someone formulated this argument:
- Iff there's space, then God is omnipresent.
- Iff there's universe, then there's space.
- There was a state of affairs when there's no universe (There was a state of affairs in which God existed with no universe. [Creatio ex nihilo]),
- There was a state of affairs when there's no space (There was a state of affairs in which God existed with no space.). [From 2,3]
- There was a state of affairs in which God wasn't omnipresent. [From 1,4]
- But God is omnipresent.
- If there was a state of affairs in which God wasn't omnipresent and now God is omnipresent, then God changes.
- Therefore God changes. [From 5,6,7]
- If God changes, then God is neither immutable nor timeless.
- God is neither immutable nor timeless [From 8,9]
What do you think about this argument against classical theism?
I think the three O's of the conception of the Abrahamic god is a weak one. The three O's being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. I think the best way to challenge classical theism is to go beyond classical theism. Any descriptor on God is necessarily limiting for a supposedly limitless being. I think this was by design of the church, more the Christian faith that came out of judaism than judaism itself. You see developments in Christianity like dualism which are rejected in the Hebrew Bible (see Isaiah 45:7). Psalms 139:7-8 doesn't necessarily mean that God is only present in if all spaces but in places where there is no space. I believe the initial conception of YHWH is that the LORD is infinite. "I am what I am," "YHWH" and "I am" in Exodus 13-15 suggests that the ancient Hebrews saw God as a constant. I think these aforementioned limiting O's necessitate God's limited presence and being but this isn't what God was initially conceived as. The spacial-temporal realm would be fine to define the universe as but I don't think that discounts something beyond the universe that perhaps we can't conceive as humans, but God exists there too. I suppose I'm taking the panentheist route of challenging the same thing you're challenging because I feel it's easier to argue using the language and ideas the ancient Hebrews used to challenge the Christian conception of God which has its foundations on that same language and those same concepts.