his nature is not omniscient
Therefore God would try to bring man closer to Omniscience
Therefore God sent the Revealed Truth of Scripture

 

How can you possibly claim to know that???

Omniscience is 'all knowing' not 'all controlling'. The whole idea is a going out from god in order to come back to god - the length of time taken to come back is irrelevant (to god).

 

You use the same arguments I dis-credit in my opening post without even trying to add anything further to prove different?!?!

Religions without personality god (i.e. nameless, formless god)
Taoism, buddhism, sikhism, sufism

 

exactly, they were as I was pointing out, the bible gives god an ego not the unbeliever, so it's not an assumption is it.

Sufisms: god is allah a personality god, there goal is to try to become one with him. ( Sufis believe as well that it is possible to become close to God and to experience this closeness--while one is alive.
Furthermore, the attainment of the knowledge that comes with such intimacy with God, Sufis assert, is the very purpose of the creation. Here they mention the hadith qudsi in which God states, "I was a hidden treasure and I loved that I be known, so I created the creation in order to be known.")if thats not a personality god the I'm a dutch man.

en zoals voor sikhism, laat goed blik,(and as for sikhism, well lets look) it's not dissimilar to sufism and islam, but they still have a personity god, though they follow a prophet.

Taoism:the founder Lao-Tse became popularly venerated as a deity.so I would say he had a personality.

Buddhism:the founder Siddhartha Gautama, became popularly venerated as lord buddha(one who has awakened), so I would say again he had a personality.

the point you seemed to have missed is, if a god refers to it's self as I, it refers to it's ego/self.

 

You're already arguing about this, but

God's taking offence (in whatever way you wish to interpret that) at not being loved is pretty much the theme of the entire Bible. On the other hand, there's nothing in the Bible to suggest that God did not know in advance what Man was going to be like. God in Genesis 3-4 certainly affects ignorance (ie non-omniscience) but certainly the rest of the Bible writes about God as if that passage never existed and is conceptually impossible.

My argument would be, yes, it's a straw man argument, and the argument is itself a straw man that LightTravelling is knocking down. I'm aware of logical inconsistencies resulting from the Omniscience of God, but not predicting, understanding or even willing the existence of an atheist like myself sure ain't one of them.

He didn't - he was spelling out your premises in full.

In other words, given the premises, the logical conclusion "God does not exist" is inescapable. But as Raithere himself then pointed out, "You may argue against the truth of the premises."

Now here's a rigorous logical disproof of the Omniscience of God. God came down one day and decided to play a game with Adam. He placed himself in a box, that had a slot, and two lights attached to the exterior, a red light and a green light. God issued a challenge, saying, "Write down a future event, and I will foretell whether that event will come to pass or no. And if I am wrong, you will get a help meet for you, a woman of beauty called Eve, who will bear and raise children for you. And if I am right, you will get a foul mate called Lilith, who will eat your children and drink your blood. And my foretelling will be of the following manner: If the event you describe will take place, I shall pour my radiance out and light the green. And if the event you describe will not take place, I shall pour my radiance out and light the red. Behold! Test the LORD thy God!"

And Adam thought for a while. And Adam wrote down an event on parchment, and he passed the parchment through the slot. And there was silence. And God waxed very wroth at Adam's presumption, but he kept his promise, and provided Eve as a help meet for Adam.

Highlight to find out what Adam wrote on the parchment: [When God next pours out his radiance, it will be to light the red light.]

So it is logically impossible for God (or any being) to be absolutely Omniscient. I personally don't see that that logically means God does not exist - only that he is not as all knowing as he is portrayed.

 

Again we seem unable to stay away from old testament when discussing this. There are other religions / concepts of god.

It may well be a straw man, but it needs knocking down because I have seen it used many times on this forum to prove non-existence and it seems to have some support.

As he ended with "given the premises the conclusion is valid", I took it to mean Raithere supported the premise. Maybe this was not his intention.
My argument is with this particular line of the premise "God didn't know we would reject him." - I therefore hold the premise as false. I took it Raithere was disagreeing but maybe he was'nt.

It is this line that effectively turns the argument circular;
To prove an omniscient god does not exist, we must prove we have done something he would't know of, but for us to do this he must exist. If he doesn't exist we can't have tricked him therefore we prove nothing.

Of course we can, lie you say, argue that god exists and is not omniscient. But I do not know of any religions that would hold with this.

 

I merely mentioned a way in which someone arguing that way might be justifying themselves. A lot of people here hold the Bible to be inerrant truth, so the non-Omniscient God described in Genesis 3-4 might be considered a valid argument. I do not hold with such arguments myself, as I hoped to make clear.

I'm sorry, but I can't say I've ever noticed that argument before. And you contradict yourself - if it's a straw man, then there is nothing for you to be arguing against. If people are arguing that way, then it isn't a straw man, is it? I just don't think people are actually arguing the way you think they are. So if you can find an example and post a link, I'd be grateful.

Yes, Raithere said "given the premises the conclusion is valid". Without being too patronising, might I suggest you learn the language of logic? "Given the premises" does not mean, "The premises are a given" or "the premises are definitely true", or "I believe in these premises." "Given the premises" means "If these premises are true , then ...." and indeed if those premises are true, the logic is inescapable. But Raithere certainly wasn't trying to imply that nobody would disagree with the premises, and he certainly doesn't agree with them himself.

It is not for religion to hold with it or not. It's utterly inescapable mathematical logic, as long as you accept the Law of the Excluded Middle (ie that something cannot BE and NOT BE at the same time). A religion might suggest that God's ineffable nature does not permit this kind of test, or it might suggest that the Law of the Excluded Middle does not apply to God, so that God made it possible to simultaneously light and not light the red lamp.

But in fact religions by and large do not "hold with" or, generally, "argue against" the mathematical and logical arguments against God (or at least his Omniscience). Even science allows for all possible future outcomes, so religion can safely hide there, if it so wishes. It is all hypothetical, anyway, since God does not ever manifest his own knowledge of the future assuming he has any (pace the Biblical prophets). So the logician is creating a situation that God does not allow to occur because we puny humans could not handle the resultant paradox.

 

That's correct, I don't hold with the premise. I simply rearranged the argument you provided so that it made a bit more sense. It's still problematic but it clarifies the issue, which is with the premises not the argument itself. Frankly, I have never seen this argument used this way and I think you're probably misstating the dilemma of omniscience and free will, which is why I brought it up.

I know what omniscience means, thankyouverymuch, and it has nothing to do with control. There is still a problem... or to be more precise, there are a variety of problems with prescience:

The main issue is that if the future can be known, as opposed to guessed at or predicted then there can be no such thing as free will because the choices have already been made.

For instance, if God knows that I will have pizza for dinner I cannot possibly choose otherwise. I am powerless to change the outcome. Likewise, God looses any ability for freewill too, because if God knows what he will do in advance then he is powerless to change it.

There are some ways to avoid the dilemma but they bring up other issues.

~Raithere

 

I don't think it is logically valid.

To say that God didn't know some fact requires the existence of this fact. But fefore we betrayed God, the fact of our betrayal might not exist. At this point in time, we could say God neitherknew we'd betray him nor didn't know.

Well, no. For any point in time before our choice, God knows the outcome of our choices. But, given it's before the choice is made, we haven't made the choice.

 

AUDIBLE SAYS -"Taoism:the founder Lao-Tse became popularly venerated as a deity.so I would say he had a personality.

Buddhism:the founder Siddhartha Gautama, became popularly venerated as lord buddha(one who has awakened), so I would say again he had a personality."

You need to study these religions before you bring up some sect as the definition.
Both of these examples go against Taoist and Buddhist ideology anyway.
That is somewhat like saying some christians revered David Koresh, therefore God is like David Koresh.

 

I'm aware of the circularity but it's cleaner than the non sequitir originally presented. I was trying to retain as much of the initial argument as I could. More accurately:

Argument 1
Man has free will.
Omniscience constrains free will.
Therefore omniscience cannot exist.

Argument 2
God, as defined, is omniscient.
Omniscience cannot exist because man has free will (see argument 1).
Therefore God cannot exist as defined.

Better?

Once again, I'm working into it. This is why I later mentioned prescience specifically. Being aware of all possible outcomes poses no problem. Nor does omniscience after the fact present a dilemma, although quantum mechanics might throw things into a tizzy.

Most theists however, are not comfortable binding God with temporal constraints. And herein lays the dilemma. Presupposing God; either God is truly omniscient and man has no free will or God is bound by time just like we are. This, of course, then presents problems with claims of God's omnipotence. There are other possibilities but the wind up either constraining God or constraining free will in one way or another.

~Raithere

 

Here is another way of looking at it

Argument 1
Man has free will.
Omniscience ALLOWS free will - if an omniscient God does not know something is
going to happen then it is impossible for it to happen. If it is impossible for
something to happen how can we say there is free-will to do that thing, or even
free-will to evaluate that thing? If omniscience allows everything that
occurs, and man has free-will (axiom 1) then man's free-will is due to God's
omniscience.
Therefore omniscience DOES exist.

Argument 2
God, as defined, is omniscient.
Omniscience DOES exist because man has free will (see argument 1).
Therefore God POSSIBLY exists as defined.


The value of that set of arguments is dubious at best, but it is about as useful as the previous set.

 

As I see it the problem with your argument is here:

This is a reverse of causality. What you are saying is that something must be known before it can occur. But even allowing for the reversal doesn't make the dilemma go away, the point remains that if God knows I will choose A I cannot choose B. Regardless of whether A could occur if God did not know it would occur. No choice, no free will... it merely becomes an illusion. What we imagine might be possible but isn't.

Personally I have no problem with it. Frankly I'm unconvinced that we have true free will in any case. But the point remains that the coexistence of omniscience (including the knowledge of 'future' events) with free will creates some interesting dilemmas.

~Raithere

 

the question was posed that some religions dont have a personality god, by light traveling.
and both taoism and buddhism were given as examples, so as both of these dont follow a cloud dancer a sky daddy, he was right in part.
but as they both venerated men to that high office, and men have a personality, I was just pointing that fact out.
I've no need to study the religion to know man has an ego.

 

AUDIBLE: Cole Gray has already adressed your misrepresentations of Buddhism and Taoism. Now let me address Sufism and Sikhism.

Sufism; Please do not confuse the arabic word for god (allah) with the Islamic concept of god.

"All things existing have their opposite except god; it is for this reason that god cannot be made intelligible."
"The god who is itelligible to man is made by man - what is beyond intelligence is the reality"

Hazrat Inayat Khan Complete sufi sayings


Sikhism;
"The formless supreme being abides in the realms of eternity" Guru Nanak, Jopji.

"You are the creator, the lord, the unknowable" Guru Nanak, Varmajh.