Science Memes

10760 readers

3268 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

831

Eat lead (mander.xyz)

submitted 12 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

170 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] merc 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

That's not a paradox though, it's a silly logic puzzle that isn't hard to solve. It doesn't prove or disprove anything about omniscience or gods.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It is a paradox if you believe there are omniscient beings. If there are no omniscient beings, there is no paradox. The sentence is either true or false. If the sentence is true, we have an omniscient being that lacks knowledge about a true statement. Contradiction. If it is false, there is an omniscient being that knows it to be true. This means that the statement is true, but the statement itself says that no omniscient being knows it to be true. Contradiction.

@science_memes

[–] merc 1 points 44 minutes ago

It's not a paradox, it's a dumb logic puzzle. It's no different than saying something nonsensical like "This sentence contains 2 words".

If it is false, there is an omniscient being that knows it to be true

No, if it is false, then it is simply wrong. A wrong sentence doesn't imply something else is right, it's just wrong.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 40 minutes ago

I didn't notice until you said something. Wild.