MOG- the concept of God

Question 1

25 mark plan:
is the concept of God coherent?

Answer 1

introduction: concept of god coherent
define: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenveloent, eternal/everlasting.

para1: explanation of concept of god (his attributes)

problem1: paradox of the stone.

response: Mavrodes logical contradiction

problem2: free will vs omniscience

response: God knows everything possible to know. not possible to know the future.

problem 3: euthuphro dilemma

response: god creates morality, doesn’t make morality arbitrary, choses the rules out of love.

conclusion: god created morality doesn’t contradict the claim god is omnibenevolent + the claim humans have free will doesn’t contradict claim god is omniscient. = coherent

Question 2

what is Gods four divine attributes

Answer 2

1. omnipotence
2. omniscience
3. omnibenevolence
4. eternal or everlasting

Question 3

what are the 3 arguments that claim god attributes are incoherent

Answer 3

1. the problem of the stone
2. the euthyphro dilemma
3. omniscience vs free will

Question 4

omnipotence philosophers meaning

Answer 4

= all powerful, no limits to Gods power
philosophers argue: doesn’t mean god can do literally anything e.g. can’t make 1+1=5 true or create 4 sided triangle because these r logical contradictions.
= God can do anything logically possible.

-St Thomas Aquinas agrees
-Problem of the stone points out contradiction

Question 5

omniscience philosophers meaning

Answer 5

= all knowing, knows everything possible to know
e.g. God doesn’t know what humans r going to do in the future because humans have free will - not possible to know the future.

-Response: problem of free will vs omniscience

Question 6

omnibenevolence meaning

Answer 6

= all loving, perfectly good, always does what’s morally good, never does bad or evil.

philosophers argue- claim its not possible for god to not do evil things contradicts his omnipotence so most P argue God Can do evil but chooses never to do so.

-Euthyphro dilemma pushes conflict between omnipotence + benevolence.

Question 7

eternal/ everlasting meaning

Answer 7

everlasting: god exists within time
eternal: god exists outside of time

everlasting, thiw say he was there in the beginning of time and will continue to exist forever.
eternal god is more difficult to imagine, if god exists outside of time then he has no beginning or end as these concepts only make sense in time.

Question 8

explain theologian beothius description of gods eternal relationship with time

Answer 8

“the whole simultaneous, and perfect possession of boundless life.”

described time as a circle. human experience is of travelling round the circle whereas an eternal being (centre) experiences all points on the circle simultaneously.

Question 9

what were elenore stump and Norman kretzmann 2 types of simultaneity

Answer 9

-T-simultaneity:
applies to temporal beings (within time) e.g. humans.humans can perceive 2 things happen simultaneously in the present moment only.
-E-simultaneity:
applies to atemporal beings (outside time) i.e. God. God can perceive multiple things simultaneously at all times (past, present, future).

Question 10

what’s the problem of the stone

Answer 10

-argues gods omnipotences is self-contradictory

asks: if gods omnipotent can he create a stone so heavy he can’t lift it?
-if he can’t then he’s not powerful enough to create this stone.
-but if he can then he’s not powerful enough to lift the stone.
either way theres something god cannot do = he’s not omnipotent

Question 11

what’s a response to the problem of the stone

Answer 11

George Mavrodes
“a stone an omnipotent being cannot lift” is not a possible thing - its a contradiction. As discussed meaning of omnipotence is not real limitation on gods power to say god can’t do what’s logically impossible because whats logically impossible is meaningless.

Question 12

what’s the euthyphro dilemma

Answer 12

-takes name from platos euthyphro
-looks at wether morality is created by or independent of god.
its argument in modern times is applied to moral judgements e.g. “tourching babies is wrong” we can ask:
1. is tourching babies wrong because God said so?
2. or, does God command “don’t torture babies” because its wrong?
= does God create morality or does God just follow morality?

2) if true morality is something independent of God - presents challenge to Gods omnipotence.
Because Gods power would be limited to morality. e.g. God would not be powerful enough to make touching babies is good true.

1) if true God created morality- then this challenges Gods omnibenevolence:
-If god creates morality then morality is arbitrary
-if god creates mortality then god is good is a tautology.
=if god creates morality then morality is arbitrary

SO this arguement drives a wedge between the claim God is omnipotent and God is benevolent.
-God is not omnipotent or,
-God is omnibenevolent is meaningless

Question 13

1st response to euthyphro dilemma

Answer 13

we can accept God creates morality (so still omnipotent) but reject the claim that this makes morality arbitrary.
by arguing that God decides what morality is based on other factors such as love.
e.g. God dint command “touching babies is wrong” for no reason. he commanded it because he loves us so didnt want humans to suffer.

SO god is omnipotent to making touching babies is good but didnt because of his benevolence for humanity.

This preserves the claim that God is omnibenevolent without making the definition of good or omnibenmievolence an arbitrary one.

Question 14

2nd response to euthyphro dilemma

Answer 14

-can reject the claim “god is good” becomes a tautology if God creates morality by arguing “GOds will” and good are 2 different concepts for the same thing.
water example: water + H20 refer to the same thing but water is H20 is not a tautology because water + H20 r 2 different concept . possible to say u could know what water is without knowing water is H20. Thus discovery to learn water is H20.
Applied: “good” + “gods will” 2 different concepts for the same thing - we can understand them separately of each other. Its a discovery then to learn that Gods will is good in same way learning water is H20

Question 15

omnisicience vs free will

Answer 15

If God omniscient then God will know what I’m doing before I do it. If this true then it’s not possible I can dot anything else so I don’t have free will.

EXAMPLE:
-God knows I’m going to the fridge to Get a beer.
-If God already knows that im going to get a beer from the fridge before I do it, then it must be true that I go to the fridge to get a beer.
-if its true that I go to the fridge to get a beer, then it can’t be false that I go to the fridge to get a beer.

=other words I don’t have a choice.
And if I don’t have a choice whether or not to get a beer then I don’t have free will. so either:
-God is omniscient but we dint have free will
-we have free will but god is not omniscient.

Question 16

1st response to the problem of omniscience vs free will

Answer 16

can respond by saying free will makes it impossible to know the future.
some philosophers understand omniscience as the claim God knows everything it is possible to know.
If free will makes it impossible to know the future then we can still say God is omniscient because he knows everything that’s possible to know.

(only works if god relationship with time is everlasting rather than eternal. if eternal could see the future)

Question 17

2nd response to omniscience vs free will

Answer 17

from perspective of an eternal GOd “tomorrow” is visible to him same way “now” is visible to us.
APPLIED: can say Gods knowledge of future is similar to our knowledge of the present.
the fact god is observing what in doing right now doesn’t prove I lack free will - god could just be observing me freely chose my actions.

eternal god perceives all moments in time today yesterday tmrw. sop if god is eternal constantly observing the future + thus knows what will happen. but this doesn’t mean we lack free will.

Question 18

3rd response to omnscience vs free will

Answer 18

some theologians defend Monism: view that God has counterfactual “middle knowledge” of all possible worlds. means god knows what could happen if something were the case.
monist argue gods middle knwodlege played an important role in why he created our world the way it is: he surveyed all the possible worlds + decided based on every possible counteract outcome to make this particular world.
Applied: God might counterfactual know “if its Friday and theres a beer in the fridge and he wants to relax he will get a beer.”
so if those r the circumstances then there is some sense in which god knows what im going to do next. but gods knowledge here is not factual its counterfactual. so we have free will.