Omniscience Argument Against God's Existence

[Rational AKD]

I thank you for your attempt at a logical argument, though I find some problems with your argument. firstly, that premise 2 is not a true premise. you can very well be aware of what you are unaware of. the definition of aware as I understand it is "having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact." now, it is certainly possible to be aware of knowledge you do not possess concerning a situation or a fact. say you walk into the middle of a conversation and end up confused. you don't know what's going on and thus you are very well aware that you are unaware of the situation you walked into. concerning matters of fact, you can very well be aware that you are unaware how a car works. you may say that's lack of knowledge, not lack of awareness; but keep in mind being aware is possessing knowledge, so being unaware would be not possessing knowledge which is effectively lack of knowledge.

the next objection is on premise 1. keep in mind this objection is independent of my prior objection so even if you find fault with my first objection this objection will still stand. the problem is you are using a faulty definition of omniscience and applying it to God. the definition applicable to God is "to know everything that can be known." the definition you used is inherent omniscience, but the definition applicable to God is total omniscience. you may think even with that said you can revise the definition then the argument will still be logically sound, but that's not the case. even if it is logically impossible to know what you don't know, or as you put it be aware of what you are unaware, you can still know everything that can be known. this means omniscience doesn't entail knowing what is impossible to know. it's knowing everything that is possible to know and thus there is no logical contradiction within the nature of omniscience.

[bennyboy]

I agree. "You know this sentence is false" is impossible. You don't sensibly say, "Well, God can't know what he doesn't know, so he doesn't know everything." That's dumb.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I thank you for your attempt at a logical argument, though I find some problems with your argument. firstly, that premise 2 is not a true premise. you can very well be aware of what you are unaware of. the definition of aware as I understand it is "having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact." now, it is certainly possible to be aware of knowledge you do not possess concerning a situation or a fact. say you walk into the middle of a conversation and end up confused. you don't know what's going on and thus you are very well aware that you are unaware of the situation you walked into. concerning matters of fact, you can very well be aware that you are unaware how a car works. you may say that's lack of knowledge, not lack of awareness; but keep in mind being aware is possessing knowledge, so being unaware would be not possessing knowledge which is effectively lack of knowledge.

the next objection is on premise 1. keep in mind this objection is independent of my prior objection so even if you find fault with my first objection this objection will still stand. the problem is you are using a faulty definition of omniscience and applying it to God. the definition applicable to God is "to know everything that can be known." the definition you used is inherent omniscience, but the definition applicable to God is total omniscience. you may think even with that said you can revise the definition then the argument will still be logically sound, but that's not the case. even if it is logically impossible to know what you don't know, or as you put it be aware of what you are unaware, you can still know everything that can be known. this means omniscience doesn't entail knowing what is impossible to know. it's knowing everything that is possible to know and thus there is no logical contradiction within the nature of omniscience.

Are you saying there cannot be any unknown unknowns with your first response?

Imagine you lived in the jungles of south america and had never seen an ipod before.

Wouldn't "I don't know how an ipod works" be something you didn't even know that you didn't know?

[MindForgedManacle]

I thank you for your attempt at a logical argument, though I find some problems with your argument. firstly, that premise 2 is not a true premise. you can very well be aware of what you are unaware of. the definition of aware as I understand it is "having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact." now, it is certainly possible to be aware of knowledge you do not possess concerning a situation or a fact. say you walk into the middle of a conversation and end up confused. you don't know what's going on and thus you are very well aware that you are unaware of the situation you walked into. concerning matters of fact, you can very well be aware that you are unaware how a car works. you may say that's lack of knowledge, not lack of awareness; but keep in mind being aware is possessing knowledge, so being unaware would be not possessing knowledge which is effectively lack of knowledge.

As noted on an earlier page, Premise 2 in my original post is unclear. I wasn't referring to awareness of ignorance, I was referring to being unaware that you were unaware of something, or not knowing that something was unknown to you.

the next objection is on premise 1. keep in mind this objection is independent of my prior objection so even if you find fault with my first objection this objection will still stand. the problem is you are using a faulty definition of omniscience and applying it to God. the definition applicable to God is "to know everything that can be known." the definition you used is inherent omniscience, but the definition applicable to God is total omniscience. you may think even with that said you can revise the definition then the argument will still be logically sound, but that's not the case. even if it is logically impossible to know what you don't know, or as you put it be aware of what you are unaware, you can still know everything that can be known. this means omniscience doesn't entail knowing what is impossible to know. it's knowing everything that is possible to know and thus there is no logical contradiction within the nature of omniscience.

The problem is that we've already gone over this objection in the thread. Even if your definition of omniscience is to 'know everything that can be known' (as ChadWooters earlier tried to run), that still falls short of the argument's intention. Since it's seemingly incoherent to say you know that there is nothing of which you don't know that you don't know (an 'unknown unknown'), you run into an issue. Since unknown unknowns are in potential knowable in some circumstance (this bit is inductive, by the way), the supposedly omniscient being could never rule out whether or not it had attained all possible knowledge. So the point of the argument would, I think, still stand with your definition or not.

---

Vinny, I'll respond to your last questions in a bit.

[max-greece]

Things God can't know:

What its like to be human.
What its like to fall in love.
What its like to give birth.
What its like to die or to fear death.
What hunger feels like - or thirst.
What its like to have a daughter.
How Sunburn feels.
What its like to go down on a woman.
The joy of driving a car at its limits.
and about 50,000 other things that all together define the human condition.

In summary - God has less in common with us than an oak tree has.

[Rational AKD]

Are you saying there cannot be any unknown unknowns with your first response?

no, i'm saying that it's possible to know what you don't know, that doesn't mean you necessarily know what you don't know.

Wouldn't "I don't know how an ipod works" be something you didn't even know that you didn't know?

yes, but i'm not saying it's necessary to know what you don't know. i'm saying it's possible. that's all I have to argue to refute the argument.

As noted on an earlier page, Premise 2 in my original post is unclear. I wasn't referring to awareness of ignorance, I was referring to being unaware that you were unaware of something, or not knowing that something was unknown to you.

the problem is you are not necessarily unaware that you are unaware. you can consciously be unaware of many things. so when you say "You cannot be aware of that which you are [currently] unaware of" this is false.

The problem is that we've already gone over this objection in the thread. Even if your definition of omniscience is to 'know everything that can be known' (as ChadWooters earlier tried to run), that still falls short of the argument's intention. Since it's seemingly incoherent to say you know that there is nothing of which you don't know that you don't know (an 'unknown unknown'), you run into an issue. Since unknown unknowns are in potential knowable in some circumstance (this bit is inductive, by the way), the supposedly omniscient being could never rule out whether or not it had attained all possible knowledge. So the point of the argument would, I think, still stand with your definition or not.

the problem you don't see is how it's defined. omniscience would include all knowledge possible to know, which in turn would exclude all knowledge logically impossible to know. so if in fact it were impossible to "know that you don't know" it wouldn't matter, because the fact that that knowledge is logically impossible would automatically exclude it from omniscience. it's no more a refutation than saying God's omnipotence is impossible because he can't create a square circle.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Are you saying there cannot be any unknown unknowns with your first response?

no, i'm saying that it's possible to know what you don't know, that doesn't mean you necessarily know what you don't know.

Wouldn't "I don't know how an ipod works" be something you didn't even know that you didn't know?

yes, but i'm not saying it's necessary to know what you don't know. i'm saying it's possible. that's all I have to argue to refute the argument.

As noted on an earlier page, Premise 2 in my original post is unclear. I wasn't referring to awareness of ignorance, I was referring to being unaware that you were unaware of something, or not knowing that something was unknown to you.

the problem is you are not necessarily unaware that you are unaware. you can consciously be unaware of many things. so when you say "You cannot be aware of that which you are [currently] unaware of" this is false.

The problem is that we've already gone over this objection in the thread. Even if your definition of omniscience is to 'know everything that can be known' (as ChadWooters earlier tried to run), that still falls short of the argument's intention. Since it's seemingly incoherent to say you know that there is nothing of which you don't know that you don't know (an 'unknown unknown'), you run into an issue. Since unknown unknowns are in potential knowable in some circumstance (this bit is inductive, by the way), the supposedly omniscient being could never rule out whether or not it had attained all possible knowledge. So the point of the argument would, I think, still stand with your definition or not.

the problem you don't see is how it's defined. omniscience would include all knowledge possible to know, which in turn would exclude all knowledge logically impossible to know. so if in fact it were impossible to "know that you don't know" it wouldn't matter, because the fact that that knowledge is logically impossible would automatically exclude it from omniscience. it's no more a refutation than saying God's omnipotence is impossible because he can't create a square circle.

I agree with your view that the argument appears to be flawed. I just don't see it as flawed in the area that you do.

I notice you say "It's possible to know what you don't know.", but I don't see this as refuting the argument, because the argument postulates that "It is possible to never know what you don't know." And I imagine that would be true in ordinary circumstances, wouldn't you think so?

[Rational AKD]

I agree with your view that the argument appears to be flawed. I just don't see it as flawed in the area that you do.

I notice you say "It's possible to know what you don't know.", but I don't see this as refuting the argument, because the argument postulates that "It is possible to never know what you don't know." And I imagine that would be true in ordinary circumstances, wouldn't you think so?

take a closer look at his argument. his second premise was:

P2) You cannot be aware of that which you are [currently] unaware of, even if in principle you could one day become aware of it.

now how do you disprove someone who says you can't do something? by showing that you can of course. and to show that you can you need only show it possible to do it. the fact that it's only true in some circumstances is irrelevant, because his argument is contingent upon being unable to be aware of what you are unaware of. in order for his argument to stand, he must show it impossible to be aware of what you are unaware and proving it is possible debunks that point and the conclusions built off it.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I agree with your view that the argument appears to be flawed. I just don't see it as flawed in the area that you do.

I notice you say "It's possible to know what you don't know.", but I don't see this as refuting the argument, because the argument postulates that "It is possible to never know what you don't know." And I imagine that would be true in ordinary circumstances, wouldn't you think so?

take a closer look at his argument. his second premise was:

P2) You cannot be aware of that which you are [currently] unaware of, even if in principle you could one day become aware of it.

now how do you disprove someone who says you can't do something? by showing that you can of course. and to show that you can you need only show it possible to do it. the fact that it's only true in some circumstances is irrelevant, because his argument is contingent upon being unable to be aware of what you are unaware of. in order for his argument to stand, he must show it impossible to be aware of what you are unaware and proving it is possible debunks that point and the conclusions built off it.

He could have worded it better, I agree.

But I think the gist of the premise was "You cannot know what you don't know you don't know unless the state of affairs change such that you know what you don't know."

[Rational AKD]

He could have worded it better, I agree.

But I think the gist of the premise was "You cannot know what you don't know you don't know unless the state of affairs change such that you know what you don't know."

but that doesn't really fit in his argument. if you can't know what you don't know then you have a lack of knowledge if you don't know something. but if there is nothing you don't know, you can't say "well you don't know what you can't know therefore you don't know everything." knowing everything means what you don't know is equivalent to nothing, so you can't take that nothing and treat it as something.