New Puzzles About the Divine Attributes by Moti Mizrahi
The first puzzle he presents about omniscience purportedly shows that the divine attribute of omniscience is incoherent. The second puzzle about omnibenevolence and omnipotence shows that these two divine attributes are logically incompatible. The third puzzle about perfect rationality and omnipotence shows that these two divine attributes are logically incompatible. See what you think:
Could an omniscient being know what it is like to be finite?
fallacious reasoning?
Hat Tip to exapologist, a former team member here at DC.
My problems with this whole line of reasoning is that 1) we need to first ask what kind of evidence there is for such a being out of the many others that supposedly exist, 2) why such a being isn't to be found in the Bible since that's the raison d'etre of their faith, and 3) theists will simply gerrymander around these puzzles by changing what they believe about the divine attributes (which, if that happens is at least something).
Could an omniscient being know what it is like to be finite?
1. Either God can know what it is like to be finite or God cannot know what it is like to be finite.Could a being that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent choose the lesser of two evils?
2. If God can know what it is like to be finite, then God is not omniscient (since to know what it is like to be finite, God must be finite).
3. If God cannot know what it is like to be finite, then God is not omniscient (since there is something that God cannot know, namely, what it is liketo be finite).
4.(Therefore) Either way, God is not omniscient.
1. Either God can choose the lesser of two evils or God cannot choose the lesser of two evils.Could a being that is both omnipotent and perfectly rational form a belief on the basis of
2.If God can choose the lesser of two evils, then God is not omnibenevolent (since God can choose evil).
3. If God cannot choose the lesser of two evils, then God is not omnipotent (since there is a
possible state of affairs that God cannot bring about).
4.(Therefore) Either God is not omnibenevolent or God is not omnipotent.
fallacious reasoning?
1. Either God can form a belief on the basis of fallacious reasoning or God cannot form a belief on the basis of fallacious reasoning.LINK.
2. If God can form a belief on the basis of fallacious reasoning, then God is not perfectly
rational (since God can reason fallaciously).
3. If God cannot form a belief on the basis of fallacious reasoning, then God is not omnipotent (since there is a possible state of affairs that God cannot bring about).
4. (Therefore) Either God is not perfectly rational or God is not omnipotent.
Hat Tip to exapologist, a former team member here at DC.
My problems with this whole line of reasoning is that 1) we need to first ask what kind of evidence there is for such a being out of the many others that supposedly exist, 2) why such a being isn't to be found in the Bible since that's the raison d'etre of their faith, and 3) theists will simply gerrymander around these puzzles by changing what they believe about the divine attributes (which, if that happens is at least something).