Omniscience Argument Against God's Existence

[FallentoReason]

The equivalent of what you'e saying is that a square-circle must be a square and circle simultaneously by definition, when my hypothetical argument would be that such a concept is a non-starter because it's incoherent.

I don't have time to respond properly right now, but if we're using metaphors to describe our discussion, then it would be more accurate to say you start off with a square, but then start describing it like it's a circle; you keep assuming things about the square that just don't apply to it.

[MindForgedManacle]

But isn't that tautological?

Is it? If so, the following should be able to properly get across what I'm saying to you and FallenToReason.


There are two relevant epistemic concerns for this argument:

1) Known unknowns
2) Unknown unknowns

These corresponding to your a) & b) earlier Vinny.

1) refers to things that you know you don't have knowledge of, but you know there is knowledge there to be known. Examples include, say, the number of atoms in my body or whatever is 100 feet below me. I know there is something there to be kniwn, but I don't have knowledge of the truth of what is there.

2) is the important one for the argument. It refers to things that you don't even know that you don't know of, even if you could potentially gain knowledge of them. Examples of this include, well, I don't know, because by definition I can't know! I can give examples that were once unknown unknowns, such as, say, the atom or any concept that at one point no personhad even conceived of there being something to know about there.


Omniscience would mean 1) is not applicable to God. However, 2) refers to a set who's status is always unknown, because it can't be known. Once you become aware of a member of the set, it is no longer in the set, but you are no closer to knowing the set's status (because you can't).

Did that clear things up?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I see. But how do we establish the existence of these unknown unknowns? If we merely presume they exist, we are begging the question against omniscience.

Can we establish they exist?

[MindForgedManacle]

There's always at least one unknown unknown: the status of the set of unknown unknowns (i.e you can't even know if the set is empty or not).

It can only be said that you cannot rule out any more due to that single unknown unknown. That alone would seem to invalidate omniscience as a possible attribute I think. Or am I indeed begging the question?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

There's always at least one unknown unknown: the status of the set of unknown unknowns (i.e you can't even know if the set is empty or not).

It can only be said that you cannot rule out any more due to that single unknown unknown. That alone would seem to invalidate omniscience as a possible attribute I think. Or am I indeed begging the question?

But is this an actual set of actual unknown unknowns, or is this a mathematical fact?

I'd really like to learn more, so if you have any material to recommend, I'm intrigued!

[MindForgedManacle]

Hm? It's just a set of whom's members can't be known, otherwise they're no longer a part of the set.

I actually got the thrust of the argument from a YouTube video by the YT user "noelplum99". I just tried to put it in a deductive argument. :p His video was titled something like "The Impossibility of Omniscience".
I don't know if this is a legit thing in epistemology though, so I've got no material to recommend.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

FYI, the fact that you know what the word epistemology means makes me feel more reassured about the future of atheism.

Are you familiar with set theory and transfinite arithmetic, btw? I want to develop an argument against God's existence/for atheism but I need someone with some math knowledge.

edit: Found the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vauFcJAnnTY

So what he's claiming (around 3:12) is that there's a set of "unknown unknowns" by definition cannot be known, and you can be certain that you cannot know them (post-correction).

He notes the possible objection that "Unknown unknowns cannot exist for God if God is omniscient", and his response is "Then the set of unknown unknowns will be empty. But even if the set is empty, God would not know it."

As to whether or not such a set can exist, he says (around 4:14) "We cannot rule out their existence, because if they existed, we would not know."

Thus, we cannot verify the existence of this set. Which is itself no big deal, but the fact that we cannot deny it's existence leaves open the possibility that omniscience is incoherent.

He also has a response video defending his argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOAF7wGB8pE

Here, he says there must be one unknown unknown (3:07) and that unknown unknown is the status of the set of unknown unknowns.

[MindForgedManacle]

Hah, thanks. There are users here much better informed on philosophy than me though. Kepp your eye out for Genkaus, Apophenia, Bennyboy and ChadWooters.

Eh, a bit about set theory, but I'm not really a math guy. There is a physicist on the forums (I'll go find his username), he's probably a better guy to go to.

Could you check out my argument in the following thread? : http://atheistforums.org/thread-19833.html

---

The physicist here is "little_monkey". Ask him.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Sure thing! I was working on a response to Plum's argument, which I think can refute him, although I know I might derail your argument here with my response. I'm not certain of the strength of my objection, however, so I'd like to see it tested.

[MindForgedManacle]

Go for it.