God, if He exists, cannot be omniscient, Proof Options

[Rick]

A world view that denies the property of divinity in the universe is called atheism, and a theistic world view affirms divinity. So deciding which is true requires determining whether or not there is divinity in the universe. The problem comes down to answering the question "is a world without divinity observably different than a world with that property?"

In physics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, accepted as true by all practicing physicists, holds that for a quantum particle, knowledge of position precludes knowledge of momentum. More precisely, the more we know about a particle's location, the less we can know about its momentum. However, an omniscient being would, by definition, know both position and momentum of all particles, in violation of known physics.

Further, in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (the majority view of physicists), a state of quantum superposition, in which particles can exist in two states simultaneously, requires that a particle's quantum state be unobserved. Hence, the existence of an omniscient being would short-circuit attempts to establish ambiguous quantum states, as is routinely done in physics research laboratories.

Therefore, the question above is answered in the affirmative, if we assume divinity involves omniscience: we can tell there is no divinity in the world because if there were, quantum mechanics would be very different than what we have found to be the case. QED.

[Lindsay]

A world view that denies the property of divinity in the universe is called atheism, and a theistic world view affirms divinity....

...if we assume divinity involves omniscience: we can tell there is no divinity in the world because if there were, quantum mechanics would be very different than what we have found to be the case. QED.

The great scientific genius, who brought us the power of alternating current, among other things, including the Tesla coil and radio--Nicola Tesla said: "God has no properties".

ABOUT TESLA AND THE RADIO, check out:
http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_whoradio.html
Marconi and radio: Marconi got the credit for inventing the radio because of his connections. He was also a great self-promoter.

I agree with Tesla, and I will add: GØD is not a property, in any way, shape or form. This is why I feel we need a new term for the god-concept. Orthodox Jews use G-d. I like to use the acronym, GØD--symbolizing all goodness, all mathematical order and design and that which bring order out of the chaos, which I understand is the very basis of quantum mechanics.

BTW, the son of an Orthodox priest, Tesla was highly mystical/spiritual and felt the cosmos as being one with the divine mind he thought of as God. It is my opinion that his refusal to sell his soul to the evil of materialism--at its height in the 1930's--probably saved the globe from being totally destroyed by those who would have had no qualms about using the destructive force of atomic power--about which he was well aware. Einstein was not the only one who knew about the power of the atom.

Keep in mind: It is highly probably that the maniacs who came to power at that time would have used atomic power, if they had had it, to its full extent. It is obvious what Hitler did to Germany, in the face of defeat. I believe he would have done the same to the rest of the world, to avoid defeat, had he power to do so.

[Lindsay]

IMO, if we are going to make any real progress in understanding the GØD-concept--a concept filled with all kinds of human potential--we will need to empty our heads of the superstitious god-concept of theism and its rebellious child, atheism. Both conceive of that which does not exist.

[FDk]

Interesting thought... you not only successfully limited God within the realms of modern physics but also defiled "GOD" by bounding it to divine-mundane concept.. Bravo!!!!!

[Rick]

.. Bravo!!!!!

Thank you.

[FDk]

.. Bravo!!!!!

Thank you.

lol.. sorry if I sounded like a dick...

[Lindsay]

lol.. sorry if I sounded like a dick...

Apology accepted. Now I ask, in what forum should the following question be posted: What kind of a sound does a dick make?

[Rick]

I think he meant "dick-head" which would be sounding somewhat like Richard Cheney, the Vice President of the United States of America.

[Lindsay]

Interesting thought... you not only successfully limited God within the realms of modern physics...

BTW, the process philosophy and theology of the great mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead, which makes a lot of sense to me, wrote about process theism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/.
Process theologians write about panENntheism, not to be confused with pantheism. To avoid confusion, I prefer to us a doublet, unitheism. As a unitheist I say: There is no ONE god; GØD and Nature--physically, mentally and spiritually--are the One.

Process Theism
First published Thu 29 Jul, 2004

Process theism typically refers to a family of theological ideas originating in, inspired by, or in agreement with the metaphysical orientation of the English philosopher-mathematician Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) and the American philosopher-ornithologist Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000). For both Whitehead and Hartshorne, it is an essential attribute of God to be fully involved in and affected by temporal processes.

In otherwords, I take this to mean that GØD is simply a name for what is happening in the eternal now and the infinity of space. We are always on the cutting edge of time. The past is only a fading memory and the future is only an illusive dream. The one true reality is now; this is why we call it a present.

[Orbz]

Therefore, the question above is answered in the affirmative, if we assume divinity involves omniscience: we can tell there is no divinity in the world because if there were, quantum mechanics would be very different than what we have found to be the case. QED.

So, God also needs to be omnipotent if he is to be omniscient?

[Lindsay]

Orbz comments, "So, God also needs to be omnipotent if he is to be omniscient? "

What is your theological position, Orbz?

Call me an incurable spirituanist--I include all good religions, not just Judaeo/Christian--if you will, but it is my opinion--And I admit that I have no proof for my opinion--that as long as we human beings keep on creating gods, or a God, in our own material images, and referring to god/God as a who, or a being separate and apart from us--one who we can call "he"--we shall miss the whole point of being made by process philosophy and theology.

Process theology says that, in tune with the infinite and eternal GØD potential, we are in the process of becoming omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal beings--GØD-like, if you will. We begin the process when we choose to be moral, ethical and all-loving. This is what Paul had in mind when, in I Corinthians 13, he wrote: Faith, hope and love, but the greatest of these is love.

BTW, in my opinion, I do not insist that one must adhere to a formal religion, or creeds. We can each go our own way, as long as this does not mean that it is okay to be immoral, unethical and un-loving. The process, as Jesus taught, has to do with being human, and doing humane things, not with spouting set creeds. Loners, atheists and agnostic welcome. I am a unitheist because I admit that I need a little help, the fellowship of others and some invisible means of support.

[Orbz]

Orbz comments, "So, God also needs to be omnipotent if he is to be omniscient? "

What is your theological position, Orbz?

Depending on what time of day, who's asking me or what you're asking me about, I generally ascribe to;
phsyicalism, atheism, pantheism or taoism

[Lindsay]

I asked: What is your theological position, Orbz?

Orbz responded, "Depending on what time of day, who's asking me or what you're asking me about, I generally ascribe to; phsyicalism, atheism, pantheism or taoism."
ABOUT PHYSICALISM--From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
=====================================================

Physicalism
First published Tue 13 Feb, 2001

Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales's thesis that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental. The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don't deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don't seem physical -- items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are wholly physical.

Physicalism is sometimes known as materialism

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

I presume that physicalism allows for non-material "things" like gravity.

Sounds okay to me, as long as physicalists are also advocates of moral, ethical and loving actions which promote justice and peace for all the world. As the New Testament puts it: "God so loved the world..." In his Sermon on the Mount Jesus advocated that we are to be humane even to our enemies. The Golden Rule, principle or law is to be applied universally. Jesus was not an advocate churchianity.
He probably lived and died as a Reform Jew.

[Lindsay]

THIS IS INTERESTING
==================
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/
12. The Case Against Physicalism I: Qualia and Consciousness
Having provided an answer to the interpretation question, I now turn to the truth question: is physicalism (as we have interpreted it so far) true? I will first discuss three reasons for supposing that physicalism is not true. Then I will consider the case for physicalism.

[Lindsay]

If I am not mistaken, Rick once told us that, for him, the highest good is "nature".
Now he writes about the universe, which I assume he equates with nature

A world view that denies the property of divinity in the universe is called atheism, and a theistic world view affirms divinity.

This comment prompts me to ask: Rick, what do you mean by "the property of divinity"? What is your concept of "divinity".
You go on

So deciding which is true requires determining whether or not there is divinity in the universe. The problem comes down to answering the question "is a world without divinity observably different than a world with that property?"

Given the fact that both theists and panentheists (unitheists) agree that divinity is not a thing which can be contained in anything, but contains everything, the question is pointless.

BTW, unitheists feel that GOD is around, in and through everything.

You go on

In physics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, accepted as true by all practicing physicists, holds that for a quantum particle, knowledge of position precludes knowledge of momentum. More precisely, the more we know about a particle's location, the less we can know about its momentum. However, an omniscient being would, by definition, know both position and momentum of all particles, in violation of known physics.

Here is where unitheists differ from theists. Unitheists say: GOD is not a super and human-like being, who walks around knowing things, of anykind.
Rick goes on

Further, in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (the majority view of physicists), a state of quantum superposition, in which particles can exist in two states simultaneously, requires that a particle's quantum state be unobserved. Hence, the existence of an omniscient being would short-circuit attempts to establish ambiguous quantum states, as is routinely done in physics research laboratories.

Since GOD is not a being, such a comment makes no sense to unitheists. I will let theists answer for themselves.
Rick concludes

Therefore, the question above is answered in the affirmative, if we assume divinity involves omniscience: we can tell there is no divinity in the world because if there were, quantum mechanics would be very different than what we have found to be the case. QED.

There is a lot of assuming going on, here. Again I ask: Define what you mean by "divinity".

[zhenka11230]

IMO, if we are going to make any real progress in understanding the GØD-concept--a concept filled with all kinds of human potential--we will need to empty our heads of the superstitious god-concept of theism and its rebellious child, atheism. Both conceive of that which does not exist.

Wow i really like how you put it! "rebellious child" i was looking for words such as this to describe what i felt it was for a long time! Thanks!

[Lindsay]

BTW, Zhenka, if I were back to thinking like I used to think when I was a young theist--quite a long time ago--I would be petitioning God: "O God, I beseech you to reveal yourself in all your glory to all those who question your existence. Open their blind eyes, closed minds and soften their hard hearts...I do not have the power of persuasion and I need your help...etc."

BTW, there many such prayers--prayers filled with frustration, anger and even despair--found in the book of Psalms. See psalms 10, 38, 69, and 102, for a few examples.
They are best understood in a modern version. I recommend:
http://www.librarything.com/author/brandtleslief

For example, Leslie F Brandt translates Psalm 10:
====================================
Where in the world are You, O God?
Why do you run away when things go wrong?
The sensualist lives by the desire of the flesh.
The materialist seeks for temporal security alone.
The ungodly man indulges in self-worship;
He assumes that "God is dead."

The point is, these are the ones who seem to prosper.
They laugh in scorn at those who are inclined towrds piety.
They claim that they are in the driver's seat and cannot be dethroned.
They live and speak arrogantly and carelessly.
They are not concerned about the enslaved and the deprived.
They will take want they want irrespective of the hurt they cause others.

Wake up, O God! Come out of hiding!
How can you allow these God-defyers to get away with it?

THE THE PSALMIST AFFIRMS
O God, you do take note of those in conflict.
You will take account of the godless and the arrogant.
You are still Lord over all the world.
You do hear the cries of those who love you;
You are perpetually concerned about their needs.
You will enable them to stand up to the pain and oppression of this life.
================================================

[atha]

The Power of Truth or God-in-Action is the vibratory force pervading everything.

Man is a Soul having a body, and this Soul is the mover of the body-chariot.
The eternal soul principle is described as Sruti (that which is heard) in the Vedas;
as Udgit (The Song of the Beyond) in the Upanishads;
as Akash Bani ( Voice or Music from the Sky) in the Hindu scriptures;
as Kalma or Kalami-i-Kadim (Divine Utterance or The Most Ancient Call) in Al Quran;
as Sraosha by Zoroaster;
as The Word in the Bible;
as Naam or Shabd in the Sikh scriptures.
The ancients described It as The Music of the Spheres, while in Theosophy It is The Voice of Silence.

"Him alone I worship who is embedded in the Sound Current" Kabir

[Lindsay]

The Power of Truth or God-in-Action is the vibratory force pervading everything.
Man is a Soul having a body...

Sounds good (GØD-like) to me.
BTW, I have read most of your posts, with pleasure.

Interestingly, in Greek--the orignal language of the New Testament--the word for Spirit, or Soul, is Pneuma, which literally means air, wind or breath. From it we get pneumatics and pneumonia. In John 4:24 Jesus says to the woman from Samaria, "God is Spirit (Pneuma)". We get our word, spirit, from the Latin translation, spiritus. The Hebrew is ruach, the Aramaic (the language of Palestine in Jesus' day) is rooka, and the Arabic is ruh. All refer to air, wind or breath.

[atha]

The Hebrew word for Spirit -- ruah is a feminine word...
"My Mother the Spirit, the divine mother the Holy Spirit..."
Shekhinah, the Spirit of God... She bestowed the dinine grace upon the Prophets

[Lindsay]

The Hebrew word for Spirit -- ruah is a feminine word...

BTW, I sometime spell it 'ruach' to indicate the gutteral. Regularly, I attend a Sunday fellowship www.pathwayschurch.ca which makes a deliberate attempt to acknowledge the masculine and feminine balance of life. In the community forum, I make a point of calling attention to this brainmeta forum . The follow rhyme came to me this AM.
==============================
Strong father sky and gentle mother earth,
Both are the Source of every kind of birth.
Our mother earth provides for us a home,
Beneath the sky and vast celestial dome.

For all of us, our sisters and our brothers,
For all our cousins, uncles, aunts and others.
The work begins with faith, plus hope and love
Within the heart, around, below, above.

There can be justice, and there can be peace,
There can joy, which never more need cease.
But only if the needed work gets done,
By all who live beneath the golden sun.

[Rick]

There is a lot of assuming going on, here. Again I ask: Define what you mean by "divinity".

It seems to me that the onus would be on the one who would say that divinity is something, or that the word has a use.

[Rick]

Therefore, the question above is answered in the affirmative, if we assume divinity involves omniscience: we can tell there is no divinity in the world because if there were, quantum mechanics would be very different than what we have found to be the case. QED.

So, God also needs to be omnipotent if he is to be omniscient?

Well, no. For omnipotence to enable divine onmiscience would mean that God would have the ability to do the logically impossible: He would look at the quantum state of every particle in the universe simultaneously (never mind the violation of faster-than-light information transfer), which would collapse the quantum states of every particle, and then put all the quantum states back to their pre-divine-observation condition simultaneously, and do this continuously through all time. We do not observe quantum states being collapsed and restored. Once a quantum state collapses, it stays collapsed. So omnipotence of that kind would also be a logical impossibility (to say it is logically possible is equivalent to saying all human observation is illusion, in which case all bets are off and there is no point in talking about philosophy). Philosophers generally agree that divine omnipotence does not mean the ability to do the logically impossible (a common example is to create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it).

The consequence of this is that philosophy in general is bunged up by any introduction of a concept of God. Philosophy is better done atheistically.

[Rick]

Corrolary 1: God cannot be omnipotent if he is not omniscient. As proven above God is not omniscient. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

Proof:

Unbounded power requires unbounded knowledge to be effective. That is, any force must be applied precisely to be effective. Perfect precision in application of power requires perfect knowledge. Ineffective power is not omnipotent. If God is not omniscient, he cannot be omnipotent.

Corrolary 2: If God is not omnipotent, He is not God.

Proof:

By definition, God is omnipotent. Any being that is not omnipotent is not God. God is not omnipotent. Therefore, God cannot exist.

[Lindsay]

...It seems to me that the onus would be on the one who would say that divinity is something, or that the word has a use.

Rick, I recall that your name for all that is--physically, mentally and spiritually (or do you object to this being a category?), is Nature. Right? And I respect your right to your own terms

LOOK WHAT THE "DEVIL" is doing to GOD!!!!! in my 'puter. Are you one of his angels, Rick? Keep in mind, you showed me how to make the Ø
BTW, does Ø have a name?
================================================
I also respect theists speaking of "God". As a unitheist, I use G��œD (Poor old Devil. How come you leave my signature alone?) . . BTW, I sometime refer to art and music as being divine, but I don't commonly use "divinity". However, I have no objection to its use. Notice what the devil, in the computer, is does to do to G�D ( G�˜D ) Why does he leave my signature alone? Interesting.

I presume you have taken a peak at PROCESS THEISM
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/
It is not afraid to speak about "God" as not being perfect, yet.

[Lindsay]

"By definition, God is omnipotent. Any being that is not omnipotent is not God. God is not omnipotent. Therefore, God cannot exist." I agree, Rick. This is what brought me to saying: GØD (See my signature) is existence, in the process of becoming complete.

IMO, all who choose to be moral, ethical and loving--that is truly act on the golden rule--are part of the happy process. The more we can encourage immoral, unethical and unloving people to choose to join the team--it cannot be done by dogma or force--and become part of the process, the more joyful the journey of life will be for all.

[atha]

Logic is the foundation of science and philosophy, but it is not the foundation of Life.
Life is not logical, It is paradoxical !
One will never find the answers to the deepest questions through logic or philosophy, but through Inward Journey, Inner Silence, Awakening, Inner Clarity, Supra-sense...

[Lindsay]

Rick, is Atha right when he says that life is not logical; that it is paradoxical?
=========================================

Logic is the foundation of science and philosophy, but it is not the foundation of Life.
Life is not logical, It is paradoxical !
One will never find the answers to the deepest questions through logic or philosophy, but through Inward Journey, Inner Silence, Awakening, Inner Clarity, Supra-sense...

Atha, would it offend you if I said: I think and feel that GØD is that which includes science, logic and philosophy? I find that all things having to do with the Inner Journey fits in quite well with even the little I know about science, logic and philosophy.

Rick's science, logic and philosophy makes him a physicalist. Well and GØD-like!
I trust that he is a moral, ethical and loving physicalist and I bless him for it.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

The following link from STANFORD UNIVERSITY contains a massive amount of material on physicalism and its connection with philosophy, somatology, pneumatology, psychology, theology, whatever.
http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher....ery=physicalist

[Lindsay]

JOHANN GOTTFRIED VON HERDER
First published Tue Oct 23, 2001; substantive revision Thu Sep 27, 2007.
I find the following very interesting and important stuff:
=====================================================
Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1803) is a philosopher of the first importance. This claim depends largely on the intrinsic quality of his ideas (of which this article will try to give an impression). But another aspect of it is his intellectual influence. This has been immense both within philosophy and beyond it (much greater than is usually realized).....For the rest
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/herder/#PhilRel

[Enki]

Further, in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (the majority view of physicists), a state of quantum superposition, in which particles can exist in two states simultaneously, requires that a particle's quantum state be unobserved. Hence, the existence of an omniscient being would short-circuit attempts to establish ambiguous quantum states, as is routinely done in physics research laboratories.

But there can be some sort of waves we never heard about (or something we have not even invented a Word to describe it), which can impart to any point of the universe any information about any quantum fluctuation and quantum state without violating the Unobservable limits within limits of Human understanding of the reality.