PN2- metaphysics of God - concept isses

omnipotence version 1

God can do anything

omnipotence version 2

God can do anything that is logically possible

omnipotence version 3

God can do anything that is logically possible and doesn't go against his nature

explain version 1 (omnipotence)

omnipotent = 'all powerful' then god should be able to create 1) a 4 sided triange, 2) a married bachelor
Aquianus questioned omnipotence, as he found a list of this God cannot do, as they are SELF CONTRADICTORY

explain version 2 (omnipotence)

God can do anything logically possible then God can do anything without self-contradiction. so God couldn't create a 4 sided triangle b/c as this is not logically possible.
Aquinas finds issue here; there are still things god cannot do even if they are logically possible:
1) create evil - God cannot create sin
sinning is not logically impossible but theology would support the idea god cannot do something that goes against Gods his nature

explain verion 3 (omnipotence)

it is still possible to say that God is omnipotent, despite the fact he cannot do logically impossible tasks (bc it is impossible) and cannot go against his nature (bc it is his nature)

explain the first claim of paradox of the stone (omnipotence)

could an omnipotent being use its powers to do something that would limit those powers?
Could god create a stone too big for him to lift?

Outline the 2 paradox of the stone (omnipotence)

1) God creates such an unliftable stone, he cannot lift which shows he cannot do something and therefore is not omnipotent

2)God cannot create such a stone, in which case he still is unable to do something and therefore is not omnipotent

(either way the theorist is forced to accept that God is unable to do a particular task, and therefore is not omnipotent)

who is M_

Mavrodes

outline Mavrodes counterclaim to the paradox of the stone (omnipotence)

Mavrodes believes the paradox itself presupposes the possiblity of something logically impossible - noteably the idea that an omnipotent being cannot do something - this would require him to have quality of non-omnipotence

Explain Mavrodes for the counter claim (omnipotence)

suppose we allow that god can lift any stone, but cannot create a stone too big for himself to lift. Given there is no limit on his power for lifiting stones, there is also no limit on his power for creating stones.
So god lacks no power in either field

who is S_

Savages

what is Savages quote for the 2nd counter claim (omnipotence)

"can god creare a stone too big for himself to lift"

Explain Savages quote for the counter claim (omnipotence)

savage argues that the idea of 'God not being able to create a stone he cannot lift' is not a coherent idea
instead we should say 'if god can create a stone, then god can lift it'
essentially god can creata stone of any size and lift that stone, there are not limts to his power

Outline paradox of the stone [5marks]

the paradox intends to show an omnipotent being is impossible as the concept is incoherent.
As if god is omnipotent: having perfect power. Often defined as having the ability to do anything if it is possible.
Then shouldn't he be able to do
1) create a stone but is too heavy to lift which then questions his omnipotence
2) cannot create a stone which would be too heavy for him to lift which also diminishes his omnipotence
There is nothing logically impossible about these tasks
yet the paradox shows god is not omnipotent either way

god is eternal/timeless issue - claim

p1) we cannot concieve god as timeless, and can never imagine it

p2) if he is outside time he shouldnt be able to act within time (for exmple miricals) But creations must be made in time which doesnt make sense

god is eternal/timeless issue - counter claim

God has always consisted infinitly into nature. so he has no beginning or end, but just exists alongside his creation

god is eternal/timeless issue - rebuild claim

if he is in or alongside time how could he be before time to create time.

euthyphro dilemma - socrates question

does god command what is good bc it is good? or bc good has commanded it?

explain the first arguement of euthyphro dilemma

1) if x is right god commands it -> this is based on arbitary -> therefore morality is arbitrary
as god could decide anything he wants as 'good'

explain the second arguement of euthyphro dilemma

2) if god commands x its bc it is right -> therefore standard of 'rightness' is independent of god and ut us objectively independent
so then why do we need him to tell us what is good when we have the ability to find it out ourselves?

outline euthyphro dilemma [5 marks]

socrates asks the question are things good bc god says so or are things good bc they are actually good? This can be split into 2 arguments;
1) if x is right god commands it -> this is based on arbitary -> therefore morality is arbitrary
as god could decide anything he wants as 'good'
2) if god commands x its bc it is right -> therefore standard of 'rightness' is independent of god and ut us objectively independent
Therefore the dilemma questions morality and it god is needed to find morality as if god is independent of morality then why do we need him to tell us what is good when we have the ability to find it out ourselves.

omniscience vs free will issue

p1) As an omniscient being, God knows everything.

p2) If God knows everything, then He must know what I’m going to do before I do it – for example, drink beer

p3) If God already knows that I’m going to drink the beer before I do it, then it must be true that I drink the beer
If it’s true that I drink the beer, then it can’t be false that I drink the beer.

c1) In other words, I don’t have a choice. And if I don’t have a choice to either drink or not drink the beer, then I don’t have free will.

what is the conculsion of omniscience vs free will

God is omniscient but we don’t have free will
OR
We have free will but God is not omniscient

a simple reply to omniscience vs free will issue

free will makes it impossible to know the future. If God’s omniscience is understood as the claim that God knows everything it is possible to know, then He is still omniscient.

calvins view to omniscience vs free will

god predetermines every action. we are not free to choose the kind of life we live. as for if god has omniscience it limits our free will.
therefore god must be responsible for crimes of humanity, and then if we do not have free will then God's omnibenevolence is questioned

aquinas view to omniscience vs free will

aquinas sees god as a timeless god that sees everything and knows everything, but god doesnt have fore knoweldge, as he cannot know something that will occur in advance of it occuring. so we can still have free will