SO, it stands to reason that it is YOUR god that gives the impression of being petty and small minded as evidenced by your own questions.I understand how you feel. It simply comes from a misunderstanding of God. Let me ask you again :
What makes you think I have a misunderstanding of “God”? Is it because I don’t believe that this “God” exists? How do you know I don’t understand “God” better than you which is why I’ve realized that this “God” doesn’t exist?
What do you want him to forgive you for (that he has not already forgive)?
Your question is kind of loaded. Let me explain why.
First, I don’t want anything from “God”, in the same way that I don’t want anything from Santa Clause. Even if “God” did in fact exist, I wouldn’t want anything from “God” because I would still be left without ACTUALLY knowing anything about this “God”. I suppose that I would be interested in knowing more about this “God” (if that counts as a want). If I had direct communication with this “God”, then perhaps I would have wants, but it would probably be in the way I would want something from a rich friend, although those wants wouldn’t be for material things, they would be more like if I had a charity and would ask for a donation.
Secondly, why would I need to want or ask for forgiveness from this “God” (assuming its existence)? I suppose it might be a humble thing to do, but ultimately it shouldn’t be necessary right if this “God” has an unconditional forgiving nature. I guess that is the question, is this “God’s” forgiveness conditional or unconditional? Of course we’re talking about Christianity here which has many conditions as most religions do. Conditions are petty and small minded. Conditional forgiveness means if I say “No” then I go to hell. Unconditional forgiveness means I can say “No”, curse “God”, piss on “God” and still be forgiven and accepted into heaven. Of course, now we’re getting into the problems of “Hell” and “Heaven”. They are reward and punishment concepts only meant to influence positive behavior. What they end up being is the “In” group and “out” group and theists start classifying who is “in” and who is “out” which only serves a weird and sadistic self-sense of justice to soothe the fragile psyche.
Thirdly, how can you claim that this “God” has already forgiven when saying “No” means going to hell? Clearly if this “God” had already forgiven then this “God” would have accepted the person who said “No” into heaven. Additionally, wouldn’t “God” be completely aware of why someone says “No”, and what the agony and torment of being in Hell for eternity would mean, and thus accept that person anyway out of a loving nature? I guess you can say I’m SPAG, but IMO that is all I or anyone including all theists can do because we’re talking about a fictional character.
You defined the words “Fallible” and “Infallible”. I accept your definitions of those two words. Your example however does not match your own definitions. Nowhere in your definitions is knowledge mentioned.
Ok then, riddle me this : What is called the understanding of the difference between right and wrong?
I wonder, do you understand that the words “right” and “wrong” can mean two different things (two different concepts). For instance, If I take a math quiz with 10 questions and I answer 9 of the questions correctly (or right) then that means I answered 1 question incorrectly (or wrong). This is what is meant by the word “wrong” in the definition of “Fallible” (capable of making a mistake or being wrong). In this instance, “wrong” means incorrect.
Alternatively, right and wrong can be moral concepts like good and evil. For instance it is good and right to help someone in need or it is evil and wrong to murder someone. Helping someone in need or murdering someone are actions, not true or false answers on a quiz. Right and wrong as moral concepts fall under the category of ethics. Furthermore, how would you define murder? I would define murder as deliberately killing someone or unlawfully killing someone. Is murdering someone a mistake? I would answer no because it would be deliberate. Mistakenly killing someone would be an accident. Is killing wrong? One of the ten commandments is “thou shall not murder” or “though shall not kill”. Lukvance, if your game of semantics when using the word “wrong” in defining Fallible is correct then you would prove that the “God” of the Bible is fallible and not “God”.
How can a brain cannot be wrong when it doesn't have the knowledge of what it is?
Now you’re getting into whether “right” and “wrong” as moral concepts even really exist, or whether they are objective or subjective. If “wrong” as a moral concept is objective, then you might be right and omniscience is necessary. However, you’re no longer talking about being infallible, as infallible means to be capable of making a mistake or being wrong (erroneous).
This is pointless since your interpretation of the word “wrong” when defining the words “fallible” and “infallible” is incorrect.
Do you remember the name of that tree in the garden of Eden?
I assume you mean in the Bible, which I consider to be a fictional story. In that story, the name of the tree in the garden of Eden was called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (or something similar to that I believe). This however is related to ethics, not being fallible or infallible.
It does not matter how much knowledge is present. An infallible brain could know everything or it could know nothing at all, the only requirement (as you have correctly defined) that it must meet is that it cannot make a mistake or be wrong.
Could he have some things he knows and some he doesn't know?
Does an infallible brain know right from wrong?
It could, or it might not. An infallible brain would make decisions regarding right and wrong (as moral concepts) based on what it does know without making mistakes or being wrong (erroneous).
This is a straw-man question.
I don't think so. The way I understand it, your answer to my question is "Yes but it equals an omniscient brain too!"
Now I have to question whether you understand what the word “equals” means, because if you did understand its meaning, then you would know my answer was no. “Equals” is absolute. An infallible brain can’t both be ignorant and omniscient. Omniscience is the absences of ignorance.
An ignorant brain would presumably be a brain without any knowledge (or at least that is what I think you are intending to mean) and I’ve said or implied before that fallibility (or infallibility) does not have any link to level of knowledge. An ignorant brain could be fallible or infallible. An omniscient brain could be fallible or infallible. A fallible brain could be ignorant or omniscient. An infallible brain could be ignorant or omniscient.
Could you give us some examples please? to support your claims. When is an ignorant brain be fallible? and infallible? ...etc
A fallible brain which is ignorant doesn’t know everything or anything depending on how ignorant it is (completely or partially), however because it is fallible, it can mistakenly believe it does know something which it does not. This is the state of human beings. Our brains are fallible and ignorant (completely or partially). If a fallible brain which is ignorant (completely or partially) guesses, then this would be a mistake and guessing would be wrong since it doesn’t actually know the answer. Additionally, a fallible brain may mistakenly or wrongly process the information it receives from the senses, thus making the knowledge it does have more suspect.
An infallible brain which is ignorant (completely or partially) will not make the mistake of believing it knows something which it does not. It will never guess and only provide the answer or information which it does actually know. If it does not know then it will state that it doesn’t know. Additionally, an infallible brain will never mistakenly or wrongly process the information it receives from the senses, thus making the knowledge it does have more accurate.
A fallible brain which is omniscient could mistakenly or wrongly provide the incorrect answer despite knowing everything. This might be a paradox though which would mean I would be wrong in claiming that a fallible brain could be omniscient. This is assuming an omniscient brain would know that it was going to make a mistake, of course if it knew it was going to make a mistake, then it wouldn’t make a mistake, thus it wouldn’t know that it was going to make a mistake.
Obviously an infallible brain which is omniscient would never make a mistake and always provide the correct answer or information.
So, I’ll have to think about the fallible brain which is omniscient, but I stand by the other 3 concepts as they are accurate.
I’m patiently waiting for you to show me “why an infallible brain cannot say I don’t know”.
I think that if a infallible brain say "I don't know" it means that it will answer that to all questions asked to it by "I don't know". Making it an ignorant brain.
I don't think that an an ignorant brain is infallible.
If an ignorant brain, correctly answers that it doesn’t know, how is that a mistake or wrong? Is it wrong to be correct?
Why can’t an infallible brain which is ignorant know who pitched for the Houston Astros baseball team yesterday after having watched the game? A fallible brain might mistakenly remember who pitched and answer incorrectly whereas an infallible brain would remember correctly and answer correctly.