Infallibility?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think it means He will do right, always.
Kelly

Thank you. Do you think it is possible (logically, nomologically, or otherwise) that God could fail to do the right thing?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
A simple answer would be that there isn't a meaningful modal contrual for God's infallible doxastic states.

Do you mean that there is no meaningful way to interpret the statement that it is not possible for God to be mistaken? Or do you mean that it is simply somehow "mysteriously" the case that it is not possible for God to be mistaken? Or do you mean to say that it is a fact that God cannot be mistaken, but we are not in a position to understand why? Or...something else?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"This is a question for those that hold (in conjunction with His being omniscient) that God's doxastic states are infallible. My question is what do you take this to actually mean?"

Why can't I find doastic in the dictionary?

What I would like to know is why do those who deny the existence of God have difficulty understanding what those of us wh ...[text shortened]... I mean He knows everything there is to know. So what's the problem with understanding that?[/b]

Why can't I find doastic in the dictionary?

Are you just ineducable? Refer back to our exchange here, which apparently was not all that memorable for you:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=83831&page=4

What I would like to know is why do those who deny the existence of God have difficulty understanding what those of us who do believe in God mean when we say God knows all there is to know?

Um, having some trouble comprehending what you read? I'm not asking what you mean when you say God knows all there is to know.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
If I understand my denomination correctly, Lutherans believe that only the ORIGINAL scriptures were infallible, and none of them are extant; so we have translations--some better than others.

I'm not asking about the bible. But out of passing interest, what would it mean for the bible (or any written account for that matter) to be infallible? That each and every proposition contained therein is true?

Originally posted by whodey
I am not sure that God is referred Biblically as being "infallible". In fact, I looked in my concordance and it was not there. I then looked up the word omniscient, and again could not find it in my concordance.

Although these words may not be used Biblically to describe God, it does not necessarily mean they are innacurate. For example, the teaching ab ...[text shortened]... at God has ever been mistaken. In fact, Biblically everything points to the contrary.

As for my own interpretation, God appears to be omniscient and "infallible". Having said that, I simply take it to mean that his "nature" is what is viewed as perfect. For example, Biblically God is said to be love, therefore, so long as his actions are rooted in love his ways are "infallible".

I've thought about what you have said, and I'm just not getting it. Does this mean that the devil would be infallible if he were to have a perfectly evil nature? Sort of modifying your example slightly: the devil is said to be evil; therefore, so long as his actions are rooted in evil his ways are infallible. Like I said, I'm just not getting it.

You might even say that love equals infallibility.

What does this mean? You mean something like if our actions are guided by love and compassion we cannot go wrong, so to speak?

As far as it being possible for God to be mistaken, I do not recall any scripture indicating that God has ever been mistaken. In fact, Biblically everything points to the contrary.

Okay, but even if it were true that he has never been mistaken, that doesn't seem to entail that it is not possible for him to be mistaken. Do you think it is impossible for God to be mistaken; and if so, in what sense is it impossible?

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm not asking about the bible. But out of passing interest, what would it mean for the bible to be infallible? That each and every proposition contained therein is true?

Far more important is the question of interpretation. Is every interpretation infallible, or just a minimum of one? Is there an infallible way to know which interpretation is the infallible one? The Bible is not only translated from a language in which the meaning of words are often debated, but it is not expressed in mathematical terms, and in many cases the meanings of words and phrases are clearly non-standard and in some cases actually have no parallel. eg when Jesus says he is Gods son, it is up for debate as to whether that particular proposition is claiming that he is the biological son (a rather nonsensical idea), the spiritual son (a rather vague concept), the only son, or one of many sons, or even the son in a completely different sense (eg the position of Pope is the son of Christianity).
Further we must ask what a Biblical proposition is. If the Bible says that a prostitute said something then clearly that doesn't make the prostitutes words infallible. So if the Bible says that Paul said something then are Pauls words infallible? Surely the Bible can infallibly report fallible words of Paul - or even Jesus?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Your notions of propositions, arguments and tautologies stand in need of revision. Having knowledge, even with certainty, of the truth values of an argument's propositions does not yield a tautology.

You need to revise your reading comprehension skills as that's not what I said.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]As for my own interpretation, God appears to be omniscient and "infallible". Having said that, I simply take it to mean that his "nature" is what is viewed as perfect. For example, Biblically God is said to be love, therefore, so long as his actions are rooted in love his ways are "infallible".

The problem here is that Lucifer was not made for evil. He was made in the spirit of love just as we are. Therefore, just as we suffer for going against this innate nature, so does Lucifer. Biblically Lucifers state is described as being fearful and tormented continuously.

So I guess the answer to your quesiton is, by what nature was creation created? If it was by a "love" nature, then those who go against such a nature go against the natural order of creation and suffer accordingly. I suppose if the Creators nature was not rooted in love, then things would be much different than they are now and by whatever nature that Creator created the universe would be the natural order of things.

Originally posted by LemonJello


You might even say that love equals infallibility.

What does this mean? You mean something like if our actions are guided by love and compassion we cannot go wrong, so to speak?

Do you consider love to be infallible? Put another way, is there a better way to interact with those around you? It seems to me that if yoiu walk in love with others around you, this would be an ideal state or infallible state. In such a world sin is nonexistent, therefore, it is considered to be "perfect".

Originally posted by LemonJello
Okay, but even if it were true that he has never been mistaken, that doesn't seem to entail that it is not possible for him to be mistaken. Do you think it is impossible for God to be mistaken; and if so, in what sense is it impossible?[/b]

I guess it all boils down to your vision of God. If there be a God, would not such a God only create what is known to him or would he haphazardly dabble in things over his head? It seems to me that the universe runs like clock work and, therefore, God must know what he is doing. However, the only thing out of order, so to speak, is our sin nature. Biblically, it is apparent to me that God forknew that man would fall and had a plan to counter this fall through one Jesus Christ. Prophetic visions of the Messiah, such as found in Isaiah 53, tell me that God is not only in control, but anticipates our every move.

Originally posted by Palynka
You need to revise your reading comprehension skills as that's not what I said.

"I'm saying that since God knows the valuation of every atomic proposition, any logical argument can be reduced to a tautology"

I'm telling you, you are fundamentally mistaken if you think that a tautology's nature derives from anything external to the rules of logical operators and how such operators are organized in any particular proposition, such as the knowledge or even omniscience of a deliberator. The simple fact that you think God's knowledge has any bearing whatsoever indicates a serious notional flaw.

Moreover, the idea that a sound argument can be "reduced to a tautology," in virtue of knowledge or anything else, betrays a confusion. Counterexamples are trivially abundant.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I'm telling you, you are fundamentally mistaken if you think that the tautology's nature derives from anything external to the proposition and the rules of logical operators, such as the knowledge or even omniscience of a deliberator. The simple fact that you think something could be a tautology for one deliberator but not for another indicates a serious notional flaw.

I also didn't say that every argument was a tautology. This is getting boring.

If you wish to be pedantic, you should be attacking my loose use of "reduced to", not these fantasies about supposed arguments I didn't make.

Originally posted by Palynka
I also didn't say that every argument was a tautology.

"I'm saying that since God knows the valuation of every atomic proposition, any logical argument can be reduced to a tautology"

What I'm criticizing is

1) your thinking that knowledge has any relevance regarding what is a tautology

2) your thinking that some arguments can be reduced to tautologies in the presence of knowledge but not otherwise.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
"I'm saying that since God knows the valuation of every atomic proposition, any logical argument can be reduced to a tautology"

You have already quoted that.

Regarding your edit:

Nowhere did I claim 1), implicitly or explicitly.

2): So you now agree that you were not reading what I wrote properly? That's a start.

Define what you mean by "reduced", as I already claimed that I was probably being imprecise about it.

Originally posted by Palynka
You have already quoted that.

Regarding your edit:

Nowhere did I claim 1), implicitly or explicitly.

2): So you now agree that you were not reading what I wrote properly? That's a start.

Define what you mean by "reduced", as I already claimed that I was probably being imprecise about it.

I don't mean anything by it at all. You introduced the term, so perhaps you could also reveal its meaning rather than using its mystery to account for your confusion. Whatever you mean by it is irrelevant to my criticisms about your idea that there is a knowledge-dependent relation between arguments and tautologies.