Firstly, I would like to say that, despite the fact that I'm agnostic, you are one of my heroes. In all of the debates that I've watched, you've been the sole provider clarity and rigor to the discussion.
My question regards whether or not your definition of "God" is a proper definite description. Among other things, he's posited as a being which is omnipotent and omniscient. However, is there good reason to think that there are upper-bounds on power and knowledge, so as to allow this to be feasible?
Let's look at one area in which any being's abilities and knowledge is necessarily finite and incomplete. For example, it is obvious that there's no greatest natural number, as this set is an infinite one. Now, we know that no possible being can know all of the elements of this set, since it's uncountable. We can also say that if one being knows or can know more natural numbers than another, then that being is more knowledgeable or capable, respectively, in this area. This means that since the set of natural numbers is infinite, there cannot, in general, be a single greatest-possible being, because we can always conceive of a being with greater cognitive capabilities or knowledge (i.e, the ability to know n + 1 elements of the set). Since there are certain areas pertaining to knowledge and power which do not have an upper-bound, it is necessarily the case that any possible being's net knowledge and capabilities are limited and imperfect. Hence, there cannot be a being possessing the properties that are ascribed to God.
Thank you,
Ian
Canada
Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer
No comments:
Post a Comment