cyrexx:


@ Macdaddy,


let me sing a song for you from Rihanna's "(Cheers) Drink To That" and make it a toast as we pop this e-champagne together.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR0v0i63PQ4


and here is the lyrics



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nVI0ovKg8A

hope you dont mind if I introduce you to some epic beer;

Ihedinobi:

Apart from the bolded being an excuse to say all manner of unintelligent things in debate, what debate does not establish right and wrong? If you don't want to consider God and admit any possibility that you are wrong in your perceptions, then stay away from debate.

This is not a debate about right or wrong. This is a debate about wether God is as people claim Him to be.... I stated it to anony earlier. Right or wrong is a whole different debate altogether. Besides, for me to even accept your way of thinking, reasoning, beliefs etc I need to be convinced why you believe what you believe and how you came to that pattern of belief. To do that it helps to free the mind of all chains and shackles.

So to summarise, let anony debate my points as he sees fit, giving me his own understanding of God etc. Or you could jump into the debate too if you wish.

cyrexx:

O my, what a sick and twisted logic.

comparing a break-up of a girlfriend to eternal torment by that wicked monster they called yahweh. at least, a good boyfriend will wish his girlfriend well after break-up and hopes she learnt her lesson and improve her life, but that self-proclaimed all-good omnibenevolent Jewish deity who is actually a wicked monster/sky-tyrant never forgives after hundred zillion years of excruciating torment.

and comparing punishment of your child to yahweh's eternal torment. your sky daddy is a sick twisted heavenly father being defended with a sick twisted logic..

If your relationship with your girlfriend is such that you literally are her life source as it is with God and His people, then it only follows that if you break up with her, she dies........Take some time to think about it

wiegraf:
This is why no one, no entity, no anything, can know it's omniscient. Omniscience cannot be confirmed, even in magical la-la land of omnipotent (another concept that $hits all over logic). If god shows up and tells you he's sure he's omniscient then he's either not so smart, thereby immediately questioning his omniscience, or lying.

Suddenly you understand this? Could it be you've known all along? When I rant about dishonesty, it's usually because of this (not exclusively though). Not to mention you know why I'm ranting, but will come up with some silly excuse for my rant, like claim I'm ranting because I disagree with you, piling on the dishonesty.

I ate some terrible food, I think I'm going to puke

You need to up your comprehension skills mate, I said; for us to know ultimate truth, we need to have omniscience which is something we do not possess because our senses are fallible. In other words, we cannot know ultimate truth because we are not omniscient. If we were omniscient, then we would know ultimate truth. Simple.
Note that in my response, I have not claimed that ultimate truth does not exist, rather I hold that it must exist however, our senses are such that we cannot recognize it.

This is very different from what you are proposing which is that a being that knows everything cannot know that it knows everything(the highlighted part is a blatant self-contradiction). Your claim is logical nonsense.

Now your argument is that omniscience is unverifiable, but then that's because our senses are not capable of verifying it.

If ultimate truth exists, then omniscience is necessary to recognize it. If omniscience does not exist, then ultimate truth cannot exist. If this is so, then we cannot have any objective truth and hence the whole idea of truth and falsehood immediately breaks down.

musKeeto:
I fully agree. Death for working on the Sabbath. I mean GOD rested(stopped creating) so everyone else should observe that rest(to recuperate)... else death.. Makes a lot of sense..

For your sake, I'll ignore this

Like I've said before, Yahweh either
A - found a better way of working with humans after realizing people just couldn't keep to his rules (I wonder why, after all everything he created was good, oh wait, apart from Satan...)

OR

B - felt like having an adventure on earth.

Both of them, you got wrong.

You were not allowed to go out beyond 6pm. That was to protect you from danger, kidnapping, maybe thieves too..
What's wrong with working on the Sabbath? Nothing, Anony, and you know this. It was just God's rule. It's like a government forcing everyone to celebrate a festival. If you do not celebrate, they kill you.

Nah, more like you telling your spouse "if you have sex with another man, I'll leave you".

I've no idea how this fits into the conversation... but I'd like to us continue further on..

At a point, even the servants of God realized the Old testament was just a pack of dumb laws and rules. When Jesus claimed to fulfill them, what exactly did he mean? He certainly didn't observe most of the commandments, that's why an enmity existed between him and the Pharisees/Sadduccees. It's the same problem that plagues the church today: a microcosm on nairaland, tithe vs non tithers, trinity vs non trinity.. God should have made the Bible as clear as possible.. He didn't... The Bible is open to as many interpretations as possible... deeply subjective.

You are reading it the wrong way. Following Paul's analogy, we come to realize that it's like after I am 30 yrs old, I am still afraid of the curfew and the houseboy still flogs me. That is what it means to be in bondage under the law.

The argument that different people understand the bible in different ways therefore it is somehow flawed does not follow. For God to make everyone know the bible by default, He will have to take away free-will i.e. Human beings would not exist rather we'll have robots instead.

Mr_Anony:
For your sake, I'll ignore this

Really?

Mr_Anony:
Both of them, you got wrong.

As you would say, what then is right?

Mr_Anony:
Nah, more like you telling your spouse "if you have sex with another man, I'll leave you".

Your wife having sex is a betrayal of your trust. You both had an agreement to honor each other's body..

My question: how is GOD or anyone affected by anyone working on a particular day? Work is done on other days... You don't tell your wife to sleep with a man every other day..

Mr_Anony:
You are reading it the wrong way. Following Paul's analogy, we come to realize that it's like after I am 30 yrs old, I am still afraid of the curfew and the houseboy still flogs me. That is what it means to be in bondage under the law.

The argument here isn't about the law, but its purpose as at the time it was created. Refer to my question again..

Mr_Anony:
The argument that different people understand the bible in different ways therefore it is somehow flawed does not follow. For God to make everyone know the bible by default, He will have to take away free-will i.e. Human beings would not exist rather we'll have robots instead.

Lol.. that's like saying since the Lagos traffic law can be downloaded and understood by everyone, sanity will return to Lagos roads..

loll...

MacDaddy01:
Yawn.
Consistency doesn equal right.
You are consistently flawed. Consistently wrong and consistently playing mental gymnastics.
You have been exposed numerous times on this thread. My work is done. All I ever wanted was to show the other theists that their arguments will never win. You were the sole man giving them a little hope.
However, this thread serves as evidence that you have nothing. Cyrexx and co hammered you.
Theists, it is over.
I have stopped obsessing over you, Anony as of yesterday. I am going into new territory now- just waiting for my ban in the islam section to expire.
Call me the atheist boss

Lololololol, you are such an amusing kid...... You call that "hammering"?
If mockery and ridicule and claiming that someone is wrong without stating reasons why he is wrong is what passes for a logical argument in your book, then your intelligence is little I'm afraid.

Anyway, If shouting louder and longer is what floats your boat, then that's fine let it be so for you and yours. On my part, the door is always open for you whenever you want to actually use some logic.

Mr_Anony:
You need to up your comprehension skills mate, I said; for us to know ultimate truth, we need to have omniscience which is something we do not possess because our senses are fallible. In other words, we cannot know ultimate truth because we are not omniscient. If we were omniscient, then we would know ultimate truth. Simple.
Note that in my response, I have not claimed that ultimate truth does not exist, rather I hold that it must exist however, our senses are such that we cannot recognize it.

This is very different from what you are proposing which is that a being that knows everything cannot know that it knows everything(the highlighted part is a blatant self-contradiction). Your claim is logical nonsense.

Now your argument is that omniscience is unverifiable, but then that's because our senses are not capable of verifying it.

If ultimate truth exists, then omniscience is necessary to recognize it. If omniscience does not exist, then ultimate truth cannot exist. If this is so, then we cannot have any objective truth and hence the whole idea of truth and falsehood immediately breaks down.

This is logic
I don't care about ultimate truth btw, or whatever, do see me addressing that?
Omniscience is unverifiable.
That is all...
No senses, all senses, no fairy tales, all fairy tales...
Most importantly, no nonsense...
Reading comprehension? I state it clearly, in any universe... Unverifiable
Now, if its unverifiable, how is it possible to know it exists?
And how, oh how, in the universe is that logical nonsense? Yet verifying the unverifiable is logical?
Note how many god concepts, facing the same problem, ie being unverifiable, are equally nonsensical... Abrahamic god doesn't even qualify, because he couldn't shut up and made claim upon claim of demonstrable nonsense. Yes, the FSM makes more sense, mostly because it shuts its mouth, giving us less of a chance to catch its slip ups... Yahweh is a bit like the bad guys in movies who stop to monologue when they could just kill the protagonist. In this case he stops to give the protagonist all the ammunition he'll ever need to kill him, unaware that said protagonist is already free. You know how these films usually end...
I hope my phone doesn't wake me again, well too soon at least, I hope that's enough time for you to come up with a sensible response
I'm hungry again

Edit: btw, reading your responses to muskeeto, they are even less palatable than the ones you usually use to try to feed me. They're downright terrible.. You're getting worse and worse at this

musKeeto:
Really?

Yes really

As you would say, what then is right?

God created everything and it was good but then corruption came in and man turned away from God. The sacrifice of Christ is the only means by which man can be reconciled to God.

Your wife having sex is a betrayal of your trust. You both had an agreement to honor each other's body..

My question: how is GOD or anyone affected by anyone working on a particular day? Work is done on other days... You don't tell your wife to sleep with a man every other day..

In the same way the children of Israel breaching their covenant with God is a betrayal of trust.

The argument here isn't about the law, but its purpose as at the time it was created. Refer to my question again..

Perhaps I misread what you were saying. Care to rephrase?

Lol.. that's like saying since the Lagos traffic law can be downloaded and understood by everyone, sanity will return to Lagos roads..

Good, now you see what I am saying......men have seen the light but they have chosen darkness. The only way to ensure that they work in the light would be to make them do it against their will i.e. take away free choice.

Mr_Anony:
Yes really

Mr_Anony:
God created everything and it was good but then corruption came in and man turned away from God. The sacrifice of Christ is the only means by which man can be reconciled to God.

And God didn't create the corruption?

Was man created perfect or imperfect?

Mr_Anony:
In the same way the children of Israel breaching their covenant with God is a betrayal of trust.

This guy sabi flip question sha.
Work on any other day apart from THisDAY. If you do, YOU'LL DIE...

If Seun orders everyone to post on every other day apart from Sunday, and the penalty for not adhering to this rule is death, what would be your response?
Remember, your 'account' is in his 'hands'..

Mr_Anony:
Good, now you see what I am saying......men have seen the light but they have chosen darkness. The only way to ensure that they work in the light would be to make them do it against their will i.e. take away free choice.

this is not good, Anony.. no wonder Wiegraf calls you dishonest..

Below is your original submission.. How does it lead to the above?

Mr_Anony:
For God to make everyone know the bible by default, He will have to take away free-will i.e. Human beings would not exist rather we'll have robots instead.

wiegraf:

This is logic
I don't care about ultimate truth btw, or whatever, do see me addressing that?
Omniscience is unverifiable.
That is all...
No senses, all senses, no fairy tales, all fairy tales...
Most importantly, no nonsense...
Reading comprehension? I state it clearly, in any universe... Unverifiable
Now, if its unverifiable, how is it possible to know it exists?
And how, oh how, in the universe is that logical nonsense? Yet verifying the unverifiable is logical?
Note how many god concepts, facing the same problem, ie being unverifiable, are equally nonsensical... Abrahamic god doesn't even qualify, because he couldn't shut up and made claim upon claim of demonstrable nonsense. Yes, the FSM makes more sense, mostly because it shuts its mouth, giving us less of a chance to catch its slip ups... Yahweh is a bit like the bad guys in movies who stop to monologue when they could just kill the protagonist. In this case he stops to give the protagonist all the ammunition he'll ever need to kill him, unaware that said protagonist is already free. You know how these films usually end...
I hope my phone doesn't wake me again, well too soon at least, I hope that's enough time for you to come up with a sensible response
I'm hungry again

Edit: btw, reading your responses to muskeeto, they are even less palatable than the ones you usually use to try to feed me. They're downright terrible.. You're getting worse and worse at this

Lol, I don't remember coming on this forum with the aim of impressing you. Anyway moving on.....

If you don't care about ultimate truth, what knowledge do you care about then? How do you even begin to ponder omniscience?

As for your rant about non-verifiable things, As I have said earlier, it is not that truth is unverifiable in itself, rather it is because our senses are limited, omniscience is the only way that truth can best be verified. Without it, we cannot have truth. If you cannot grasp this part of my argument, then I am afraid it is your comprehension not my honesty that is the problem here as you would like to think.

If you insist that what we cannot physically verify cannot exist, then I'll urge you to take up my challenge on this thread.

https://www.nairaland.com/1053917/pink-unicorn-argument-against-religion/10

You might be able to help your friends out.

Mr_Anony:
Ok apparently we agree. However, one interesting thing you have brought up though is the difference between ultimate truth and particular truth i.e. truth that is known now is a particular truth but the real real situation of things (permit me to use that expression) is the ultimate truth.

I agree.

I would like to suggest to you that ultimate truth exists but is something that due to the limits of our senses, we cannot know unless we possessed some sort of omniscience. Ultimate truth is illusive and even if we were to come face to face with it, we will not know it (we would still call it particular truth). All we can work with is particular truth.

It depends on the particular "ultimate truth". Issues that lend themselves to subjective criteria may never be objectively verified.

Ultimate truth is what we use as a place holder it is what we call what believe may turn out true but it is yet unknown. This allows us to be able to cautiously say "maybe there is something more than this" and hence use phrases like "to the best of my knowledge". The thing is that when we make a new discovery, we call it particular truth and push ultimate truth even further. Truth is just truth, it is only our knowledge that is limited.

Ok. (Pardon my bolding).

What is yet unknown can neither be true nor false.

I disagree with this. It will be true or false regardless of the fact that we dont know which it is.

To explain what I mean, let's look at our Urhobo boy. Assuming after he has been convince that he is Urhobo, someone comes with logical proof that he is indeed Ibo by showing him that the attribute he thought was exclusive to Urhobos has actually been discovered to be also possession of Ibos i.e. a new discovery has been made. then the person goes on to present to him an attribute that he has that only Ibos can have. Now he has a new particular truth which is that he is Ibo. Now let us say another new discover comes out and it is found that he is actually Hausa and yet again another and it is found that he is Tiv. At this point the boy is waiting for the next new discovery so as to find what new tribe he must really come from. Now assuming the ultimate truth of the matter is that the boy is Tiv, he cannot know this. He will still think that there ought to be an ultimate truth outside his particular truth.

What he thinks though, will not affect the "ultimate truth", which in your variation is that he is Tiv.

What is my point? The world is vast and there are things we don't know but then we keep moving forward and discovering stuff. The thing is that the more we discover, the more we assure ourselves that there is more to discover i.e. tending towards knowing the ultimate truth. However realistically, we cannot work with a truth that is yet unknown. we can only work with what we know now as true and if it follows logically, then we must accept it as true and work with it. At any point where is ceases to logically follow, then we must find what else logically follows and that is how we move forward in discovering truth.

Hmm. Most of the "truths" we work with are objective truths. These mostly lend themselves to observation. Because of such qualities, we can discard these truths when new discoveries come to light. I want you to distinguish between objective truths and subjective truths. By objective truths, I mean things that can be directly observed and/or demonstrated. These objective truths may be wrong ultimately, but right particularly.

The subjective truths cannot be shown or demonstrated but may be wrong or right.

I'm bringing this up here because I think there's bound to be confusion later on if we do not make this demarcation.

e.g. we used to believe the earth was flat. It logically followed that if it was people and buildings won't slide of it. Later, we observed that ships disappear over a horizon and that led us to the truth of a spherical earth. This is our particular truth for now, it may or may not be the ultimate truth. But we must continue to accept it as true until we observe an event that doesn't logically follow from it, then we will move on to an even more accurate discovery. As I said earlier, truth is just truth It is only our knowledge that is limited, but then we have logic which helps us to discern truth.

Do you follow up to now?

I'm with you thus far, but I wish to point out something.

Logic can only be useful where there is some sort of order. Order suggests rules and possibly, predictable behaviour. If there is total chaos, logic cannot apply unless we can find a pattern/meaning in the chaos.

I use this to argue that in the end, reality does not have to conform to our expectations. In other words, logic as a tool may be ineffective in discovering the ultimate truth.

musKeeto:
And God didn't create the corruption?

Was man created perfect or imperfect?

How can one possibly create corruption. For corruption to exist, It must have to be a deviation from an original model.

This guy sabi flip question sha.
Work on any other day apart from THisDAY. If you do, YOU'LL DIE...

If Seun orders everyone to post on every other day apart from Sunday, and the penalty for not adhering to this rule is death, what would be your response?
Remember, your 'account' is in his 'hands'..

Seun created this forum if he says nobody should post on Sundays, It is well within his rights to delete my account if I disobey that law. It is his forum.
In the same way, God created the universe. If anyone flouts His rules, He is well within His rights to delete the person from the universe.

this is not good, Anony.. no wonder Wiegraf calls you dishonest..

Below is your original submission.. How does it lead to the above?

It is interesting how you skipped the first part of my statement, quoted me out of context and then suggested that I was being dishonest.

Here's the full quote:

Mr_Anony: The argument that different people understand the bible in different ways therefore it is somehow flawed does not follow. For God to make everyone know the bible by default, He will have to take away free-will i.e. Human beings would not exist rather we'll have robots instead.

Notice how you conveniently skipped the first sentence. My argument is that because we have free choice, we can choose to go contrary to God. If God were to instill into us the knowledge of Him by default such that we must all do His will, the He would have to take away free choice and make us into robots.

Different interpretations of the bible is evidence that we have free-choice to choose what we want to believe. The message of the bible remains as it is but people choose to read it differently.
It is the same way the message of Lagos traffic law remains the same but people will still choose to interprete it differently.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, I don't remember coming on this forum with the aim of impressing you. Anyway moving on.....

If you don't care about ultimate truth, what knowledge do you care about then? How do you even begin to ponder omniscience?

As for your rant about non-verifiable things, As I have said earlier, it is not that truth is unverifiable in itself, rather it is because our senses are limited, omniscience is the only way that truth can best be verified. Without it, we cannot have truth. If you cannot grasp this part of my argument, then I am afraid it is your comprehension not my honesty that is the problem here as you would like to think.

If you insist that what we cannot physically verify cannot exist, then I'll urge you to take up my challenge on this thread.

https://www.nairaland.com/1053917/pink-unicorn-argument-against-religion/10

You might be able to help your friends out.

Misdirecting.. Stop it, I'm not here to view some cheap magic trick. I sort of followed that thread, you were getting pummeled there as well. Of course in anonyverse you were the victor. Mr we need logic to discover the truth, is it possible to verify the unverfiable? Yes or no pls?

wiegraf:

Misdirecting.. Stop it, I'm not here to view some cheap magic trick. I sort of followed that thread, you were getting pummeled there as well. Of course in anonyverse you were the victor. Mr we need logic to discover the truth, is it possible to verify the unverfiable? Yes or no pls?

I hold that you are not capable of thought, would you mind verifying please? Give us evidence that you can think.

Mr_Anony:
I hold that you are not capable of thought, would you mind verifying please? Give us evidence that you can think.

We could scan my brain. Scan my brainwaves. Recently, even memories were implanted in mice.

Can you verify the unverifiable?


Edit: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120910143407.htm

wiegraf:

We could scan my brain. Scan my brainwaves. Recently, even memories were implanted in mice.

Can you verify the unverifiable?


Edit: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120910143407.htm

This has not answered my question in any way.

Let me make it clearer for you:

Think of chocolate ice-cream. Now that you have the thought in your head, give me objective proof that you are indeed thinking of chocolate ice-cream. . . . . .and please don't merely claim that you are thinking of it, I want objectively verifiable proof. I want to independently experience and interact with your thought of chocolate ice-cream.

Mr_Anony:
This has not answered my question in any way.
Let me make it clearer for you:
Think of chocolate ice-cream. Now that you have the thought in your head, give me objective proof that you are indeed thinking of chocolate ice-cream. . . . . .and please don't merely claim that you are thinking of it, I want objectively verifiable proof. I want to independently experience and interact with your thought of chocolate ice-cream.

...................what is going on?!!! ? What are you trying to accomplish with this?

Mr_Anony:
This has not answered my question in any way.

Let me make it clearer for you:

Think of chocolate ice-cream. Now that you have the thought in your head, give me objective proof that you are indeed thinking of chocolate ice-cream. . . . . .and please don't merely claim that you are thinking of it, I want objectively verifiable proof. I want to independently experience and interact with your thought of chocolate ice-cream.

It doesn't? So we can implant memories, in essence implanting thoughts, but you think it inconceivable that we can also track them? You have heard of neuroscience, yes? Google is your friend, enjoy
www.nature.com/news/neuroscience-the-mind-reader-1.10816

Random: That also illustrates how silly 'leaving it to god is', and other stoopid $hit like curiosity killed the cat, etc. Your mind is intangible, probably linked to your soul, we can't fix it silly science, let's pray instead, etc.
I can't see where you're going with this except to help me prove my point. You're looking for an unverifiable claim often encountered but generally accepted as fact? If so, that's silly, it doesn't aid your 'argument'. Try perception though, but I'm not sure if that is unverifiable as well.

Have you noticed that all Anony's proofs for god are mysteries?


Origins of the universe
miracles
magic in the bible.



Never will you hear a christian give a logical proof for god. They must use mysteries. We dont know so X.



Please watch as how an atheists destroys a muslim theist with the big bang




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB7xeoKqo4I&feature=related

jayriginal:

I agree.



It depends on the particular "ultimate truth". Issues that lend themselves to subjective criteria may never be objectively verified.



Ok. (Pardon my bolding).



I disagree with this. It will be true or false regardless of the fact that we dont know which it is.



What he thinks though, will not affect the "ultimate truth", which in your variation is that he is Tiv.



Hmm. Most of the "truths" we work with are objective truths. These mostly lend themselves to observation. Because of such qualities, we can discard these truths when new discoveries come to light. I want you to distinguish between objective truths and subjective truths. By objective truths, I mean things that can be directly observed and/or demonstrated. These objective truths may be wrong ultimately, but right particularly.

The subjective truths cannot be shown or demonstrated but may be wrong or right.

I'm bringing this up here because I think there's bound to be confusion later on if we do not make this demarcation.



I'm with you thus far, but I wish to point out something.

Logic can only be useful where there is some sort of order. Order suggests rules and possibly, predictable behaviour. If there is total chaos, logic cannot apply unless we can find a pattern/meaning in the chaos.

I use this to argue that in the end, reality does not have to conform to our expectations. In other words, logic as a tool may be ineffective in discovering the ultimate truth.

I'll just give a quick reply here. Please read it all together as a whole so you get the meat of what I am talking about

The part in red: I'll correct myself, you are right. Truth will still be truth even if we don't know that it is true.

Now if the above is true, then Truth is objective and the whole idea of subjective truth breaks down. Remember we have established that our senses are not the best arbiter of truth.
(I know I have probably not accurately represented what you are saying but I just wanted to make a clear statement so that we don't get lost in the whirlwind of terms like ultimate, particular, objective and subjective)

Now you have talked about order and logic.

Let me suggest to you a divide between truth and how to know truth.

Truth is the constant.

In our journey towards Truth, we have our senses by which we perceive and then we have logic by which we reason.

Since we cannot start from a vacuum, we must accept as a given that order exists.

With logic we explore this order and move towards truth.

I hold that if there exists order, then there must be one that gives order. I hold that our search for Truth is really our search for the One who gives order.
When we observe order and try to seek the the reason behind order, What we are really doing is asking the question: Who/What gives order? and Why order instead of absolute disorder?

Now let me describe something else that is really interesting.
If our senses are limited such and our first basic foundational truth comes from observation using our senses then our logic is such that it is limited as it cannot go beyond the realms of our senses. This is where communication and revelation comes in.

I'll explain with this analogy:
Assuming our Urhobo boy (or Tiv) bakes a cake, We can by our senses experience the cake i.e. see it, touch it, taste it e.t.c. We find the order of the cake. We can even get the best scientists in the world to carry out all sorts of logical tests on the cake such that we know every thing that can be known about the cake up to the number of atoms in it.
Now assuming I ask why did Urhobo boy bake the cake. I put to you that no amount of sensual experience and logic can tell us why he baked the cake. He is the only one that can possibly know this.
Let us say He tells us why he baked the cake, we must also use our reasoning and logic to now make sense of why the cake is as it is. I a sense, we begin to observe the cake in a whole different light than when the baker had not yet told us why.

I hope you have understood me thus far.

For the reasons above, I hold that where there is order, there exists an order-giver which is the Truth of the order we experience, we can infer that the order-giver(truth) exists by reasoning but we can only really know Truth by revelation.


I could go further but I'll stop here for now. I've had enough procrastination for one day. . .lol.
I'll come back to this a bit later but first tell me if you agree.

wiegraf:

It doesn't? So we can implant memories, in essence implanting thoughts, but you think it inconceivable that we can also track them? You have heard of neuroscience, yes? Google is your friend, enjoy
www.nature.com/news/neuroscience-the-mind-reader-1.10816

Random: That also illustrates how silly 'leaving it to god is', and other stoopid $hit like curiosity killed the cat, etc. Your mind is intangible, probably linked to your soul, we can't fix it silly science, let's pray instead, etc.
I can't see where you're going with this except to help me prove my point. You're looking for an unverifiable claim often encountered but generally accepted as fact? If so, that's silly, it doesn't aid your 'argument'. Try perception though, but I'm not sure if that is unverifiable as well.

Nonsense, All you have show is someone who was able to communicate without using the normal means of communication such as speech and facial expression. The observer was not experiencing the thoughts of his patient, he was only reading signals much like I can read signals on my computer screen so I "assume" you are typing.

The observer is only using "mental gymnastics" to assume thought.
(I'm just trying to show you how silly you guys sound when you try to say that order does not point to an order-giver)


So please my friend get back to satisfying my challenge properly. thank you

Mr_Anony:
Nonsense, All you have show is someone who was able to communicate without using the normal means of communication such as speech and facial expression. The observer was not experiencing the thoughts of his patient, he was only reading signals much like I can read signals on my computer screen so I "assume" you are typing.

The observer is only using "mental gymnastics" to assume thought.
(I'm just trying to show you how silly you guys sound when you try to say that order does not point to an order-giver)


So please my friend get back to satisfying my challenge properly. thank you

How do you expect to get away with such a blatant lie? He was reading brain signals, that's not 'normal means'. When communicating with someone I don't literally look at his brain signals to catch his drift. I don't know of anyone that does that either, do you? Even if not fully accurate at the moment, guess what, it will be. There's no theory or logic stopping it from happening, your thoughts are essentially chemicals and their interactions in your brain, and they can be mapped and objectively verified. Don't tell me your imagination is that limited. Google is your friend
m.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/31/mind-reading-program-brain-words?cat=science&type=article

When you type your response, do you see the 1's and 0's fly off? But we can test, quantify and use the information, yes? Your brain activity is the same thing. Your 'self', personality, etc, is the same thing. Deal with it.

Moving on, you mean to ask if you can perceive the exact same thought I'm having, or something similar, yes? Find a better example for crying out loud. And before any more indignation, don't forget you've not answered my simple yes or no question. Can you confirm an unverifiable claim?



I'm an immature one, apologize for calling me dishonest, 100x, then I might show you my mercy.

wiegraf:

How do you expect to get away with such a blatant lie? He was reading brain signals, that's not 'normal means'. When communicating with someone I don't literally look at his brain signals to catch his drift. I don't know of anyone that does that either, do you? Even if not fully accurate at the moment, guess what, it will be. There's no theory or logic stopping it from happening, your thoughts are essentially chemicals and their interactions in your brain, and they can be mapped and objectively verified. Don't tell me your imagination is that limited. Google is your friend
m.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/31/mind-reading-program-brain-words?cat=science&type=article

When you type your response, do you see the 1's and 0's fly off? But we can test, quantify and use the information, yes? Your brain activity is the same thing. Your 'self', personality, etc, is the same thing. Deal with it.

Moving on, you mean to ask if you can perceive the exact same thought I'm having, or something similar, yes? Find a better example for crying out loud. And before any more indignation, don't forget you've not answered my simple yes or no question. Can you confirm an unverifiable claim?



I'm an immature one, apologize for calling me dishonest, 100x, then I might show you my mercy.

More hubris, more signal reading. let me put your question in focus for you because I have answered you many times earlier but it seems comprehension is really hard for you.
Let me ask you by what standards would a claim have to fall short for you to say the claim is unverifiable?
Are these standards exhaustive? If no, then you cannot know that a claim is unverifiable. If yes, how do you know this?

Please when you are through, come back to satisfying my challenge.

Think of chocolate ice-cream. Now that you have the thought in your head, give me objective proof that you are indeed thinking of chocolate ice-cream. . . . . .and please don't merely claim that you are thinking of it, I want objectively verifiable proof. I want to independently experience and interact with your thought of chocolate ice-cream exactly as you are experiencing it.

I read it all from top to bottom as I always do.

Ive been with you for most of the way, but now I believe we have reached the fork in the road, our point of divergence so to speak.

Mr_Anony:
Now if the above is true, then Truth is objective and the whole idea of subjective truth breaks down. Remember we have established that our senses are not the best arbiter of truth.
(I know I have probably not accurately represented what you are saying but I just wanted to make a clear statement so that we don't get lost in the whirlwind of terms like ultimate, particular, objective and subjective)

We both agree that the senses are not infallible.

I do not agree that subjective truth breaks down. Maybe we both use the term subjective truth differently. By a subjective truth, I mean something that if is true, cannot be directly perceived by the normal senses. In this instance, I differentiate between particular and subjective truths. A particular truth would be an apparent truth but not an ultimate truth, while a subjective truth is one that cannot be verified by the senses (like an objective truth can be).

Now you have talked about order and logic.

Let me suggest to you a divide between truth and how to know truth.

Truth is the constant.

Ok,

In our journey towards Truth, we have our senses by which we perceive and then we have logic by which we reason.

Since we cannot start from a vacuum, we must accept as a given that order exists.

I have problems with these "all" or "must" thingys.

No, I do not agree that we must accept that order exists. We can stamp our own order on things, we can seek to find a pattern and thus make sense out of things.
Think of babies, each experience is new to them but by watching and doing, they build up the necessary patterns and habits they need to adapt. That might not be the best way to express my thoughts, but it is what came to mind first.

If I put you in an unfamiliar and chaotic place, you will immediately start looking to see if you can establish a pattern.

That is not the same as accepting that order exists because if we must, we can argue that even in chaos, there is order.

With logic we explore this order and move towards truth.

I hold that if there exists order, then there must be one that gives order.

I would argue instead that we organize, categorize, and establish patterns and order.

I do not agree about the order giver. A thing can be as is and it is left to the individual to make sense out of it.

I hold that our search for Truth is really our search for the One who gives order.
When we observe order and try to seek the the reason behind order, What we are really doing is asking the question: Who/What gives order? and Why order instead of absolute disorder?

Now let me describe something else that is really interesting.
If our senses are limited such and our first basic foundational truth comes from observation using our senses then our logic is such that it is limited as it cannot go beyond the realms of our senses. This is where communication and revelation comes in.

In seeking, I think the "why" is more fundamental than the "who". It is more enlightening to ask "why is x like this" than to ask "who made x like this".
The who could be an assumption.
Remember that I am arguing that we are beings that will find a pattern almost anywhere and in any situation we are placed in. Even if we are unsuccessful, we would have made an attempt.

I'll explain with this analogy:
Assuming our Urhobo boy (or Tiv) bakes a cake, We can by our senses experience the cake i.e. see it, touch it, taste it e.t.c. We find the order of the cake. We can even get the best scientists in the world to carry out all sorts of logical tests on the cake such that we know every thing that can be known about the cake up to the number of atoms in it.
Now assuming I ask why did Urhobo boy bake the cake. I put to you that no amount of sensual experience and logic can tell us why he baked the cake. He is the only one that can possibly know this.
Let us say He tells us why he baked the cake, we must also use our reasoning and logic to now make sense of why the cake is as it is. I a sense, we begin to observe the cake in a whole different light than when the baker had not yet told us why.

I hope you have understood me thus far.

For the reasons above, I hold that where there is order, there exists an order-giver which is the Truth of the order we experience, we can infer that the order-giver(truth) exists by reasoning but we can only really know Truth by revelation.


I could go further but I'll stop here for now. I've had enough procrastination for one day. . .lol.
I'll come back to this a bit later but first tell me if you agree.

An interesting question is, how do you distinguish order from apparent order ?

In other words how do you know that you have not made sense of chaos and called it order?

A baby knows nothing.
He sees a brightly coloured object and plays with it. If its a toy, he derives pleasure and fixes a pattern. If its fire, he gets hurt and fixes a pattern. Somewhere, these two patterns will clash but he may not be able to make sense of the clash. Only as he grows older and has other patterns, habits and experience to rely on will he be able to put these things together and establish a semblance of order.

Later on, these things seem so natural to him that he forgets that there was a time when he couldn't distinguish fire from flower.

If I were to transport you to another Universe where their laws of nature are drastically different from ours, everything would seem chaotic to you. You might find beings there that thrive, because they've made the necessary observation and adaptation to ensure their survival.

What you then call order, may not actually be order. You call it order according to your ability to make sense of it.
The less sense you can make of it, the more likely you are to call it chaotic or having no order or distinguishable pattern.

Perceived order then, does not irresistibly point at an order giver.

We know houses are built, what then do we know of nature. We were none of us present at the beginning. What then can we assert ?

Man like I said is a pattern seeking animal and must relate from his own experience. Since man designs things, it seems logical to reason that the Universe must be designed too. I mean, who ever came upon a watch and assumed it evolved or happened by chance ?

That is man, seeking to impose order on things. Since we build thing, everything we did not build must have been built by someone else. Man is as man does and that is why religion shows the human factor in it.

There has to be an order giver for this semblance of order. Someone greater than us with such and such attributes. Thus we derive meaning.

The question is, outside our own experience, what do we know and are those things we know all there is ? If something is not in our experience, does it not exist ?
Take the christian god, somewhere it will be said "God is not man", "the mysteries of god are not understood by man" etc. Some of these things are to be found in the bible. Its curious though that god is often given very human qualities; anger, love, goodness, happiness, jealousy. How can one say "you cant understand god because you are using your senses" and then go on to say "god is good" ?

Bottom line, the best way to make sense of things is with the 5 senses.

This brings me to the next point.

You talked about communication and revelation. I'll concentrate on the revelation part because I'm not sure about what you mean by communication.

You will agree with me that a revelation cannot be verified. There is no way to tell if one is suffering from a mental disease and if he is really hearing from a deity.
The best and safest kinds of knowledge should meet the criteria I mentioned some pages back.
If you have a revelation, I can say something different according to my own revelation. Why should mine be preferred over yours?

Why is any "revealed" revelation wrong?

Because these are subjective things and anyone can claim anything.

At least with the 5 senses its less easy to be deceived than with a claim of revelation.

Your revelation if true, would be an example of a subjective truth.

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

Douglas Adams

Mr_Anony:
More hubris, more signal reading. let me put your question in focus for you because I have answered you many times earlier but it seems comprehension is really hard for you.
Let me ask you by what standards would a claim have to fall short for you to say the claim is unverifiable?
Are these standards exhaustive? If no, then you cannot know that a claim is unverifiable. If yes, how do you know this?

Please when you are through, come back to satisfying my challenge.

Think of chocolate ice-cream. Now that you have the thought in your head, give me objective proof that you are indeed thinking of chocolate ice-cream. . . . . .and please don't merely claim that you are thinking of it, I want objectively verifiable proof. I want to independently experience and interact with your thought of chocolate ice-cream exactly as you are experiencing it.

That isn't a yes or no answer. I'm not aware of the many times you've answered it, could you link the posts?
Exhaustive conditions? Wtf is that? This cannot be simpler. Can a claim be objectively verified/tested? Yes? it's falsifiable. No? It's not. What's complex about this?
Aliens exist -unfalsifiable; there could be other universes, and by definition other universes are not linked to ours, we cannot ascertain their existence, so we cannot test this, untestable thus not science. A
liens exist in this very universe - falsifiable; even if highly impractical, you should be able to access everywhere we define as 'this universe' (assuming we choose to ignore to places like singularities and they really are universes of their own), testable so it's science. Despite being invisible the IPU is pink. Conveniently unfalsifiable as we cannot see it and simultaneously ridiculous (like an omnixxx being) as how does one be invisible and have a color. All supernatural claims are unfalsifiable, as by their definition they do not adhere to natural laws, thus untestable.

You cannot verify that you know everything, in any conceivable universe. How the 4k do you know what you don't know? How do you test what you are unaware of? Similar to your orphan example above. There is no way to verify omniscience, therefore it is complete nonsense as far being objective is concerned. I will extend that and say even if restricted to this universe alone no being can, let me just make this clear, NO BEING CAN VERIFY THAT IT KNOWS EVERYTHING.

Random: Let's not consider the technical details. When looking at this from the scientific perspective, in order to know everything it would need to have a presence in every particle. Let's ignore uncertainty and waveform collapse. How is this physically possible? Where will it store/analyze this data. Can it analyze it's analyzing while analyzing that analyzing and so on, infinitely, simultaneously? Well with magic maybe, but magic is not science, you can't test magic. So physically, without supernatural, it is untenable. The idea is patently absurd...

The links above show you can verify my thoughts objectively. Even if you can't now, the technology is being built, and there's no reason to believe it can't be achieved. So yes, you can verify my thoughts, you just don't have the equipment. What is so difficult to understand here? Your question shifts the focus to experience, similar to perception which I suggested you use earlier. A more apt question to ask since you can verify my thoughts would be if you perceive the color blue the same way I do. In other words, can one verify that you experience blue the same way I do? Even that I cannot convincingly say no to due to neurosciences advances. And if you really can't, it only aids my point. Just as you cannot know if we perceive stuff in the same way because we are separate people, god cannot know if say there's another god dictating over his own sheeple, or indeed trolling him. It would explain where zeus et al went. Omniscience is nonsense, end of story...

You accuse of hubris yet you have the gall to expect me to accept your unreasonable assertions just because you say so? Look up hypocrisy as well
I grow weary of your $hit, so excuse me if I start taking you even less seriously from now.

wiegraf:

That isn't a yes or no answer. I'm not aware of the many times you've answered it, could you link the posts?
Exhaustive conditions? Wtf is that? This cannot be simpler. Can a claim be objectively verified/tested? Yes? it's falsifiable. No? It's not. What's complex about this?
Aliens exist -unfalsifiable; there could be other universes, and by definition other universes are not linked to ours, we cannot ascertain their existence, so we cannot test this, untestable thus not science. A
liens exist in this very universe - falsifiable; even if highly impractical, you should be able to access everywhere we define as 'this universe' (assuming we choose to ignore to places like singularities and they really are universes of their own), testable so it's science. Despite being invisible the IPU is pink. Conveniently unfalsifiable as we cannot see it and simultaneously ridiculous (like an omnixxx being) as how does one be invisible and have a color. All supernatural claims are unfalsifiable, as by their definition they do not adhere to natural laws, thus untestable.

You cannot verify that you know everything, in any conceivable universe. How the 4k do you know what you don't know? How do you test what you are unaware of? Similar to your orphan example above. There is no way to verify omniscience, therefore it is complete nonsense as far being objective is concerned. I will extend that and say even if restricted to this universe alone no being can, let me just make this clear, NO BEING CAN VERIFY THAT IT KNOWS EVERYTHING.

Random: Let's not consider the technical details. When looking at this from the scientific perspective, in order to know everything it would need to have a presence in every particle. Let's ignore uncertainty and waveform collapse. How is this physically possible? Where will it store/analyze this data. Can it analyze it's analyzing while analyzing that analyzing and so on, infinitely, simultaneously? Well with magic maybe, but magic is not science, you can't test magic. So physically, without supernatural, it is untenable. The idea is patently absurd...

The links above show you can verify my thoughts objectively. Even if you can't now, the technology is being built, and there's no reason to believe it can't be achieved. So yes, you can verify my thoughts, you just don't have the equipment. What is so difficult to understand here? Your question shifts the focus to experience, similar to perception which I suggested you use earlier. A more apt question to ask since you can verify my thoughts would be if you perceive the color blue the same way I do. In other words, can one verify that you experience blue the same way I do? Even that I cannot convincingly say no to due to neurosciences advances. And if you really can't, it only aids my point. Just as you cannot know if we perceive stuff in the same way because we are separate people, god cannot know if say there's another god dictating over his own sheeple, or indeed trolling him. It would explain where zeus et al went. Omniscience is nonsense, end of story...

You accuse of hubris yet you have the gall to expect me to accept your unreasonable assertions just because you say so? Look up hypocrisy as well
I grow weary of your $hit, so excuse me if I start taking you even less seriously from now.

As I said, you need to learn to understand an argument before you go about whinging. The only reason why you do not accept the possibility of omniscience is because having limited knowledge yourself, so you assume that nothing can possibly be unlimited. That is how not to go about it. Verification is for beings with limited knowledge. It is a way to make sure that our knowledge tallies with another knowledge so that we can make sense of things. If an omniscient being by definition is one that knows all things, then it just knows and verification is unnecessary for it. Immediately you define something as omniscient, you can no longer assume that there is something it doesn't know else it wouldn't be omniscient. So really your logic is circular. You start with omniscience cannot possibly exist then you define a being that is not omniscient and then conclude with omniscience cannot exist.

let me show you why your logic fails.

Premise 1: An omniscient being is one that knows everything
Premise 2: An omniscient being cannot know X
Conclusion: Therefore an omniscient being cannot exist.

(it doesn't matter what X is because the moment you define something as all-knowing, you immediately cannot make exceptions for it)


I can answer your question yes or no but I won't because the logic of your argument that precedes the question is already wrong and answering your question will only give you a soundbite to jump on. You need to sort out your logic first.

Now to the question of thought, you were missing the point of the question. I was trying to show you how there is knowledge we cannot have. I cannot experience your thoughts as you do because to do that I will have to cease being me and become you.
All you have been able to provide are people reading information transmitted by the body. They are mere signals much like speech and facial expressions and writing. The only difference is that these signals are obtained in a different way i.e. by looking at a bunch of numbers and graphs and decoding them. At best, you have shown a new form of inferring thought but never thought itself.
Also, arguing based on what science might achieve in the future is another poor way to argue. I may as well predict that men will evolve wings in the future and then argue based on that.

Your inability to use logic can get really frustrating at times.

Mr_Anony:
If your relationship with your girlfriend is such that you literally are her life source as it is with God and His people, then it only follows that if you break up with her, she dies........Take some time to think about it

i've thot about it and its nothing more than a rehashed version of your faulty and debunked logic which basically says "this is yahweh's universe and he can do as he please"

or "yahweh is your life, if you reject yahweh, you reject life and choose death, but really its not death, it is another life in eternal torment"

what has been shown to you many times before but you choose to dishonestly ignore and artfully dodge is the fact that anybody can substitute yahweh for allah, obatala, amadioha, pink unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, krishna, thor, zeus etc and still make sense like the sense you think you are making now.

Mr_Anony:
How can one possibly create corruption. For corruption to exist, It must have to be a deviation from an original model.

Like asking how can one create rust... lol..

Mr_Anony:
Seun created this forum if he says nobody should post on Sundays, It is well within his rights to delete my account if I disobey that law. It is his forum.
In the same way, God created the universe. If anyone flouts His rules, He is well within His rights to delete the person from the universe.

Yeah, morality, right or wrong goes out the window. His world, his rules, his game, freewill is an illusion.

Mr_Anony:
Notice how you conveniently skipped the first sentence. My argument is that because we have free choice, we can choose to go contrary to God. If God were to instill into us the knowledge of Him by default such that we must all do His will, the He would have to take away free choice and make us into robots.

This was your statement, Anony

Mr_Anony:
For God to make everyone know the bible by default, He will have to take away free-will i.e. Human beings would not exist rather we'll have robots instead.

Your claim here is simple: knowledge of the law leads to loss of freewill. This is a fallacy. I didn't quote you out of context.

Mr_Anony:
Different interpretations of the bible is evidence that we have free-choice to choose what we want to believe. The message of the bible remains as it is but people choose to read it differently.

Free choice to choose whatever interpretation suits our mood..

musKeeto:
Like asking how can one create rust... lol..

I'm not sure you properly understood Mr. Anony's point. Here let me quote it for you - How can one possibly create corruption. For corruption to exist, It must have to be a deviation from an original model.

Your response is not very smart and sounds like someone too hasty to make a riposte without thinking it through. Of course you cant create rust in a vacuum. you need base iron no? Rust itself is simply a "corruption" formed as a result of oxidation of the original iron right? Rust is infact sometimes used interchangeably with the term "oxidation". You would agree with me that "oxidation" cannot exist by itself but is a process by which oxygen changes the physical characteristics of a naturally occuring material right?

And to think you all strut around claiming to be "scientists".

Now read Mr. anony's point again... corruption, just like rust, cannot exist in a vacuum. Because corruption is not a thing as much as it is a process or changing an existing original. I would suggest you all think first before posting next time.

davidylan:

I'm not sure you properly understood Mr. Anony's point. Here let me quote it for you - How can one possibly create corruption. For corruption to exist, It must have to be a deviation from an original model.

Your response is not very smart and sounds like someone too hasty to make a riposte without thinking it through. Of course you cant create rust in a vacuum. you need base iron no? Rust itself is simply a "corruption" formed as a result of oxidation of the original iron right? Rust is infact sometimes used interchangeably with the term "oxidation". You would agree with me that "oxidation" cannot exist by itself but is a process by which oxygen changes the physical characteristics of a naturally occuring material right?

And to think you all strut around claiming to be "scientists".

Now read Mr. anony's point again... corruption, just like rust, cannot exist in a vacuum. Because corruption is not a thing as much as it is a process or changing an existing original. I would suggest you all think first before posting next time.

Seems like 'properly understood' has a new meaning - I got my explanation wrong the first time, but I'm not willing to accept it, so let me rephrase it and blame you for not understanding...


Please let's follow the flow of the argument..

Mr_Anony:
God created everything and it was good but then corruption came in and man turned away from God.

musKeeto:
And God didn't create the corruption?

Mr_Anony:
How can one possibly create corruption. For corruption to exist, It must have to be a deviation from an original model.

musKeeto:
Like asking how can one create rust... lol..

I have no idea how this led to this

davidylan:
corruption, just like rust, cannot exist in a vacuum. Because corruption is not a thing as much as it is a process or changing an existing original. I would suggest you all think first before posting next time.

Except you're saying God created humans in a vacuum...

Else.. please take your advice

davidylan:
Your response is not very smart and sounds like someone too hasty to make a riposte without thinking it through.

PS: I have never claimed to be a scientist..

Mr_Anony:
As I said, you need to learn to understand an argument before you go about whinging. The only reason why you do not accept the possibility of omniscience is because having limited knowledge yourself, so you assume that nothing can possibly be unlimited. That is how not to go about it. Verification is for beings with limited knowledge. It is a way to make sure that our knowledge tallies with another knowledge so that we can make sense of things. If an omniscient being by definition is one that knows all things, then it just knows and verification is unnecessary for it. Immediately you define something as omniscient, you can no longer assume that there is something it doesn't know else it wouldn't be omniscient. So really your logic is circular. You start with omniscience cannot possibly exist then you define a being that is not omniscient and then conclude with omniscience cannot exist.

let me show you why your logic fails.

Premise 1: An omniscient being is one that knows everything
Premise 2: An omniscient being cannot know X
Conclusion: Therefore an omniscient being cannot exist.

(it doesn't matter what X is because the moment you define something as all-knowing, you immediately cannot make exceptions for it)


I can answer your question yes or no but I won't because the logic of your argument that precedes the question is already wrong and answering your question will only give you a soundbite to jump on. You need to sort out your logic first.

Now to the question of thought, you were missing the point of the question. I was trying to show you how there is knowledge we cannot have. I cannot experience your thoughts as you do because to do that I will have to cease being me and become you.
All you have been able to provide are people reading information transmitted by the body. They are mere signals much like speech and facial expressions and writing. The only difference is that these signals are obtained in a different way i.e. by looking at a bunch of numbers and graphs and decoding them. At best, you have shown a new form of inferring thought but never thought itself.
Also, arguing based on what science might achieve in the future is another poor way to argue. I may as well predict that men will evolve wings in the future and then argue based on that.

Your inability to use logic can get really frustrating at times.

Anony, you are a dishonest human being! You were thoroughly debunked and now you rush to say that Wiegraf is not using logic?


You then go to twist correct logic into incorrect?

let me show you why your logic fails.

Premise 1: An omniscient being is one that knows everything
Premise 2: An omniscient being cannot know X (rather no being can know X)
Conclusion: Therefore an omniscient being cannot exist.

(it doesn't matter what X is because the moment you define something as all-knowing, you immediately cannot make exceptions for it)

The above premises and conclusion are very valid. Omniscience is paradox. A being can know everything within its senses but no being can know what is beyond his knowledge or senses. How come an omniscient God can not tell when the limits of someones faith? Why did he need to test Abraham if he knew the result? An omniscient being can not exist because, he would know everything that is in existence unfortunately, such a being would have to know what predates his existence.