I came across this today: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ryan_stringer/learning.html
In it the author, Ryan Stringer, offers a logical “proof” of how God does not exist. I read and thought it a great proof. But it stumbles at premise three.
Ryan would have you believe, that “A being’s omniscience entails, among other things, that it has all experiential knowledge.” He alleges this to be “necessary truth.”
At first glance, it would seem to most people to be an acceptable premise… but is it? I don’t think so.
It seems that for the premise to be true, God is ONLY omniscient. But there are other things we know about God. One that is the most offensive to us is that He is holy. That means He does not sin.
Even his offered salvage of the argument fails, considering that God is holy. Case being, to support his contrivance, he necessitates it is logically possible for God to learn. I don’t think so. If he has already granted the premise that God is omniscient… it is not logically possible there is anything left to learn.
So thinking as men do, we limit God by our minds, when it ought to be the other way.
God, being holy, does not know what it is like to sin. As it is evidenced by this, that this so-called experiential truth is not necessary to omniscience in any way. It destroys premise three, and anything conclusive is incorrect, save that there is experiential knowledge humans have that it is impossible for God to have.
Print This Post
Text filed under Apologetics, news | Tags: God, omniscience | Comments Off on This Stuff Hurts Brains, Don’t Try it at Home