Re: The logic of atheism

Ben Goren wrote:
Paul Holbach wrote:
Paul Holbach wrote:

(3) Ox =def Ap((p & <>Kxp) -> Kxp)

It seems to me that at least this definition can cope with
Grim's "Strengthened Divine Liar".

By the way, this definition can also cope with what Grim calls
"The Essential Indexical Argument" (see his "The being that knew
too much"), because if there are things that only I and nobody
else can possibly know, then God can still be called omniscient
in the restricted sense, since it is not required that he know
things that are impossibly known /by him/.

Bingo!

Now, all that's left is the realization that Paul Holbach can
still be called omniscient in the restricted sense, since it is
not required that he know things that are impossibly known /by
him./ And, almost (but not quite) by definition, the things that
/are/ possibly known by Paul Holbach are perfectly coincidental
with the things that actually /are/ known by Paul Holbach.

Congratulations, Paul! You're omniscient! How's it feel?

I'm definitely not omniscient.
From "I possibly know /that/ p" it does follow that I actually know
that p, whereas from "I possibly know /whether/ p" it does not follow
that I actually know that p.
And neither from "Paul Holbach possibly knows /that/ p" nor from "Paul
Holbach possibly knows /whether/ p" it follows that Paul Holbach
actually knows that/whether p.

#PH

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The logic of atheism
    ... >> Paul Holbach is suggesting (assuming I understand him ... >> correctly) that, rather than an all-knowing entity, there ... Therefore, of course, no such fact could belong to an omniscient ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Re: The logic of atheism
    ... > Paul Holbach wrote: ... this definition can also cope with what Grim calls ... then God can still be called omniscient ... > in the restricted sense, since it is not required that he know ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Re: Liar paradox, one more time
    ... "Paul Holbach" wrote in message ... >> I don't blame you if you can't. ... means the Liar is a lie? ...
    (sci.logic)