An Omniscient Moral Entity Cannot Create a Universe Containing Immorality

I hope to give a compelling argument for the resolution. I’ve made my definition of "omniscience" highly inclusive in order to minimize the beginningassumptions my argument makes, and so that it will be stronger for this. I didn't want to simply exclude different versions of omniscience by definition. That could've made my case pretty trivial. However, I do want to logically argue for the exclusion of allbut one kind of omniscience. I've given a very weak definition of an omniscient being: it must simply have complete knowledge for at least one point of its existence. I want to separately show that if a being has complete knowledge for at least one point of its existence, then it must have complete knowledge at every point of its existence. By strengthening "omniscience" in this way, I hope to logically ensure that an "omniscient being" cannot be ignorant of any property of anything that it creates, no matter how these properties unfold in time. In other words, it must have complete knowledge of its creation in the act of creating it. To have some knowledge of an object is to know about some property of that object, so it makes sense to say that having complete knowledge of an object is to know of every property that object will ever have, no matter how or when it arises. This will all be in service of my claim that an omniscient moral being cannot create a universe containing immorality: the main resolution of this debate. Main argument for the resolution: P1: A being cannot knowingly express its will such that the given expression is contrary to its will. (By law of non-contradiction [LNC]. ) P2: If a being has complete knowledge for at least one point of its existence, then it must have complete knowledge at every point of its existence. (I will need to defend this) P3: An omniscient being must have complete knowledge at every point of its existence. (By P2 and the definition of "omniscience"). P4: An omniscient being must have complete knowledge of what it creates at every point of its existence. (By the same. ) P5: Complete knowledge of a thing includes the knowledge of every property that thing will ever have. P6: If an omniscient moral entity has created a universe, then that entity has knowingly expressed its will to create precisely that universe with full knowledge of its every property. (by P4, P5) P7: If that universe contains immorality, then that entity has knowingly expressed its will such that this expression is contrary to its will. (by P2,P3) P8: This is impossible. (by P1, LNC) P9: Therefore, an omniscient moral entity cannot create a universe containing immorality. End I'll focus on defending P2, and in doing so I'll aim to prove two things: -It is logically impossible for an agent to complete its knowledge from a position of incomplete knowledge. (Lemma 1, or L1) -It is logically impossible for the knowledge of an agent with complete knowledge to become incomplete. (Lemma 2, or L2) If I show both L1 and L2 to be true, it follows that it's logically impossible for a being with complete knowledge at some point in its existence to have incomplete knowledge at another point in its existence. So proving L1 and L2 will prove P2, and the entire argument will follow. I will first focus on L1. Proof of L1 L1 is actually a special case of a more general statement. I'll prove the general statement first, then show that L1 is equivalent to it. Define a task T consisting of some set of actions {a1,a2,. .an,. .}. The task can onlybe completed on the condition that every action included in it has been performed. Assign an agent T. Define some action an in T to be the utterance of the statement, when true: "T is complete. " an can only be performed on the condition that the statement is true, but the same statement isn’t true until an has already been performed. This is a logical circularity. Because of this, it is logically impossible for the agent to complete T, for it includes an action which can’t be logically performed by the agent. Therefore, any task which includes acknowledgement of its own completion cannotlogically be completed. End general proof. Now I will show that L1 is only a special case of this result: Consider an agent which does not have complete knowledge. We will characterize the process of it completing its knowledge as a task which is to be completed by this agent. To complete this task, the agent must come to know all facts concerning all things at some point. Among these facts is that it is lacks no knowledge at that point. To complete this task, it must acquire knowledge of this fact. It must acquire the knowledge which says: "I lack no knowledge. " But this is logically equivalent to the statement, "This task is complete" being included in the task it talks about. The task of an agent completing its knowledge is one which includes acknowledgement of its own completion. As was just proven in the general case, such a task cannot be completed. So L1 follows and is proven. Proof of L2 L2 is also a special case of a more general statement. I'll prove the general statement first, then show that L2 is equivalent to it. Consider some set element k with the following properties: -Every "complete" set must contain k. -Only "complete" sets can contain k. It follows that k can only be missing from "incomplete" sets. Now imagine that we try to make a logical program that turns "complete" sets into"incomplete" sets. If a program tries to delete any element from a "complete" set, then it must delete k from that set. This is because deleting an element from that set would make theset incomplete, and no incomplete set can contain k. In other words: no element in a set is eligible for deletion until k is missing from that set. But if k is an element of that set, then k is under those very same constraints; it is not eligible for deletion until it is missing from that set. This makes the absence of k a condition for its own deletion. This is a logical circularity: k can't be deleted until it has been deleted. This is logically impossible, so a program that turns "complete" sets into "incomplete" setsas described is not logically possible. End general proof. Now it will be shown that L2 is only a special case of this result. A being with complete knowledge must know the fact: "I lack no knowledge. " This fact has the following properties: -Every being with complete knowledge must know this fact. -Only beings with complete knowledge can know this fact. This fact is logically equivalent to the set element k. Therefore the same conclusion applies: there is no logical program by which the knowledge of a being with complete knowledge can be made incomplete. So L2 follows and is proven. Proof of P2 L1 and L2 have been demonstrated, so P2 follows. Conclusion All of the premises which entail the resolution have been logically justified. Remarks My argument is basically a form of the old "Problem of Evil" (POE) objection to theism. However, I’ve tried to strip my particular form of it down to bare logical machinery: -I've stripped the terms "morality" and "immorality" down to their mere logicalrelation of 'X and not-X'. This means that I don't need to establish anythingabout "morality" or "immorality" for the argument to logically succeed. Morality doesn't even need to exist for the argument to logically succeed. I leave it to the theist to claim that immorality exists in the world; I leave it to the theist to claim that an omniscient, moral beingcreated the world. My job here is simply to show that these two claims arelogically in contradiction. -The issue of "free will" often features in objections to the POE as an explanation for the existence of "immorality" in the world. However, the capacity of "freewill" doesn't seem to logically negate any of the premises of my argument,so it appears the resolution would still follow. I'd like to hear what kind of holes Con may see in my case. Over to you, Con!