Omniscience Argument Revisited

[Rational AKD]

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.

*sigh* if it can never be ruled out it's not possible knowledge, thus it does not contradict the definition since it's not possible knowledge.

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.

no, what you're saying is the equivalent of saying there is a square circle (or contradiction as you put it) in the statement "I know that there is no possible knowledge I do not have" thus making a case he can't know that therefore he doesn't know everything. but you miss that if there is a contradiction in that statement, that makes it impossible to know that you have no UU's, which makes that a knowledge he doesn't need to have since it's not a possible knowledge.

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.

are you serious? i'm sorry, but you're not being consistent in your posts.

C1) Given (1 - 3), (4) is not a possible attribute.

so you're not just making a case that it's impossible to know you're truly omniscient even if you are, but you're trying to say that means omniscience is an impossible attribute which is contrary to what you're saying now.

You MIGHT be able to learn at least some of your UUs, but not necessarily, because you don't know what they are.

is that not what I said when I said you can know UU's via process of learning? did my use of the word can make it sound like I was implying it was necessary?

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 if it is "unknowable" then not knowing it doesn't contradict with the definition of omniscience since that only includes knowledge that is "knowable."

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.

this is how I see the construction of your argument. (it's a parody, not a quote)
"there are KU's and UU's but it is impossible to know that you don't have UU's (but instead of using the word impossible i'll use words like can't and unknowable which really mean the same but make my blunder less obvious) and omniscience is to have all possible knowledge. since it's impossible to rule out UU's it's therefore impossible to have omniscience since omniscience (to have all possible knowledge) can't include this knowledge since it's unknowable (impossible to know)."
bottom line, even if it's impossible to know you have no UU's, that therefore doesn't count as possible knowledge he doesn't have (since you know... it's not possible to rule out as you said) therefore there is no contradiction within the definition of omniscience.