Visiting, once again, Donald Rumsfeld’s (i am sure he wasn’t the first on this tack btw!) contribution to the field of Epistemology and its potential impact on God.
In Rumsfeldian terms the problem is this. Is it logically possible for the status of the set ‘unknown unknowns’ to be a known known? Especially considering if, as I assert, it is a set that contains itself!
I first mentioned this idea in my recent video:
“Hovind vs Thunderf00t: Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions. ”
This video kicked up a few comments on the subject and several people asked me to expand on the argument which I am more than happy to do.
To quote Donald Rumsfeld:
“[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns — there are things we do not know we don’t know.”
It seems to me that, by definition unknown unknowns are something that preclude certainty over omniscience. primarliy because even IF no tother unknown unknowns existed at least one unknown unknown ALWAYS exists – and that is the status of the set [unknown unknowns] itself.
Here I present that argument and give an example