(September 26, 2013 at 9:19 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: It means you haven't successfully attacked the concept of omniscience. Call it a sort of strawman, if that makes things more clear...
If there is a truth that cannot be justified in holding as a belief, that means omniscience isn't possible, yes?
That's the point of the argument: showing there is at least one truth that cannot be justified in holding to.
Quote:No it doesn't! I *explicitly* said it knows, and not it believes. Plus, an omniscient mind believing something means that it's a justified true belief, since it *knows* everything. In other words, it can't believe something which isn't true, as that would lead to potentially attaining falsehoods as "knowledge".
You saying it 'knows' it is entirely irrelevant to whether or not it actually[i] knows it. The mind in question could [i]think it's omniscience, but because such a belief can never be justified, it isn't knowledge. The being itself is irrelevant to that fact, as it cannot possess an incoherent attribute, or it wouldn't exist.
Quote:An omniscient mind possesses all knowledge, therefore any belief it might hold *must* be justified.
That's false actually. If there is knowledge that can't be possessed - because to say otherwise entails a contradiction - then the being would simply not be omniscient.
Quote:Unless the mind happens to be omniscient, in which case....
The argument is that no mind could ever possess it.
Quote:Unless the mind happens to be omniscient, in which case....
Same a before.
Quote:For starters, the last sentence doesn't apply to the concept of omniscience, as I have been saying. Secondly, whatever an omniscient mind happens to believe *must* be justified, since it *knows everything*.
Not if omniscience is an incoherent concept. Which is the argument.
The equivalent of what you'e saying is that a square-circle must be a square and circle simultaneously by definition, when my hypothetical argument would be that such a concept is a non-starter because it's incoherent.
