Two Mereological Arguments Against the Possibility of an Omniscient Being

Philo 9 (1):62-72 (2006)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
In this paper I present two new arguments against the possibility of an omniscient being. My new arguments invoke considerations of cardinality and resemble several arguments originally presented by Patrick Grim. Like Grim, I give reasons to believe that there must be more objects in the universe than there are beliefs. However, my arguments will rely on certain mereological claims, namely that Classical Extensional Mereology is necessarily true of the part-whole relation. My first argument is an instance of a problem first noted by Gideon Rosen and requires an additional assumption about the mereological structure of certain beliefs. That assumption is that an omniscient being’s beliefs are mereological simples. However, this assumption is dropped when I present my second argument. Thus, I hope to show that if Classical Extensional Mereology is true of the part-whole relation, there cannot be an omniscient being
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-11-09
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Mereology.Varzi, Achille C.
Naming and Necessity.Kripke, Saul A.
Parts of Classes.Lewis, David K.
Parts of Classes.Potter, Michael

View all 19 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Problems with Plurals.Rasmussen, Joshua & Pruss, Alexander R.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
131 ( #28,825 of 50,260 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
22 ( #26,880 of 50,260 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.