Kevin Wampler wrote:
> On 11/11/2010 1:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>> How so? I only see an obvious argument like that for a particular sort
>>> of omnipotent God, rather than a merely omniscient one.
>>
>> If God is omniscient, then he knows whether every program will halt or 
>> not.
>>
> 
> Sure, but I don't see how that's a logical contradiction.   All it means
> is that God has abilities/knowledge that are non-algorithmic 

I didn't say it was impossible. I said it was illogical, by which I meant 
logically contradictory. I don't think you can use algorithmic logic to 
disprove the existence of everything that isn't algorithmic logic.

> still possible to logically reason to a degree about things which are 
> non-computable, 

Sure.

> and certainly no logical contradiction in asserting the 
> existence (at least in a Platonic sense) of things which aren't computable.

Logical inevitability, actually, since we've already proven such things 
exist logically.

> The furthest I can see your argument being pushed would be to limit the 
> sort of reasoning we can apply when talking about God, where it implies 
> that we can't know *everything* about God through logic, but I don't see 
> how it implies that we can't know *anything*, or that the sort of 
> omniscience you describe is incompatible with logic.

Well, the usual argument is that God can't exist because the following 
features of God are logically contradictory: Omniscience, free will, 
omnipotence, etc etc etc.

I'm pointing out that if you accept God is omniscient at all, then you have 
proven that God is not constrained by (formal) logic, at which point trying 
to prove his nonexistence via logic isn't going to work. Or you're going to 
have to use some other form of logic (maybe one that's paraconsistent) in 
order to reason logically about omniscient creatures.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message