Talk:Indeterminacy/@comment-29564364-20171007135629/@comment-6299840-20171217105212

Wow I guess you had to rack your brain to come up with a response huh? Okay so I am going to try to keep this short and sweet. In this moment you are helping to give me an understanding on what the Bible meant when it said you should have the mind of a child because when you get pompous and proclaim to know so much you end up looking really stupid.

The problem is from the beginning I indulged your game of semantics. Example; at the end of your post you replaced a word I used with a word and phrase that can be synonymous with it. More semantics from you I see. No more. I’m going to let you hang yourself. From your own OP. “Knowledge is the body of information and skills acquired by a person while intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply said knowledge”. See when you get too technical to try to make a point about fictional extraordinary abilities you have lost already.

I realize the word that you are so hung up on in the intelligence definition is acquire. You keep berating me about the fact that an Omniscient can’t acquire because they already know. You even went as far as to make the stupid comment that acquiring things from birth is impossible. I don’t know who told you that lie but I am not even going there right now. I will say that we acquire many things from birth and leave it at that. Back to your OP. Notice the definition of knowledge, it also has that pesky word in it (acquire). So I ask you? How does an Omniscient acquire the body of information and skills that comprise their knowledge. In your definition you say that knowledge is acquired and this is true. Acquire is used in most definitions of knowledge I have read.

This is a problem for you because you say an Omniscient can not acquire so by your own logic they are not even possessors of all knowledge. Do you see the whole you dug for yourself. These words are all predicated on real life scenarios and instances. We are talking about someone or something who has all knowledge. Meaning they know everything about everything.

Do you know how ridiculous you look trying to apply words and logic to something like this. You can’t, as I have just shown you your own reasoning falls apart.

Even in my scenario which you said was flawed you still miss the point. You say that since they know I am going to ask about a bomb and they know their response there is no reasoning involved. Then why did they choose to send it to the universe without people. Even if they knew that exchange was going to take place even if they had second by the second accountings of it there was still reasoning behind their answer. Even if they already knew the answer before I asked the question. How can you not see this? Reasoning is not just something that happens in the moments following a question I hope you at least understand this.

To be clear it is simple as day. Bring your mind back to its childlike state and you will see it. If you are omniscient and all knowing then you are also extremely intelligent. No matter what semantical games you try to play with those two words. Also I said I was going to stop indulging you so I would like to point out the differences between them are tenuous at best. People do use them interchangeably. You don’t want to accept that because it plays more into your narrative of smarter than omniscience. If someone has a lot of knowledga you would be right in also saying that person is intelligent. Again, so you don’t berate me I know there is a distinction but it’s not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. You act like there is no correlation between the two, but since the game of semantics seems to be your favorite I am not surprised.