Basically, if this is what is commonly perceived to be the most logical and rational notion of God, I write this post as Bob Jane T-Mart insightfully put it "[in the] proverbial backwaters of some video game forum to be only read by a few people." to object to that notion of God. Anyway, I like the way he put that. In the following paragraphs I will assert that this is not the most logical notion of God.
First, I'm going to lay down some... clarifications if you will.
We will refer to to "God" as the deity described by the canonical Bible... I want to limit this debate to make it easier to reach a conclusion.
I do not wish to limit the debate to any one translation, but I don't wish to get all hung up on translation issues either, so we will see how that unfolds.
We will not assume all of the Biblical passages are literal, but there must be explanation by the individual giving the argument as to why they Biblical passages should not be taken literally if they should not be.
We will not deny scientific truths or the scientific perspective because of theology without ample (and described) reason.
Omniscient
The problem with omniscience is that it creates problems with the other attributes. In fact, the main premise of this post is to assert those attributes are self-contradictory. Omniscience creates a deterministic world. This goes beyond they typical deterministic world where there is no free will and events are chain reactions. Those worlds are different because in the non-religious deterministic world, there is room for multiple possible outcomes of events due to indeterminant events, which I won't go into deeply without being asked to. However, in this world of an Omniscient world, there can only be one outcome. If God knows all, including the future, there is only that future as a possibility. I will repeat myself, there is only one possible future. This creates problems with other attributes which I will address later.
Omnipotent
Well first off we have those funny paradoxes "God can't make a rock he can't lift." I don't care about those. Really, this could also create plenty of issues, but since I have no solid refutation for the "God has all power but does not exercise all power" possibility, this attribute will be granted.
Omnipresent
I'm not entirely sure what this all entails, or what it even means, clarification would be nice, I wouldn't want to straw man opposition with an unsatisfactory definition.
Omnibenevolent
This is where we run into problems. God knows the future, right? Then he knows from the moment a individual is born, that that person is going to burn in hell for eternity. He knows the future, this is the only future possible- to say otherwise would deny his omniscience- and from the moment this person is born, neigh, from before they were born, they had no choice other than to die a nonbeliever and suffer for the rest of eternity. I don't understand how an omnibenevolent God could send people, people without a choice otherwise, to suffer forever. They never had a chance because there was only one path they could follow.
Eternal
I will make no objections to this attribute at this point.
Divinely Simple
Again, I don't know what exactly is meant by this. If I were go go from what I think, I'm pretty sure I would straw man it, and I don't want to create that mess, so I will wait until I get a more solid idea of what it means.
Self-Necessary
I'm not 100% sure what is meant by this, but I'm tired of saying I don't know what is meant by half of these attributes so I am just going to go off of what I think is meant. This is based around the "first cause" concept, no? The whole casual argument, correct? Well this point isn't really self-contradictory with the other points as much as merely incorrect. There is no scientific need for there to be a God. No need for anyone to "start things up." As Stephan Hawking has pointed out (I can find articles if you want them), time is not necessarily something that had a beginning. There isn't evidence to conclude that this is the case, but conversely, there isn't any more evidence to suggest otherwise. Not that we can assume a start to time, be it by a God or otherwise, is not necessary, merely that just as much as we cannot assert that, we cannot assert the necessity of said start. Therefore self-necessary is most certainly not a attribute of God from this perspective. (again, I fear I may have straw-manned the opposition)
Well, there you go. If those unclear points are clarified I can give some thoughts on them. At this point the assertions are that omniscience and omnibenevolence contradict each other and that God is not self-necessary.
![Terywj [태리]](/data/avatars/l/71/71007.jpg?1555906021){kind=avatar}
