The Concept and Nature of God Flashcards
(13 cards)
The two approaches to investigating
- Revealed Theology - gaining an understanding of God through the revelation of sacred texts and prophets
- Natural Theology - gaining an understanding of God through the use of our reason; observation
Omnipotence
Descartes argued that God can do absolutely anything including the logically impossible.
Definition 1. God can do anything
Aquinas argued there were immediate issues as: god is immutable, so he cannot change, God cannot alter what has already happened, or force us to choose something freely, God cannot do anything logically contradictory.
Definition 2. God can do anything that is logically possible.
Aquinas asks whether God can create anything evil. this is not logically contradictory - but Aquinas argues that god cannot sin. God cannot act in a way that goes against or contradicts other aspects pf God’s fundamental nature.
omnipotence is best understood as the claim that God can do anything that’s logically possible
Can God act in such a way that contradicts his nature?
Descartes says yes, claiming that for God there would be no logical contradiction between being omnibenevolent and evil….so God could lie and he would still be omnibenevolent!
Most philosophers since Aquinas disagree with Descartes’ definition of omnipotence, saying God cannot do the logically impossible or act in such a way that contradicts his nature.
Aquinas on definition 1
Aquinas says Definition 1 would not limit God’s omnipotence. He said that to do the logically impossible is not a meaningful proposition:
“To do what is logically impossible is not an act of power at all, but an irrational, self-contradictory scenario” (Summa Theologica)
Equally, God cannot do evil and sin because:
“To sin is to fall short of a perfect action. Hence to be able to sin is to be able to be deficient in relation to an action, which cannot be reconciled with omnipotence. It is because God is omnipotent that he cannot sin”.
Omniscience
Omniscience literally translates as all knowing.
This is to say God has perfect knowledge. He knows everything – or, at least, everything it is possible to know.
For example, it is argued that God doesn’t know what we humans are going to do in the future – because we have free will. The claim is still that God knows everything it’s possible to know – but that it is not possible to know the future. For more information, see free will vs. omniscience.
Omnibenevolence
Omnibenevolence literally translates as all loving.
It’s best understood as the claim that God is perfectly good. God always does what’s morally good – He never does anything bad or evil.
Eternal/Everlasting
Everlasting: God exists within time
Eternal: God exists outside of time
If God exists within time, then He is everlasting. This is to say He was there at the beginning of time and will continue to exist forever.
Boethius eternal time circle
Boethius 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
The concept of an 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 within time. The 6th century theologian Boethius described God’s eternal relationship with time as:
“the whole, simultaneous, and perfect possession of boundless life”
The Paradox of the Stone
If God is omnipotent (all powerful), can God 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, there is something God cannot do – which means He’s not omnipotent.
Response to Paradox of the Stone
George Mavrodes replies to the problem of the stone by arguing that ‘a stone an omnipotent being can’t lift’ is not a possible thing – it’s a contradiction. And, as discussed in omnipotence, it’s not necessarily a limitation on God’s power to say He can’t do what’s logically impossible.
The Euthypro Dilemma
It looks at whether morality is created by, or independent of, God. There are two ‘horns’
1. God’s commands are good simply because they come from God
2. God’s commands are good because they conform to an external moral source.
If 2nd option – morality is independent of God – then it’s a challenge to God’s omnipotence. Reason - God’s power would be limited by morality.
If 1st option – God created morality so God could say whatever He wanted, and it would be true. Why, then, does God say some things are bad and not others? The answer, surely, is nothing and so good and bad are arbitrary. If goodness is arbitrary, it’s hard to make sense of the claim ‘God is good’ or why anyone would praise God for being good. This presents a challenge to God’s omnibenevolence.
whichever option, God’s main attributes are challenged
Response to the Euthyphro Dilemma
We could argue that God chooses the rules of morality based on His other attributes, such as love. For example, God could have chosen to make ‘torturing babies is good’ true. However, God loves humanity and doesn’t like to see us suffer and so for this reason God chose to make ‘torturing babies is bad’ true instead. This would mean goodness and badness are not arbitrary whims but are instead grounded in some justification (God’s love).
Omniscience vs Free Will
As an omniscient being, God knows everything.
If God knows everything, then He must know what I’m going to do before I do it – for example, drink tea
If God already knows that I’m going to drink the tea before I do it, then it must be true that I drink the tea
If it’s true that I drink the tea, then it can’t be false that I drink the tea.
In other words, I don’t have a choice. And if I don’t have a choice to either drink or not drink the tea, then I don’t have free will.
So, either:
- God is omniscient but we don’t have free will
- We have free will but God is not omniscient
Response to the Problem of Omniscience vs Free Will
God’s omniscience should be understood as the claim that God knows everything it is possible to know. The whole point of free will is that it makes it impossible to know the future (that’s what ‘free will’ means). So, God is is still omniscient in the sense He knows everything that is possible to know.
Alternatively, we could respond that as an eternal being God exists outside of time and so is observing (and thus knows) our freely chosen actions of the future
