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?"