Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!houxm!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Yet Another Spurious Proof
Message-ID: <1237@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 13:41:10 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.1237
Posted: Mon Nov  4 13:41:10 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 05:40:20 EST
References: <1790@watdcsu.UUCP> <2004@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 24

> >Now, this proof that there is at least one true statement that Tom doesn't
> >know still works if we substitute the word "God" for "Tom".  So much for
> >omniscience.
> 
> Unfortunately, this argument is totally bogus when applied to God, possibly
> for multiple reasons.  Let us postulate that God has some sort of facility
> which erroneously recognizes false statements as true (a function which has
> some obvious utility).  We therefore have God's mind recognizing the
> statement as true.  Another part, presumably dealing only with true
> statements, realizes that the statement is in fact false (since He is
> recognizing it somewhere else).  So there is no paradox, and God is still
> omnicient (and without resort to semantics!).

      There never *was* a paradox, Charley.  Just as Goedel showed that
any *complete* formal system must be inconsistant, you've showed that
an omnoscient being is no paradox as long as it is inconsistant.
      Inconsistancy is considered a bad feature of formal systems.  I guess
the specs for gods are more relaxed.
> 
> Charley Wingate  umcp-cs!mangoe
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "What would Captain Kirk say?"