RE: Omniscience Argument Against God's Existence
September 27, 2013 at 11:12 pm
(This post was last modified: September 27, 2013 at 11:13 pm by Vincenzo Vinny G..)
I think you can, and here's why.
If you read my response, I said that when we say UU, we must always have a subject to whom something is an UU. So using the word "Inconceivable", we must say "Inconceivable to some subject." This is the first premise. (1)
(2) In Noel's example he used the notion of a big God who creates a little God who has UU. Presumably to the big God these UUs are known in some way. Quite possibly KKs.
Given 1 + 2, we can use the same principle from Noel's example. Just as Noel conceived of a big God to whom these UUs were KKs (or KUs), why can't we conceive of a greater being who has access to these UUs?
Aren't we doing the same thing done in Noel's example?
If you read my response, I said that when we say UU, we must always have a subject to whom something is an UU. So using the word "Inconceivable", we must say "Inconceivable to some subject." This is the first premise. (1)
(2) In Noel's example he used the notion of a big God who creates a little God who has UU. Presumably to the big God these UUs are known in some way. Quite possibly KKs.
Given 1 + 2, we can use the same principle from Noel's example. Just as Noel conceived of a big God to whom these UUs were KKs (or KUs), why can't we conceive of a greater being who has access to these UUs?
Aren't we doing the same thing done in Noel's example?
