RE: Omniscience Argument Against God's Existence
September 20, 2013 at 11:33 pm
(This post was last modified: September 20, 2013 at 11:38 pm by FallentoReason.)
I think the first three premises are a little bit ambiguous and could lead to a non-sequitur, depending mostly on what you mean by "aware".
Awareness ~ the act of consciously bringing forth an idea/thought/memory at that point in time for t amount of time
Having knowledge of something and being aware of that knowledge are two different things. I have the knowledge that a force is equal to a mass times an acceleration, but just because I'm not aware of this while I'm e.g. focusing on making breakfast in the morning, it doesn't mean that I no longer posses this knowledge simply because I'm not aware of it during that period of time. Under this view of "awareness", I would reject (P3) because arguably I *do* possess the knowledge that a force is equal to a mass times an acceleration - it's in there in my brain somewhere. Thus, the rest of the argument is a non-sequitur.
Awareness ~ the act of attaining knowledge where this knowledge was previously unknown to the individual
By this I mean e.g. I could become aware for the first time of some tragedy that happened in a country via the news, and so now I have obtained that knowledge whereas before I was unaware of it. Under this view of "awareness", I would reject (P4) due to the fact that it misunderstands (P1): the first premise states that an hypothetical omniscient mind *already* possesses *all* knowledge. Therefore, it's impossible for such a mind to even become aware of more knowledge, as there is no more knowledge *to be aware of*. Therefore, I reject (P4) simply because an omniscient mind would *know* that there is no more knowledge to become aware of. Another way of highlighting the issue is that (P2) & (P3) are describing difficulties associated with a *non-omniscient* mind, which by default won't apply to an omniscient mind, and thus the rest of the argument is a non-sequitur.
Awareness ~ the act of consciously bringing forth an idea/thought/memory at that point in time for t amount of time
Having knowledge of something and being aware of that knowledge are two different things. I have the knowledge that a force is equal to a mass times an acceleration, but just because I'm not aware of this while I'm e.g. focusing on making breakfast in the morning, it doesn't mean that I no longer posses this knowledge simply because I'm not aware of it during that period of time. Under this view of "awareness", I would reject (P3) because arguably I *do* possess the knowledge that a force is equal to a mass times an acceleration - it's in there in my brain somewhere. Thus, the rest of the argument is a non-sequitur.
Awareness ~ the act of attaining knowledge where this knowledge was previously unknown to the individual
By this I mean e.g. I could become aware for the first time of some tragedy that happened in a country via the news, and so now I have obtained that knowledge whereas before I was unaware of it. Under this view of "awareness", I would reject (P4) due to the fact that it misunderstands (P1): the first premise states that an hypothetical omniscient mind *already* possesses *all* knowledge. Therefore, it's impossible for such a mind to even become aware of more knowledge, as there is no more knowledge *to be aware of*. Therefore, I reject (P4) simply because an omniscient mind would *know* that there is no more knowledge to become aware of. Another way of highlighting the issue is that (P2) & (P3) are describing difficulties associated with a *non-omniscient* mind, which by default won't apply to an omniscient mind, and thus the rest of the argument is a non-sequitur.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
