Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

R.S. Philosophy > Attributes of God > Flashcards

Attributes of God Flashcards

1
Q

what is descartes omnipotence?

A

god can do anything including the logically impossible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

what is the biblical quote for omnipotence?

A

MATTHEW 19 - “with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what is j.l. mackie’s input on omnipotence?

A

PARADOX OF OMNIPOTENCE

can god create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what is aquinas’ omnipotence?

A

can do all that is logically possible, restricted only by his own perfection

i.e. can do everything that doesn’t involve a contradiction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

what is augustine’s omnipotence?

A

god’s nature places limitations on what he can do

he can do whatever he chooses to do, he self-imposes certain limitations such as not committing evil

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

biblical quote on god’s omniscience?

A

GENESIS 3

God has perfect knowledge of everything, including good and evil

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what is aquinas’ view on omniscience?

A

god is eternal and all knowing of past present and future

god’s simplicity means he cannot depend on the earth for knowledge and his knowledge is thus casual - this leads to a denial of human freedom however if he knows everything

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what is swinburne’s view of omniscience?

A

god is everlasting and knows past present but not future

god knows what we have done and what we are doing but is only aware of the logical possibilities of our futures IF OTHER CHOICES HAD BEEN MADE (THE MIDDLE WAY) - lots of criticism of this

says a timeless god is largely incompatible, believers wish to say many things about god such as that he forgives etc. but giving examples of such attributes if gods timeless

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what is boethius/anselm view of omniscience?

A

boethius understood eternal to mean timeless, rather than everlasting. Boethius says god doesn’t see past, present and future but sees through a “lofty peak” which is an eternal present

in “the consolidation of philosophy” lady philosophy states god’s foreknowledge is not the case of future events happening humans free will causes this; god just surveys the whole of time in an eternal present.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what is the inconsistent triad benevolence?

A

proposed by epicurus, how can evil occur if god is all loving/ all powerful

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

how does iranaeus’ soul making theodicy apply to benevolence?

A

saw evil as necessary in us reaching the divine likeness of god; humans have to suffer in order to develop into gods image

hick developed this later and said evil was a natural consequence of freedom

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

how does augustine soul making theodicy apply to benevolence?

A

evil comes as a result of human free will which chooses to sin as a result of the fall

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

how does boethius/anselm apply to benevolence?

A

concluded gods foreknowledge is separate to human freedom as god is atemporal and has simultaneous knowledge - therefore his judgement is just as we have freely chosen how we act (2020 PRESIDENT ELECTION EXAMPLE)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what is aquinas’ view on eternity?

A

God’s simplicity means he cannot depend on the earth for knowledge and his knowledge is thus casual - this leads to determinism and a denial of human freedom

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

what does kant say on eternity?

A

“if we are not free we are not responsible and cannot be punished”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what does swinburne say on eternity?

A

god is everlasting and knows past present but not future

god knows what we have done and what we are doing but is only aware of the logical possibilities of our futures IF OTHER CHOICES HAD BEEN MADE (THE MIDDLE WAY) - lots of criticism of this

says a timeless god is largely incompatible, believers wish to say many things about god such as that he forgives etc. but giving examples of such attributes if gods timeless

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

what does boethius say on eternity?

A

boethius understood eternal to mean timeless, rather than everlasting. Boethius says god doesn’t see past, present and future but sees through a “lofty peak” which is an eternal present

in “the consolidation of philosophy” lady philosophy states god’s foreknowledge is not the case of future events happening humans free will causes this; god just surveys the whole of time in an eternal present.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNIPOTENCE

“assess the belief that god is omnipotent”

POINT 1 - (descartes)

A

P1 – LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE ILLOGICAL, WOULD NOT BE BENEVOLENT
A: GOD CAN DO THE LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
• Descartes believed we had no idea of God so cannot lay down limitations on his absolute omnipotence – God created the laws of logic/ existed prior to them; to conform to human laws would limit his power
• Matthew 19 – “with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNIPOTENCE

“assess the belief that god is omnipotent”

POINT 1 - COUNTER ARGUMENT -mackie, logically incoherent notion

A

CA: LOGICALLY INCOHERENT NOTION
• Mackie – claiming God can do logically impossible actions is “only a form of words, which fails to describe any state of affairs” It is meaningless to talk of God creating square-circles, as if he did so he would be creating his own language – however, not being able to do this is no limitation on God’s power as creating a ‘square-circle’ is a meaningless utterance. C.S Lewisagreed -“meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire a meaning because we prefix to them two other words ‘God can”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNIPOTENCE

“assess the belief that god is omnipotent”

POINT 1 - COUNTER RESPONSE above laws of human logic

A

R: GOD IS ABOVE THE LAWS OF HUMAN LOGIC
• Certainly, by human standards, such illogical ideas cannot be comprehended, yet God is entirely beyond human capacities or understand thus it is arguably futile to even begin to understand what he can and cannot do…

e.g. kants realms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNIPOTENCE

“assess the belief that god is omnipotent”

POINT 1 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE problem of evil

A

CR: SUGGESTS HE IS NOT BENEVOLENT DUE TO THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
• Free will defence/ Problem of evil – if God could do everything (including logically impossible) he could create humans free and maintain they would always choose to do good (Ninian Smart refers to this as ‘Utopian Thesis’); the fact he has not done this would suggest he was not truly benevolent this type of omnipotence clearly doesn’t work

Kenny - illogical to suggest an evil world was created by an omnipotent creator.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNIPOTENCE

“assess the belief that god is omnipotent”

POINT 2 aquinas, possible

A

P2 – LOGICALLY POSSIBLE BENEVOLENT, ALTHOUGH NOT TRANSCENDENT/ SEEMS LIMITED
A: GOD CAN DO WHAT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE
• Aquinas argued “He can do anything that is absolutely possible” “everything that does not imply a contradiction” i.e. cannot change the past, cannot sin, cannot make square circles. “As the principles of sciences such as logic, geometry, or arithmetic are taken from the formal principles of things which are essential to their natures, it follows that God could not make things that go against these principles” (‘Summa Contra Gentiles’)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNIPOTENCE

“assess the belief that god is omnipotent”

POINT 2 - COUNTER ARGUMENT lie

A

CA: WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO LIE ETC.
• Still issues with this – can God ride a bike? To do so is logically possible, but God is wholly simple and timeless - doesn’t have physical attributes and so it is physically impossible for him to do so – a narrower approach is needed. God would also be able to do things which defied his nature, such as lie or commit evil act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNIPOTENCE

“assess the belief that god is omnipotent”

POINT 2 - COUNTER RESPONSE augustine limitation

A

R: SELF IMPOSED LIMITATION, ALLOWS FREE WILL
• Augustine – God’s omnipotence needs to be understood as meaning he can do whatever he chooses to do; he self imposes certain limitations, such as not committing evil, as this would be contrary to his very nature. He is limited by his own perfections only, does what he wills – he would not wish to will evil, so he feels no frustration at this fact – not within his interests, so therefore he is omnipotent.
• COINCIDES WITH HUMAN FREE WILL/ PROBLEM OF EVIL: Keith Ward – “god freely limits the exercise of his unlimited power by the creation of free beings” Augustinian/ Irenaean theodicies argue evil is a result of human free will which God CANNOT stop because we must be able to choose loving relationship etc.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNIPOTENCE

“assess the belief that god is omnipotent”

POINT 2 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE know god, freud

A

We cannot know God as Freud puts it God is the phenomenal realm and we are the noumenal.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNIPOTENCE

“assess the belief that god is omnipotent”

POINT 3 (power of love, geach and teresa of avila)

A

P3 – ALMIGHTY/ POWER OF LOVE WE CANNOT KNOW GOD OR HIS PLAN
A: POWER OF LOVE/ ALMIGHTY
• Peter Geachargues that God has the capacity for power, power over everything rather than a power to do everything and he bases this on the use of the translated word almighty to describe God in the New Testament – un-actualised powers, less human like i.e. wouldn’t ride a bike
• St Teresa of Avila – “Christ has no body now on earth except yours” God exists within the form of life (Wittgenstein) of the believing community (anti-realist notion), thus to talk of God’s power is to talk of our actions of compassion and love, which triumph over adversity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNIPOTENCE

“assess the belief that god is omnipotent”

POINT 3 - COUNTER ARGUMENT (denies theist understanding)

A

CA: DENIES THEIST UNDERSTANDING
• Denies the actual existence of God in the universe and would be rejected by numerous theists – it is just us? We are not divine like God, reducing him to human terms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNIPOTENCE

“assess the belief that god is omnipotent”

POINT 3 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE (Descartes unknown god)

A

R: GOD IS ULTIMATELY UNKNOWN TO US
• We are unsure of God’s exact nature but we know he is all powerful – Descartes argues God is unknowable to the human mind, thus it would make more sense to argue from this that we cannot make specific assertions about his power in humans terms of logical instead we must accept he has power over all things; we do not know what this means but must trust God

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND
OMNIPOTENCE

“Critically assess the philosophical problems raised by the belief that God is omnipotent”
“An omnipotent God cannot escape responsibility for evils of the world. Discuss”

POINT 1 (descartes, logically impossible + matthew)

A

P1 – TYPES OF OMNIPOTENCE
A: LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
• Descartes believed we had no idea of God so cannot lay down limitations on his absolute omnipotence – God created the laws of logic/ existed prior to them; to conform to human laws would limit his power
• Matthew 19 – “with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

30
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND
OMNIPOTENCE

“Critically assess the philosophical problems raised by the belief that God is omnipotent”
“An omnipotent God cannot escape responsibility for evils of the world. Discuss”

POINT 1 - COUNTER ARGUMENT (mackie incoherent notion and problem of evil)

A

CA: LOGICALLY INCOHERENT NOTION, PROBLEM OF EVIL
• Mackie – claiming God can do logically impossible actions is “only a form of words, which fails to describe any state of affairs” C.S Lewisagreed -“meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire a meaning because we prefix to them two other words ‘God can”
• Free will defence/ Problem of evil – if God could do everything (including logically impossible) he could create humans free and maintain they would always choose to do good (Ninian Smart refers to this as ‘Utopian Thesis’); the fact he has not done this would suggest he was not truly benevolent this type of omnipotence clearly doesn’t work

talk about kenny illogical god

31
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND
OMNIPOTENCE

“Critically assess the philosophical problems raised by the belief that God is omnipotent”
“An omnipotent God cannot escape responsibility for evils of the world. Discuss”

POINT 1 - COUNTER RESPONSE aquinas logically possible

A

R: LOGICALLY POSSIBLE
• Aquinas argued “He can do anything that is absolutely possible” “everything that does not imply a contradiction” i.e. cannot change the past, cannot sin, cannot make square circles. “As the principles of sciences such as logic, geometry, or arithmetic are taken from the formal principles of things which are essential to their natures, it follows that God could not make things that go against these principles” (‘Summa Contra Gentiles’)

32
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND
OMNIPOTENCE

“Critically assess the philosophical problems raised by the belief that God is omnipotent”
“An omnipotent God cannot escape responsibility for evils of the world. Discuss”

POINT 1 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE lie

A

CA: WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO LIE, CREATE EVIL HAPPENINGS
• Still issues with this – there would be no logical contradiction in God creating typhoons or starving children; a narrower approach is needed as this type of omnipotence does not reconcile God’s nature with the inconsistent triad

33
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND
OMNIPOTENCE

“Critically assess the philosophical problems raised by the belief that God is omnipotent”
“An omnipotent God cannot escape responsibility for evils of the world. Discuss”

POINT 2 augustine self-imposed, keith ward

A

P2 – THEODICIES AND FREE WILL
A: SELF IMPOSED LIMITATION – AUGUSTINIAN THEODICY
• Augustine – God’s omnipotence needs to be understood as meaning he can do whatever he chooses to do; he self imposes certain limitations, such as not committing evil, as this would be contrary to his very nature. He is limited by his own perfections only, does what he wills – he would not wish to will evil, so he feels no frustration at this fact – not within his interests, so therefore he is omnipotent.
• COINCIDES WITH HUMAN FREE WILL/ PROBLEM OF EVIL: Keith Ward – “god freely limits the exercise of his unlimited power by the creation of free beings” Augustinian/ Irenaean theodicies argue evil is a result of human free will which God CANNOT stop because we must be able to choose loving relationship etc.

34
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND
OMNIPOTENCE

“Critically assess the philosophical problems raised by the belief that God is omnipotent”
“An omnipotent God cannot escape responsibility for evils of the world. Discuss”

POINT 2 - COUNTER ARGUMENT mackie + aristotle imperfect creator

A

CA: FALL SUGGESTS A LACK OF HUMAN FREE WILL, IMPERFECT CREATOR
• J L Mackie, in his article ‘Evil and Omnipotence’ argues why an omnipotent God could not create humans with characters which meant they would freely choose to do good?
• Furthermore, if we accept we are fallen, God cannot justly punish us as if we are ignorant then we cannot be responsible for our actions (Aristotle)

35
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND
OMNIPOTENCE

“Critically assess the philosophical problems raised by the belief that God is omnipotent”
“An omnipotent God cannot escape responsibility for evils of the world. Discuss”

POINT 2 - COUNTER RESPONSE hick divine likeness

A

R: LOVING GOD ALLOWS US FREE WILL TO DEVELOP INTO DIVINE LIKENESS
• Hick’s develops Iranaeus soul-making theodicy, viewing evil as instrumental in our development into God’s divine likeness. Swinburne explains that such objections are like asking God to make a toy world, where there are no real consequences or actions. The world is a vale for soul making. A world without any pain would be a meaningless, empty haze, in which we drifted about aimlessly, not suffering nor caring – “we have to learn in the face of life’s sorrows, in order to become better people” (Keats) With free choice must come real consequences, and from these we develop virtues of courage, charity, empathy “vale of soul making”

36
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND
OMNIPOTENCE

“Critically assess the philosophical problems raised by the belief that God is omnipotent”
“An omnipotent God cannot escape responsibility for evils of the world. Discuss”

POINT 2 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE dz phillips instrumental evil

A

CR: ISSUE OF INSTRUMENTAL EVIL
• D.Z. Philips ‘The Problem of Evil and The Problem of God’ – justifying evil for the benefit of others is a sign of a corrupt mind. The suffering of the victims at Auschwitz arguably serves no instrumental good for those who died. “Our moral growth is presented by Swinburne as the justification of those sufferings which he treats as a means of achieving it”, callousness towards the suffering of others

37
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND
OMNIPOTENCE

“Critically assess the philosophical problems raised by the belief that God is omnipotent”
“An omnipotent God cannot escape responsibility for evils of the world. Discuss”

POINT 3 bent hamite notion

A

P3 – SIMPLE AND TIMELESS GOD NOT EVIL, ULTIMATELY UNKNOWN
A: PROBLEM OF EVIL AND SUFFERING IS A CASE OF CATEGORY ERROR; GOD IS ETERNAL/ SIMPLE
• The problem with the problem of evil and suffering is the very equating of evil with suffering – Benthamite notion that equates pleasure with good and pain with evil – there is no rational reason why we should make this connection. We can accept that we dislike pain and like pleasure, but pleasure can lead to bad ends (overdosing on drugs) and goodness can come from pain (childbirth, exam success after lots of revision), so the very argument itself is based on a category error

38
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND
OMNIPOTENCE

“Critically assess the philosophical problems raised by the belief that God is omnipotent”
“An omnipotent God cannot escape responsibility for evils of the world. Discuss”

POINT 3 - COUNTER ARGUMENT defies theist idea of an immanent god

A

CA: DEFIES THEIST IDEA OF AN IMMANENT GOD BOUND UP WITH HIS CREATION/ BENEFICE
• If God is simple and timeless, he would not be able to respond to our prayers, or actively perform good acts in the world

39
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND
OMNIPOTENCE

“Critically assess the philosophical problems raised by the belief that God is omnipotent”
“An omnipotent God cannot escape responsibility for evils of the world. Discuss”

POINT 3 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE god’s love unlike human love

A

R: GOD’S LOVE IS UNLIKE HUMAN LOVE
• Thus God, whose nature we cannot possibly know and comprehend, allows suffering for His own omniscient reasons – as Lady Philosophy asserts to Boethius, the problem is with human understanding, not the nature of God
• God sent himself as a human manifestation through Christ, yet God’s essence is ultimately unknown to us – his love will never be known to our finite mind; we must have trust in his plan and take a leap of faith

40
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE

“a just god cannot be a merciful one”

POINT 1 - PROBLEM OF HELL AND AN ALL-LOVING GOD
A: CONDEMNING HIS CREATION TO ETERNAL SUFFERING

A

P1 – PROBLEM OF HELL AND AN ALL-LOVING GOD
A: CONDEMNING HIS CREATION TO ETERNAL SUFFERING
• God which Jesus preached cannot be the God of judgment and exclusion, Overwhelming emphasis of the New Testament is reconciliation with God
• John “God is love” Johns Gospel’s: Jesus’ resurrection is triumph of life over death, not eternal damnation

41
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE

“a just god cannot be a merciful one”

POINT 1 - COUNTER ARGUMENT augustine fall

A

CA: THE FALL, NONE DESERVE SALVATION
• God’s grace given as a gift to the elect, sign of his love as no one deserved of beatific vision. Augustine moved from God’s perfect foreknowledge (free choices within this) to believing not only did He know, but He chose who would receive his grace. “those he predestined he also called” (Romans) God is just as grace = extension of his benevolence.

42
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE

“a just god cannot be a merciful one”

POINT 1 - COUNTER RESPONSE kant

A

R: SUGGESTS WE DO NOT HAVE FREE WILL – CANNOT JUSTLY PUNISH US
• Kant says, “if we are not free we are not responsible and cannot be punished”.

43
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE

“a just god cannot be a merciful one”

POINT 1 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE barth unlimited election

A

CR: OMNIBENEVOLENCE – UNLIMITED ELECTION
• More coherent approach to election that is compatible with belief in a just God, is that of unlimited election. Karl Barth ‘Church Dogmatics’, wrote of election in terms of choice – God chose to send Jesus, “reconciler of all” into the world, as both the “electing God and the elected man in One”..
• Supported by 1 John “he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins… for the sins of the whole world” resurrection was a triumph of life over death

44
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE

“a just god cannot be a merciful one”

POINT 2 epicurus triad

A

P2 – PROBLEM OF EVIL AND HUMAN FREE WILL
A: INCONSISTENT TRIAD
• Epicurus first posed the inconsistent triad – the existence of evil, with an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God (in like with the God of classical theism) are logically incoherent, as an all-powerful all-loving God would not allow for the existence of evil Hume argued that as we have evidence of evil, God is either impotent or malicious; not the God of classical theism. Thus God does not exist…

45
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE

“a just god cannot be a merciful one”

POINT 2 - COUNTER ARGUMENT augustine theodicy perfection

A

CA: AUGUSTINIAN THEODICY
• Augustine’s soul-deciding theodicy – original perfection maintains God created a perfect world, “God saw everything he made and indeed it was very good” (Genesis 1); moral evil is thus a privation boni, brought about by human free will and our fallen human nature/ Original Sin
• Natural evil occurs as a result of the disharmony, and acts as a punishment

46
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE

“a just god cannot be a merciful one”

POINT 2 - COUNTER RESPONSE mackie evil

A

R: COULD WE NOT BE CREATED WITHOUT ABILITY TO DO EVIL
• J L Mackie, in his article ‘Evil and Omnipotence’ argues why an omnipotent God could not create humans with characters which meant they would freely choose to do good?

47
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE

“a just god cannot be a merciful one”

POINT 2 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE iranaues + hick

A

CR: WE NEED SUFFERING AND PUNISHMENT TO GROW INTO DIVINE LIKENESS
• Iranaeus’ soul-making theodicy asserts that (unlike Augustine’s theodicy) humans have potential to reach God’s divine likeness, yet must grow and develop through suffering. Goodness is dependent on its purpose of developing us into better people.
• Hick develops Iranaeus theodicy by maintaining that a complete and genuine relationship with God can come only through free choice; if God’s hand were to continuously intervene, nature would lack regularity, and we would be forced to believe in God thus God must keep epistemic distance and allow us to suffer and make mistakes

48
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE

“a just god cannot be a merciful one”

POINT 3 problem of evil, bent hamite notion, boethius and anselm

A

PROBLEM OF EVIL

  • The problem with the problem of evil and suffering is the very equating of evil with suffering – Benthamite notion that equates pleasure with good and pain with evil – there is no rational reason why we should make this connection. We can accept that we dislike pain and like pleasure, but pleasure can lead to bad ends (overdosing on drugs) and goodness can come from pain (childbirth, exam success after lots of revision), so the very argument itself is based on a category error
  • Boethius and Anselm were led to conclude that God’s foreknowledge is separate to human freedom as God is atemporal and has simultaneous knowledge – therefore his judgement is just and fair as we have freely chosen to act the way we have, “God sees us from above and knows all things in his eternal present and judges our future, free actions, justly distributing rewards and punishments” (‘The Consultation of Philosophy’)
49
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE

“a just god cannot be a merciful one”

POINT 3 - COUNTER ARGUMENT defies theist idea of an immanent god

A

CA: DEFIES THEIST IDEA OF AN IMMANENT GOD BOUND UP WITH HIS CREATION/ BENEFICE
• If God is simple and timeless, he would not be able to respond to our prayers, or actively perform good acts in the world – part of benevolence is performing loving acts, actively pursuing goodness for his creation!

50
Q

ESSAY PLAN - EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE

“a just god cannot be a merciful one”

POINT 3 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE god unlike human love

A

R: GOD’S LOVE IS UNLIKE HUMAN LOVE
• God sent himself as a human manifestation through Christ (his love was his sacrifice of his son on the cross), yet God’s essence is ultimately unknown to us John 3 – “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” – his love will never be known to our finite mind; we must have trust in his plan and take a leap of faith
• “God is greater than all we can say, greater than all we can know… he is beyond the comprehension of every human mind whatsoever”

51
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNSCIENCE/ETERNITY/FREE WILL

“To what extent is it true to say God knows everything?”
“Assess the belief that because God knows everything we cannot have free will”
“To what extent is it logical to suggest that God is outside of time?”

POINT 1 - aquinas simplicity

A

P1 – ETERNAL AND CAUSAL KNOWLEDGE (DEFIES OMNIBENEVOLENCE, DEFIES IMMANENCE, NO FREE WILL)
A: AQUINAS, WHOLLY SIMPLE AND ALL KNOWING, CAUSAL KNOWLEDGE
• Aquinas argues that God’s simplicity means he cannot depend on the earth for knowledge, and his knowledge is thus causal – this leads to determinism however, and a denial of human freedom. “God is greater than all we can say, greater than all we can know… he is beyond the comprehension of every human mind whatsoever”

52
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNSCIENCE/ETERNITY/FREE WILL

“To what extent is it true to say God knows everything?”
“Assess the belief that because God knows everything we cannot have free will”
“To what extent is it logical to suggest that God is outside of time?”

POINT 1 - COUNTER ARGUMENT kant free will and punishment

A

CA: KANT, FREE WILL AND PUNISHMENT
• Kant says, “if we are not free we are not responsible and cannot be punished”. The bible states that God gave humans free will and Augustine said that God gave himself epistemic distance so that he could not interfere and humans could be free to make their own choices.

53
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNSCIENCE/ETERNITY/FREE WILL

“To what extent is it true to say God knows everything?”
“Assess the belief that because God knows everything we cannot have free will”
“To what extent is it logical to suggest that God is outside of time?”

POINT 1 - COUNTER RESPONSE honderich moral reposbility

A

R: GOD HAS MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, NOT US

• Ted Honderich – God has moral responsibility, not us, thus he predetermines our actions

54
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNSCIENCE/ETERNITY/FREE WILL

“To what extent is it true to say God knows everything?”
“Assess the belief that because God knows everything we cannot have free will”
“To what extent is it logical to suggest that God is outside of time?”

POINT 1 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE problem of evil

A

CR: PROBLEM OF EVIL SUGGESTS A MORALLY RESPONSIBLE GOD IS NOT LOVING
• The Problem of Evil – if God causes our actions he could not be omnibenevolent as he wills for us to commit evil acts! This cannot be overcome by Augustinian or Irenaeus’ theodicies as both maintain evil is as a result of human free will.

55
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNSCIENCE/ETERNITY/FREE WILL

“To what extent is it true to say God knows everything?”
“Assess the belief that because God knows everything we cannot have free will”
“To what extent is it logical to suggest that God is outside of time?”

POINT 2 swinburne knowing past

A

P2 – EVERLASTING (PERSONAL/ IMMANENT, YET LIMITED AND LIMITS OUR FREE WILL…)
A: EVERLASTING, KNOWING PAST, PRESENT, BUT NOT FUTURE
• Swinburne – God knows what we have done and what we are doing but is only aware of the logical possibilities of our futures IF OTHER CHOICES HAD BEEN MADE (The middle way) many question what the point in this knowledge is… “In my opinion, the timeless view incompatible with everything else that religious believers have wanted to say about God” (‘Was Jesus God?’) i.e. only an everlasting God, subject to the same temporal experience as humans, would be able to reply to prayers

56
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNSCIENCE/ETERNITY/FREE WILL

“To what extent is it true to say God knows everything?”
“Assess the belief that because God knows everything we cannot have free will”
“To what extent is it logical to suggest that God is outside of time?”

POINT 2 - COUNTER ARGUMENT limits gods omnipotence, gerry hughes

A

CA: LIMITS GOD’S OMNIPOTENCE, COMPROMISES HIS SIMPLICITY/ IMMUTABILITY!
• Compromises his omnipotence if he cannot know our futures, HOWEVER, makes him seem immanent as he is also subject to human time
• Gerry Hughes – God depends on the universe for his knowledge, but this compromises his simplicity as his knowledge is no longer identical to his other attributes?

57
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNSCIENCE/ETERNITY/FREE WILL

“To what extent is it true to say God knows everything?”
“Assess the belief that because God knows everything we cannot have free will”
“To what extent is it logical to suggest that God is outside of time?”

POINT 2 - COUNTER RESPONSE chess master peter geach

A

R: CHESS MASTER/ CLOSE FRIENDS
• Peter Geach – “God is the supreme Chess Master… whatever the finite player’s do, God’s plan will be executed”; the everlasting God cannot predict with complete certainty what we will do, but he knows his eventual purposes will triumph, much like the Chess Master knows he will win “The heart of man paths his way, but the lord establishes his steps” (Proverbs 16:9)

58
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNSCIENCE/ETERNITY/FREE WILL

“To what extent is it true to say God knows everything?”
“Assess the belief that because God knows everything we cannot have free will”
“To what extent is it logical to suggest that God is outside of time?”

POINT 2 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE existence precedes essence, sartre

A

CR: EXISTENCE PRECEDES ESSENCE, FREE WILL

• Sartre – existence precedes essence; there is no such thing as a human nature thus God cannot predict what we will do

59
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNSCIENCE/ETERNITY/FREE WILL

“To what extent is it true to say God knows everything?”
“Assess the belief that because God knows everything we cannot have free will”
“To what extent is it logical to suggest that God is outside of time?”

POINT 3 boethius, lofty peak

A

P3 – ETERNAL AND TIMELESS (UNLIMITED/ SIMPLE/ TRANSCENDENT, LOGICALLY INCOHERENT….)
A: SIMPLE, ATEMPORAL
• Boethius ‘The Consultation of Philosophy’ – Boethius understood eternal to mean timeless, rather than everlasting. Boethius argues God does not see past, present and future in temporal terms (as humans do) but rather simultaneously, as though he were standing on top of a mountain looking down on time “As though from a lofty peak”; In the Consolation of Philosophy Lady Philosophy states that God’s foreknowledge is not the cause of future events happening.

60
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNSCIENCE/ETERNITY/FREE WILL

“To what extent is it true to say God knows everything?”
“Assess the belief that because God knows everything we cannot have free will”
“To what extent is it logical to suggest that God is outside of time?”

POINT 3 - COUNTER ARGUMENT swinburne + kenny

A

CA: LOGICALLY INCOHERENT, IMPERSONAL GOD
• Richard Swinburne and Anthony Kenny have argued that seeing and knowing everything from outside of time in a simultaneous present is incoherent – Kenny attempts to highlight the ridiculousness of the theory by claiming “The great fire of Rome is simultaneous with the whole of eternity”, whilst Swinburne argues God cannot know what it is like to be in 1955 unless he was in fact in 1955

61
Q

ESSAY PLAN - OMNSCIENCE/ETERNITY/FREE WILL

“To what extent is it true to say God knows everything?”
“Assess the belief that because God knows everything we cannot have free will”
“To what extent is it logical to suggest that God is outside of time?”

POINT 3 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE anselm 4 dimensions

A

R: ANSELM’S FOUR DIMENSIONAL APPROACH
• Extremely weak criticism – neither Boethius nor Aquinas claimed all of time took place at once. Boethius claims the nature of God’s knowledge is different to that of humans, seeing all of eternity in a simultaneous present –
• Anselm’s four dimentionalist approach expands on Boethius: God is separate from time and space and as God experiences eternity as a DIMENSION, rather than in terms of time, our free will is preserved. As the future for God is not a matter of time, but it is a matter of time for us, the future is unchanging for God, but changing for us.

62
Q

ESSAY PLAN - ETERNAL

“critically assess the traditional christian concept of god being eternal”

POINT 1 - aquinas simplicity

A

P1 – ETERNAL AND CAUSAL KNOWLEDGE: PROBLEM OF EVIL, FREE WILL
A: AQUINAS, WHOLLY SIMPLE AND ALL KNOWING, CAUSAL KNOWLEDGE
• Aquinas argues that God’s simplicity means he cannot depend on the earth for knowledge, and his knowledge is thus causal – this leads to determinism however, and a denial of human freedom. “God is greater than all we can say, greater than all we can know… he is beyond the comprehension of every human mind whatsoever”

63
Q

ESSAY PLAN - ETERNAL

“critically assess the traditional christian concept of god being eternal”

POINT 1 - COUNTER ARGUMENT kant punishment

A

CA: KANT, FREE WILL AND PUNISHMENT
• Kant says, “if we are not free we are not responsible and cannot be punished”. The bible states that God gave humans free will and Augustine said that God gave himself epistemic distance so that he could not interfere and humans could be free to make their own choices.

64
Q

ESSAY PLAN - ETERNAL

“critically assess the traditional christian concept of god being eternal”

POINT 1 - COUNTER RESPONSE honderich moral responsibility

A

R: GOD HAS MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, NOT US

• Ted Honderich – God has moral responsibility, not us, thus he predetermines our actions

65
Q

ESSAY PLAN - ETERNAL

“critically assess the traditional christian concept of god being eternal”

POINT 1 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE problem of evil, kenny

A

CR: PROBLEM OF EVIL SUGGESTS A MORALLY RESPONSIBLE GOD IS NOT LOVING
• The Problem of Evil – if God causes our actions he could not be omnibenevolent as he wills for us to commit evil acts! This cannot be overcome by Augustinian or Irenaeus’ theodicies as both maintain evil is as a result of human free will

talk about kenny illogical ting

66
Q

ESSAY PLAN - ETERNAL

“critically assess the traditional christian concept of god being eternal”

POINT 2 swinburne, within time

A

P2 – EVERLASTING, WITHIN TIME: IMMUTABILITY, IMMANENT
A: SWINBURNE, WITHIN TIME
• Swinburne – God knows what we have done and what we are doing but is only aware of the logical possibilities of our futures IF OTHER CHOICES HAD BEEN MADE (The middle way) many question what the point in this knowledge is… “In my opinion, the timeless view incompatible with everything else that religious believers have wanted to say about God” (‘Was Jesus God?’) i.e. only an everlasting God, subject to the same temporal experience as humans, would be able to reply to prayers

67
Q

ESSAY PLAN - ETERNAL

“critically assess the traditional christian concept of god being eternal”

POINT 2 - COUNTER ARGUMENT aquinas immutability

A

CA: COMPROMISES HIS IMMUTABILITY
• Aquinas argues that change and time are blatantly linked: humans grow old and die, metal rusts, memories are forgotten – God were to exist within time he would be constrained by the same laws which time inflicts upon the universe; he would be susceptible to change and no longer immutable “I the Lord do not change” (Malachi 3), implies imperfection

68
Q

ESSAY PLAN - ETERNAL

“critically assess the traditional christian concept of god being eternal”

POINT 2 - COUNTER RESPONSE god capable of change

A

R: GOD IS CAPABLE OF CHANGE, HUMAN LIKE
• If God were not susceptible to time, he would not be able to intervene in specific moments in history – in the Bible God is seen to forge a covenant with the Israelites; he speaks of his love for them and gave them the Ten Commandments. It is impossible to form a relationship without being changed, thus the God of traditional theism must be subject to change and is thus possible to be within time! The argument that he cannot changed would seem fundamentally flawed.

69
Q

ESSAY PLAN - ETERNAL

“critically assess the traditional christian concept of god being eternal”

POINT 2 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE humans lack knowledge, aquinas

A

CR: THE FATHER, THE SON, THE HOLY SPIRIT HUMANS LACK MENTAL CAPACITIES
• Yet such criticism overlooks the complex nature of God and the Trinity – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit God’s essence, the Father, is eternal, the Holy Spirit is everlasting, the Son walked as man and is present in the world in the tabernacle
• Humans lack the mental capacity to fully understand God’s nature, thus he sends Jesus to reveal the infinite to the finite – Aquinas’ theory of Eternal Law states God is only knowable through simplistic reflections, his true complexity cannot be comprehended

70
Q

ESSAY PLAN - ETERNAL

“critically assess the traditional christian concept of god being eternal”

POINT 3 boethius lofty peak

A

P3 – ATEMPORAL: INCOHERENT, IMPERSONAL?
A: GOD IS ATEMPORAL, IMMUTABLE, SIMULTANEOUS KNOWLEDGE
• Boethius ‘The Consultation of Philosophy’ – Boethius understood eternal to mean timeless, rather than everlasting. Boethius argues God does not see past, present and future in temporal terms (as humans do) but rather simultaneously, as though he were standing on top of a mountain looking down on time “As though from a lofty peak”; In the Consolation of Philosophy Lady Philosophy states that God’s foreknowledge is not the cause of future events happening.

71
Q

ESSAY PLAN - ETERNAL

“critically assess the traditional christian concept of god being eternal”

POINT 3 - COUNTER ARGUMENT swinburne and kenny

A

CA: LOGICALLY INCOHERENT, MUST HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF TIME (SWINBURNE, KENNY)
• Richard Swinburne and Anthony Kenny have argued that seeing and knowing everything from outside of time in a simultaneous present is incoherent – Kenny attempts to highlight the ridiculousness of the theory by claiming “The great fire of Rome is simultaneous with the whole of eternity”, whilst Swinburne argues God cannot know what it is like to be in 1955 unless he was in fact in 1955

72
Q

ESSAY PLAN - ETERNAL

“critically assess the traditional christian concept of god being eternal”

POINT 2 - CONCLUSIVE RESPONSE anselm 4 dimensions

A

R: FOUR DIMENSIONALIST APPROACH
• Extremely weak criticism – neither Boethius nor Aquinas claimed all of time took place at once. Boethius claims the nature of God’s knowledge is different to that of humans, seeing all of eternity in a simultaneous present –
• Anselm’s four dimentionalist approach expands on Boethius: God is separate from time and space and as God experiences eternity as a DIMENSION, rather than in terms of time, our free will is preserved. As the future for God is not a matter of time, but it is a matter of time for us, the future is unchanging for God, but changing for us.

R.S. Philosophy (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions