From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: God and Omnipotence
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:54:56 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <BvrCsu.AwC@news.udel.edu> absolut@ravel.udel.edu (Jamie D. Campbell) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.145235.3208@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
>>>	  Omniscience would require that "God" can read minds and predict
>>>the future.  I do not see how this is possible even though He/She/It
>>>did create the human mind and can alter the future.  I think this rules
>>>out omniscience.

>>Because _you_ don't see how it's done, this proves that it can't be done? A
>>little weak, that. 

>      Personally, I don't believe in God, so I think the entire question
>is moot.  However, omniscience has not yet been proven to be a capability 
>of any being, so the burden of proof doesn't lie on me.  I imagine that 
>would be the "believer's" responsibility.  Correct?

No. We're discussing what God would be like if he _did_ exist. Or to put it
another way, we're discussing the characteristics of the being whom you
deny exists. For example, we can discuss how many horns a unicorn has,
though no unicorns exist. We are also discussing whether or not it is
_possible_ for God to exist, given the characteristics we ascribe to God.

If I understand you correctly (and I may be misunderstanding you), you are
arguing that God doesn't exist because it's impossible for any being to be
omniscient. If this is indeed your contention, then it does require
argument, for you are making a positive assertion: God cannot exist because
no being can be omniscient. 

Your argument is something like asserting that unicorns can't exist because
unicorns have only one horn on their heads, and there is a biological
reason why no mammal can grow a single horn. Quite apart from the question
of whether unicorns do or do not exist, your contention requires an
argument. You must cite the "biological reason" and state why it's a good
reason. If it turns out that your argument is inadequate, then it does not,
of course, follow that unicorns exist--only that it is not impossible for
them to exist on account of the reason you gave. Similarly, if you are
wrong about your contention that God cannot exist because no being can be
omniscient, then it does not, of course, follow that God exists--merely
that it is not impossible for him to exist on account of the reason you
cited.

You say that it hasn't been proven that omniscience is a "capability of any
being". This is like saying that God hasn't been proven to exist--something
I freely grant. It is not, however, a reason for saying that he has been
proven _not_ to exist. Likewise, it won't do to assert that an omniscient
being is inconceivable.  This would be like saying that a chiliagon
(Descartes' thousand-sided polygon) can't exist because no one can
visualize one.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~