Thomas Metcalf

In case anyone's interested, my paper that has been accepted to Religious Studies is available here:

http://students.washington.edu/tmetcalf/oamp.htm

The argument therein is basically this. Omnipotence means the ability to bring about any logically possible bring-about-able state of affairs. But here is a list of logically possible bring-about-able states of affairs that God cannot bring about:

1. Some person freely learns.
2. Some person freely does evil.
3. Some person freely commits suicide.
4. Some person freely stays out of my closet.

God is omniscient, so he cannot learn. God is morally perfect, so he cannot do evil. God is necessary, so he cannot commit suicide. And God is omnipresent, so God cannot stay out of my closet. So if states of affairs 1-4 are brought about, they are brought about only by someone other than God. If God brought them about, then he would be causing someone other than God freely to perform some action, but that's incoherent. If God caused me to do something, I didn't do it freely.

I'd be interested to see what some of you think of this argument. If I'm right, God cannot possibly exist, because God's omnipotence contradicts his omniscience, moral perfection, necessary existence, and omnipresence.

I ate Pascal's Wafer

I think it's a good argument against omnipotence, but I disagree that it means that God cannot exist. God, as defined, may not be able to exist, but I think it's conceivable that some god could exist yet lack omnipotence. I don't have a problem with the concept of a supernatural deity who created the world, yet is not omniscient or omnipotent.

Other than that, I really like it. Too many theists readily assert that their deity is omniscient, omnipotent, etc. They are unwilling to admit that their beloved friend just might not be able to do everything or know everything. It's a good argument to present to those types, in my opinion. It would create a dilemma in their minds that they would not immediately have an answer to. They won't admit that God is not all powerful, and they will be stuck trying to logically defend the assertion that God really is all powerful.

-Nick

The_Unknown_Banana

[edit]Admittedly, this is just working off your opening post, without reading your whole argument. Perhaps I should do so! (Doh. )

Ok, assuming I understand this argument correctly... I'm going to assume what some theist answers might be.

Committing suicide: Well, He already did kind of commit suicide through Jesus, but survived. Since he can do anything, he can also commit suicide and ressurect himself? (Does this count?)

Not being present in your cupboard: Just because god is omnipresent, doesn't mean he isn't capable of limiting his powers should the need arise?

Doing evil: Just because god is morally perfect, doesn't mean he isn't capable of doing it surely? Just as I have the ability to murder someone, but I wouldn't?

Learning: Well, if he knows everything... however, perhaps that only applies to this universe. What if there are things for him to learn outside of this existance, which we don't understand?

Am I understanding your argument correctly?

student738

Hi.

I have every intention of considering the entirety of your paper and offering to the best of my ability, a cogent response. I hope to satisfy this intention in this sitting, but I feel compelled to first deal with a preliminary matter.

I find your introductory paragraph to be blatantly, and I surmise, intentionally, overstated, pompous, and written to incite a response.

Thomas Metcalf said:
To be quite frank with you, had I encountered this (what should rightly be considered) preposterous claim in nearly any other paper or text, whether I were reading it at leisure or while conducting research, I would not have given the author the benefit of the doubt as having any ability to conduct himself or herself in an informed, credible, and engaging way.

To claim as you do in the previous excerpt is to suggest that atheism has no quarrel with, to give an example, a considerable number of contemporary Christians. An argument 'by definition', is in this case just what we might suspect: an argument against a particular definition. All the contemporary Christian convinced of the truth of your assertion need reply, is, "Oh, yes, by 'God' I mean that being which satisfies all requirements of omnipotence except those incompatible with the truth of your assertion." Not only is this not in and of itself an intellectually bankrupt or hopelessly disingenuous response, it instead represents the culmination of that very process by which we as individuals or we as intellectuals refine and reform our definitions concerning what we take to be the world around us. To claim that atheism would have no quarrel with this revised position, or to claim more particularly that this is so as the revised position no longer qualifies as theism, as I must suspect you do, is simply and thoroughly absurd.

My response to your paper is forthcoming. I look forward to reading it. in its entirety.

NonContradiction

There is a difference between will and action. You have a will, independent of God, but your action is completely dependent upon whether or not God allows the action. No one freely learns, no one freely does evil, and no one freely commits suicide. You can only freely will to learn, will to do evil, or will to commit suicide. Your action, which is separate from your will, is completely dependent upon God willing the action or not.

rainbow walking

Hi Thomas,
I think your argument, though well written and intentioned, hinges on a rather liberal definition of "freely". If you mean willfully "bring about" then certainly a god's will plays a role in any action or state of affairs it is assumed to have instantiated. If you use "freely" in its most liberal connotation you ignore the verifiable evidence of determinism that reduces, if not completely conflates "freely" out of range of your conclusion.

Philosoft

Why so? Thomas' claim is a tautology. He'll have a sound deductive argument iff he can show he has a sound deductive argument. How is this "overstated" or "pompous"?

What does "the benefit of the doubt" have to do with the validity of Thomas' argument? Are you aware that you have done nothing but engage in ad hominem thus far, apparently because you don't like Thomas' writing style?

Why do you think you can assume all this by a perfunctory reading of his initial paragraph?
I might have thought you would save your reasoned criticism for the paper itself, rather than engage in pre-emptive well-poisoning. Whatever, it's your two pence.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by I ate Pascal's Wafer :

Well, right, it's just an argument against the existence of the god of the apologists.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by The_Unknown_Banana :

I don't think so. To commit suicide is to end the existence of oneself as a person. God could never do that, because he exists necessarily.

But that's like saying I have the ability to fly under my own power, because sometime in the future I might grow feathery wings. God, with his current set of properties, cannot stay out of my closet. If he changed his properties, then sure, but as things stand now he is incapable of staying out of my cupboard. In my paper, I define capability such that S is capable of T if there is a possible world in which a being with S's intrinsic properties performs T. There's no possible world in which an omnipresent being performs "staying out of my closet."

There is no possible world in which a being with God's properties does evil. So if you have a different definition of "capability" than mine, I encourage you to present it.

I think omniscience means knowing absolutely everything.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by student738 :

That's an awfully strange thing to say. The Religious Studies referees had no quarrel with it. I'm simply giving, as part of my introduction, an assessment of the consequences of my argument for the god of the apologists. I'm noting that what's under consideration here is a deductive argument. I'm not sure how devoting two sentences to this subject is overstated or pompous.

And thereby grant my conclusion: the omnipotent, omniscient God cannot exist. You'll find a great many theists who are willing to contest my position, which makes it seem to me that they wish to preserve God's maximal greatness as Anselm would wish.

I've never stated, implied, or committing myself to anything inextricable from this claim. You seem to be reading quite a bit into my paper. I'm claiming that a maximally great being cannot exist, which would mean positive atheism with respect to such a being is rationally inescapable.