A Level Religious Studies - Universe provides no evidence of omnipotent God

“Assess the claim that the universe provides no evidence for the existence of an omnipotent God.” Discuss (40)

The definition of omnipotence can be very simple to understand – for example in Christianity where it is understood of being all-powerful without limits. However, it can be more difficult than this which arises many issues about whether the universe provides evidence for God or not. Whilst it could be argued that the universe provides evidence for the existence of an omnipotent God, this essay will argue that it does not.

The design qua purpose argument suggests that the universe does provide evidence for the existence of God. William Paley uses the example of a man walking through a heath. He sees a rock and assumes it is nature. If he saw a watch, he would know somebody designed and made it. The parts fitted together for a purpose and are very complex meaning that it could not happen by chance. Paley says that God is to the world as the watchmaker is to the watch – we can look at purpose and regularity in the world and make the conclusion that it has been designed. Paley explains this through saying “thus we must conclude that nature has a maker too” as he looks at the similarities of the world and the watch.

However, the inconsistent triad is the basic idea that only two of God’s qualities (omnipotence, benevolence) can exist beside another. Hume looked at these qualities and used them as direct evidence to say that God doesn’t exist. The three traits are logically consistent; this is because if God is considered omnipotent, he is aware of the existence of evil and suffering and knows how to put a stop to it. If God is omnibenevolent, he will want to put a stop to this – however, evil and suffering continue to exist. This also puts God’s omnipotence into question as he should be able to destroy evil due to his all-powerful nature. God created the world ‘ex nihilo’, from nothing, and is therefore responsible for everything in it. The fact that evil is evident means that the God of classical theism cannot exist. The universe provides evidence in the form of evil and suffering that God does not exist.

It can be argued that the universe does provide evidence for the existence of an omnipotent God because of Aquinas’ final way. The final way that Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. He states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way and that we can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intelligent designer. This depends upon Artistotle’s final causes. The concept of final causes involves “ends” which are goals towards which something strives. An example given is the oak tree, which is the end towards which the acorn points. The implication is that if something has a goal that it works toward, it is either because it is intelligent or something intelligent is guiding it. This leads to the conclusion that an omnipotent God does exist because of the power it has to guide, create laws and order nature. Aquinas’ argument says it would be impossible for this exist without an omnipotent God.

This said, Richard Dawkins concludes that it is illogical for God to be all-powerful. He writes that “omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible”. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene and change history using his omnipotence; if this is the case, he cannot change his mind which means he cannot be omnipotent. Dawkins goes on to question whether God could create a stone too heavy for himself to lift. This is self-conflicting and creates a flaw in the nature of God.

The Doctrine of Kenosis states that God emptied himself of omnipotence to become a man and that Jesus was God in this form. God did this out of love and Jesus’ resurrection shows this. Therefore, in Jesus, God was ‘incarnate’ so Jesus was truly human and divine. John Morris follows this argument in his book ‘Contemporary Creed’, writing that “his successful humanity amounted to being fully open to divinity, all that God meant people to be”. This argument does not work if God is timeless as a timeless God would not be able to love as he is immutable (unchanging over time) and so cannot be affected by anything. Love is not compatible with immutability, as a loving being responds to the object of their love in a process and sequence of events. Passages in the Bible place an emphasis on the fact that God is unchangeable: “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind,” (Numbers 23:19). This shows how God has fixed intentions that do not change. The existence of the Bible can act as evidence of an omnipotent God however the nature of this omnipotence can be questioned.

Anselm argued that logic, not the universe, can prove the existence of God. He suggested that God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’, showing God as the highest figure and as unsurpassable. If God were to only exist in our minds, then he would be able to be surpassed as one can conceive a greater being. Anselm developed his argument by saying that it is impossible to conceive God not existing. This is because he is a necessary being. If God were a contingent being (one whose existence depends on something else), he would not be the greatest since we could imagine him not existing. Anselm explained this: ‘contingent beings are inferior to beings with necessary existence’. Logic is an integral part of Anselm’s argument because it aids the understanding of God being a necessary being, as it allows for the conclusion that nothing can be greater than God thus proving his existence.

To conclude, the universe provides little evidence for the existence of a classically omnipotent God. The sheer existence and mass visibility of evil in our world means that the nature of God is up in arms as he lacks one of the qualities that makes him divine. Additionally, evidence that the universe seemingly tries to present can be struck down by noticing the self-conflicting nature of the arguments which means that God cannot exist with such ease. The fact that there is the potential for these conflicting qualities to coincide with one another makes it difficult to justify the existence of God. Epicurus said “is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” which highlights how God’s incompatibility and reluctance to interfere with his creation can actually reduce his significance to something less than a God-like being. Therefore we should reject any evidence that the universe supposedly provides in favour of God’s existence.