Except, when we say that a Supremely Perfect Being cannot play football or as such, we actually imply ‘wouldn’t given a Supremely Perfect Being’s nature’. Like in the same way we could say that ‘Ghandi couldn’t have murdered an innocent human being’. On the other hand, it is still true to say that it was an open possibility for Ghandi to have murdered an innocent, but it seems wrong to suggest it is an open possibility for a Supremely Perfect Being to torture innocents. Either way, for a Supremely Perfect Being to be omnipotent is incoherent on its own.
To say a Supremely Perfect Being is Omniscient means that they have the capacity to know all true propositions, so they know the past, present and future. In saying so implies that they have a mind, which implies that they have a brain and a brain is physical, but we can say that a Supremely Perfect Being transcends the physical, and can imagine ideas or have knowledge without a brain.
If a Supremely Perfect being knows what will occur in the future, then all events must be necessary, meaning there are no future contingents (a future event which could be one way or another). For example it is an open possibility that I can win in my Swim Club’s race this year. If a Supremely Perfect Being knew future contingents, that I would lose (or win), then it is not a future contingent, it would be a fact and could not be different.
Nevertheless, if a Supremely Perfect Being knows the future, then it will necessarily come to pass, meaning if a human action will necessarily come to pass, they cannot be free. The future is therefore not contingent, and I or anybody else is not free. So, either human beings are not free or a Supremely Perfect Being is not omniscient. A response suggested by St Thomas Aquinas was that we see events in past, present or future, while a Supremely Perfect Being sees it in eternal present. Meaning that a Supremely Perfect Being is timeless (outside of time), and does not know things which are future for them. Since for them there is no past, present or future.
However, a problem with this suggestion is that if a Supremely Perfect Being’s knowledge is in one eternal present, it makes all events simultaneous for a Supremely Perfect Being, and means that they cannot know simple tensed propositions such as ‘WW2 happened before I was born’. Really, the idea that the past, present and future is going all at the same time seems incoherent.
Another suggestion was that a Supremely Perfect Being, chose to do without certain bits of knowledge, so that we can still be free. On this understanding a Supremely Perfect Being has decided to be ignorant of future contingents in order they still be contingents. However, being ignorant of things that it is possible to know (even though only probably possible for only a Supremely Perfect Being to know) is not to be omniscient. Either way, for a Supremely Perfect being to be omniscient is incoherent.
From another viewpoint, if a Supremely Perfect Being is omniscient, then they know future contingents, but if they knew in the future that there was to be evil, then it is right to say, do they not have the power to stop it, if they were also omnipotent. So omniscience and omnipotence in cohere with each other, because if a Supremely Perfect Being knows the future, why don’t they change it or stop it.
A Supremely Perfect Being is one who is also Omni benevolent, meaning is one who is fair, all-loving and good, so whatever a Supremely Perfect Being does must be good and all- loving. Though, question is why is the world full of poverty, suffering, evil, misery and disease, if a Supremely Perfect Being was omni benevolent and not stop these things. It can be said that a Supremely perfect Being gives us free will and that the world is full of misery, suffering etc, because we make the world that it is by committing acts of moral evil. However, even though we can be said to be responsible for acts of moral evil, but what about natural evil such as painful death of a child, with an incurable disease, we cannot be responsible for that.
Another issue raised is that to be morally good assumes being free to act. A Supremely Perfect Being’s actions are demanded by their perfection therefore they cannot do otherwise than as they do. Though, it is logically possible to freely choose to do the right thing on every occasion, so a Supremely Perfect Being does act freely even though they would never do anything other than what is good. On the other hand, if it is logically possible to freely choose to do what is good every time then a Supremely Perfect Being is evil, since they made us in such a way that we don’t always choose to do good.
If we were to say that a Supremely Perfect Being was Omni benevolent, then they are all-loving and good, meaning that they could not hate or do evil. Yet, if they cannot do evil or hate, then they are not Omnipotent (all-powerful). So Omnipotence and Omni benevolence in cohere with each other because, if a Supremely Perfect Being was omnipotent they would be able to hate and do evil, but since they are omni benevolent they would not, or could not.
A Supremely Perfect Being is one who is Omnipresent (everywhere), meaning that they are everywhere in everything at all times. So, they must be in every person, every atom, every place and every thought. Still, it questions how can a being be both immaterial and in some place or location. An explanation would be that thoughts are considered to be immaterial yet we do not seem to have a problem locating thoughts where people are located, but in actual fact the very notion of an immaterial thought being located (in a brain?) is ridiculous, so it wont solve the problem of locating a Supremely Perfect Being.
To say a Supremely Perfect Being is Transcendent means that they are immaterial and not subject to the laws of physics, as well as existing outside time, universe and natural world. In consequence we cannot fully grasp what anything would be like that was completely beyond the physical universe. This raises the issue that a Supremely Perfect Being is outside our understanding and therefore cannot have any meaningful grasp of the idea of a Supremely Perfect Being or a Supremely Perfect Being’s attributes. An answer would be that we are able to have an unfinished grasp of what a Supremely Perfect Being is like and we can talk meaningfully about the attributes, however in a metaphorical way, for example ‘A Supremely Perfect Being is a star’. But most metaphors can be explained, made literal, thought it isn’t clear what ‘A Supremely Perfect Being is a star’ might literally mean.
If we were to say a Supremely Perfect Being is Transcendent, then they are immaterial and exist outside time, meaning they are not subject to the laws of physics. Yet, if a Supremely Perfect Being is out of time, then they are not Omnipresent (everywhere). So Omnipresence and Transcendence are incoherent, because if a Supremely Perfect Being was transcendent they would be out of the natural world, but since they are omnipresence they are everywhere.
In conclusion the notion of a Supremely Perfect Being is incoherent because all the attributes, Omnipotent, Transcendent, Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omni benevolent, which a Supremely perfect being possesses either in coheres individually such as Omnipotence and Omnipresence. Or in cohere with each other such as Omnipotence and Omni benevolence.
