CA74 The Incoherence of God (pt. I)



Can we make any sense of the idea of god? God is supposed to be an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, timeless, spaceless, immutable, disembodied conscious mind. We begin our series on igtheism by discussing several problems with these divine attributes. Is god unintelligible? Is this episode unintelligible? You’ll have to be the judge.

Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here

Rate the show on iTunes here

Support on Patreon here

Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here

Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Music by ichika Nito and was used with permission.

/ Resources on Igtheism /

Atheism: A Philosophical Justification – Michael Martin [Amazon]

Ozymandias Ramses II on Theological Noncognitivism – Steve McRae Show [YouTube]

Response to Matt Dillahunty’s Criticism of Igtheism [YouTube]

TMM on Igtheism [YouTube]

YouTube Playlist on Igtheism [YouTube]

Atheism: The Case Against God – George Smith [Google Books]

A Disproof of God’s Existence – Colin McGinn [Skeptic]


5 thoughts on “CA74 The Incoherence of God (pt. I)

  1. Why does God need to experience something bodily to have complete knowledge of it? Your assumption is not compatible with the definition of omnipotence (all powerful). An omnipotent being would have the (power) to gain complete knowledge of something without bodily experience. By saying such you’ve violated the definition of omnipotence rather than providing a contradiction to the omniscience trait as you assert.

    1. What do you think about the knowledge argument (Mary the color scientist)? My assumption is that there is a knowledge by acquaintance that one gains by having the experience. God is essentially Mary for all experiences that involve a body — god can’t possess every aspect of bodily knowledge *unless* we have a particular materialist interpretation of the knowledge argument. It’s logically impossible for a mind to be disembodied and omniscient. Of course, if you want to just wave your hand and invoke magic, then sure, none of this has to make sense. But I’m assuming that we can make rational sense of god’s attributes. If we can’t, that’s a deep problem for theism. If we can, theists must find a rationally intelligible answer to god’s lack of embodied knowledge and his omniscience. Is there or is there not a type of knowledge that can only be had through direct acquaintance?

  2. Hi, Emerson.

    I’m a recent Christian who has been listening to your podcast for a couple of months now because I find it valuable listening to the other side.

    It seems to me the argument of Igtheism relies on a material understanding of that which is supernatural, all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present. If one believes such things about God, why should one expect that humans, mere creations of this being, would be able to make sense of Him?

    Best,
    Andre

    1. Hey Andre,
      Glad to hear that you’re interested in hearing atheist perspectives! I wish more theists shared your openness. You ask, “Why should one expect that humans, mere creations of this being, would be able to make sense of Him?” I suppose we aren’t required to expect that we would be able to make any rational sense of a god. However, you are a theist. Taking a sort of mysterian attitude towards god undermines the entire project of apologetics and theism more broadly. I’m assuming that we can make rational sense of god and his attributes. If we can’t, that’s a deep problem for theism. Theism is predicated on the notion that we can know all sorts of things about god. I don’t see how one can simultaneously be a theist (rather than a deist or an agnostic, for example) and claim god is unknowable. You can’t claim to know who god is and what he wants every moment of the day, and then retreat into mysterianism as soon as you’re in the hot seat.
      Emerson

Leave a Reply

*