[H/T Inspiring Philosophy]
The above video presents the following argument:
1. For all p, if p is unknowable, then p is necessarily false (premise).
2. The proposition “God does not exist”, is necessarily unknowable (premise).
3. Therefore, the proposition “God does not exist”, is necessarily false.
I find this argument interesting, especially since (1) is very similar to a crucial premise in my knowability argument for omniscience. So my premise states: (∀p)(p ⊃ ◊(∃x)Kxp), or for all p, if p is true, then it is possible that p is known by someone. The modal epistemic argument above tells us something like: (∀p)(~◊(∃x)Kxp) ⊃ □~p). It would be interesting if one could derive the existence of omniscient mind, and the existence of God from two independent arguments that utilize the same knowability premise. This means that knowability really stands against the naturalist, and I think some good arguments can be made to support it. My ears perked up when the narrator mentioned some of the realists and idealists who would be willing to grant the knowability premise: Aristotle and Hegel. I’ve noticed that anti-realists like Dummett and realists like Aquinas also endorse the knowability premise. So, it is something to consider.