Omniscience Argument Revisited

[MindForgedManacle]

I figured I'd go back and remake that anti-omniscience argument I made a while back, since there were some inapplicable responses I got, possibly as a result of poor detail on my part.

Terms:

Knowledge - Let's keep it simple (for me) and go with the good ol' justified true belief definition of knowledge (let me know if this causes problems with the argument) and truth is a correspondence between a belief or assertion, and reality.

Omniscience - Having all possible knowledge, regardless of the type of knowledge. Total omniscience, in other words.

Known unknowns (KU) - Knowledge which one knows that they don't know. It can be simplified as knowing the question, but not the answer. For example, I know that I don't know what exactly is 100ft below me.

Unknown unknowns (UU) - Knowledge which one doesn't even know that they don't know. This can be simp as neither knowing the question nor the answer. It seems self-evident that these can't be ruled out.

1) Necessarily, if a conscious being cannot rule out having UUs, said mind has [at least] one KU: What are my UUs?

2) No conscious being can rule out having UUs due to the impossibility of the contrary (i.e it's incoherent to state "I know that there is nothing I don't even know that I don't know", because it's unjustifiable and thus not knowledge).

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.

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

[The argument could end here, but nah]

5) 'God' is defined as a being who, if he exists, must possess (4).

C2) Given (C1 & 5), God does not exist.

If you my argument is unclear (or possibly erroneous), I'll try to concisely explain what I mean. If knowledge is defined as a justified true belief, then even if your belief is true, it could merely be luck that it is. So it seems you need at least a third thing to make something knowledge: justification. But if you consider the question "Is there anything that I don't even know that I don't know?", you realize that even if the answer is "No", you couldn't justify that belief because it entails making the following contradictory statement: "I know that there is nothing that that I don't even know that I don't know." By definition, if it exists, you wouldn't even know you didn't know it. Whether or not it does exist is irrelevant, because it applies either way.

This makes it unjustifiable to think that you have no unknown unknowns, and thus you cannot call the belief knowledge. And this prevents you from knowing if you've acquired all possible knowledge among your unknown unknowns. Among other things, this argument would also invalidate Plantinga's ontological argument for God's existence as unsound on the first premise.


Did I just fuck with your brains? Mine hurts a bit. xD

[max-greece]

A few questions:

1. Isn't it possible for an omniscient God to be certain that there are no unknowns of any kind in a universe he supposedly built?
2. If there are unknowns to God they would have to be known unknowns but couldn't they fall into the category of unknowable.
3. If you define Omniscience as all possible knowledge then item 2 above is not contradictory to this statement - with emphasis on the possible element.

As you are aware by now I am not a philosopher so these may not be the right questions.

[MindForgedManacle]

A few questions:

1. Isn't it possible for an omniscient God to be certain that there are no unknowns of any kind in a universe he supposedly built?

Maybe. But one must remember to distinguish between 'universe' and 'all that exists'. But my point isn't that there are definitely unknown unknowns, but that even if there aren't, even God couldn't know it.

2. If there are unknowns to God they would have to be known unknowns but couldn't they fall into the category of unknowable.

No. God couldn't rule out unknown unknowns because whether or not they exist, claiming to know you don't have them results in making a contradictory claim. And since the claim itself is also unjustifiable, it couldn't be knowledge.
So God doesn't know at least one thing: what (if any) are ,my unknown unknowns? This shields any attempt (for anyone) from knowing everything.

3. If you define Omniscience as all possible knowledge then item 2 above is not contradictory to this statement - with emphasis on the possible element.

But it is. UUs are not inherently or necessarily impossible to know. While you cannot know whether or not your current unknown unknowns are possible to know, you can't know if tey aren't. You can make an inductive case that what used to be your unknown unknowns were knowable, because they are no longer unknown to you.

As you are aware by now I am not a philosopher so these may not be the right questions.

It's fine. The terminology is a little confusing.

[Minimalist]

The whole omniscience argument falls on this:

A =

31 And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Gen 1

B=

6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

Gen 5

How could an omniscient god say "A" and still be surprised by "B"?


The Greco-Roman philosopher Celsus had a better understanding of "god" than these judeo-xtian goat fuckers.

"God does not inflict correction on the world as if he were some unskilled laborer who is incapable of building something properly the first time around; God has no need to purify what he has built by means of a flood or a conflagration (as they teach)."
Celsus c 180 AD

[max-greece]

I think I got it now - although I keep getting in and then losing it.

Something tells me that an unknown unknown to God is unknowable if we use define knowable as something that someone, somewhere could know, other than God.

The above very nearly says what I want it to say.

I'll try that again:

If it is impossible for someone to know something that God doesn't know isn't that a fair definition of unknowable?

Can God be sure such a thing is impossible?

Search me? Somehow I think he can - but I can't tell you why just yet......

[bennyboy]

Maybe. But one must remember to distinguish between 'universe' and 'all that exists'. But my point isn't that there are definitely unknown unknowns, but that even if there aren't, even God couldn't know it.

Good argument. Even if God created everything that He knows of, how could he know there weren't infinite other Gods creating infinite other universes?

+rep for you.

[henryp]

If the God is not constrained by our understanding of existence, how many of the laws that define our existence can we apply to God?

Our understanding of knowledge, being, space, time...etc...

The assumption that this theoretical omniscient God's mind operates in the same general way as ours seems like a bit of a stretch.

I think the old timey bible stories humanize God in a way that makes him an easier sell to humans, but if such a being existed as defined rather than what we see in the stories, it'd be a much different thing.

[MindForgedManacle]

If the God is not constrained by our understanding of existence, how many of the laws that define our existence can we apply to God?

Our understanding of knowledge, being, space, time...etc...

The assumption that this theoretical omniscient God's mind operates in the same general way as ours seems like a bit of a stretch.

I think the old timey bible stories humanize God in a way that makes him an easier sell to humans, but if such a being existed as defined rather than what we see in the stories, it'd be a much different thing.

If God has nothing to do with our understanding of anything else in existence, then we can't even say if he exists. This line of reasoning you're using is really just a dodge.



One thing I would change from my argument is that P4 should say that the being couldn't know that it is omniscient.

[henryp]

If the God is not constrained by our understanding of existence, how many of the laws that define our existence can we apply to God?

Our understanding of knowledge, being, space, time...etc...

The assumption that this theoretical omniscient God's mind operates in the same general way as ours seems like a bit of a stretch.

I think the old timey bible stories humanize God in a way that makes him an easier sell to humans, but if such a being existed as defined rather than what we see in the stories, it'd be a much different thing.

If God has nothing to do with our understanding of anything else in existence, then we can't even say if he exists. This line of reasoning you're using is really just a dodge.

You're right. Who knows what 'existence' would even be to a 'being' of that 'nature' or what 'it's' 'nature' would 'be.' We're trying to apply the same logic we'd use on Bob the Grocer to this 'God.'

But the idea of 'God' is already out of our ability to understand. Can 'something' 'be' 'outside' of our plane of existence?

In the event that something of undefined 'nature' is 'outside our existence,' an idea that already shatters our logical understanding of the universe, wouldn't we need to know the 'rules' for 'outside our existence' before we could start guessing whether or not something like omniscience would break them?

I look back on the old philosophers trying to prove God exists based on rationalizing the origins of the universe. But what they are really doing is the same as this. Trying to apply their limited understanding of our existence to whatever happened at the 'beginning.' But, my opinion on the matter, is that something outside our scope of understanding happened.

In the end, it's basically like old-timey scientists applying the idea that the earth was flat, and coming to the conclusion you'd fall off the earth if you went far enough.

[MindForgedManacle]

You're not arguing against what I said.

But the point is that if you cannot infer God's existence because he conforms to none of the concepts humans encapsulate in words, then he is a nonsensical concept. It's functionally equivalent to saying:

"There is something I can't describe that exists in a way I can't describe; I can't even really say it 'exists' because it is beyond what I can describe."

See why that just reduces theism to tatters?