Nature of God

Renee Descartes

Renee Descartes

1. Descartes believed that God is supremely perfect - derived from his ontological argument, therefore there is no limit on his power

2. Things may be impossible, but god can override those laws, he can preform logical impossibilities

Arguments for Descartes

1. The laws of logic are human constructs, and god isn’t bound by human constructs or laws

2. Religious perspective - there are paradoxes in the bible which god could only fulfil if he can preform logical contractions (splitting a sea)

3. Radical omnipotence - Ockham - Gods omnipotance means he can do anything he wills, even if it violates logic, as god is not subject to any external standard

Problems with Descartes

1. To say god can do logically impossible things doesn’t make sense, as anything that to be a logical impossibility is just a problem with language e.g., can nod make a rock so heavy he can’t lift? what does it mean Gods ‘lifting’ - anthropomorphic god

2. Logical impossibilities are nonsensical concepts - there is no such thing as a square circle, to ask god to make something logically impossible is an incoherent request

3. Logic is part of the nature of god, he is a rational being, he cannot violate the laws of logic, as they are part of his own rational nature.

4. It removes human free will, as if good can make it possible for humans to be both free and not free, and responsible and not responsible, then moral and ethical systems would collapse

Aquinas

1. We use analogies to talk about god as that is the only way one can talk about god

2. When we talk about his omnipotence it’s only he logically possible

3. He said that to ask can god sin is a non-question as its a logically impossibility

Arguments for Aquinas

1. Leibniz said that logical impossibilities are inherently non-sensical, so gods inability too perform them does not undermine his omnipotence

2. C.S. Lewis said that things like a square circle are not real ‘tasks’ but a meaningless combination of words - “omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible”

3. Certain immutable truths exist e.g., 2+2=4, which exist outside of gods will, even an omnipotent being cannot alter them

Problems with Aquinas

1. If god cannot do logically impossible things then is he truly omnipotent?

2. Pester geach - argument that Aquinas is putting forward assumes god is perfect

3. Aquinas has a false definition of god, as by definition, if he is omnipotent he must be able to do logically impossible things

4. God is the author of logic, so what may appear logically contradictory to humans might not hold true in a divine context

5. Human logic is finite and cannot fully comprehend Gods Irvine nature, sos saying he cannot preform logical impossibilities is coming from a place of ignorance

Augustine

God can do whatever he will to do, but he chooses not to do evil things, and create evil as that is against his Nature

Anthony Kenny

‘It must be a narrower omnipotence, consisting in the possession of all logically possible powers which it is logically possible for a being with attributes of god to possess’

Rejects that god can do the logically impossible, only the logically impossible, but can do it all

Richard Dawkins

1. Omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible

2. If god knows what is going to happen in the future he will plan it out, he now cannot change his mind, so he is not totally omnipotent

3. It is wholly irrelevant because god does not exist

A.N. Whitehead and C. Hartshorne

1. Bush analogy, it is easier to cut down a bush with sharp scissors, despite the resistance of the branches, shows our power, must like gods power, free will is our resistance

2. This is a descriptor oof his omnipotence

3. Similar thing shown in the bible: Tower of Babel - resistance to God, he overcame all of it, but didn’t allow it to come to the stage where they would be equally able to oppose him

John MacQuarrie and Peter Vardy

God limits himself for our benefit - to enable us to have free will, showing his love for us (Agape)

Boethius on God and Time

1. God is not subject to the same laws of time as we are

2. God is external - so he is out of past, present and future

3. A ‘simultaneous present’ (time happens all at once from gods perspective)

4. When we understand this, it is clear how god knows the future

Boethius analogy - View from the mountain

1. Boethius uses the analogy of a view from the top of a mountain

2. God can view all past, present and future simultaneously

3. Everything that has is and will happen is defiantly happening by ‘simple necessity’

4. Our perspective is conditional, things may or may not happen from our perspective

Boethius view of the problem

1. If god knows everything that will happen, then we have no free will, as we act according to gods foreknowlage

2. If we do have free will then god cannot know what is going to happen in the future, he is not omnipotent

3. If we all agree that wicked people should be punished and just people should be rewarded

4. They can only be responsible if they have free will

5. Either good is omniscient and we have no free will, or we are free and god is not omniscient

Boethius on Necessity

To types of necessity:

1. Simple necessity - this is what must happen

2. Conditional necessity e.g. waking up - this must happen otherwise he wouldn’t wake up, but he gets to choose when he wakes up

Boethius solution

1. God had simultaneous knowlage of the past, present and future

2. Everything is certain and necassary (simple) from hi view

3. We see things sequentially, so much of the future is conditional and dependant on our free will

4. Therefore, we are responsible, and it is fair to punish and reward

Arguments for Boethius

• Just because we cannot make sense of something does not mean it isn’t possible

• If god interacts with individuals and saves only one person, that would seem random and unfair. This view solves the problem as god cannot intervene at moments within time

• Believers could change the understanding of prayer from a list of requests made to god, instead would be a relationship with god

Arguments against Boethius

• Kenny argues that moments that happens years apart in one simultaneous event seems silly

• A tieless god seems uninterested with the world. Doesn’t work with religious believers

• How can a timeless god answer prayers?

Anselm

1. Agrees that god is timeless, but disagrees with Boethius

2. He uses time as a ‘fourth dimension’ similar to the way we speak about height, width and depth

3. Humans describe things from their perspective

4. God however is omnipresent, so every movement is equally real and present to god

5. God encompasses all of time so he is ‘aeternitas’ (eternity)

Omniscience

All knowing, having knowledge of everything there is to possibly know

Free will

The ability to act different to how you will or do act

Problem of omniscience and free will

1. If god is omniscient then he knows all of our future choices

2. Thus, we cannot do anything different to what we will do, as god knows exactly what we are going to do

3. Therefore, we have no free will

4. Some argue that calling God omniscient does not mean that he knows everything, but rather that his knowable is unsurpassed by the knowledge of any other being

Predestination

We are destined to act a certain way

Problem with predestination and free will

1. Gods omnipotence means that everyone’s lives are predetermined

2. If this is true then we cannot have free will

3. This means we wither have free will or god is omniscient

Opinions on predestination and free will

1. If god knows that you will have beans on toast for supper than that is what you will have - ergo Gods knowlage predestined us to have beans on toast

2. If you have beans on toast for supper, then that is what god knows - ergo us having beans on toast causes gods knowledge, so we are free to choose

Rambam on Omniscience and free will

• Laws of repentance 5,1 “every man has free will”

• Laws of repentance 5,5: essentially says that there is a clear contradiction with omniscience and free will, and we do not have the power of knowledge to understand how god works, but ultimatly we do have free will

Hasdai Crescas on omniscience and free will

1. Crescas says that humans are like bronze, and a piece of bronze can be made into lots of things

2. An external cause fashions them into one of these potions anad determines their present form

3. The same is true of poeple, they themselves can choose between different possible options, but their relation to external causes determines their causal choices

4. This leads to the theological problem of how poeple an be published for things they cannot control

5. Crescas answers this by saying that the punishment of the sinner is not as special act of divine providence to punish him, but rather the natural consequences of the sinners bad actions

Dawkins

Although not specifically mentioning the Rambam he sad “it is a mystery kind of thinking is lazy and damaging”

Eternity

1. God is timeless

2. Therefore he is forever and infinite

3. Therefore, he never changes, as change is by definition temporal

4. Expressed in Adon Olam (“and when all shall end, he alone shall reign”)

Augustine on time

1. God is in time

2. At a certain point in time, he created the world

3. What was happening in eternity before creation?

4. It cannot be that god existed in time before he created time

5. Therefore, we must remove the concept of time from our idea of god

Aquinas on time

Aquinas reminds us that our use of language surrounding god is it precise, but and logical, God does not think, but something very similar to thinking happens

Swinburne - everlasting god

1. God experiences time as we do

2. He knows the past and the present completely

3. He knows the true insofar as its predictable

4. He knows what can be know, but not the free actions of people

5. A god experiencing time with is much more relevant to us

6. God would be immanent, closer understanding of us and able to interact

7. For Swinburne, this understanding is closer to the idea of the biblical god

8. This would be difficult to understand if god was outside of time

Swinburne on onmnicience and free will

1. Swinburne’s definition of omniscience is everything that is logically possible to know

2. Since the future hasn’t happened yet, it cannot be logically known

3. As god is everlasting, in time, he can only know the past and present

4. To some extent, omniscience may leave room for gods free choices, e.g., to respond to prayers

Swinburne on omnipotance and supreme goodness

1. To commit evil is to fail to be supremely good

2. If god is supremely good, that god cannot commit evil

3. Therefore, if god is supremely good, there is something that god cannot do

4. Therefore, god cannot be both supremely good and omnipotent

A timeless god makes more sense

• is a timeless god a coherent idea? Does it matter few cannot understand the infinitude of god?

• God is more transcendent and unchanging. He cannot respond to prayer or intervene as all moments are present

• God can be omniscient in this view

• Omnipotance - can god be good so if he is outside of time?

An everlasting god makes more sense

• the everlasting view of god its with the view that god can only go and know the logically possible

• If god is within time, it is possible for god to respond to prayer as he can interact with Tim

• A god within time challenges omniscience

• A god within time means humans will retain free will as the future is known

• Omnipotance - god may be so, but it is difficult to see this from evidence in the world

Omnibenevolant

A deity with perfect or unlimited goodness

Process theology

1. One problem raised is the logical problem of evil, god is all good and all powerful, but evil still exists

2. Process theology suggests god limits his power and therefore cannot intervene, but can rather be empathetic

Argument against process theology

1. It is functionally irrelevant that he limited his power

2. He is still choosing not to intervene, just does so by limiting his power

Euthyphro dilemma

1. Posed by Plato

2. Is an action good because god commands it or dos god command what is good?

God justly judges human actions

1. God by definition is just, so every judgement he makes is just

2. Jewish perspective: Yom Kippur, the fact we have it shows that god judges us

3. Boethius arts that as god is outside of time, and sees things in a. Present, free will is preserved. Therefore reward and punishment is just

4. Anselm argues that god is with us in the moment of choice meaning we have free will and does reward and punish justly

5. Swinburne argues that God does not know what our choices will be as they haven’t happen yet, thus god is just

God does not justly judge human actions

1. If we do not have free will, then god cannot justly judge us, as he has predetermined what we are going to do

2. Euthyphro dilemma suggests that either god has to live up to a standard of good ness or he could command something to be good that we consider evil. Either way, god is not good or not in charge of goodness, so is not bale to judge justly

3. God seems to be unjust as he allows evil to happen. If that is the case, how can he judge us for bad choices

4. In order to solve the problem of evil, one can say that d does not know evil exists, he is not omniscient, and if he does not even know of evil then how can he judge justly.

Critically assess the view that god is omnibenevolant

He isn’t omnibenevolant

Problem of free will - Euthyphro dilemma

However, religion - Yom Kippur

Free will Boethius

Conclusion, God is omnibenevolant