• J Lou@mastodon.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    If we assume that god, by definition, must be omniscient, there is actually a way to disprove the possibility with the following paradox:

    This sentence is not known to be true by any omniscient being.

    There are also more traditional arguments like the problem of evil

    @science_memes

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      If we assume that god, by definition, must be omniscient

      Why must that be true by definition? Many of the Greek gods were clearly not omniscient, because the stories about them all involve intrigues and hiding things from each-other.

      Also, you can’t disprove a god’s existence by making a logic puzzle that’s hard for you to puzzle out. Just because it’s a toughie for you doesn’t mean that it disproves the existence of gods.

      That isn’t even a particularly difficult logic puzzle.

      • J Lou@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Self-referential paradoxes are at the heart of limitative results in mathematical logic on what is provable, so it seems plausible a similar self-referential statement rules out omniscience.

        Greek gods are gods in a different sense than the monotheistic conception of god that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Sure, so the argument I give only applies to the latter sense.

        @science_memes

        • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 minutes ago

          Man I don’t know if I’ll ever get over seeing Mastodon toots on Lemmy and all of the other wild cross-fediverse fun the Fediverse enables