A question for believers

[Meridian]

If you believe in God, would you say he knows the final (or the last) decimal extension of the number π?

Given ('it is true that ...'):
God is omniscient (he knows every thing there is to know)
&
π is an infinitely complex number

Please think and share your thoughts.

[Comrade Gwydion]

It's easy.
(according to believers:)
Yes.
-or-
He does not know the 'last' decimal extension of pi, because that does not exist. He does, however, now every single of the infinite decimal extensions of pi.



Personally? I do not think 'god' as a force with it's own personality or it's own personal knowledge, but rather as an extra impersonal force (say, an extension of the laws of nature) which we give different faces in order to deal with it. So, the answer would be either 'no' or 'not applyable'.

[Meridian]

It's easy.
(according to believers:)
Yes.
-or-
He does not know the 'last' decimal extension of pi, because that does not exist. He does, however, now every single of the infinite decimal extensions of pi.

Personally? I do not think 'god' as a force with it's own personality or it's own personal knowledge, but rather as an extra impersonal force (say, an extension of the laws of nature) which we give different faces in order to deal with it. So, the answer would be either 'no' or 'not applyable'.
What appears 'easy' on the surface is not always so.

You say (from the perspective of a believer) he knows every single of the infinite decimal extensions of pi. That is a contradiction in terms. If one were to say God knows the last decimal extension of Pi, it would hold the same meaning (it would also be contradictory, in the same way).

Logically, this leads us to being able to make three conclusions:

1. God, assuming the existence, is not "omniscient" (for he can not know all the possible products of an infinite conjunction).
2. Infinity is not a quantity.
3. Omniscience is a contradiction in terms.

Ps: I tend to agree with your ideas of god, I am somewhat influenced by pantheism. I was directing the question towards those of more organized faiths, though.

[Demogorgon]

There is no such thing as the end of infinite sequence. So by definition an omniscient God would know the infinite stream of numbers.

Of course you soon get tied up in all sorts of difficulties with infinity in general which to me is more likely to show problems with the concept of omniscience than anything else. But if we accept the concept then there is no last digit to know (if there were an ordinary human could know it too), rather God's knowledge of the string of numbers would be infinite.

[Meridian]

There is no such thing as the end of infinite sequence. So by definition an omniscient God would know the infinite stream of numbers.

Of course you soon get tied up in all sorts of difficulties with infinity in general which to me is more likely to show problems with the concept of omniscience than anything else. But if we accept the concept then there is no last digit to know (if there were an ordinary human could know it too), rather God's knowledge of the string of numbers would be infinite.
That is still senseless.

Either God knows all of π, or he does not. If he does not, it appears that he lacks omniscience. No knowledge can be infinite, as what is meant by knowledge is inherently fixed and finite. So, he would not have knowledge of π, which means he does not have knowledge of all things.

Our troubles regarding this question stem from our idea of infinity as a "very large amount". Infinite is not, and can not be compared to, an amount.

[Demogorgon]

That is still senseless.

Either God knows all of π, or he does not. If he does not, it appears that he lacks omniscience. No knowledge can be infinite, as what is meant by knowledge is inherently fixed and finite. So, he would not have knowledge of π, which means he does not have knowledge of all things.

Our troubles regarding this question stem from our idea of infinity as a "very large amount". Infinite is not, and can not be compared to, an amount.
Well by definition knowledge is potentially infinite, because there are an infinite number of things to know. All the digits of Pi being a good example. So your objection that the amount of things to know is finite is not true owing to your very own example.

[Meridian]

Well by definition knowledge is potentially infinite, because there are an infinite number of things to know. All the digits of Pi being a good example. So your objection that the amount of things to know is finite is not true owing to your very own example.
I did not mean that what can be known is not, in theory, infinite. To be frank, though, this is also an absurd statement. We may say that what can be known is infinite in potential, or potentially infinite (although not in actuality).

What I meant is that knowledge in a particular instance can not be infinite. When there is a knowledge of something, that is a finite occurrence. We are talking about one instance of knowledge. Therefore knowledge, based on what the word actually means, is strictly finite and quantifiable. Infinity is that which is unquantifiable.

What this highlights is actually very interesting. Quoting from your assertion that "[B]y definition knowledge is potentially infinite, because there are an infinite number of things to know. All the digits of Pi being a good example", one finds that this simply does not hold truth. There are, in actuality, not an infinite amount of "instances of knowledge" in existence. After all, knowledge is quantifiable. If it is part of an infinite system or potentiality, (which I do suspect may be the case, as we can e.g. make all kinds of propositions in all degrees of complexity) it is nevertheless finite in actual quantity.

This clarifies the meaning of the term knowledge, and shows how it is not possible for there to be infinite knowledge. Indeed, it also shows that there is no infinite amount of knowledge to be known (although there may be infinite potential). This has rather big implications, even to the foundation of our understanding of such concepts as Pi.

I must admit this is in large part similar to the mathematical thoughts of Wittgenstein, and may belong in philosophy.

[RedRise]

I personally believe (and I'm not Christian but I do believe in gods) that god/s do not need to know everything because they are the representations of everything in this universe, in this world and beyond. Basically, they do not necessarily know everything but they are everything.

[Meridian]

I personally believe (and I'm not Christian but I do believe in gods) that god/s do not need to know everything because they are the representations of everything in this universe, in this world and beyond. Basically, they do not necessarily know everything but they are everything.
A respectable view in my opinion.

If you don't mind me asking; what is the "beyond" you speak of?

[RedRise]

By 'beyond' I was simply referring to the next world/realm/universe. That's just my beliefs.

[cska]

Does God know why 22=3? No, because it doesn't exist. Similarly, there is no last digit to pi, so it isn't something that an omniscient being needs to know... It is like asking if God knows what the largest number is.

The real problem with omniscience is wether he knows the future. If he does, it would cause serious problems for most religious people's belief in free will.

[Valeofruin]

I agree that God would not, in theory know the last digit, rather the entire string.

God could for example tell you the 21,122,989,544,327 th number in the sequence, but not the 'final' one.

Or of course there always is the possibility that there IS an end to infinity, its just so amazingly uber that if God told you about it your head would split like David Clennon in 'The Thing'.

[mikelepore]

The idea of omniscience is a relatively late addition. The God of the Old Testament was not omniscient. For example, when God had to find out what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah by sending some angels there to investigate and report back to him, that indicates no omniscience. The need to perform experimental actions to measure the degree of loyalty of Job and Abraham indicates no omniscient.

[Patchd]

I personally believe (and I'm not Christian but I do believe in gods) that god/s do not need to know everything because they are the representations of everything in this universe, in this world and beyond. Basically, they do not necessarily know everything but they are everything.
What makes you say this?

[danyboy27]

I personally believe (and I'm not Christian but I do believe in gods) that god/s do not need to know everything because they are the representations of everything in this universe, in this world and beyond. Basically, they do not necessarily know everything but they are everything.

you god is no god then.
at best, its an alien entity.

[Meridian]

Does God know why 22=3? No, because it doesn't exist.
That is a baseless assertion.


Similarly, there is no last digit to pi, so it isn't something that an omniscient being needs to know... It is like asking if God knows what the largest number is.
An omniscient being "needing" to know something is irrelevant; what omniscience implies is what is relevant. You miss the point entirely; but yes, it is asking if (an omniscient being) knows what the largest number is.


The real problem with omniscience is wether he knows the future. If he does, it would cause serious problems for most religious people's belief in free will.
The "real" problem with omniscience is that it is contradictory, as I have already stated several times. Please read through the posts.


The idea of omniscience is a relatively late addition. The God of the Old Testament was not omniscient. For example, when God had to find out what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah by sending some angels there to investigate and report back to him, that indicates no omniscience. The need to perform experimental actions to measure the degree of loyalty of Job and Abraham indicates no omniscient.
Yes, that is an interesting fact.


I personally believe (and I'm not Christian but I do believe in gods) that god/s do not need to know everything because they are the representations of everything in this universe, in this world and beyond. Basically, they do not necessarily know everything but they are everything.
As I said previously, I tend to agree with this (pantheistic) view of "God". Not that I believe in God, or if I do I would not call it God as that has irrational connotations. But, if I were to talk about "God", then surely that could only be the entire existence, as it is said to be omnipotent, one, "omniscient", etc., etc.

If anyone are inclined to say that my previous posts may negate this way of looking at "God" (as nature) then that is understandable but incorrect. I do not believe in God, and if I were to say I do then I would not call it a being (I only assumed his existence to present a point). As I said before, the numbers are infinite in potentiality. Not actuality. We can not operate with infinite numbers. If we think we can, we are in practice fooling ourselves (a practice occuring regularly). In existence there is nothing which is infinite (what we can not count), but the infinite is presented to us only in potentiality. It is presented to us like this: Laws (which is a term often used by confused individuals instead of the more correct, descriptive term 'regularities'), which points to no end, creating conjuncts out of "existence". So, if I were to assign some thing to match the concept of "God", that would be potentiality. But we can only guess about potentiality, we can not fathom it directly. It does not exist in our world (you could never experience it), because we can not understand it.



you god is no god then.
at best, its an alien entity.
In fact, the opposite of what you are saying is true. That is how science works: If there was indeed a being existing somewhere, managing the world (like a modern religious idea of God posits) then scientists would be quick to do all but arrange a vivisection. Although perhaps received as spectacular news, it would quickly go from being a mysterious being to being something we understand, something no more magical than your car or the sea. It would be an alien entity. That would not be the case if "God" is actually not a being of time and matter but a concept concerning nature, or nature itself.

In short: Everything we can know is not of more worth (non-relative) than other things we can know, therefore; if God was something we could know then he would not be greater than anything else. That being said, I am painfully aware that the average meaning of the word 'God' today is something like a creature controlling the world (or at least, Earth). So, God (creature) does not exist, given the above reason.

[manic expression]

The idea of omniscience is a relatively late addition. The God of the Old Testament was not omniscient. For example, when God had to find out what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah by sending some angels there to investigate and report back to him, that indicates no omniscience. The need to perform experimental actions to measure the degree of loyalty of Job and Abraham indicates no omniscient.

Huh, that's odd. The whole point of the Christian God is that he's omnipotent, no? If he's not omnipotent, then something else is the final authority in some part of the universe, and then the Christian God isn't the only "god", and then Jesus isn't the only way, and then all of Christianity falls apart. If he's omnipotent, then why wouldn't he know everything when it happens? Is this another contradiction that I can use to annoy Christian missionary-kids? I do hope so.

Oh, and if he's not omniscient (as your evidence clearly suggests), then who is to say that other gods and religions are invalid, as not even the Christians' God can know for sure? Wow, this opens up a whole new frontier of Christian criticism for me.

----------

On the topic, can't Pi symbolize divinity itself? Unending, infinite and so on? To me, the only logical conception of divinity is this sort of pantheistic quality: it just goes on forever with no end, kind of like a perfect circle. Just a thought.

[Meridian]

On the topic, can't Pi symbolize divinity itself? Unending, infinite and so on? To me, the only logical conception of divinity is this sort of pantheistic quality: it just goes on forever with no end, kind of like a perfect circle. Just a thought.Yes.

And my point is that we, as humans, can never "know" divinity. We can't, correctly, use it in our mathematics or thinking at all because what Pi (or the infinity sign) is supposed to symbolize is exactly what we don't know what is! What we can think is that which is not infinite. What we can count (with) is what is not infinite.

This is similar to the fact that we can not draw a perfect circle (perfect circles does not exist in actuality, only in potentiality).

Further, it is impossible to say that an "omniscient" being would be able to count the infinite, because counting the infinite is a contradiction (infinite is what can not be counted).

Furthermore, it is also impossible to say that an "omnipotent" being would be able to draw a perfect circle, for the same reason stated above. It is "infinitely impossible" to draw a perfect circle (it would require/give all the digits of Pi, for starters).

[ComradeMan]

If God is infinite and Pi is infinite then God and Pi are expressions of the same infinity and so in a technical sense the answer is yes, because Pi with its infinite sequence is part of God.

I think a lot of these problems are to do with the rather Christian personification of God that has entered culture at all levels. Even atheists, if they are to imagine God, usually come up with Michelangelo's idea...:D

[AK]

Hmm, the Church must've decided that God was omniscient just as people started to question the word of God.

[spiltteeth]

The idea of omniscience is a relatively late addition. The God of the Old Testament was not omniscient. For example, when God had to find out what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah by sending some angels there to investigate and report back to him, that indicates no omniscience. The need to perform experimental actions to measure the degree of loyalty of Job and Abraham indicates no omniscient.

That's one interpretation, no basis to prefer it over the churches though.
I always find atheists -ironically- have a very specific theology that they create to react to, instead of confronting christian beliefs.

(In general, the Christian understanding is that God does things for us, his motivation is not to "measure loyalty" for Himself.
Craig observes that "the fundamental flaw" of the hermeneutic underlying the straightforward read* ing of the text
"is its failure to appreciate that the Bible is not a textbook in systematic theology or philosophy of religion but that it is largely a collection of stories about God's dealings with men.
"But what then ... is the truth communicated by such anthropomorphic portrayals of God? In general, the truth communicated to us by these passages is that God's sovereignty does not consist of blind decrees operating irrespective of free human responses; rather, God's decrees take into account and are conditioned by the free acts of creatures."

Robert B. Chisholm coments that Craig
"emphasizes the relational dynamic of "God's dealings with men" and the role of human responsibility. These themes resonate in the world of the narrative—Abraham was concerned about Lot and challenged God to be fair. He discovered that Sodom was responsible before God and he assumed a role in the unfolding drama by interceding before Him. God's anthropomorphic self- revelation, presented within a metaphorical judicial framework utilizing legal idiom and functional language, facilitated Abraham's understanding of the truths of divine justice and human re*sponsibility."

Incidentally, for the past 1,000 yrs or so christian philosophy usually defines an omniscient being is one who "knows all and believes only true propositions" -

For every proposition p, God knows p if and only if p is true

generally omniscience is thought of as a maximal degree of (propositional) knowledge, or better, as maximal perfection with respect to knowledge

Zeno proved that one cannot arrive at an actual infinite set by traversing it. However, the theist can respond by saying that God did not learn the infinite set of mathematical entities one member at a time; rather, He knew them all in one eternal thought. Hence, the specific objection raises no serious problem for theism.

However, really, the question seems nonsensical, there is no "final (or the last) decimal extension of the number π" by definition this contradicts the concept of infinity, if it did have a final or last digit it would not be infinite etc

[ComradeMan]

There is also a great deal of variation in what people think about God- speaking from a monotheistic point of view. What the Church said 1000 years ago when most people (religious or not) believed the world was flat and what the temple priests thought nigh on 3000 years ago in Jerusalem when anyone with a skin disease was thought to be a leper are hardly relevant to today. I see them as serving as a historical guide to thought.

As each generation progresses and develops their perception and relationship with the divine changes. Quatum physics has certainly upset a lot of hardened materialist point of view that were anti-theist, i.e. the idea of other dimensions and things.

[Meridian]

There is also a great deal of variation in what people think about God- speaking from a monotheistic point of view. What the Church said 1000 years ago when most people (religious or not) believed the world was flat and what the temple priests thought nigh on 3000 years ago in Jerusalem when anyone with a skin disease was thought to be a leper are hardly relevant to today. I see them as serving as a historical guide to thought.

As each generation progresses and develops their perception and relationship with the divine changes. Quatum physics has certainly upset a lot of hardened materialist point of view that were anti-theist, i.e. the idea of other dimensions and things.
Unfortunately what many believe today is possibly even more deluded than what a majority of believers may have upheld some thousand years ago. As I have shown, it is completely irrational to believe an existing being is the one "pulling the strings of the world".

In one sense, although this is probably controversial, one could also say that the scientist who forms metaphysical opinions based on their findings are equally as deluded as the religious henchman. The difference is that, in the former you have one who is convinced, based on what is essentially the totality of true propositions, that he can express what does not express itself by means of language (what is not in the form of true or false propositions). He tries to use science, which is the scope of language, to speak of that which is outside the scope of language.

To put it shortly, scientists are prone to believe they can "figure out" the entire world, stepping outside the linguistic "boundaries" of true or false propositions. The religious, on the other hand, make their senseless philosophical claims not out of rigorous research but belief. They do not really commit this irrationality in the same sense as the scientist, seeing as they mostly form their false philosophical beliefs out of a traditional, static, view. The point being, then, that with the religious you have a set misuse of language, whilst scientists may think they have existence figured out based on what is constantly shifting ground.