God is not omniscient

Reading about deductive arguments from a link supplied by Hal (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/index.html), I shall now attempt to show you that God is not omniscient:

a) Humans are made in Gods image
b) Humans are not omniscient
Therefore:
c) God is not omniscient

That's a deductive argument, right? If the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Yes?

Originally posted by stocken
Reading about deductive arguments from a link supplied by Hal (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/index.html), I shall now attempt to show you that God is not omniscient:

a) Humans are made in Gods image
b) Humans are not omniscient
Therefore:
c) God is not omniscient

That's a deductive argument, right? If the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Yes?

Humans are reflections of God, not visa versa.

Edit: But yes, this is an example of a deductive argument -- one I was hoping Cog would supply.

Originally posted by stocken
Reading about deductive arguments from a link supplied by Hal (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/index.html), I shall now attempt to show you that God is not omniscient:

a) Humans are made in Gods image
b) Humans are not omniscient
Therefore:
c) God is not omniscient

That's a deductive argument, right? If the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Yes?

I can carve a man out of a stump. "He" can be made in my image. That does not mean he can do what I can do.

Originally posted by Halitose
Humans are reflections of God, not visa versa.

Edit: But yes, this is an example of a deductive argument -- one I was hoping Cog would supply.

So the error I made was not in the deductiveness of the argument, but in failing to understand what it means to be in someone's image? 🙂

This is fun.

Originally posted by stocken
So the error I made was not in the deductiveness of the argument, but in failing to understand what it means to be in someone's image? 🙂

This is fun.

Basically your first premise was ambiguous, ergo your conclusion didn't follow.

It is fun -- suddenly you're exposed to another world - the world of logic.

a) Humans are reflections of God
b) There are many humans
c) There is only one God
d) No human is the other totally alike
Therefore
d) There are many sources* reflecting God and,
e) Humans are distorted** reflections of God

* Are humans the sources reflecting God, or the reflections themselves?
** Are different humans reflecting different aspects of God?

---

a) To be omniscient is to be in control of everything in time and space
b) Humans are distorted reflections of God
c) A distortion is an unwanted effect in essence*
d) If you have an unwanted effect you are not in control
Therefore
e) God is not omniscient

* I'm sensing that this is where I fail this time, eh?.. 😳

Originally posted by stocken

a) To be omniscient is to be in control of everything in time and space

Nope. To be omniscient is to know everything.

Originally posted by Nordlys
Nope. To be omniscient is to know everything.

Aaaahh... :

http://dict.die.net/omniscient/

Thanks. 🙂

So, God being omniscient doesn't necessarily mean He is in control. Of course, that means that even my second attempt (the first one with the mistakenly posted thread doesn't count) at deductive logic falls down too.

But, I'm having fun nonetheless. 😀

[Edit:]

Oh, and of course it also means that it's impossible for me to show that God is not omniscient, since I can't possibly know what he knows. After all, I'm not omniscient.

Well, a short-lived thread this. Sorry to have wasted your time (to whomever actually read it all). 🙂

Originally posted by stocken
Aaaahh... :

http://dict.die.net/omniscient/

Thanks. 🙂

So, God being omniscient doesn't necessarily mean He is in control. Of course, that means that even my second attempt (the first one with the mistakenly posted thread doesn't count) at deductive logic falls down too.

But, I'm having fun nonetheless. 😀

[Edit:]

Oh, and of course it also t-lived thread this. Sorry to have wasted your time (to whomever actually read it all). 🙂

Don't worry, you're getting there. If I remember correctly you do programming?? If so, this is not much different to boolean logic -- the principles are the same.

Originally posted by stocken
Reading about deductive arguments from a link supplied by Hal (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/index.html), I shall now attempt to show you that God is not omniscient:

a) Humans are made in Gods image
b) Humans are not omniscient
Therefore:
c) God is not omniscient

That's a deductive argument, right? If the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Yes?

It is difficult to know what to make of the argument. You would need to properly define what it means to be 'made in God's image'. It seems to me that the claim that we have been 'made in God's image' is just some more anthropomorphic rigamarole. There is a quote somewhere that states (paraphrasing) that if triangles had a God, He would have three sides.

Originally posted by Halitose
This is not much different to boolean logic -- the principles are the same.

Yes, the true/false nature of it all. Deductive logic seem to be specifically related to the and operator of boolean logic:

+----------------------------------------------------------+
| A......| B.....| A OR B.| A AND B...| A Exlusive OR B...| >... So many more operators here, but that's besides the point...
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| true..| true..| true.....| true........| false..................|
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| true..| false.| true.....| false.......| true...................|
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| false.| false.| false...| false.......| false..................|
+----------------------------------------------------------+

- A equals true. B equals true. Then:
A or B is true
A and B is true
A exclusive or B is false

Originally posted by stocken
Yes, the true/false nature of it all. Deductive logic seem to be specifically related to the and operator of boolean logic:

+----------------------------------------------------------+
| A......| B.....| A OR B.| A AND B...| A Exlusive OR B...| >... So many more operators here, but that's besides the point...
+------------------------------------------- ...[text shortened]... A equals true. B equals true. Then:
A or B is true
A and B is true
A exclusive or B is false

Grade 5 maths. 🙂

define image

Originally posted by Nordlys
Nope. To be omniscient is to know everything.

Nope , omniscient means infinitely wise and knowlege isn't the same as wisdom.

Originally posted by stocken
Reading about deductive arguments from a link supplied by Hal (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/index.html), I shall now attempt to show you that God is not omniscient:

a) Humans are made in Gods image
b) Humans are not omniscient
Therefore:
c) God is not omniscient

That's a deductive argument, right? If the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Yes?

Well, that's an argument, but it certainly isn't deductively valid. I have a sculpture made in the image of the Buddha, but my sculpture doesn't possess any of the cognitive faculties of the Buddha.