While I was over in San Diego, I "did lunch" with my internet pal pastor Gene Cook Jr.
During lunch an argument against theism hit me out of the blue, which I immediately tried out on my good friend the Pastor. He wasn't to impressed, but probably because he didn't understand that in fact.... it's pretty devestating.
Allow me to expand this argument a hair. What follows is the "slightly refined" version.
Note that to truly understand this type of argument in it's full depth, you must understand the concept of isomorphism, i.e. when two things are for all practical purpouses identical. (I wholeheartedly recommend reading Douglas Hofstadters "Gödel, Escher, Bach, an Eternal Golden Briad", since my argument is akin to Gödels incompleteness theorem).
Here's a slightly expanded variant compared to what I presented to Gene over Fish'n'Chips at the Yardhouse in San Diego:
- Imagine hypothetical God A. This God thinks he is omniscient and is right, he knows everything, including the fact that he is Omniscient. I.e. in his own opinion, as far as he knows, he is Omniscient. I.e. the mental state of God A which describes God A is 100% set that God A is indeed omniscient.
- Imagine hypothetical God B. This God thinks he is omniscient, but he is wrong. However, he is delusional, and hence thinks he knows everything, including the fact that he is Omniscient. I.e. in his own opinion, as far as he knows, he is Omniscient. I.e. the mental state of God B which describes God B is 100% set that God B is indeed omniscient.
- God A's view of God A's situation vis-a-vis omniscience is 100% isomorphic (i.e. identical) to God B's view of God B's situation under the same subject. I.e. their mental states are completely indistinguisable from one another.
- Since no external objective measure exists (according to theistic logic), it is impossible for God B to actually know that it is indeed not omniscient.
- Congruently (from symmetry), since there is no external objective measure, it is impossible for God A to actually know that he indeed IS Omniscient!
- Since we now have proven, indisputably, that no God (either A or B) actually can know if he himself is omniscient (due to having a mental state totally isomorphic with that of God B), we have cast a doubt over the claims of the Bible.
- Hence, we have put up a defeater for the presuppositionalist claim that God works as a precondition for intelligebility, since on the presupp. view, the "revelation from an omniscient creator" is needed for knoweledge, however, since we demonstrated that God's omniscience cannot be relied on, this compeltely topples their little circular house of cards.
- Furthermore, this argument falsifies omniscience itself, since we have proven there is at least one thing that no God actually can know.
*Badoom Psch*
Incidentally, meeting Gene was fun, the Fisn'n'Chips was very tasty, and I thank Jonathan "Vanvos" Goundry for treatin' me to them.
It's just a pity that grown (well, in Gene's case at least ;) ) men actually believe the kind of thing Gene believes, when it's simply so blatantly false.
/Z
3 comments:
Mr. Z,
Can you explain this statement:
- Since no external objective measure exists (according to theistic logic), it is impossible for God B to actually know that it is indeed not omniscient.
Perhaps I am missing something here as I am not all that familiar with Godel's theorem, which I believe was about first order logic and not about Supernatural beings....however it seems that there is a flaw in this argument.
God A is in fact the "external objective measure". God A as you wrote is correct in his belief about his own omniscience.
You seem to also import additional propositions into your argument e.g. that neither of these "gods" actually exist. Also God A's situation isn't isomorphic with God B's as God A is indeed correct.
Perhaps I am missing something here as I am not all that familiar with Godel's theorem, which I believe was about first order logic and not about Supernatural beings....however it seems that there is a flaw in this argument.
Not that I can see, no:
God A is in fact the "external objective measure". God A as you wrote is correct in his belief about his own omniscience.
Something cannot be the objective measure of itself, because if that worked, got B would be exactly as "right" as God A - because God B would think he is right, and the only measure is what he thinks is right, so his situation looks - to him - isomorphic to God A's.
So if you allow God A to be "his own objective measure", you shoot yourself in the foot, because then you allow God B to be "his own objective measure", and then his delusion of being right becomes the objective measure, and hence he is "right" even though he is factually wrong.
You seem to also import additional propositions into your argument e.g. that neither of these "gods" actually exist.
Actually, what I demonstrate is that the theistic God-concept is inherently incoherent, and self refuting.
Also God A's situation isn't isomorphic with God B's as God A is indeed correct.
But with no external measure, and and if allowing "self" as the "objective"[sic] measure, they are.
As a matter of fact, even to "omniscience", the knoweledge if you indeed are omniscient is beyond reach. You can just assume you are, even if you are God A.
I.e. God can at best operate on the assumption that he is Omniscient.
Which of course, in itself, isn't really omniscience (since this means there is somtehing he cannot know).
Which actually falsifies the entire concept.
Q.E.D.
/Z
Haha so you believe in two gods. Time to change the name of the blog.
Post a Comment