Can God write a Philosophy Book?

I'm not I'm just saying we could.

Edited by Paul - 18-Feb-2008 at 07:57

Originally posted by Paul Simple question, we set god a task.   Write an essay on the middle east crises.   He gives it his best effort based upon all his knowledge and power.   We then read it, find all the errors he made, circle them in red pen..... and give him a B-   We then send god to school so he may improve his knowledge.   agree?

Sounds to me like it isn't very fun to be a philosopher...

That's another good paradox, Mixcoatl. But the philosophy question is much more indicative of the limited powers of omniscience and omnipotence. There are rules to the universe that even Gods can't break.

Originally posted by Akolouthos Perhaps a clearer question is whether or not God cares about all of these vacuous paradoxes we are attempting to construct. Ah, what the heck -- I'll play along.     Originally posted by Brian J Checco That's another good paradox, Mixcoatl. But the philosophy question is much more indicative of the limited powers of omniscience and omnipotence. There are rules to the universe that even Gods can't break.   Here I must be semantically nit-picky, but that should come as no surprise. The terms "omniscience" and "omnipotence", as they are applied to God, are by definition unlimited. You may surely speak of limitations placed upon the two terms as they are used in other contexts (for example the term "omniscient narrator" refers only to the narrator's knowledge of the plot of a single story, and not to other things), but you may not do so in this context without doing violence to either the definition of God, or to the definition of the terms within the context. You can try to redefine the terms, but then you are left speaking of something new, even if you decide to call it "god".   Oh, and where God will, He transcends the laws of nature; that is also part of the traditional definition of God, at least within a Christian context.   This topic should provide for a wonderful discussion, if you are interested. I must apologize in advance, for being slow to respond.   -Akolouthos

Don't demean your prodigious intellect too much by 'playing along with us,' old chum.

While your semantical tirades are ever so fascinating, you're dancing around the issues of the definitions of philosophy and omniscience. Simply put, an all-knowing being cannot rationally inspect that which he does not know, because he already knows it. Now, perhaps he can irrationally re-examine that which he already knows, but this is introspective re-evaluation, as opposed to rational examination, and thus, not philosophy. 
In fact, as the father of philosophy, old Socrates himself put it, "The only thing which I know is that I know nothing." This singular statement provides the basis for all philosophy. The thinker must admit to himself that his conception of the world around himself is imperfect, and then mus go about examining and exploring (intellectually) until he can formulate for himself a rational world-view based upon his discerned principles.

If God is doing that, then he's not omniscient. If God can't do that, he's omniscient, but still can't philosophize, let alone write a philosophy book. You can have it either way you'd like, but regardless of which answer you light on, it's still a paradox.

Cheers.

Originally posted by Brian J Checco Simply put, an all-knowing being cannot rationally inspect that which he does not know, because he already knows it. Now, perhaps he can irrationally re-examine that which he already knows, but this is introspective re-evaluation, as opposed to rational examination, and thus, not philosophy.

Originally posted by Akolouthos Originally posted by Brian J Checco Don't demean your prodigious intellect too much by 'playing along with us,' old chum. While your semantical tirades are ever so fascinating, you're dancing around the issues of the definitions of philosophy and omniscience. Simply put, an all-knowing being cannot rationally inspect that which he does not know, because he already knows it. Now, perhaps he can irrationally re-examine that which he already knows, but this is introspective re-evaluation, as opposed to rational examination, and thus, not philosophy.  In fact, as the father of philosophy, old Socrates himself put it, "The only thing which I know is that I know nothing." This singular statement provides the basis for all philosophy. The thinker must admit to himself that his conception of the world around himself is imperfect, and then mus go about examining and exploring (intellectually) until he can formulate for himself a rational world-view based upon his discerned principles. If God is doing that, then he's not omniscient. If God can't do that, he's omniscient, but still can't philosophize, let alone write a philosophy book. You can have it either way you'd like, but regardless of which answer you light on, it's still a paradox. Cheers.   I don't find it demeaning at all, Brian; it's actually good exercise.   In the post you quoted, I was addressing two specific things -- Mixcoatl's so-called oparadox, and your assertion that omniscience and omnipotence are terms that have inherent limits when applied to God. I was not addressing the issue of whether or not God can write a philosophy book. I think that, as you and Paul have defined the term "philosophy", I agree with you. God, being Truth Himself, would hardly need to search for it. I suppose He could write a book that explains the concept to others. Anyway, I found the original question a bit tedious, and I feel that I accomplished my purposes in the post above, and look forward to continuing this discussion; while I find the original topic of this thread tedious, it has certainly spawned a series of fruitful conversations.   I think you might be interested in a wonderful little discussion gcle2003, Omar, and I had last summer -- I'll dig up the link for you later. We discussed the way in which language is used apophatically to indicate particular qualities of God without ever fully describing Him. Basically, we speak around God, never touching on His essence. In the thread, we touched on the issue of paradoxes, specifically those pertaining to theodicy. You might find it interesting. God bless.   -Akolouthos

I feel like saying this, so I will. You bring your agenda with you into every single discussion you touch on. Why discuss anything ever if you already have pre-set notions already concretely embedded in your worldview? We've butted heads on numerous God-related topics, and I'm sure plenty of people know my position on that, but if you don't go into something with an open mind, there's no room for growth.

You're still dancing around the issue and implicating that we're being pedantic and ridiculous by not crediting your conception of God with unlimited powers. Drop that patronizing "God bless" and try to listen when other people speak. I don't want to find another conversation you had in the past interesting. I'd rather discuss the subject matter at hand.

A paradox is something that exists within the philosophical community, whether you choose to believe in it or not. A paradox consists of two presupposed "truths" being contradictorily contrasted in a single phrase or sentence. Paul's aforementioned question, when stated as an affirmative (i.e. "God can write a philosophy book," or it's logical adjunct/ juxtaposition "God can't write a philosophy book"), constitutes a paradox because it/ they defy the common conception of logic. The terms being distressed are omniscience and omnipotence. In either way the phrase is posed, it defies one of these definitions.

If God is omnipotent, he can do anything, including writing a philosophy book.
However, being omniscient, he can't philosophize.
Thus, the paradox is constructed.

Look at in reverse.

If God is not omniscient, he can philosophize as well as any other rational, sentient creature. However, because he is able to philosophize, he cannot be omniscient. I know that's re-stating the initial presupposition of the phrase, but it constitutes the realization of the paradox.

It all comes down to a simple facet of logic: A being cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. If he's omniscient, he cannot philosophize, thus nullifying the statement of omnipotence. If he's not omniscient, he can philosophize, but in failing in omniscience, he cannot be omnipotent. Surely you're beginning to see now why this paradox defies conventional logic?

My advice is to look at this from a logical, rather than faith-based, perspective. If you can find grounds to dispute these assertions that I have presented, by all means attaque � outrance, but please, make sure your contentions are based in the logical, as opposed to the biblical, realms. Start bringing the Testaments into things, and I guarantee you, I can find direct logical juxtapositions to whatever you say, based upon the contradictory nature of the Book.
Cheers.



Edited by Brian J Checco - 21-Feb-2008 at 22:10

Could someone write down why God is stuck in a quandary? Omnipotent versus omniscient.

Book starts with words:
Can anybody tells me :What am I doing here?!?!?