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