Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Yet Another Spurious Rebuttal Message-ID: <2134@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 23:02:55 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2134 Posted: Wed Nov 6 23:02:55 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 01:58:36 EST References: <1790@watdcsu.UUCP> <2004@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1840@watdcsu.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 42 >>>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. >Charley's brief description above is less than clear. Due largely to an important typo. >[A] statement, S, was constructed which, in effect, >stated that "S cannot be recognized as true by the mind of God" (but >didn't actually contain such a direct self-reference). If God could >recognize S as true, then this would contradict S, thus S would be >false and God would be mistaken. Thus it follows that God *can't* >recognize S as true, thus S is true. And God doesn't know it. One can therefore also extrapolate that, not knowing anything false, He cannot be aware of this argument either; if He knew this argument, and since he (presumably) could not recognize the statement as true, he would then be in a position to recognize that the statement WAS true. ["paradox alert" light begins flashing at this point] Now, wait a minute! Let's take God out of there a minute, and put in Charley Wingate. *I* do know this argument. *I* recognize this statement (correctly) as paradoxical. I can't recognize it as true, because then the statement itself indicates it to be false. But if I can't recognize it as true, then the argument tells me that the statement is true, and therefore I recognize it as being true! Paradox! So I recognize it as being paradoxical. NOW what happens? The statement then becomes true, and therefore the argument tells me that the statement is true, and therefore there is a contradiction, and therefore a paradox. See? It really IS paradoxical. So much for that argument. Obviously one can put God back in there and achieve the same results. P.S.: It doesn't help to argue that I am not a formal system. No one ever said that God was one, after all. P.P.S.: We can go ahead and throw my original argument out the window. Charley Wingate