Omniscience Argument Against God's Existence

[FallentoReason]

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.

Actually, P1 is just the definition of omniscience, it does not entail that omniscience is a possible attribute. [1]P4 is just a demonstration that a mind cannot possess all knowledge, [2]because that would be to claim that you can know that there is something you are not aware you can have knowledge of, yet you know of it.

(numbers are mine)

Statement [2] doesn't apply to an omniscient being. To an omniscient being, there is *no* knowledge that it doesn't already possess, hence the being possessing the attribute of omniscience *in the first place*. Therefore [1] is outright false.

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.

Again, that would be to say that it's possible to be aware of the possibility of attaining knowledge of something you aren't even aware you can have knowledge of.

And again, this statement is meaningless to an *omniscient* being who possesses *all* possible knowledge. Your statement here implies that the being in question is *not* omniscient by the very fact that you're alluding to this being possibly having the ability of attaining one more bit of knowledge. That is something an omniscient being *isn't* capable of (which, mind you, has interesting implications about omnipotence.. but I digress).

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.

The issues in P2 & P3 apply to any mind, because it's an epistemic barrier that is in principle impregnable.

I won't repeat myself here, as you should be able to see what my response would be from the above.