SevenPatch. let me ask you again :
How would an infallible brain get 10/10 on every quizz if he is not omniscient?I understand that you might think the infallible brain won't answer anything in the paper if he doesn't have the correct answer. But he won't have 10/10.
So if you answer is "it's impossible for an infallible brain to get 10/10 on EVERY quizz" then we might have to define what is a wrong answer in the Quizz.
For my quizz, not answering is giving a wrong answer. If not, all my student would always leave all the questions blank and always get 10/10, that would defy the purpose of my quizz.
Well, let us consider what the purpose of a quiz is. A quiz is meant to test the knowledge of a person or their ability to apply the knowledge that they have. So, if I score 9 out of 10 on a quiz, then that was the best I could do based on my knowledge and ability. Of course writing “I don’t know” or nothing at all is not the correct answer, but it also isn’t a mistake, wrong or an error either.
I respond to this line of thinking in the post you are responding to. Please read it again.
I'll make this easier.
Explain to me how it is a mistake or wrong to admit lack of knowledge when knowledge is lacking.
I personally can't think of why it would be. I'm trying to. To me, the mistake would be not admiting lack of knowledge when knowledge is lacking. How can both admitting and not admitting a lack of knowlege be a mistake or wrong? If both are a mistake or wrong, then simply not knowing everything is a mistake or wrong.
Why even use the words mistake or wrong when defining fallible and infallible? Just say "fallible = not omniscient" and "infallible = omniscient". Further still, why use the words fallible and infallible? Just say "not omniscient" and "omniscient".
SO the subject of the thread becomes "Why [God] made me without an omniscient brain?
NOW, if that were the question, then your answer would probably be correct, Lukvance. In order to have an omniscient brain, it would probably have to be infinite.
HOWEVER, I doubt that was the orignial question. Why we don't have an omniscient brain is obvious for a number of reasons and not worth answering. But why our brains are capable of making mistakes and errors, thus making it difficult to make accurate decisions on what is best for ourselves and others, is an interesting question, one which I doubt theists have an answer for (besides the traditional "The Fall" didit or something along those lines).
Lukvance, your definitions for “Fallible” and “Infallible” say nothing about level of knowledge or awareness.
Here are your definitions again:
Infallible : Cannot make mistakes/cannot be wrong
Fallible : Can make mistakes/be wrong
Are you attempting to change the definitions to be:
Infallible : Possesses all knowledge and is aware of everything / omniscient thus cannot make a mistake or wrong decision.
Fallible : limited level of knowledge and awareness / not omniscient and is capable of making mistakes or wrong decisions.
I don’t agree with these definitions as they are not part of the English language and bypass the purpose of the question. By redefining the words to be something different you are avoiding having to answer the tough question by making the question easier to answer. You answering a different and easier question does not answer the original tough question. This goes back to our discussions about you not answering my questions.
You are dodging. Of course it might be possible that you don’t realize you’re dodging. This might be your subconscious protecting your conscious from having to face reality.
Let me try to help by giving some examples of what a fallible brain does while an infallible one would not:
A person with a fallible brain might forget to take his wallet with him to the movie theater, thus missing the movie he wanted to see (if he had an infallible brain, he would not forget his wallet and then get to see the movie).
A person with a fallible brain might think he heard someone call his name, thus asking out loud “Did someone call my name” (if he had an infallible brain, he would not think someone called his name).
A person with a fallible brain might start thinking about something different while listening to someone telling them something important, thus not hearing or understanding what he was being told (if he had an infallible brain, he would not have started thinking about something different until after having listened to what the other person was telling him).
A person with a fallible brain might read the 10 step instructions on how to build something but when actually building it they remember steps 5 and 6 in reverse order (if he had an infallible brain, he would remember the steps in exact order as they were read).
I don’t want to know why I don’t know everything or why I’m not omniscient. That is an easy question I don’t care about. I want to know why I don’t remember to take my wallet with me when I know I’ll need it to see the movie I want to see. I want to know why I sometimes think someone called my name when no one did. I want to know why my brain starts thinking about something else when I’m listening to someone. I want to know why I mistakenly remember the order of 10 step instructions which I had read just an hour before.
My brain doesn’t need to know everything or be omniscient to not make those mistakes.
If you're right then no one would go to hell then. No. I believe that the representation of "St-Peter" and the "choices" depends on how the person believe the afterlife to be.
Let's say there is an atheist who, even with all this compelling evidence of a greater being existing, still don't want to believe in him because it is too much constricting or "non sense", he might not realize he is dead, think that he is only dreaming and the representation of Saint-Peter and Heaven's door won't make him believe more, it will still make as much sense as any miracle he ever seen or heard of, he could dismiss it
with the back of his hand logic/science and say "no" to God for the last time.
Your response is illogical. Logic and science doesn’t necessarily say “No” to “God” and an atheist who would think that would also be illogical. Logic and science can only review the evidence or lack of evidence presented to it in regards to the existence of “God”, and at this point it hasn’t been shown that “God” actually exists, so what exactly would logic and science be saying “No” to? Nothing. If “God” actually existed and sufficient evidence could be found for its existence then logic and science would agree that it exists. Your original scenario only presented everyone with an invite into Heaven. Even if an atheist believes him or herself to be dreaming, they very well could say “yes” to the invite. Believing it to be a dream and saying “yes” would be quite funny as you would indeed quite literally have atheists in heaven. Do some people in heaven think they are dreaming and not even realize they’re actually in heaven?
I’m not really interested in this line of thought though. It is boring, illogical and a waste of time to discuss.