(September 20, 2013 at 4:33 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:
The Argument Wrote:P1) Omniscience is the ability for a mind to possess all knowledge.
P2) You cannot be aware of that which you are [currently] unaware of, even if in principle you could one day become aware of it.
P3) If you are unaware of something, you cannot have knowledge of it so long as you remain unaware of it.
P4) Because P1-3 are true, knowledge of the status of the set referring to "everything one's mind is unaware of" is unknowable, even if the set itself has no members.
C1) Therefore omniscience is an impossible attribute to possess.
P5) God is defined as a being whom possesses the attribute of omniscience.
C2) Therefore God does not exist.
Is there anything wrong here?
It's good that there are atheists who are looking to work on arguments.
But your argument commits a modal error in P2. To see this, we can make a distinction between two sorts of metacognitive states:
a) Cognizant unawareness: I KNOW that I am unaware of how many atoms are in my body.
b) Non-cognizant unawareness: I DON'T KNOW that I am unaware of how many atoms are in my body.
P2 denies the possibility of (a). Although, (a) is obviously a possible stance to hold.
