Having debated regularly with friends the differences between these concepts, I thought a summary of our arguments would be an interesting blog post. Please note that whilst omniscience is associated with religion as quality of a god, this debate is not religious, and is not pertaining to any religion or religious belief.
Omniscience
1. all-knowing
2. knowing everything
Intelligence
1. understanding, capacity for understanding.
We believe that Omniscience is different to Intelligence
Our debate went very much like this:
Argument 1 (for)
As a latin student, this is a my champion argument. Intelligence is derived from 'intelligo', 'I understand', and using this definition, being intelligent is thus to possess understanding or to have the capability of understanding. Omniscience, on the other hand, is complete knowledge. Understanding is not an undoubted accompaniment to knowledge. I can know all of history notes by heart, yet not understand any of them. Therefore knowledge is not equivalent to understanding, and by extension, omniscience is not intelligence.
Counter-Argument 1 (against)
Understanding can be defined as knowing connections between facts and interlinking your knowledge. Omniscience would give you the knowledge of these links, what they were and how they connected. Thus giving you understanding. Omniscience and intelligence can be defined as the capability of understanding, and so are the same.
Counter-Counter Argument 1 (for)
Flawed logic does not make a convincing argument. "Omniscience can give understanding, intelligence gives understanding, omniscience is intelligence." is very much like the argument "a dog has four legs, a table has four legs, a dog is a table". Both are fallacies. Arguing this, is arguing that as omniscience is supposedly intelligence, having intelligence means you are then omniscient. Having the mental capacity for understanding cannot be taken as to mean having all-knowing powers. Thus, 'counter-argument 1' looses the little credibility it had.
Counter Argument 2 (against)
I am omniscient. I know that omniscience is intelligence.
Counter-Counter-Argument 2 (for)
Ah but do you understand?
Many arguments continued in this way, full of customary 'banter', until no clear winner was established. However, I do accept the exchange of
"Do you know what omniscient even means"
"nope"
is satisfactory as a victory to me. Had this been a debate simply on intelligence, knowledge, and understanding, this would have been much harder. It is the all powerful aspect of 'omniscience' which made it that much easier to construct defensible arguments.
So, is omniscience the same as intelligence? hhhmmmm....
Omniscience
1. all-knowing
2. knowing everything
Intelligence
1. understanding, capacity for understanding.
We believe that Omniscience is different to Intelligence
Our debate went very much like this:
Argument 1 (for)
As a latin student, this is a my champion argument. Intelligence is derived from 'intelligo', 'I understand', and using this definition, being intelligent is thus to possess understanding or to have the capability of understanding. Omniscience, on the other hand, is complete knowledge. Understanding is not an undoubted accompaniment to knowledge. I can know all of history notes by heart, yet not understand any of them. Therefore knowledge is not equivalent to understanding, and by extension, omniscience is not intelligence.
Counter-Argument 1 (against)
Understanding can be defined as knowing connections between facts and interlinking your knowledge. Omniscience would give you the knowledge of these links, what they were and how they connected. Thus giving you understanding. Omniscience and intelligence can be defined as the capability of understanding, and so are the same.
Counter-Counter Argument 1 (for)
Flawed logic does not make a convincing argument. "Omniscience can give understanding, intelligence gives understanding, omniscience is intelligence." is very much like the argument "a dog has four legs, a table has four legs, a dog is a table". Both are fallacies. Arguing this, is arguing that as omniscience is supposedly intelligence, having intelligence means you are then omniscient. Having the mental capacity for understanding cannot be taken as to mean having all-knowing powers. Thus, 'counter-argument 1' looses the little credibility it had.
Counter Argument 2 (against)
I am omniscient. I know that omniscience is intelligence.
Counter-Counter-Argument 2 (for)
Ah but do you understand?
Many arguments continued in this way, full of customary 'banter', until no clear winner was established. However, I do accept the exchange of
"Do you know what omniscient even means"
"nope"
is satisfactory as a victory to me. Had this been a debate simply on intelligence, knowledge, and understanding, this would have been much harder. It is the all powerful aspect of 'omniscience' which made it that much easier to construct defensible arguments.
So, is omniscience the same as intelligence? hhhmmmm....