Difference between revisions of "Omnipotence and Omniscience Arguments"

Revision as of 02:20, 12 May 2018

The Omnipotence Paradox and the Omniscience Paradox are separate arguments, but they are both variations of a common theme -- that the popular conception of God cannot exist because the intrinsically self-contradicting properties of omnipotence (being all-powerful) and omniscience (being all-knowing). These arguments cannot prove God's nonexistence; they prove that God suffers from limitations -- God can exist, but not “as-advertised,” because he is a “lowercase-g” god. However, these limits synergistically reinforce each other, and contribute to the Problem of Evil. The end result demonstrates that god is not all-knowing and not all-powerful, because the nature of omnipotence and omniscience requires the two to come as a matched set. Since God cannot be both or either, he is then neither, as illustrated in the truth table below:^[1]

Type-1 gods are tragic, saintly figures who genuinely want to invoke positive change, but lack the means or ability to do so. While they may have great knowledge (like Cassandra) or great power (like Odin preparing for Ragnorök), these will ultimately be insufficient.

Type-2 gods are not all-powerful, all-knowing, or all-loving; they cannot truly be considered gods per se, as any and all humans also meet this criterion. If beings with immense knowledge or power existed, it is unclear why anyone would want to worship them, as their literary counterparts tend to be:

• Absorbed in their private agendas and concerns; e.g., Q, Dream, or Dr. Manhattan.
• Largely indifferent to human affairs; e.g., Crom.
• Overtly malevolent; e.g., Cthulhu, or Thanos (while in possession of the Infinity Gauntlet).
• Mundane. David Hasselhoff is a Type-2 god who possesses miraculous power, as indicated by his abnormally-high CPR success rates, as well as those of his Baywatch pantheon. While seems like a joke, the miracles of the saints are based on less evidence than any grainy VHS tape could provide.

Worshiping a Type-2 god is functionally the same as having no god at all. The creation of man could have occurred through natural processes independently of a Type-2 god, who may also be the product of natural processes.

Details of these paradoxes are listed below.

The Omnipotence Paradox

The Omnipotence Paradox discusses the theological implications of the Irresistible Force Paradox, commonly stated as the Paradox of the Stone (“Could God create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?”), or as a question of that form (e.g., “Can God create a prison so secure that he could not escape from it?”). This argument has existed since antiquity, but was not relevant to Christianity until the late-1100s, when counterarguments were needed to stop the influence of emergent sects, such as the Cathars, who did not believe in an all-powerful God.

Scripture credits the notion that God is not all-powerful:

• God was unable to overcome the people in the valley, who possessed iron chariots (JUDG 1:19).
• God required 6 days to create the earth (GEN 1:1-31), An all-powerful God could have done this in an instant.^[2]
• God rested after creating the Earth (GEN 2:2).^[2] An all-powerful being would not require rest, or need to feel refreshed.
• Assuming that Trinitarianism is true, then God is not omnipotent, since Christ was not all-powerful, despite being imbued with all of God’s powers and abilities.
• The fact that God even needs to invoke power is evidence that he faces challenges, problems, hurdles, and needs.^[3] Power, in any of its forms, is something that is used to influence one’s environment to solve problems. An all-powerful God would have the power to preclude such events, and thus avoid the need for exercising power.^[4]

Additionally, the idea that God is not all-powerful is a reoccurring theme in the Christian tradition:

• It is often claimed that God has a plan for all of us, but why would an all-powerful being need to plan? Why would such a being need to take steps to meet their goals, instead of just creating the final result outright?
• If God can be moved by prayer, then mankind has acquired and shares in his omnipotence.^[5]
• The fact that God so desperately wanted to be loved that he would die for each of us implies that we have some degree of power over God.^[6]
• It is accepted that God is unable to stop his followers from being unjustly harmed from natural disasters and other “Acts of God.”^[7] Modern Christian apologists have tried to reconcile this by:
  • A variety of variations of the “God works in mysterious ways” platitude.
  • Accepting the scientific explanation of natural phenomena, but only because it can absolve God from direct responsibility for anything tragic or disorderly.^[8]
  • Ignoring the death, destruction, or mayhem, and focusing on the “miraculous” stories of survivors.^[8]

Those who would claim that God does not have to be infinitely powerful to counteract the largest possible force in the universe are forgetting that God supposedly created the universe out of himself.^[3] The argument of limited omnipotence (sufficient power to do anything that would ever need to be done) implies that God has a restriction on how large a universe he could create. Could he have created a universe 20 times more massive than the current one? Five thousand times more massive? If not, he is not omnipotent. The old riddle is not entirely inapt: can God create a stone so large that he can’t lift it? Either way, God emerges short of omnipotence. Avoiding the question by claiming that God would never want to do such a thing implies that God’s power has bounds, and that he is a slave to his own character.^[3]

Theologians have tried to counter this argument, but in doing so, they establish limits, which inadvertently verifies the argument. For example:

• Theologians work to redefine the term omnipotent only refer to the logically possible, since being all-powerful, by definition, includes being able to do impossible tasks, like drawing square circles. This inability, and the lack of these impossible creations is (strangely) cited as a proof of God’s existence, since only an impossible being could perform these impossible tasks.^[9]
• The Paradox of the Stone is often countered by avoiding the question and claiming that God would never want to do such a thing. However, this implies that God’s power has bounds, since he is a slave to his own character and predictability.^[3]

The Omniscience Paradox

The property of omniscience comes bundled with a number of unresolvable problems and conundrums, because they are intrinsic properties of omniscience itself. These are outlined in the attached flowchart.

God’s Willingly Complacency

If God knows everything, then he must know what all of your future thoughts would be, otherwise he would be some-knowing instead of all-knowing. This implies that God remained complacently silent in the face of fascists, Klansmen, and the whole litany of horrors which mankind has dealt upon itself;^[10] God knew all of these things would happen, yet did nothing to stop them. Likewise, God knowns how many children he will kill with each of his earthquakes and tsunamis, and knowingly sits on his hands as the tragedy unfolds.

Additionally, if God knows all, they prayer is a waste of time, since God would already know your wants and desires. Prayer then reduced to busywork, to keep the conscious mind too preoccupied to think or cause trouble.^[11]

Freewill Does not Exist

If God knows all of your future thoughts, then he already knows what you will think, act, do, and say before you ever do it. There is no reason for God to test or to try any man, because God would already know what the outcome will be. As a result of this, humans would have no freewill; we would merely carryout the orderly, clockwork actions of God’s pre-determined plans. While you may claim to have freewill, the illusion of freewill is just a part of God’s plan, which includes all of our predetermined opinions regarding freewill.

The Bible offers no solace to this dilemma, speaking in ambiguities and hedging its bets. While there are fleeting references to human freewill in both the Old (JOSH 24:15; PRO 1:29) and New Testaments (LUK 7:30), God never explicitly ascribes that power to man (While Paul speaks about making a choice in PHIL 1:22, this is done in the context of having no real choice.^[11]

For god to know everything, he must know himself, meaning he must anticipate what he was going to know what he would think next, setting up an infinite loop.

This line of thought become more convoluted when one realizes that means to be all-knowing entails knowing all-thoughts -- including all of God’s future thoughts. An all-knowing God would then have no freewill; God cannot change his mind, because he already knows all of his final decisions. However, if God lacks the power or ability to change his mind, then he cannot be all-powerful.

God is not Omniscient

The only real way to quell these disquieting thought is to deny the omniscience of God, since these problems are caused by the concept of omniscience, and not with God per se. God can exist, but not “as-advertised.” This notion is reinforced by scriptures, which gives multiple examples of things which God did not know.

References

1. ↑ Personal conversation with Paul Draper, c.September 2008.
2. ↑ ^{2.0 2.1} V. J. Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis (Prometheus Books, 2008).
3. ↑ ^{3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3} D. Barker, Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists (Ulysses Press, 2008).
4. ↑ L. Kaminski and M. Bagley, Fantastic Four, vol. 1, #351 (Marvel Comics, 1991).
5. ↑ B. Russell, What I Believe (Routledge Classics, 2004).
6. ↑ T. Keller, Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (Penguin Books, 2009).
7. ↑ A. S. LaVey, The Satanic Bible (Avon, 1969).
8. ↑ ^{8.0 8.1} D. Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Ulysses Press, 2006).
9. ↑ G. H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Prometheus Books, 2016).
10. ↑ B. Russell, edited by P. Edwards, Why I Am Not a Christian (Touchstone, 1967).
11. ↑ ^{11.0 11.1} E. D. Cohen, Mind of the Bible-Believer (Prometheus Books, 1988).