The Impenetrability Argument Against God

The Omnipresence Argument

The Impenetrability Argument, as formulated by Joey Lawsin, is a theological argument that challenges the concept of God's omnipresence and omniscience by asserting that the laws of nature preclude the possibility of a being existing in multiple places simultaneously. Central to this argument is the Law of Impenetrability, which posits that "no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time." For instance, if a chair is occupied by a person, that space cannot be simultaneously occupied by another person unless the first person vacates the chair. This principle serves as a foundational example of the Law of Impenetrability.

Applying this law to the notion of omnipresence, if God were truly omnipresent, He would be simultaneously under the sink, in your room, floating in space, swimming in the ocean, within your mind, walking in Japan, sleeping in Italy, and eating breakfast in France. While oxygen can be found on Earth, it does not mean it is a single entity  like the concept of God but a unified entity made up of smaller pieces.

Furthermore, if God were omnipresent and capable of observing all events on Earth simultaneously, it would imply a form of perception akin to a giant eye viewing humanity through a magnifying glass, perceiving individuals as though they were letters on a stamp.

The argument extends to question the implications of God's omnipresence on moral grounds. If God is present everywhere and possesses a compassionate nature, why does He not intervene in instances of suffering, such as preventing an assailant from killing, rescuing an innocent child from prostitution, feeding a malnourished child, aiding a poor elderly woman battling cancer, or stopping the deaths of innocent people in wars? If God is omnipresence and omniscience he could stop all these events.

There are several counterarguments to the Impenetrability Argument that challenge its conclusions about God's omnipresence:

1. Non-Physical Nature of God: One counterargument is that God is not a physical being and thus is not subject to physical laws, including the Law of Impenetrability. Since God is often conceived as a spiritual or metaphysical entity, the constraints that apply to physical objects do not necessarily apply to Him.

2. Divine Omnipresence as a Different Concept: Another counterargument is that divine omnipresence should not be understood in the same way as physical presence. God's omnipresence might be better understood as His ability to act and be aware of all places simultaneously, rather than being physically present in a spatial sense.

3. Analogy Limitations: The use of analogies, such as comparing God's presence to oxygen or a giant eye, may be seen as limited and not fully capturing the nature of divine omnipresence. These analogies might oversimplify or misrepresent the theological concept.

4. Theological Interpretations: Different theological traditions interpret omnipresence in various ways. Some might argue that God's presence is more about His influence and knowledge rather than physical location. For example, God might be present in the sense that He sustains and governs all creation.

5. Mystery of Divine Nature: Some theists might argue that the nature of God is ultimately beyond human comprehension. Therefore, human concepts of space and physical laws cannot fully encapsulate the divine nature. This perspective suggests that divine omnipresence is a mystery that transcends human understanding.

6. Moral and Free Will Considerations: Addressing the moral implications, some argue that God's non-intervention in human suffering is related to the gift of free will. God allows humans to make their own choices, even if those choices lead to suffering. This perspective maintains that God's omnipresence does not necessitate constant intervention.

Here are some of my rebuttals to the counterarguments:

1. Non-Physical Nature of God: If God is not a physical being, how can He interact with the physical world if the laws of nature, physics, information codification, and cybernetics do not apply to Him? The interaction between a non-physical entity and the physical world remains unexplained and seems to contradict the established laws of nature.

2. Divine Omnipresence as a Different Concept: If God has the ability to act and be aware of all places simultaneously, why does He not intervene to stop crimes and oppression? The ability to be aware and act should logically extend to preventing suffering and injustice if God is truly omnipresent and benevolent.

3. Analogy Limitations: The examples provided are metaphors intended to illustrate the concept of omnipresence. While metaphors have limitations, they serve to make abstract ideas more comprehensible and highlight the practical implications of the concept.

4. Theological Interpretations: If different theological traditions interpret omnipresence in various ways, why do they not clarify these interpretations at face value? The ambiguity in these interpretations can lead to confusion and misinterpretation of the concept of omnipresence.

5. Mystery of Divine Nature: If God's nature is beyond human comprehension, it implies a form of divine parapraxis, where God's actions or inactions appear inconsistent or erroneous from a human perspective. This raises questions about the coherence and reliability of divine attributes.

6. Moral and Free Will Considerations: The argument that free will justifies non-intervention does not hold when individuals are suffering. Free will should not preclude divine intervention in cases of extreme suffering and injustice, especially if God is compassionate and omnipresent.

These rebuttals aim to address the gaps and inconsistencies in the counterarguments, reinforcing the assertion posed by the Impenetrability Argument.