[lit-ideas] Re: Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence (was: Re: 9th edition of the EB)

  • From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, LLOYD MITCHELL <rmitchell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:52:52 -0330

This is too good to try and finesse out of. Nice thinking, Lloyd. Thanks for
that.

No towel over his head, 

Walter C. Okshevsky
Memorial University



Quoting LLOYD MITCHELL <rmitchell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> To John Wager et al.:
> 
> Do you people understand this idea of omniscience - i.e., all-knowing? Do 
> you have any questions about it? Or about anything at all? Is there any 
> question that you really wish you had the answer to, but don't? Do you 
> deeply, fervently *wonder* about anything at all? If so, then I don't see 
> how you aren't privy to a knowledge that an omniscient being cannot possibly
> 
> have: the knowledge of what it is to *wonder*, to be beset with a 
> *question*.
> 
> The god, says Diotima in the Symposium, is not a philosopher: he is already 
> wise. The wise being cannot be a *lover* of wisdom - cannot exist as driven 
> by the overwhelming desire to become what he is not: to become wise. to 
> *know* what he intensely recognizes that he does not know.
> 
> It seems to me, then, that there is at least one thing that the omniscient 
> being cannot know: what it is not to know something.
> 
> Lloyd Mitchell 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
> 



------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 11-2007