an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

On Omniscience

One of the regular mantras of Presubullshitters is that they can have thing revealed to them in such a way that they ‘can know them for sure’. They claim that they know they are correct because an Omniscient being has told them so.

But how can they be sure? Bottom line, they can’t. Yes, they may have a revelation that they believe to have been from the Creator of the Universe, but they have no way of checking – they are taking this revelation on faith. The only way one can know if the being revealing things to you is actually omniscient is to be omniscient oneself….otherwise they are merely believing what they are told, without any way of confirming that what they’ve been told is true, and the source of the ‘knowledge’ reliable.

Even if gods existed, which none of these people can actually prove, they would have no way of knowing whether their revelation had come from the right god – the Bible might have been written by Satan to steal souls from the actual creator, the god they worship might be omnimalevolent, there may be a cavalcade of gods and their revelation from one of the lesser, trickster, gods. The only way to address this problem would be to check, something they can’t do without being omniscient themselves.

So, next time you read a blog post or comment from a presubullshitter wherein he holds forth with extreme confidence about his views, remember – he cannot prove his god exists, he cannot know for certain that his revelation is trust worthy, and he eventually (when pressed) has to admit that his is entirely a faith position, unsupported by evidence. He may claim the contrary, but he is merely speaking from within a deep seated delusion. Never forget that he believes in a literal Adam and Eve, often a literal flood, and a literal resurrection of Jesus.

Countdown to ‘you don’t understand!’ replies in 5…..4…..3…..2……..

Single Post Navigation

38 thoughts on “On Omniscience

  1. "But how can they be sure? Bottom line, they can't."Erm, are you sure? 😀

  2. If you're omniscient you can be. So, are you omniscient Sye?

  3. "If you're omniscient you can be"So you're not sure that we can't be sure?LOL

  4. No, if you read what I said, you CAN know if you are omniscient.Are you?

  5. "No, if you read what I said, you CAN know if you are omniscient"So according to your view it follows that you either claim omniscience, or you cannot know that we can't be sure. You do not claim omniscience, so according to your view, you cannot know that we cannot be sure, and you are refuted (again). Thanks for comin' out there Alex. Your foolishness is now being displayed all over the internet!

  6. "So according to your view it follows that you either claim omniscience, or you cannot know that we can't be sure. You do not claim omniscience, so according to your view, you cannot know that we cannot be sure, and you are refuted (again)."Seriously? Is that what passes for 'a point' where you live? Claiming victory because I've said if you can do something impossible then you'd be capable of surety?Answer my question, are you omniscient?

  7. And, to put it mildly Sye, you've missed the point. I said that the ONLY way YOU could know your 'revelation' was genuine would be if you could check it, and you'd have to be omniscient yourself to do so. You then misrepresent my argument, and try to refute that misrepresentation – it's all rather transparent. So, are you omniscient?

  8. A predictable silence from Old Circular Sye.

  9. 'Sye, you've missed the point. I said that the ONLY way YOU could know your 'revelation' was genuine would be if you could check it, and you'd have to be omniscient yourself to do so."Obviously you are making the self-refuting knowledge claim that omniscience is necessary for knowledge! Thanks for keeping on doing that by the way 😀"So, are you omniscient?"Asked and answered many times already – even in the podcasts, and I am not the one making the self-refuting knowledge claim that omniscience is necessary for knowledge. That would be you 😀

  10. No, I'm making the justifiable claim that a specific piece of knowledge could only be gleaned via omniscience, not 'all knowledge'! You really are rather thick.Anyway Sye, stop dodging, answer the question here, for all to see.Are you omniscient?

  11. This post has been removed by the author.

  12. Already answered, Chris.Sye, are you omniscient?

  13. Sye:     You are making the self-refuting claim that "absolute" certainty is needed for knowledge. Alex does not say that omniscience is required for knowledge only that it is needed for the level of certainty that you wish to claim.

  14. "You are making the self-refuting claim that "absolute" certainty is needed for knowledge. Alex does not say that omniscience is required for knowledge only that it is needed for the level of certainty that you wish to claim."Erm, are you certain?Fish in a barrel man, fish in a barrel.

  15. Sye, are you omniscient? Answer the question please, let's have less dodging.

  16. "Sye, are you omniscient? Answer the question please, let's have less dodging."I have clearly already answered this question. If you want me to post the timestamp of the podcast where I do this, I will be glad to, but it will just further expose your foolishness.

  17. Answer the question here please, cease your dodging.

  18. "Answer the question here please, cease your dodging."Are you admitting that I have already answered the question? If so, you don't need an answer. If not, tell me and I will be glad to prove you wrong – again.

  19. Are you omniscient?

  20. "Are you omniscient?"Asked and answered. If your memory is that bad, I will be glad to post the timestamp where I did so.

  21. One last chance, Sye, if you don't answer with a straight 'yes' or 'no' you'll be gone.So, are you omniscient?

  22. Finally! Only had to ask you 10 times (literally)!So the only way you could be CERTAIN is not available to you. Thanks for playing Sye.Btw, you're gone anyway.

  23. I think its even worse for Christians Alex. They claim their god is omniscient, but the only way they could know this is if THEY THEMSELVES WERE OMNISCIENT.Otherwise, how would they know? Their god may be lying, or just *think* he's omniscient and may not be. Circles within circles within circles.Dave.

  24. "Could you prove that God could not reveal some things to us (like the fact that He is omniscient) such that we can know them for certain"Easy. I say the answer is no. Because absolute certainty is not available to you unless you are also omniscient. He might be lying to you, or simply wrong. So even if he tells you the absolute truth, YOU could not be certain it was absolutely true. Dave.

  25. sye knows full well that he's being deleted because he is effectively banned from this blog, not because i 'fear the truth' but because he is incapable of rational debate and acts like a child.

  26. "Are you certain? If so, how are you certain? Also, I asked for proof, not an arbitrary assertion"I'm pretty certain you can't be certain without omniscience. You're the one asserting you have certainty Sye. So tell me, how can you be absolutely certain without it? The information you get might be wrong, or he's lying to you. How would you know the information was correct?

  27. Sye, I'm NOT claiming absolute certainty though, so your "Are you certain" questions are meaningless."Because God reveals it such that we ALL are certain of it"Nope. You have some information and you are ASSERTING that you absolute certain that its correct, but you can't know it unless you are omniscient. You have no basis for your absolute certainty, you are just claiming you have it. The following are all possible:1. God might think he's omniscient but not actually.2. God might actually be a trickster god and lying to you.3. We might all be in a super computer and the relevation you have is being fed into the simulation to test our response.Also, is your "revelation" ONLY the words in the bible, or can he reveal information to us today?

  28. "If you are not certain, then you cannot say what I cannot know."Unless you are omniscient then by definition there ARE things you don't know. So I can say I think I'm certain you don't you things. For example, I'm 99.9% that you don't know what I'm watching on TV now at this moment. "God reveals Himself in EVERY one of your thoughts, as you could not make sense of them apart from Him"I mean, can he reveal new information to you (Sye) now.

  29. I've deleted some more posts from Sye, as he doesn't seem to understand the concept of 'banned'As Dave is quoting him, it's easy to see what has been said, so the conversation can be understood.Sye, as I know you're reading, you're a deluded halfwit if you think my position has been 'destroyed' by you. And I do wonder, are you more interested in forcing your views and 'winning' arguments (by relentlessly asking the same questions over and over until people get sick of you and stop responding) than actually bringing people to 'salvation'? Don't bother answering here, I just want you to stop and think about your true motives.

  30. "But it is the fallacy of "Hasty Generalization" to say that because I do not know everything, that I cannot know anything through revelation from someone who does"But, I'm not saying he can't be absolutely certain. I'm saying YOU can't be absolutely certain because he might be lying to you.Without being omniscient yourself, how can you claim the information is absolutely true? "To what degree are you certain that you are not a brain in a vat, and how are you certain to that degree"99.99%. It's possible but doubtful. But more to the point, if I could never know I was just a brain in a vat then it's pretty much irrelevant."Erm, of course, He's God"Ok, so you say he can, but does he? Can you ask him to reveal new information and he will?

  31. Dave, Sye has many times claimed that if we don't know EVERYTHING we can't know ANYTHING. The man's inconsistent in his arguments, accusing you of hasty generalisation for something he does all the time.

  32. Oh dear, the concept of being 'not welcome' doesn't seem to be sinking in with Sye, as he keeps on posting here. Apparently he intends to make a collage of his deleted posts, good for him, at least then they'll be read by someone who's interested in his opinion – himself.

  33. And AGAIN I have to delete some insane ranting from Sye. He should fucking thank me for deleting this stuff.

  34. Yeah, I know Alex…very inconsistent.I was almost done, I only had two more questions.1. Provide some new information to the world (or reveal something about me).2. How do you know the revealed information you have is not a lie?

  35. "One of the regular mantras of Presubullshitters is that they can have thing revealed to them in such a way that they 'can know them for sure'. They claim that they know they are correct because an Omniscient being has told them so."This is a misrepresentation of the majority of Christians. In my experience, most Christians (myself included) do not claim any direct revelation from God… and would be suspicious of anyone claiming to have heard directly from God today. Direct revelation is predominately believed to have ceased with the apostles. God could certainly give new revelation today, but nobody believes that he will, and it would take a lot to convince anyone that a new revelation was legitimate.So what does lead Christians to believe in an omniscient God? Primarily I would have to say the historical evidence is what convinces most of us. There is significant positive evidence for the accounts recorded in the Bible (especially considering how old they are), and very little evidence that directly negates the biblical accounts. The only exceptions to this are possibly the creation and flood accounts… but while most Christians will defend the biblical accounts, those stories carry less weight than the History of Israel and the accounts of the ministry of Jesus, which are much more historically solid.If the historical evidence is convincing enough to someone for them believe that Jesus really did what was written about him… then we have to believe that he was truly God, as he said he was. Could you doubt that he was omniscient? Sure, but why would you? When the guy that walks on water and raises himself from the dead tells me he knows everything… I'm impressed enough to believe him. He's obviously more than human, and I have no tangible reason to think that he's lying.Then beyond historical evidence there are still certain logical and scientific arguments to suggest a creator exists, such as the need for a primary cause and the overwhelming statistical improbability of life itself. I find them convincing. And as long as I am convinced that there is a creator, I would think that such a transcendent being (whose knowledge was sufficient to create the universe) would know enough that, for all intents and purposes, he would seem to us to be omniscient.

  36. Edit: I shouldn't have said that "nobody" believes God will give revelation today. Some Christians obviously buy into supposed current day prophets… But such Christians are far from mainstream.You probably knew what I was trying to say though. 🙂

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: