Omniscience Argument Revisited

[Rational AKD]

sorry it took me a while to see your revised version of this argument. I must say it's a better argument in the sense that I actually agree with the definitions but still has its problems. I actually don't see how you could have missed it since for one I pointed it out in your last version and for two it's quite obvious.

3) Therefore a being cannot know it has acquired knowledge all possibly knowable UUs (in other words, even if it's in fact true that a being has no UUs, it couldn't be known that one doesn't have them (remember, JTB) because it is a claim that cannot be justified) because there is an unknowable KU.
4) Omniscience is defined as having all possible knowledge.

do you see it? your case in premise three is that it is impossible to have UU's, and your definition of omniscience includes all possible knowledge. that means omniscience by your very definition excludes knowledge of whether he has UU's or not since it's impossible to know that.

---

But it is. UUs are not inherently or necessarily impossible to know. While you cannot know whether or not your current unknown unknowns are possible to know, you can't know if tey aren't. You can make an inductive case that what used to be your unknown unknowns were knowable, because they are no longer unknown to you.

so in other words, you can know your UU's by the process of learning. you do realize that learning is impossible if you're omniscient since you have all possible knowledge, so this would still be impossible knowledge for God.