God can’t have qualities which are impossible to have
Patrick Todd
Research Summary
There are various ways to try to prove that God does not exist. One way is to say that God is supposed to possess a certain quality, such as omniscience; then to say that having the relevant quality is impossible (because no being knows everything). Therefore God does not exist. This article argues that this kind of argument against God’s existence is not effective. If having a given property is impossible, even if God is the greatest possible being, God need not have that property. The article goes on to describe how arguments against the existence of God should be made. They need to include sub-arguments about what God would have to be like, rather than just assuming that an existent God would have to be, for example, omniscient, or pointing to traditions that say that God is, for example, omniscient. Alternatively, they could point out contradictions between necessary qualities of God and known facts. The article is of direct use to teachers of A level philosophy and ethics courses; they can use its key points to teach about the nature of God and arguments for and against God’s existence.
Researcher
Patrick Todd
Research Institution
University of Edinburgh
What is this about?
- Can God have qualities that are impossible to have? God (traditionally) is held to be omniscient, for example. But this is impossible, so is the existence of God impossible?
- No: God is the greatest possible being. If possession of a quality such as omniscience is impossible, that just means that possession of that quality is impossible, not that the greatest possible being cannot exist.
- But this doesn’t mean that God necessarily exists. There are better ways of arguing for atheism. For example, you could argue that an existent God would have to have a certain quality (e.g. perfect goodness) in order to be God; then prove that possession of that quality is impossible. You could argue that an existent God would have to have a certain quality, or set of qualities, and prove this to be inconsistent with the facts of the world.
(More detail below, main findings and outputs.)
What was done?
This is a scholarly essay in philosophical theology, reviewing different arguments about the nature and existence of God and offering some partial but interesting and important conclusions.
Main findings and outputs
- There are grounds to say that omniscience is impossible. Omniscience would include knowing that you were omniscient. This knowledge would be based on your omniscience. In a sense, then, omniscience would be based on omniscience, but something cannot be based on itself.
- Omniscience may be an impossible quality to have. Some would then say: God is supposed to be omniscient, but because omnisicience is impossible, God cannot exist. But that does not follow: God is the greatest possible being. If possession of a quality such as omniscience is impossible, that just means that possession of that quality is impossible, not that the greatest possible being cannot exist.
- There are better ways of arguing for atheism. You could argue that God would have to have a quality (e.g. perfect goodness) in order to be God; then prove that its possession is impossible. Or that an existent God would have to have a certain quality, and prove this to be inconsistent with the facts of the world.
- The problem of evil exemplifies this latter type of argument. Evil is a fact of the world, incompatible with a good, all-knowing, all-powerful God.
- An ‘omniGod’ possesses all ideal qualities. A ‘MaximalGod’ possesses only those ideal qualities that are possible (thus solving the ‘omniscience is impossible’ type of problem). ‘MaximalGod’ is no solution to the problem of evil, however – the existence of the greatest possible being is still brought into question by the existence of evil.
Relevance to RE
- Teachers of A level philosophy and ethics could use the material directly with students, when teaching about the nature of God, or arguments for and against the nature of God.
- Students could, for example, evaluate the ‘omniGod’ / ‘MaximalGod’ distinction provided in the essay. Is ‘MaximalGod’ an adequate concept of God? How far is it compatible with other important beliefs such as creatio ex nihilo or miracles? Is the writer correct to argue that ‘MaximalGod’ is no solution to the problem of evil? In these ways, they would deepen their understanding of the issues and extend their subject specialist language.
Generalisability and potential limitations
The ideas are highly applicable within their field, i.e. debates about the nature of God and God’s existence, and A level philosophy and ethics teachers should find them to be very useful both in expanding their own subject knowledge and as a resource for students.
Find out more
The greatest possible being needn’t be anything impossible, Religious Studies 51, 531–542 (published online 1 November 2014)