Two of the Three Questions Answered

I am taking a philosophy of religion class. So far, we are going over the three main traits that God is generally thought to possess: omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-benevolence. We've covered some of the problems with each of these and a few possible answers but none of the answers have been satisfactory. Eventually during the class I want to get up yelling "No, no, no. That is not how you should think about it! Look, try this." It doesn't take me long to come up with solutions for the drawbacks to each answer. I don't like in class speaking so I'll just write my solutions here. Maybe I'll print it off and hand it to her one of these days.

The first problem is the nature of God's omnipotence. The classic question about this is "Can God create a stone so heavy even He could not lift it?" The answers given to this are generally paradoxical. Consider that God did make such a stone in our universe. It would have to have some sort of infinite force to oppose whatever force God uses to attempt to lift it. Since both forces would be infinite the stone cannot be lifted. Simple physics. However, God could just change the rules of the universe and make the stone possible lift again. The argument is that since God could lift it by doing this then there is something he cannot do; make an stone He cannot lift. Hence the paradox since omnipotence means He is all-powerful. I disagree with the direction of thought on this. It seems that omnipotence also has a component of will to it. Without God's will no such stone would come into creation in the first place. Until God takes an action that negates his own omnipotence he is omnipotent. Saying he could not negate His omnipotence would mean He is not omnipotent. If he were to commit an action, which negates his omnipotence, then he would not be any less powerful. The stone is a bad example since it does not specifically account for God changing the rules. Lets consider that He makes the rules in such a way that He cannot change them and creates the stone. Is the stone any greater than God who is omnipotent? No, the stone can never be more powerful than God because even with its infinite force it is no more than equal to God's infinite power. By refraining from creating the stone God is merely maintaining his omnipotence. So the definition of omnipotence should mean He could do anything He chooses to.

The second problem is that of omniscience. How can God be omniscient and humans have free will? Being omniscient means He is all knowing. The accepted definition of knowing is to have a justified true belief. Omniscience follows easily from omnipotence since He is all-powerful it would be possible for Him to be omniscient. The answer here is simple. There are a multitude of possible universes. Humans are free to choose so at each decision point they change the universe making it into one of the possible ones. The supposed catch is that if God is all knowing then He must have known which one you would choose. I reject this as foolish thinking because it relies on the idea that there is such a thing as a future. I propose that the only time that exists is the present. The future by its very definition does not exist yet. If something does not exist then there is nothing to be known about it other than its nonexistence. When a person makes a decision God knows what that decision is. There is nothing further he needs to do to show that He is omniscient since there is no future to know. But wait what about the past? If there is a past then we are that past’s future so doesn't that show that a future exists? No, because there is no past. The universe only exists in the present. The memories we have of what we call the past are formed and maintained in the present. They reflect states and changes to those states of the universe. Time equals change. So there is no past and no future only the present and change. God has an infinite memory by virtue of His omnipotence. End of story.

The third problem is the problem of evil. I think I'll wait to discuss this one. It’s a much longer subject than the first two.