Points for bringing up one I haven't heard before, Chad. It IS an interesting dilemma: How does God know he's omniscient? Because he's omniscient!
So you may have disproven an omniscient God, but an 'ultraniscient' God that knows whatever it wants to know that it is possible to know could still be possible. I regard theodic versions of God to have been successfully refuted. They are clearly just a pile of omnis that resulted from a long game of 'my God is better than yours!' that resulted in a concept of God with contradictory attributes. The theodic God is a married bachelor.
However, the God of deism (for instance) survives such criticism without a scratch.
I'm with frankiej. The best argument against any sort of god or God existing is that: One, all arguments for God rest on flawed premises or are fallacious. And two, you can't argue something into existence, so arguments alone won't do the job anyway.
So you may have disproven an omniscient God, but an 'ultraniscient' God that knows whatever it wants to know that it is possible to know could still be possible. I regard theodic versions of God to have been successfully refuted. They are clearly just a pile of omnis that resulted from a long game of 'my God is better than yours!' that resulted in a concept of God with contradictory attributes. The theodic God is a married bachelor.
However, the God of deism (for instance) survives such criticism without a scratch.
I'm with frankiej. The best argument against any sort of god or God existing is that: One, all arguments for God rest on flawed premises or are fallacious. And two, you can't argue something into existence, so arguments alone won't do the job anyway.
