concept of God Flashcards
(22 cards)
what does it mean for God to be omnipotent
- omnipotence means all powerful
- the apex of power
- there is nothing more powerful than God
what is a paradox
a conclusion which is absurd or contradictory
explain the paradox of the stone
In the paradox of the stone a question is raised that either God can create a stone which is too heavy for God to lift, or God cannot create such a stone. If God can create a stone too heavy to lift, then God is not omnipotent, since God cannot lift the stone. If God cannot create a stone too heavy for God to lift, then God is not omnipotent, since God is not powerful enough to create such a stone. If God cannot do either of these tasks, then God is therefore not omnipotent.
how does aquinas define God and what is the implication for the paradox
Aquinas definition = omnipotence means that God can do anything that is logically possible, that does not involve contradictions. Neither of these tasks are logically impossible on their own and therefore according to Aquinas, God should be able to do them, so the concept of omnipotence is incoherent. But Aquinas could say the concept of a stone an omnipotent being cannot lift is incoherent, since the definition of omnipotence is to be able to do anything that is logically possible, it could be the case that an unliftable stone itself is a logical impossibility
how does Descartes define God and what is the implication for the paradox
Descartes definition = God can do anything, logically possible and impossible, God has perfect power as a supremely perfect being, there is no limit since God must be more powerful than the evil demon. Since God can do both that is logically possible and impossible, the paradox is not an issue for Descartes. Ad hoc definition –> God’s omnipotence is defined in this way to ensure God>evil demon. Also –> potentially incoherent to argue the logically impossible is possible for God
what did C.L. Lewis say about the paradox of the stone
C.S. Lewis argued that the whole argument was not an issue for God’s omnipotence since the argument itself was a logically contradictory problem. He claims that the stone that is too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift is an object that could never exist since it would have to have weight to be a physical object. As such, there is no stone an omnipotent being could not lift. Unliftable stones are logically contradictory and so God being omnipotent is still coherent
what does it mean for God to be omnibenevolent
- all good
- metaphysically omnibenevolent –> perfectly good, possessing no flaws
- morally omnibenevolent –> God does what is good and is the source of morality, God cannot/does not do wrong
what is a dilemma
a choice between two options both of which are unsatisfactory
explain the euthyphro dilemma
The first horn is that God does what is morally good because it is good. This means that morality is independent of God and thus God is not all-good as He follows laws, this also implies that God is not omnipotent (all-powerful) as God must follow laws rather than create them. The second horn is that good things are good because God wills them to be. This is problematic because it makes goodness arbitrary, God could will for anything to be morally right including atrocities. Both horn shows that God and being omnibenevolent are incoherent.
what was Aquinas’ response to the Euthyphro dilemma
- God’s character is fundamentally good and God’s omnibenevolence means that God will never go against this good character
- this means God would never do bad things so if it seems like God does do bad things, they are done for good reasons
- essentially accepting 2nd horn of the dilemma
what was Swinburne’s response to the Euthyphro dilemma
Swinburne’s response = 2 kinds of moral truths
1) necessary moral truths –> murder is wrong –> to deny is a logical contradiction and God is bound by the limits of logic just as much as we are
2) contingent moral truths –> the 7th day is holy –> to deny these is not a logical contradiction, arbitrary, only good because God commands them
He is accepting both horns but rationalising them in a way that makes them make sense
what does it mean for God to be omniscient
- all knowing
- God knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen
what is libertarian free will
The position that claims that human actions are entirely non-determined. At any given moment humans are free to do or refrain from any given action. There are therefore no constraints on human action and the future is not predictable
What is the free will paradox and how does it undermine the concept of omniscience
this means therefore that God does not know what action one might choose to do or not to do at any given moment and therefore is not all-knowing/omniscient. The argument is a moral dilemma – where one option has to be chosen but both are unsatisfactory. If one has free will then their actions are entirely non-determined and they can choose to act in any way in any given situation. God is omniscient and so knowns what one will do before they do it. Therefore, if God knowns what one will do before they choose then they cannot choose to act differently out of their own accord. Therefore, if one cannot choose otherwise then my actions are not free. Therefore, either one is free or God is not omniscient. In this way, the dilemma shows that God cannot have foreknowledge of our actions if our actions are free, since our actions being free would entail that we can always change what we do.
how does Greg Boyd attempt to resolve the free will paradox
Greg Boyd = God knows everything there is to know at each moment of the present, this does not mean God will know the future. It is impossible to know what we will do before we do it, only God knows what is logically impossible, so God’s omniscience is coherent
how does Aquinas attempt to resolve the free will paradox
Aquinas = God knows all that is logically possible to know, free will entails being able to change what we would do, so it is not logically possible to know the future. God can only know everything up to each moment of the present. Not a limit on God’s ability to know but rather what it means to be omniscient.
what does it mean to say that God is everlasting, what kind of relationship to time
God exists within time, with no start or end, throughout all time –> God is temporal
God is immanent so acts within our understanding and experience of time
how can God being everlasting resolve the free will paradox
God being within time also entails God does not know the future, as it hasn’t happened yet
God’s omniscience would then be limited to the present
Swinburne’s understanding of God as everlasting can therefore resolve the issue with omniscience, which alongside his solution to the issue with omnibenevolence, results in a coherent concept of God overall
what does it mean to say God is eternal
God exists outside of time, with no start or end, God is atemporal
also means God is transcendent, outside of the universe, which since that means God is outside of time, means that God is also immutable (unchanging)
as God is atemporal, God can know all events, past, present, and future simultaneously
how does Boethius understand God’s eternity
eternity is all time being present all at once
tis means that from the eternal perspective, all events happen at the same time simultaneously
what was Anthony Kenny’s argument against Boethius’ understanding of eternity, how did he argue that it was incoherent?
P1) Rome burned in 64CE - this is simultaneous with eternity
P2) I am studying philosophy now - this is simultaneous with eternity
P3) If A is simultaneous with B and B is simultaneous with C then A is simultaneous with C
C1) Therefore Rome burning in 64CE is simultaneous with me studying philosophy right now
- It seems like an absurd conclusion to say that these two events are simultaneous with each other, so God being eternal cannot be coherent
how do Norman Kretzmann and Eleanore Stump defend Boethius’ and Aquinas’ understanding of God’s nature as eternal
- they claim Kenny’s argument = fallacy of equivocation, that he has used the word simultaneously with different meanings without acknowledging it
- any a temporal (within time) event is T-simultaneous, and that any event that is atemporal (outside of time) is ET-simultaneous
- for this reason it is not possible for Rome burning in 64CE to be simultaneous with me studying philosophy now, as we experience them, they are not T-simultaneous, however for God they are ET-simultaneous
- this resolves the logical issue and removes the absurdity of Kenny’s argument making God’s eternity coherent
