RE: Omniscience Argument Against God's Existence
September 26, 2013 at 11:48 pm
(This post was last modified: September 27, 2013 at 12:32 am by Vincenzo Vinny G..)
FYI, the fact that you know what the word epistemology means makes me feel more reassured about the future of atheism. 
Are you familiar with set theory and transfinite arithmetic, btw? I want to develop an argument against God's existence/for atheism but I need someone with some math knowledge.
edit: Found the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vauFcJAnnTY
So what he's claiming (around 3:12) is that there's a set of "unknown unknowns" by definition cannot be known, and you can be certain that you cannot know them (post-correction).
He notes the possible objection that "Unknown unknowns cannot exist for God if God is omniscient", and his response is "Then the set of unknown unknowns will be empty. But even if the set is empty, God would not know it."
As to whether or not such a set can exist, he says (around 4:14) "We cannot rule out their existence, because if they existed, we would not know."
Thus, we cannot verify the existence of this set. Which is itself no big deal, but the fact that we cannot deny it's existence leaves open the possibility that omniscience is incoherent.
He also has a response video defending his argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOAF7wGB8pE
Here, he says there must be one unknown unknown (3:07) and that unknown unknown is the status of the set of unknown unknowns.
Are you familiar with set theory and transfinite arithmetic, btw? I want to develop an argument against God's existence/for atheism but I need someone with some math knowledge.
edit: Found the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vauFcJAnnTY
So what he's claiming (around 3:12) is that there's a set of "unknown unknowns" by definition cannot be known, and you can be certain that you cannot know them (post-correction).
He notes the possible objection that "Unknown unknowns cannot exist for God if God is omniscient", and his response is "Then the set of unknown unknowns will be empty. But even if the set is empty, God would not know it."
As to whether or not such a set can exist, he says (around 4:14) "We cannot rule out their existence, because if they existed, we would not know."
Thus, we cannot verify the existence of this set. Which is itself no big deal, but the fact that we cannot deny it's existence leaves open the possibility that omniscience is incoherent.
He also has a response video defending his argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOAF7wGB8pE
Here, he says there must be one unknown unknown (3:07) and that unknown unknown is the status of the set of unknown unknowns.
