(September 26, 2013 at 10:10 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: But isn't that tautological?
Is it? If so, the following should be able to properly get across what I'm saying to you and FallenToReason.
There are two relevant epistemic concerns for this argument:
1) Known unknowns
2) Unknown unknowns
These corresponding to your a) & b) earlier Vinny.
1) refers to things that you know you don't have knowledge of, but you know there is knowledge there to be known. Examples include, say, the number of atoms in my body or whatever is 100 feet below me. I know there is something there to be kniwn, but I don't have knowledge of the truth of what is there.
2) is the important one for the argument. It refers to things that you don't even know that you don't know of, even if you could potentially gain knowledge of them. Examples of this include, well, I don't know, because by definition I can't know! I can give examples that were once unknown unknowns, such as, say, the atom or any concept that at one point no personhad even conceived of there being something to know about there.
Omniscience would mean 1) is not applicable to God. However, 2) refers to a set who's status is always unknown, because it can't be known. Once you become aware of a member of the set, it is no longer in the set, but you are no closer to knowing the set's status (because you can't).
Did that clear things up?
