God's Attributes

Question 1

meaning of essential?

Answer 1

what makes a thing what it is

Question 2

omnipotence?

Answer 2

all powerful/ can do anything.

Question 3

logically impossible?

Answer 3

cant think of it as it breaks the rules of thought.

Question 4

logic?

Answer 4

rules of thought

Question 5

Key thinker: Descartes

Answer 5

-God as the supreme being
-no limit to what God can do
-believed in the weakness of human intellect

Question 6

arguments that Descartes uses:

Answer 6

-three waves of doubt; evil demon and humans’ puny minds.
-ontological argument

Question 7

examples for Descartes theory?

Answer 7

aeroplane and goldfish analogy:
goldfish have limited intellect compared to humans, goldfish cannot think of an aeroplane as it breaks its own rules of thought and they are limited in their intellect whereas humans can. in the same way, we are like goldfish compared to God as what we can comprehend has limits whereas what God can do is limitless.

Question 8

logically valid

Answer 8

the premises can’t be true without the conclusion

Question 9

stone paradox/ omnipotence paradox?

Answer 9

can God create a stone that he cannot lift?
If yes, God cannot be omnipotent as He cannot lift the stone and if no, He is also not omnipotent as he cannot create the stone.

Question 10

Descartes response to the stone paradox?

Answer 10

Descartes would say this is invalid because humans are limited in what we can comprehend and conceive = therefore even if this doesn’t make sense to us, God can still do both as there is nothing that is logically impossible to God.

Question 11

Aquinas response to the stone paradox

Answer 11

Aquinas would disagree with Descartes due to his belief in reason, which is God-given as seen in natural law. If our reason concludes that it is logically impossible then that thing is logically impossible.

Question 12

Aquinas belief on logical impossibilities?

Answer 12

they are not real or ‘nonsense’ because they do not describe a thing. The logical impossibilities such as a square circle or unliftable stone are not a thing; therefore, they are nothing as they are not a thing.

Question 13

korye on descartes

Answer 13

who? 20th century philosopher of science and critique of descartes
what?believed that descartes view out too much distance between our minds and reality.
reductio ad absurdum

Question 14

Augustine argument for God’s Omnipotence

Answer 14

1) God is perfect

2) If God is perfect, he will never create the square circle, but he can.

3) So, God will never create the square circle, but he can.

Question 15

Omnipotence: Augustine

Answer 15

St Augustine of Hippo was concerned about the problem of evil (Can God create evil and would he?) and concluded that due to God’s omnipotence, it means He can do anything He wants. God will never want to do evil but still can.

Question 16

evaluating Korye

Answer 16

Yes: If Descartes was alive to defend himself, he would say that the knowing is the point. God is transcendent +weakness of human intellect.

No: Korye’s view is only absurd if God does this but He loves us so he won’t.

Question 17

Omnipotence: Aquinas 2

Answer 17

Aquinas aimed to make both reason and revelation compatible; particularly Hebrews 6:18 which says “God can’t lie”. Therefore he believes God can only do good things.

Question 18

Omnipotence 2 : Aquinas argument

Answer 18

1) God is supremely perfect.

2)If God is supremely perfect, then God can only do good things.
This is plausible because of Aquinas’ “like causes, like effects” principle which says like effects come from like causes. For God to be supremely perfect cause, it means he should cause perfect effects. Anything other than good things wouldn’t be considered perfect.

3)So, God can only do good things.

Question 19

Omnipotence: Augustine

Answer 19

who? cares about the problem of evil- can God create evil and would he?
what? omnipotence means being able to do anything you want. God will never want to lie, but can.

Question 20

Objection to Augustine argument for omnipotence (2nd premise)

Answer 20

The issue is that God would then be restricted by his nature (omnibenevolence); he has no desire to do evil meaning that he won’t do it. “like causes like” (Aquinas); willing evil is not possible so God has restricted omnipotence.

Question 21

What is the key moment of self-limitation to God’s power

Answer 21

the incarnation

Question 22

why is God’s omnipotence a threat to our freedom?

Answer 22

If God is omnipotent, it diminishes the notion that we have our own freedom because although we have free will, God can choose to interfere. He chooses not to, but ultimately, he has the choice, and therefore, we truly do not have freedom.

Question 23

John Macquarrie

Answer 23

who? Scottish theologian, inspired by the doctrine of self-emptying, kenosis.

what? God limits his power to create free human beings.

Question 24

Descartes line of argument

Answer 24

His argument follows;
1) God is the supreme perfect being. This is an a priori truth. God has to be that which nothing greater can be conceived to be God. It is a necessary truth and the formal cause or definition of God.
2) If God is the supreme perfect being, then he is unrestricted by anything, even logical impossibilities. This is the case because if it were not, the thing restricting God would be greater than God which means God is not the supreme perfect being.
3) So if God can do anything, he is unrestricted by anything, even logical impossibilities.

Question 25

Macquarie line of argument

Answer 25

1) God’s omnipotence would restrict our free will. This is because if God is omnipotent, it diminishes the notion that we have our own freedom because although we have free will, God chooses to interfere, he chooses not to, but ultimately he has the choice and we are not free. For example, we can choose not to go to work in the morning, however this would not actually be a free decision, it is God who has chosen not to interfere with the ‘decision’ that we had supposedly made and therefore it is not true free will. 2) If God’s omnipotence would restrict our free will, then God must limit his own omnipotence. This is plausible because of God’s nature being omnibenevolent. God loves us so will give us free will as it is better to be free than not to be free and in turn this decision to grant us free will limits His own omnipotence. 3) So, God must limit his own omnipotence.

Question 26

Omniscience and free will

Answer 26

God's omniscience is a threat to our free will. This is because God knows everything from the beginning of time, meaning everything is fixed. So, for example, the' decision' for me not to go to school on Friday is supposedly free because God knew the outcome of this decision from the beginning of time, meaning it couldn't have been anything else.

Question 27

Maimonides (who what and why?)

Answer 27

Maimonides is a liberal reader of Jewish scripture who believed much of it was a myth or metaphor. He thought this because he emphasised that human reasoning cannot comprehend God, so we cannot use human language to speak of God. this means that the human language used in. Jewish scripture is meaningless as God is so transcendent that human language is insignificant in describing the truth about God. So, God can't, strictly speaking, be described as knowing everything. why? God cannot be described as omniscient as this would make us unfree.

Question 28

Maimonides line of argument

Answer 28

1)God being described as omniscient would make us unfree. this is plausible because God's omniscience threatens our free will. This is because God knows everything from the beginning of time, meaning everything is fixed. So, for example, the' decision' for me not to go to school on Friday is supposedly free because God knew the outcome of this decision from the beginning of time, meaning it couldn't have been anything else. 2)If God being described as omniscient would make us unfree, then God cannot be described as omniscient. this is plausible because it is obvious that we have free will, and it would be intuitively absurd to say we don't. 3) So, God cannot be described as omniscient.

Question 29

Swinburne argument

Answer 29

1)God being fully omniscient would make us unfree. 2)If God being fully omniscient would make us unfree, then God cannot be fully omniscient. 3)So, God cannot be fully omniscient. Analogy: analogy of the grand chessmaster.

Question 30

Swinburne: who, what, why and analogy

Answer 30

who? philosopher and Christian during the 20th century. created a book called The 'coherence of Theism' what? God's omniscience is restricted to give us free will. why? God can't be fully omniscient because that would make us unfree. analogy? A chess master who limits their foreknowledge (by deliberately getting distracted) to give us a free chance.

Question 31

Boethius who what and why

Answer 31

Boethius was a Neoplatonic philosopher who believed that God is outside of time. This is because God's being outside of time links to the form of the good being outside of time. Boethius was imprisoned and eventually put to death for political reasons, which led him to be concerned with free will and justice and led to the belief that God is outside of time and humans are still free. Time is a restriction because you cannot change the past, know the future, or prolong the present. Therefore, God must be outside of time because if he were not, time would restrict God, and God, as the supremely perfect being, cannot be limited by anything else. Otherwise, the thing restricting God would be greater, and God wouldn't be God. So, God has to be outside of time.

Question 32

Boethius argument

Answer 32

1) God is watching our choices as they happen. this is plausible because God is outside of time, and so, for example, we see choices one by one as we walk up the lofty peak mountain- God sees all of our choices all at once as they happen- from the top of the lofty peak mountain. 2)If God is watching our choices as they happen, God's knowledge does not interfere with our free will. this is plausible due to the football analogy. when you watch football live on TV, you see the choices of the football players as they happen, and seeing/knowing what the football players do live does not interfere with their actions. In the same way, God is watching all our choices on TV as they happen on TV. 3) God's knowledge does not interfere with our free will. own analogy: Netflix

Question 33

Anselm (1033-1109)

Answer 33

Anselm has a definition of God, which is that nothing greater can be conceived; God is the necessary being, meaning that He isn't contingent on anything, including time. So, time is contingent on God, meaning that time is 'in' God and all moments are equally present to God. God takes a four-dimensional view; he sees all of the time as equally real and sees it as further or closer away from us as humans but for Him all at once. While we humans take a presentist view of time.

Question 34

Theories of time?

Answer 34

- presentism: only the present is real. - four-dimensional: time is a dimension just like the three dimensions of space; objects exist in time as well as the three dimensions of space.

Question 35

Anselm argument 1

Answer 35

1) All time is 'in' God. This is plausible because God is TTWNGCBC, meaning He is the necessary being and cannot be contingent on anything; therefore, time has to be contingent on God. 2) If all time is 'in' God, then each moment is equally present to God. This is plausible because God has to be outside of time; God is not contingent on time. He is not restricted by future, present, or past, and so He experiences all moments of time at once. 3) SO: Each moment in time is equally present.

Question 36

anselm argument 2

Answer 36

1) Every moment in time is equally present to God. This is plausible because, unlike humans who take a presentist view, God takes a four-dimensional view, which means that He sees all of time as equally real/ at once and closer or further to us. 2) If Every moment in time is equally present to God, then God's knowledge doesn't interfere with our free will. this is plausible due to the football analogy. when you watch football live on TV, you see the choices of the football players as they happen, and seeing/knowing what the football players do live does not interfere with their actions. In the same way, God is watching all our choices on TV as they happen on TV. 3) God's knowledge doesn't interfere with our free will.

Question 37

Swinburne objection to Boethius/Anselm what

Answer 37

what? The coherent version of God is sempiternal

Question 38

Swinburne objection to Boethius/Anselm's argument

Answer 38

why? 1) According to Boethius, yesterday and tomorrow are at the same time for God. this is plausible for Boethius because God is atemporal meaning He is outside of time and all moments occur to God simultaneously as explained by the lofty peak analogy; where God sees all moments leading up to the mountain from the top. 2) If according to Boethius, yesterday and tomorrow are at the same time for God, then yesterday and tomorrow are at the same time as one another. This is plausible because of the equivalence relationship that says if (A) yesterday and (B) God happened at the same time and (C) Tomorrow and (B) God happen at the same time then (A) and (C) must also occur at the same time as one another. 3) So, Yesterday and tomorrow are at the same time as one another. However, this argument fails because it would be absurd for yesterday and tomorrow to occur at the same time.