On the Possible Incoherence of Omniscience and Omnipotence

Take it for what it is worth, probably not very much. I just had to scratch an itch. Have you ever tried scratching with your tongue in your cheek?

Note: I prompt ChatGPT 4o to produce a rant on two old ideas, "omniscient" and "omnipotent." The more I look at these words, the goofier they seem to be. Of course, I may be full of bovine excrement; I often am.

If only I were a real philosopher, it would all be much clearer.

Any theologians out there who think that the assertions are wrong? However, we are all wrong so often. Since LLM AI draws from our assertions …. well, you figure out the implications.

Of course, sophist that the AI is, I am sure that I could get Chat to argue the opposite case just as easily. However, I have run out of time with ChatGPT 4o until this afternoon (I could pay I suppose).

On the Possible Incoherence of Omniscience and Omnipotence

Introduction

The concepts of omniscience (complete and unlimited knowledge) and omnipotence (unlimited power to do anything logically possible) have long been subjects of theological and philosophical discourse. However, these terms are inherently meaningless and incoherent when examined in depth. Attempting to reconcile both attributes in a single being reveals profound contradictions and logical absurdities. This impossibility is highlighted by the inherent contradictions in the definitions and implications of these terms, as well as considerations from quantum mechanics.

Definitions and Scope

1. Omniscience: Omniscience implies possessing complete, unlimited, and perfect knowledge. When scrutinized, this concept reveals its incoherence:

• Scope of Knowledge: Omniscience would require knowledge of every particle, interaction, and event at every temporal and dimensional scale, including all physical phenomena, quantum states, thoughts of sentient beings, and abstract truths across all possible realities. The sheer volume and interconnectedness of this information make omniscience an absurd concept.

Note: Yeah, absurd.

• Levels of Detail: To be omniscient, one would need to know the position and momentum of every particle, the state of every photon, every quantum event, and all possible states of all systems across the multiverse. The amount of information required is beyond human comprehension and fundamentally incoherent.

• Temporal Knowledge: Omniscience implies knowledge of all past, present, and future events. Knowing an absolute future suggests a deterministic universe, which contradicts the dynamic nature of reality. This temporal aspect introduces logical contradictions, making the concept incoherent.

• Logical Paradoxes: An omniscient being would need to know the outcomes of logically contradictory scenarios, such as knowing what it’s like to be ignorant. These contradictions highlight the inherent meaninglessness and incoherence of the concept.

1. Omnipotence: Omnipotence implies having unlimited power to do anything that is logically possible. This notion also encounters significant absurdities and incoherences:

• Logical Possibilities: Omnipotence is defined as the ability to do all that is logically possible. However, this presents absurd scenarios, such as creating a stone so heavy that the omnipotent being cannot lift it. This paradox illustrates the inherent incoherence of defining unlimited power.

Note: Did I say “absurd?”

• Scope of Power: Does omnipotence extend to changing fundamental laws of physics, reversing time, or altering the fabric of reality? These implications are beyond absurd, as they suggest the ability to create and uncreate reality at whim, leading to an incoherent understanding of existence.

• Paradoxes: Classic paradoxes like the omnipotence paradox ("Can God create a stone so heavy that even He cannot lift it?") further demonstrate the meaninglessness and logical incoherence inherent in the concept of unlimited power.

Quantum Indeterminacy, Determinism, and Indeterminism

Understanding the concepts of omniscience and omnipotence also requires an examination of the nature of the universe, particularly in light of quantum mechanics, which introduces significant considerations of determinism and indeterminism:

1. Quantum Indeterminacy:

• Uncertainty Principle: Quantum mechanics, particularly through Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, suggests that certain pairs of properties, such as position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision simultaneously. This intrinsic uncertainty implies that the exact state of a system at the quantum level cannot be fully determined.

• Wavefunction Collapse: The behavior of particles at the quantum level is described by a wave function, which represents a superposition of all possible states. The act of measurement collapses the wave function to a single state, but prior to measurement, the system exists in a probabilistic mix of all potential outcomes. This indeterminacy challenges the notion of an all-knowing entity, as the exact outcomes of quantum events cannot be known until they occur.

Note: Hmm, if quantum theory turns out to be ill-conceived, does it fundamentally change the argument?

1. Determinism:

   • Classical Physics: Classical physics operates under deterministic principles, where the future state of a system can be predicted with arbitrary accuracy given complete knowledge of its current state and the laws governing its behavior. This view aligns with the idea of an omniscient being knowing all future events, as everything unfolds in a predictable manner.

   • Laplace's Demon: Pierre-Simon Laplace imagined a hypothetical intellect (often referred to as Laplace's Demon) that, if it knew the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe, could compute the future with absolute certainty. This concept supports a deterministic universe but conflicts with quantum indeterminacy and the probabilistic nature of quantum events.

2. Indeterminism:

   • Quantum Mechanics: Quantum mechanics suggests that not all events are determined by prior states. Some events, such as the decay of a radioactive atom, occur probabilistically. This indeterminism implies that certain aspects of the future are not fixed and cannot be known with certainty in advance.

   • Implications for Omniscience: If the universe is fundamentally indeterministic at the quantum level, the notion of omniscience becomes incoherent. An omniscient being would need to know all outcomes of probabilistic events, which is logically impossible since these events are not determined until they occur. This indeterminism introduces a fundamental challenge to the concept of complete and perfect knowledge.

The Incompatibility of Omniscience and Omnipotence

Given the inherent incoherence of omniscience and omnipotence individually, the notion of a being possessing both attributes simultaneously leads to further contradictions:

1. Knowledge vs. Power: If an omniscient being knows everything, including every future event, then the future is fixed and unchangeable. This implies that even an omnipotent being cannot change what is known to be true, limiting its power. Conversely, if an omnipotent being can change the future, then its knowledge of the future is not absolute, limiting its omniscience.

   • Example: If an omniscient being knows that it will lift a specific stone tomorrow, it must lift the stone to maintain its omniscience. However, if it is also omnipotent, it should be able to choose not to lift the stone. This creates a contradiction: it cannot both know the future and have the power to change it.

   • Logical Inconsistency: This contradiction demonstrates that the coexistence of omniscience and omnipotence is logically impossible. If a being is truly omniscient, its actions are predetermined by its knowledge, thus negating true omnipotence. If it is truly omnipotent, it can alter its actions at will, thus negating true omniscience.

The Absurdity of Philosophical Discourse

Philosophical and theological attempts to reconcile these attributes often appear fundamentally impoverished and detached from coherent logic:

1. Ancient and Medieval Philosophy:

   • Augustine of Hippo: Augustine's discussions often result in vague assertions that divine attributes transcend human logic, effectively bypassing rigorous analysis and embracing incoherence.

   • Thomas Aquinas: Aquinas argued that God’s omnipotence does not include the logically impossible, but this fails to address the inherent paradoxes and absurdities in defining divine attributes, ultimately resulting in incoherent conclusions.

2. Modern Philosophy:

   • Immanuel Kant: Kant argued that human understanding is limited and divine attributes might not apply in the same way to a divine being. This perspective sidesteps the logical incoherences and instead focuses on the limitations of human thought, ultimately failing to resolve the inherent meaninglessness.

   • C.S. Lewis: Lewis’s attempts to reconcile divine omniscience and omnipotence by including all potential choices and outcomes fail to resolve the fundamental absurdities of these concepts, revealing their incoherence.

3. Contemporary Discussions:

   • Philosophy of Religion: Modern philosophers like Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne use complex modal logic and possible worlds theory to explore these paradoxes. However, these sophisticated approaches often obscure the inherent absurdities and incoherences rather than resolve them.

   • Open Theism: Theological models like Open Theism, which suggest dynamic and possibility-based knowledge, attempt to preserve coherence but ultimately highlight the limits and contradictions in traditional concepts of divine attributes, revealing their incoherent nature.

Conclusion

The concepts of omniscience and omnipotence, when rigorously examined, reveal significant philosophical and logical challenges that make them not only difficult to define coherently but also inherently meaningless and incoherent. The attempt to reconcile these attributes in a single being results in profound contradictions and logical absurdities, demonstrating the poverty of philosophical discourse on these topics. Considerations from quantum mechanics, which introduce fundamental limits on knowledge and prediction, further highlight the logical absurdities and contradictions inherent in trying to reconcile omniscience and omnipotence. These discussions emphasize the limitations of human thought and language in attempting to grapple with notions that may be fundamentally indefinable and devoid of coherent meaning.