The Omniscience Defense

Vic Reppert has weighed in on my suggestion that God could’ve created us with wings by using the best possible Christian response, which I’ll call The Omniscience Defense. Most other Christians, with the exception of Layman, have been critiquing my suggestion by actually denying that God could create human beings with wings, which I think I’ve sufficiently responded to here. It amazes me that some critics who think God is omnipotent are actually taking the Non-Omnipotent Defense, as I call it, since that’s what my argument has forced them to do. These Christians might as well join the ranks of panentheists right now.

Anyway, Vic is at least smart enough to provisionally grant for the sake of argument that God could’ve created humans with wings. At least that avoids panentheism. He can stay in the Christian community for now. ;-)

Reppert replied: “Let me grant, for the sake of argument, that I can't think of any good reason why God couldn't have given us all wings. Exactly what does that buy the atheist? Why is this any different from the argument that says ‘There are gaps in the fossil record, I can't see how evolution could have make these transition, therefore there is no naturalistic explanation for these transitions and a creator must exist.’"

If you’ll notice, Vic doesn’t initially argue his case when he poses a different problem for the atheist. If I say "you have a problem," and my “conversation partner” (i.e. politically correct definition of antagonist or opponent) says, "yeah, well you too have a problem," he has not answered his specific problem. As far as my specific problem goes, I am not a specialist in science, especially when it comes to evolution, and I’m not required to be a specialist in every area about that which I generally think is the case. Though I do present a good case for not believing in the Biblical God here at DC on other grounds. Just start reading here to see my reasons.

Vic again: “Let's take a humbler example. Many Monopoly players try to make the game more fun by collecting all the payments to the bank from various sources and putting them on Free Parking. Then when someone lands on Free Parking, they get all that money. And there is nothing wrong with changing the rules in that way. However, there is a reason why the game itself doesn't do that, which was explained in The Monopoly Book. Monopoly games tend to be long, but the game ends when all but one player goes bankrupt. Taking money that would otherwise have gone into that bank and putting it back into the hands of players slows down this process and makes the game even longer. Now, I had never thought of that. What looked like an improvement to the game of Monopoly had a downside I didn't realize until it was pointed out to me. So what about my [John’s?] suggestions for improving the universe? The makers of Monopoly are mere mortals. What about a being of infinite intelligence? Is it not at least possible that from the point of view of Omniscience our proposed improvements for the universe really might not turn out to be improvements after all. Think about that next time your opponent lands on Park Place when you have a monopoly there.”

This is the most intelligent objection that a Christian can make against my argument. But it fails miserably…miserably. Since I am preparing to have a public debate on the problem of evil with David Wood of www.answeringinfidels.com this October I do not want to tip my hand too much here. The short answer is that the Omniscience Defense cannot overcome the fact that more knowledge does not mean a suspension of the knowledge one has. Let’s say that I fell off a bridge while working on it and ripped my arm off in the process because I didn’t have wings to fly. I would be in a great amount of pain if that took place. That is knowledge that I personally have about the pain of losing an arm. And it is knowledge about the future prospects of living life without an arm. Call this possible world X. The Christian theist is arguing that world X (for me or for humans in general) is better than if my arm was not amputated in this manner if I had wings. Call this preferrable non-amputated arm existence, possible world Y. What would it take to make world X better for me (or humans in general) than world Y? Nothing in this world, I’ll tell you that right now. Nothing. That’s my judgment, as it would be your judgment if it happened to you.

In fact, I cannot conceive of world X ever being better than world Y no matter if I won a lawsuit and became rich because of it, or if I won the sympathy of the woman of my dreams because of it, or if I became famous as a result of it. I would not trade my arm for anything. Now along comes a theist who tries to argue that God knows why he didn’t give me wings and that I should trust him. But then I take a look at my arm and I cannot conceive of world X being better than world Y. I cannot even conceive of any possible reason why this God might have for not giving me wings, given the nature of world X. So without even being able to conceive of a possible reason for not giving me wings, I can legitimately ask why I should trust the Omniscience Defense in the first place. More knowledge will not help, unless that knowledge is contrary to how I judge things. That’s right. It’s not just more knowledge we’re talking about here. God must have contrary knowledge that I cannot even conceive as to the reason he didn’t give me wings. But if his contrary knowledge is not something that I can conceive, then I have no reason whatsoever to trust that he exists or that he knows something about world X such that it’s better than world Y, for it is much more reasonable to trust what I can conceive than what I cannot conceive.

Ed Babinski has often quoted Voltaire on this subject who said: "The silly fanatic repeats to me... that it is not for us to judge what is reasonable and just in the great Being; that His reason is not like our reason, that His justice is not like our justice. Eh! How, you mad demoniac, do you want me to judge justice and reason otherwise than by the notions I have of them? Do you want me to walk otherwise than with my feet, and to speak otherwise than with my mouth?"