2012-07-11, 05:30 PM
First of all, I'd like to point out that generations of philosophers, theologists, and other thinkers have been raising and demolishing these arguments for hundreds of years.
We could, of course, try to develop it all, all over again. Maybe we'll end up breaking the stalemate once and for all. Or maybe we'll have yet another crashed thread.
I'd like to start by pointing out the contradiction between omniscience and omnipotence. (For a more entertaining discussion, see Frank Herbert's "Dune Messiah"). "Omniscience" means all-knowing. This means, for example, that God knows exactly where the next drop of rain will fall. "Omnipotence" means all-powerful. Does this mean God can make that raindrop fall elsewhere? Even half a millimeter east of where he knows it will fall?
Well, no, because that would render his previous knowledge incorrect.
But what kind of omnipotent being is it that can't move a drop of rain?
So you say he knew he would change it? Fine. Can he then decide not to change it after all?
The answer usually given is something along the lines that to God, all eternity is now. There is no time. There is no change. All that he knows is all that there is, in all four dimensions, and there is no question of "changing his mind" and "previous knowledge" because there is no "previous" and no "after all".
This is what I meant when I said, in the other thread, that in order to resolve the contradiction you must take God out of Time and Causality, which makes it very hard to agree on a set of premises and rules of deduction from which to work "rationally".
As for "omnibenevolence", that is an empty concept. If you define God as good, then you have a tautology but you don't have a definition. Any entity would be "omnibenevolent" if "good" were defined to be what that entity does.
If you want to use that word to define "God", you must find a definition of "good" that is independent of "God".
We could, of course, try to develop it all, all over again. Maybe we'll end up breaking the stalemate once and for all. Or maybe we'll have yet another crashed thread.
I'd like to start by pointing out the contradiction between omniscience and omnipotence. (For a more entertaining discussion, see Frank Herbert's "Dune Messiah"). "Omniscience" means all-knowing. This means, for example, that God knows exactly where the next drop of rain will fall. "Omnipotence" means all-powerful. Does this mean God can make that raindrop fall elsewhere? Even half a millimeter east of where he knows it will fall?
Well, no, because that would render his previous knowledge incorrect.
But what kind of omnipotent being is it that can't move a drop of rain?
So you say he knew he would change it? Fine. Can he then decide not to change it after all?
The answer usually given is something along the lines that to God, all eternity is now. There is no time. There is no change. All that he knows is all that there is, in all four dimensions, and there is no question of "changing his mind" and "previous knowledge" because there is no "previous" and no "after all".
This is what I meant when I said, in the other thread, that in order to resolve the contradiction you must take God out of Time and Causality, which makes it very hard to agree on a set of premises and rules of deduction from which to work "rationally".
As for "omnibenevolence", that is an empty concept. If you define God as good, then you have a tautology but you don't have a definition. Any entity would be "omnibenevolent" if "good" were defined to be what that entity does.
If you want to use that word to define "God", you must find a definition of "good" that is independent of "God".