Omniscience vs. Bed Hair
BackFrom MikeCampochiaro...
"2. If God is Omniscient then He has knowledge of varing degrees of possible plans for humanity from absolute greatest to absolute least greatest or maximally excellent to most inadequate, and the ability to rank them accordingly."
Source...
My refutation of Omniscience...
P: somebody gots omniscience (as per #2 above)
Q: there exists a set of all true propositions, K
R: there are true propositions about sets of propositions
S: there exists a set of true propositions about members of the power set of K, K'
T: K' is a member of K
U: K is greater than or equal to K'
1. P -- (Q & R)
2. (Q & R) -- S
3. (Q & S) -- T
4. T -- U
5. S -- !U
6. (Q & R) -- (U & !U)
7. !(U & !U)
8. !(Q & R)
9. !P
Channel: Education
Uploaded: April 20, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Author: urbanelf
Length: 00:10:20
Rating: 4.80
Views: 254
Tags: mikecampochiaro omniscience cantorian argument set theory infinity
Video Comments:
louskank (July 8, 2008 at 1:37 am)
I kind of wish I didn't stumble upon these sets of videos because this hurts my head. Here's the thing...we can apply all this philosophical minutia to the tooth fairy, Zeus and even make believe friends we had when we were kids. If god is omniscient and we're all rockin' his plan right now...how is it that there are so many religions, philosophies, and ideas of who god is. If the best plan is to confuse everyone and let people just figure all of this out...that is even crazier this argument.
youmeandsomeknives (April 29, 2008 at 7:47 pm)
I'd no idea you'd met Mike.
Simple explanation of the fault of that god =
1. God must be omnipotent to create all things.
2. To be all powerful he/she/it must know all (omnisciencent).
3. far a being to claim free-will, while being the creation by such a being defies logic - it was known to be, and thus must be - in other words: no self-determination, only the illusion of such. In truth there cannot be contradiction, or it cannot be truth...
;)
Simple explanation of the fault of that god =
1. God must be omnipotent to create all things.
2. To be all powerful he/she/it must know all (omnisciencent).
3. far a being to claim free-will, while being the creation by such a being defies logic - it was known to be, and thus must be - in other words: no self-determination, only the illusion of such. In truth there cannot be contradiction, or it cannot be truth...
;)
urbanelf (April 30, 2008 at 1:44 pm)
Hello,
I see your point, but I'm not a big fan of the "free-will vs. omniscience" argument and here's why: When you're trying to show a contradiction between 2 supernatural concepts it is very easy for your opponent to change the definition of one of them and slip away. Supernatural things tend to be rather poorly defined in the first place.
I see your point, but I'm not a big fan of the "free-will vs. omniscience" argument and here's why: When you're trying to show a contradiction between 2 supernatural concepts it is very easy for your opponent to change the definition of one of them and slip away. Supernatural things tend to be rather poorly defined in the first place.
bitbutter (April 22, 2008 at 8:23 am)
I'm afraid i don't understand the notation: but is your argument along the lines of:
If there was a set of all knowledge (a) this fact constitutes a new thing to be known (b) thus invalidating a's status as omnipotentce?
If there was a set of all knowledge (a) this fact constitutes a new thing to be known (b) thus invalidating a's status as omnipotentce?
urbanelf (April 22, 2008 at 10:27 am)
This has to do with different sizes of infinity from set theory...
If there was an infinite set of all knowledge (a) there would exist facts about the different combinations of knowledge, (b) these new facts belong to the original set making them a smaller infinity, but (c) the method we used to derive them means they must be a larger infinity.
If there was an infinite set of all knowledge (a) there would exist facts about the different combinations of knowledge, (b) these new facts belong to the original set making them a smaller infinity, but (c) the method we used to derive them means they must be a larger infinity.
urbanelf (April 22, 2008 at 10:28 am)
Look up Cantor's Paradox. That's essentially the idea I'm trying to envoke.
urbanelf (April 21, 2008 at 6:07 pm)
Sorry to harrass you, but I was worried about your mental health. I think I need to slightly modify 'R' so that R is "There is at least one true AND unique proposition about every set." Every set could always be described by it's contents in a unique way, i.e., "Set X contains A,B, and C"
It still seems crazy.
It still seems crazy.
urbanelf (April 21, 2008 at 2:07 pm)
Hello Mike,
I think I'm actually trying to apply Cantor's Paradox to Omniscience, but I will do the homework assignment on Wittgenstein.
Is there a reason why you reject Cantor's ideas of degrees of infinity?
Re: "Interesting video but little relation to my argument since propositions about worlds God did not create are not true."
It relates only tangentially. I thought your statement in #2 would support Q&R. And even if propositions about non-existent worlds are not true...
I think I'm actually trying to apply Cantor's Paradox to Omniscience, but I will do the homework assignment on Wittgenstein.
Is there a reason why you reject Cantor's ideas of degrees of infinity?
Re: "Interesting video but little relation to my argument since propositions about worlds God did not create are not true."
It relates only tangentially. I thought your statement in #2 would support Q&R. And even if propositions about non-existent worlds are not true...
urbanelf (April 21, 2008 at 2:07 pm)
... how does that undermine my argument?
urbanelf (April 21, 2008 at 1:47 pm)
Hey... yes. I think that (Q&R) -> ~(Q&R), BUT you have to also accept modern set theory. I think Q&R together functionally reproduces the the problem with "the set of all sets" which is Cantor's Paradox.
Also, it was weird... since you pointed out that Q&R are inconsistent every time I recite Q&R to myself I laugh out loud because it sounds so silly.
Also, it was weird... since you pointed out that Q&R are inconsistent every time I recite Q&R to myself I laugh out loud because it sounds so silly.