Can God know he is omniscient? The answer is probably no. God would not be able to prove it to himself, since knowledge is finite.
I am saying we can never know if there is more to know. The same goes for God. Given he knows everything about, lets say, the universe, because he created it, he still can't be certain of the existence other beings or knowledge he will never come across. .
The nature of truth also negates this argument, imo. Truth and knowledge presupposes a unity of diversity; a solution to the problem of the one and the many. This problem can only be solved by the equal ultimacy of both one and many, ontologically grounded in the triune God -- from the Christian perspective. Hence, either there is an ultimate grounding to all knowledge, like Scripture teaches, or there is no such thing as knowledge anyways. It is rampant chaos (ultimate plurality), or static oneness; neither of which can ground knowledge. Your argument hinges on the existence of knowledge (for a potentially larger set than what "God" knows), but talk of any knowledge presupposes its grounding in the mind of the trinity.
Mindblowing. Let me substitute the words so that it sounds like what a Muslim can potentially say.The nature of truth also negates this argument, imo. Truth and knowledge presupposes a unity of diversity; a solution to the problem of the one and the many. This problem can only be solved by the equal ultimacy of both one and many, ontologically grounded in the One God -- from the Muslim perspective. Hence, either there is an ultimate grounding to all knowledge, like Scripture teaches, or there is no such thing as knowledge anyways. It is rampant chaos (ultimate plurality), or static oneness; neither of which can ground knowledge. Your argument hinges on the existence of knowledge (for a potentially larger set than what "God" knows), but talk of any knowledge presupposes its grounding in the mind of the One.Your response is not even loaded it is a non-argument that is unfalsifiable.
@WillThis argument doesn't work with the Christian God, and it actually is used to disprove Triune views of reality just the same as your singular one. Since God is ultimately Three persons, Christian ontology is ultimately "Three." Thus, it falls prey to the problem of ultimate Threeness (it cannot account for co-ultimacy in one and many).Even if you could create a Christian version that was coherent, then your view is still false. Either way, you cannot account for knowledge on your worldview, therefore you cannot critique any other worldview (Islam) with knowledge. Or, you cannot construct your own view of knowledge (even if it is incoherent) and then equivocate that definition into the Muslim definition to disprove the Muslim God -- that would be begging the question. It is not falsifiable. But that is only natural. One cannot falsify the transcendental preconditions for knowledge, for falsification presupposes knowledge and therefore those transcendentals; but, that doesn't mean it is a "non-argument." It is just an indirect one.
Anything that is not falsifiable is not an argument. It's a delusion. There are infinite number of claims that can be made that are not falsifiable. Are all of them indirect arguments?
I think you didn't understand what I was doing. I was doing exactly what you did. Asserting claims without proof. I know what the words mean separately, I don't know what you're talking about when you say knowledge presupposes unity of diversity. Either it's something to be understood or you're spouting incoherent nonsense. Do you understand what falsifiable? It means the conclusion was based on an observation that would be wrong if there was some observation.
It is irrational to think that the logic we know will always be the same. Logic is falsifiable. If we observe that our logic does not work anymore than we have to change our rules of logic. I could say the last second seemed to behave according to logic. But if it is observed that the same apple can be at two different places at the same time, logic has to change. That was precisely done in Quantum Mechanics, where quantum logic is different from classical logic. We do not have enough knowledge to be certain that logic will always be like that. But in calculations we assume that it will be. That is to say, if x, then necessarily y. We do not say that x is necessary. This is not based on faith or certainty. This is based on assumptions. What I believe about reality does not alter reality. I can believe that the Big Bang Theory or Theory of Evolution is accurate, but I won't be surprise if it turned out to be wrong. It just means that some assumptions or observations were inaccurate. Our calculations will always falsifiable.
Why is ultimate oneness a problem?
Is your God also not ultimately one? Apparently Christians call themselves Monotheists and it is likely you are a Monotheist too.
Even if I cannot account for knowledge, what makes you think you can account for knowledge?
Maybe I haven't define what is knowledge. Knowledge is a set of propositions that a sentient being knows. Do you know that your left hand can touch your right hand? Just do it and you'll know. By that I mean by knowledge. The definition of knowledge does not change with a different 'worldview'. I could easily assert that even if you attempt to account for knowledge, you have been mistaken. Which is as nonsensical as everything you have asserted.
One also cannot falsify the assertion that the Holy and Great Bunny or the Holy and Magnificent Rat or Krishna or Zeus or Barnie or Elvis Presley is a precondition for knowledge.
How has knowledge got to do with unity of diversity? You can explain what you mean by that and the implications of 'unity of diversity' on knowledge. Really interested to see how the statement "Truth and knowledge presupposes a unity of diversity" can be explained or proven. It's a sentence that does not make sense and has no meaning.
I think I know what you are trying to get at. But knowledge does not presuppose a unity in diversity.
We recognize and know things by detecting a pattern, or a set of attributes.
Revelation does not account for knowledge. There are people who have don't know about 'revelations'. When we are babies we see that an apple is red and in that particular shape, that information is stored in our brain. Knowledge is information. We don't need revelation to classify and recognize what we see.
Then again how do you know your God is not finite? Knowledge is not grounded in necessary truths and laws of logic are not a necessity. They are necessary to describe what we observe. If logic changes according to our observations then our laws have to change.
And you use the Bible to support your claim. Remember that if you are a Calvinist there are Lutherans, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Unitarians, Seventh-day Adventists, Anglican. Just look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations. You belong to any one of them. All those who are not in the same group as you uses the same Bible. Yet every denomination claims to be right.
You use the Bible to support your claim that Zeus is finite, yet you claim that I am begging the question.
Given n amount of things that one knows how can he know that there are no n+1 things? In the scenario where God tries to prove to himself that he knows everything, he'll go: x is true. y is true. z is true.