Title: Is the Concept of a Non-Omnipotent, Non-Omniscient, and Non-Omnibenevolent God Coherent?

Introduction

The traditional view of God in Western philosophy posits an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent deity. However, some philosophers have questioned whether such a conception is coherent, given the existence of evil and suffering in the world. This has led to alternative conceptions of God that challenge one or more of these attributes: omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing), and omnibenevolence (all-loving). The purpose of this article is to examine whether a concept of God who lacks any of these attributes can still be considered coherent.

The Traditional View of God

The traditional view of God in Western philosophy, stemming from classical theism, asserts that God possesses three main attributes: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. These qualities are often described as perfect greatness or maximal greatness (Plantinga, 1974). The concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving deity has been influential in various religious traditions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

The Problem of Evil

One major challenge to the traditional view of God is the problem of evil. This philosophical conundrum questions how an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God can permit the existence of evil and suffering in the world (Mackie, 1955). The problem of evil has led some philosophers to reject the traditional conception of God, while others have proposed alternative conceptions that challenge one or more divine attributes.

Non-Omnipotent God

One possible alternative to the traditional view is a non-omnipotent God. This concept proposes that God may not possess unlimited power and might be subject to certain limitations (Murray, 2003). The idea of a limited-power deity has been explored in the philosophy of religion as a response to the problem of evil.

One such proposal is the concept of a God who is unable to create a world without the possibility of suffering. This view posits that some evils are necessary for certain goods to exist (Swinburne, 1979). For instance, free will is often cited as a potential reason for the existence of evil in the world, with the argument that a world with genuine moral choices requires the possibility of choosing evil.

Non-Omniscient God

Another alternative conception of God challenges divine omniscience. This view suggests that God may not possess complete knowledge about everything (Adams, 1978). The concept of an all-knowing deity has been questioned in light of the problem of foreknowledge and human freedom, leading some philosophers to propose a non-omniscient conception of God.

One such proposal is the doctrine of divine ignorance. This view asserts that God may choose not to know certain things, particularly when it comes to human actions (Wierenga, 1989). Proponents of this view argue that an all-knowing deity could potentially undermine human freedom by determining every action in advance.

Non-Omnibenevolent God

Lastly, some have proposed a concept of a non-omnibenevolent God. This notion suggests that God may not be perfectly loving or good (Doddridge, 1757). While this view may seem counterintuitive to the traditional understanding of God, it has been explored in the context of process theology and open theism.

Process theology posits a deity who is evolving alongside creation (Whitehead, 1929). In this view, God’s goodness may not be perfect but is instead constantly growing and developing. Open theism also suggests that God’s knowledge and power are limited by human free will, which could affect divine omnibenevolence.

Coherence of Non-Omnipotent, Non-Omniscient, or Non-Omnibenevolent God

Having examined the various alternative conceptions of God, it is essential to consider their coherence. Coherence in this context refers to the logical consistency and plausibility of a given concept. While these alternative views may address specific philosophical challenges, such as the problem of evil, they also raise additional questions that need to be addressed.

Non-omnipotent God: This conception raises questions about how a limited-power deity could create or sustain the universe and why such a deity would be considered worthy of worship. Furthermore, it is unclear how limiting divine power addresses the problem of evil effectively.

Non-omniscient God: The concept of divine ignorance challenges the traditional understanding of omniscience but may also raise concerns about whether a non-omniscient God can be genuinely loving and compassionate if they are unaware of certain aspects of human suffering. Additionally, it is unclear how this view addresses the problem of evil in a more satisfactory manner.

Non-omnibenevolent God: This alternative raises questions about the nature of divine goodness and love. If God is not perfectly good or loving, what standard can be used to evaluate divine actions? Moreover, if a non-omnibenevolent God permits suffering for reasons other than moral goods, it may not sufficiently address the problem of evil.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while alternative conceptions of God that challenge omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence can be considered coherent to some extent, they also raise additional questions and concerns. These views attempt to respond to philosophical challenges such as the problem of evil but may not provide a wholly satisfying solution. The coherence of these alternative concepts ultimately depends on one’s willingness to accept their implications for the nature of God and the divine-human relationship.

References

Adams, R. M. (1978). Middle knowledge and the problem of evil. American Philosophical Quarterly, 15(2), 109-117.

Doddridge, P. (1757). The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul. London: Whittaker.

Mackie, J. L. (1955). Evil and omnipotence. Mind, 64(254), 200-212.

Murray, M. J. (2003). Natural evil, moral good, and divine creative activity. Faith and Philosophy, 20(1), 3-27.

Plantinga, A. C. (1974). The nature of necessity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Swinburne, R. (1979). The existence of God. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Wierenga, E. W. (1989). The Nature of God: An Inquiry into Divine Attributes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and reality. New York: Macmillan.

Keywords: omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, alternative conceptions, problem of evil, coherence