nature of God

criticism of descartes omnipotence based on contradiction

if god can do the logically impossible then nothing is logically impossible it breaks the very foundation of logic

defence of descartes omnipotence based on contradiction

just because god can do logically impossible doesnt neccesarrily make it possible

criticism of descartes omnipotence based on theodicies

many theodicies hinge on the basis god cannot do the logically impossible hence descartes omnipotence creates issues for benevolence

aquinas view of omnipotence

god has the ability to do anything which is logically possible

descartes conception of omnipotence (Voluntarism)

god can do anything even the logically impossible since “it is impossible for something to exist that does not depend on him”

aquinas argues that god can only bring about things with the perfection of being

because gods perfection is founded on being he cannot create what cannot exist “it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them”

aquinas criticism with stone

the stone paradox is a problem aquinas explains how god cannot create logically impossible, it is not logically impossible for god to create a stone he cannot lift like it is a triangle with 4 sides

mavrodes defence of aquinas against stone

he argues that a stone whihc is to heavy for an omnipotent being to exist is actually logically contradictory.

criticism of aquinas conception of omnipotence based on true power

arguably god being unable to do the logically impossible is a limit on power and therefore not true omnipotence

swinburne on logically contradictory

the logically contradictory is not a real/ existing state of affairs so god being inable to do so is not a limit. the logically contradictory refers to a state of things which do not exist

vardy on omnipotence

GOd created the world in such a way that his ability to act is neccesarrily limited, but this limitation is entirely self imposed

critique of self limitation based on definition of limitation

arguably true limitation involves an inability to shake of that limitation so god can never truly self limit whilst maintaining power. can be argued that technically god isnt limiting his power just choosing when and how to excercise it

boethius solution for omniscience

god is outside of time. he is silmetanously present in the past future and present. he simply sees the results of our actions in his eternal present. gods knowledge is not apriori or aposteriori it is outside of time leaving us with free will

criticism of boethius in relation to fixed choices

if our future is knownfor certain it may not determine our choices but it does mean they are fixed providing us with only an allusion of free will

defence of boethius based on simple and conditional neccesity

gods knowledge of future actions made them conditionally neccesarry. he uses the example of walker if you see someone walking it is neccesarry they are walking but that neccesity is based on a choice to walk.

anselms conception of god and time

humans are within a specific time like we are a place, god is not within one place as that as limiting the same applies to time. all times are within god god is not within all times

anselm in relation to free will

our future actions do not yet exist within time but they do within eternity, for us they are freely changed but in eternity they are fixed.

critique of anslem and eternty based on true knowledge

can argue as a consequence of four dimentional approach God doesnt have true knowledge he merely learns our actions rather than predicting them. by being in eternity he does not gain independent knowledge he has the outcomes revelaed

defence of critique of anselm based on eterntity and true knowledge

technically god exists outisde of time so he has always known our actins and thus they arent revealed

Kenny critique of eternal view

God knowing all history silmetanusly is contradictory as history has a causal relationship to itself

anselm kenny defence

anselm suggests god exists beyond time, so that events dont acctually occur silmetanously compared to boethius conception in which its implied all events silmetanously occur

swinburnes view of god and time

God exists within time eternally, time unfolds for god and the universe god experiences it all as it happens. as a consequence god only knows the logically possible choices we can make leaving us with free will

swinburne prayer argument

an eternal or atemporal god cannot answer prayer creating contradiction

aquinas response to prayer

prayer isnt a conversation it is something done to feel closer to god and recieve the benfits/knowledge he has decreed we will

biblical example supporting swineburne

10 plagues

swinburne on not knowing future not limiting knowledge

The future is yet to exist so god cannot know it it is not in contradiction with perfect knowledge

swinburne counter biblical example

jesus knew judas would betray

nature of God’s love

like gods existence gods love has no cause its part of gods nature. the source of human love is gods love