In this thread by user guide, we get something similar to what iambiguous does…
Iambiguous argues that unless you know everything, you can’t know anything.
Guide argues that if you know everything, you can’t know anything.
Iambiguous completely avoided my disproof of omniscience, and my thread on objective morality.
Iambiguous states that to know anything, you must know everything.
To which I offered “knowing that you don’t know something is a specific form of knowledge that a being who knows “everything” cannot have, this, unless it knows nothing, it cannot know what it’s like to be all of us”. The conclusion being, god exists and doesn’t exist at the same time.
I went a step further with iambiguous, who states that morality is not objective if you can’t prove every minutia … to this, I have the thought experiment about every being being able to destroy existence by mere instantaneous thought… we can prove simply by being here that this never occurs. The proof in this scenario, is that everyone who exists has decided that existence has purpose, this we can conclude perfect ethics, because if any being decided that there was only 99.9999% ethics and have this power, none of us would exist. Just because iambiguous is not smart enough to solve ALL ethics equations, doesn’t mean inferentially that they don’t all exist.
I additionally state, that if you enjoy something, say, smoking cigarettes… you have, like anything enjoyed, a limitation of some sort. You have air, you can breathe, you have a way to get it to your mouth, you have lungs. Those are all limitations, however, those limitations, like everything we enjoy, are necessary for our enjoyment … as is true for all enjoyments. Iambiguous and guide speak of the limitations and the limitlessness allowing for no objectivity. To even be limitless, you need the limit of continuity of consciousness.
One thing I will assert for certain, is that these types of arguments are simply put forth to attract females to males. Females only select contradictory males.
I’ll offer another analogy… if I ask for spill room, or walking room, or room for cream with a coffee order, it doesn’t have to be exact to be perfect. Another concept iambiguous seems not to understand when he bloviates about this in nonsense.