Omniscience Argument Revisited

[MindForgedManacle]

you'll have to excuse me, I didn't realized you changed your entire argument within the recent comments of the thread (I didn't think you would concede how flawed your original argument was so quickly).

Unlike Christian apologists, I won't stick with flawed arguments. After all, my interest in philosophy is not to defend to death my preconceived notions of what I think is (or ought be) the case. Likewise, thanks for demonstrating your inability to be charitable or thorough.

but anyways your fourth premise then is "it is impossible for an omniscient being to know it is truly omniscient." this, however, changes more of the argument more than you know or at least seem to realize.

I actually already realize what this changes in the argument, but seeing as there's a time limit on edits, I can't really alter the OP to reflect this.

if you were to end with that premise, then I would agree with your argument... but you originally wanted to say something a little more substantive than that. P5 and C2 of the argument go on to say that it is therefore impossible for God to exist as defined with the quality of omniscience. as you said, this argument now doesn't aspire to prove omniscience itself is impossible as you stated here:

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.

so if you're argument doesn't show it's impossible to be omniscient, you also can't conclude God who has this attribute doesn't exist. you can't logically arrive at C2 from revised C1 and P5.

I can easily grant that. After all, it logically follows from my statement (which you ignored in your haste earlier). However, unless you're a rather novel kind of Christian, you have to give up any sort of basis for affirming God's omniscience, certainly if it is supposedly stated by God himself. God can only assume his omniscience, he could never know it, even in principle.

Further, it's not hard to think of thought experiments of things God has no way of knowing by his own power, yet could know.

do you even listen to yourself? God has no way of knowing yet could know? if he has no way of knowing he can't know. but go ahead, try to come up with some knowledge God can't possibly know that's not impossible to know. this should be amusing.[/quote]

Do you even read, and could you be more dishonest? Follow along, please. In the part of my post you "conveniently" left out, I demonstrated that there is possible knowledge that God could never BY HIMSELF learn, but is nevertheless possible in principle. Go ahead, reread the part of my post you dishonestly ignored for examples. It is indeed quite amusing how poor your reading comprehension and honesty are.

ok I don't really see any more contentions with your argument as it now is. the only thing is that because you are not arguing against the possibility of omniscience, you are not making a case against the existence of God. if you want to end your argument with the conclusion "God can't possibly know whether he is truly omniscient" I have no contention. but that's not a very controversial point you're trying to establish.

I'd disagree, especially concerning the religious implications with such. Has God EVER claimed to be omniscient? If so, he made an assertion he could never justify, which is pretty deceitful. The same goes for any of his followers who claim that he is. This makes it irrational to claim any being is omniscient, and as Plantinga has noted numerous times, trying to establish (at the very least) the rationality of theism is one of the major drives of theologians.

In regards to other arguments against omniscience, I would tend to stake my lot with those that use other common apologetic positions to undermine that attribute, such as the oft-held 'there can be no actual infinite' position that is necessary for, among other things, the Kalam Cosmological argument.