I'm not sure I understand this part of the argument: "Similarly, omniscience involves knowing every truth—but how could one of them know truths about the other’s thoughts?" It is unclear to me what this means or why it shows there could not be "two Gods."
Then you should leave a comment on his post, requesting clarification.
Hey MSC, what I meant was that (ex hypothesi) since God's mind is not Jesus's mind, and vice versa, there is no evident reason that God could know what Jesus is thinking, and vice versa. But if they don't know what each other are thinking, then they don't know all truths, and they are not omniscient.Now, you could say that they just do know what each other are thinking, but this seems like special pleading in the absence of some explanation for where that knowledge comes from. It can't come about just as a result of their being omnipotent and able to do anything (including "taking" whatever knowledge they want), because we've already established that they are not omnipotent. Under Christianity, God knows all truths because he knows everything about himself, and about anything dependent on him (ie creation). But under this "two gods" hypothesis, Jesus is not dependent on God, and vice versa—so what would the relationship between them look like that would enable both to know all truths?
I understand the argument better. Thanks!
Steve, I thought you would like to know that Dale is over there trying to wax eloquent by his appeal to his understanding of Being and Self etc.