(December 7, 2013 at 1:02 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:you Wrote: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.
I didn't say it's impossible to have UUs? I said UUs can never be ruled out because to claim you know you don't have them results in a contradicory statement.
Further, you're playing a very - and I don't want to sound rude - stupid game. The equivalent of your argument is to say that there must be a square-circle because of its definition. The point of the argument is to elicit a problem with the very definition of omniscience, i.e to show that even if you do have all possible knowledge, it's not possible to actually know that, because there's no way to justify it (which is where the contradiction comes in). And since it can't be justified, omniscience is something no being can know that it has.
So really, this argument isn't so much an argument against the POSSIBILITY of omniscience, rather it's an argument against ever knowing that one is omniscient.
Quote: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.
You MIGHT be able to learn at least some of your UUs, but not necessarily, because you don't know what they are. In other words, you can't rule out UUs as possible to know because they might be knowable, an we have inductive knowledge that it's at least possible that they are.
And there you go again with that nonsensical view. I'm not starting with the assumption that omniscience is possible as you are. I'm reductio-ing the rationality of any being claimed to be omniscience, then showing how under the definition of knowledge I used, it cannot be known to be the case.
