nature of atributes of god

What does “omniscient” mean?

God is all-knowing — He knows everything that is true, including past, present and future events. Omniscience means God knows thoughts, intentions and all possibilities. 

How might Boethius resolve the challenge omniscience poses to free will?

Boethius argued God is outside time and sees all moments in an “eternal present,” so God’s foreknowledge doesn’t determine human choices — He simply sees choices we freely make. 

What is a criticism of omniscience?

Critics argue that if God knows future free actions with certainty, then humans are not truly free. Some also say scripture shows God responding in time, suggesting a temporal rather than timeless knowledge. 

What does “omnipotent” mean?

God is all-powerful — able to do anything that is logically possible. This supernatural power underpins creation and miracles. 

How does Thomas Aquinas refine omnipotence?

Aquinas argued omnipotence means God can do all logically possible things and cannot do the logically contradictory (e.g., create a square circle) — this is not a limitation but part of God’s perfection. 

What is a classical critique of omnipotence?

Critics say omnipotence leads to paradoxes (e.g., can God create a stone too heavy for Him to lift?), and the Problem of Evil suggests an all-powerful, all-good God is incompatible with suffering. (Exam AO2) 

What does “omnibenevolent” mean?

Omnibenevolence means God is perfectly good, loving and morally flawless — all actions are guided by maximal goodness. 

How do theists justify omnibenevolence in the face of evil?

The Free Will Defence and Soul-Making Theodicy argue God allows evil to preserve free will or moral growth, not because He is unloving. (Exam AO2) 

What is a scholarly challenge to omnibenevolence?

The logical problem of evil (Mackie) argues that if God is all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing, gratuitous suffering should not exist; the world we see suggests one of these must be limited. (Exam AO2) 

What does “omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent” together suggest?

These are the three omni-attributes of classical theism. Together they form the basis of many arguments about God’s nature and the Problem of Evil. 

What does “omniscient and free will” debate involve?

Critics (e.g., open theists) claim knowing all future choices removes free will. Theists (Boethius, Augustine) argue God’s relationship to time resolves this tension. 

What does “omnipresent” mean?

God is present everywhere at once — not limited by space. This means no place exists outside God’s presence. 

How might omnipresence support prayer and providence?

If God is everywhere and intimately aware of His creation, Christians can pray believing God hears them anywhere and is actively involved in the world. (Exam AO1)

What is a challenge to omnipresence?

Some argue omnipresence stretches meaning — if God is transcendent and completely other, how can He also be fully present everywhere? Opponents cite paradoxes about divine presence and freedom. (Exam AO2)

What does “immutable” mean?

God is unchanging — His nature, character and promises do not change over time. 

How can immutability be challenged?

Critics argue if God doesn’t change, then responding to prayer or interacting with creation suggests change in attitude or action — questioning immutability’s coherence. (Exam AO2)

What does “transcendent” mean?

God is beyond and independent of the universe; He is not constrained by natural laws, space or time. 

How is transcendence contrasted with immanence?

Transcendence stresses God’s wholly other nature, while immanence stresses God’s active presence within creation. The tension helps explain divine majesty and care. 

What does “immanence” mean?

God is present and active within the world, sustaining creation and involved with human affairs. 

How does immanence help believers?

It offers comfort and reassurance that God understands suffering and personally cares for individuals. (Exam AO1)

What does “ineffable” mean regarding God?

God’s nature is beyond human description or full comprehension — language about God always falls short, pointing toward mystery. 

What is “simple” in relation to God?

Divine simplicity means God is not composed of parts; His attributes are unified, not separate aspects like components. 

What is “aseity”?

Aseity means God exists in and of Himself, not dependent on anything else for existence. 

What is “impassibility”?

God does not experience emotional change or suffer in response to external events — His nature is unaffected by creation. 

How does impassibility relate to human experience of God?

Critics argue it clashes with texts showing God grieving or reacting (e.g., God “repenting”), suggesting divine emotional engagement. (Exam AO2)

What is “incomprehensibility”?

God cannot be fully known by human reason; believers can know Him truly but not exhaustively. 

What is a scholar who challenges classical attributes?

Open Theists argue that classical omni-attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, immutability) conflict with a loving, interactive God. They propose a God who knows all human possibilities but not predetermined futures. 

How does classical theism define God’s nature?

Classical theism sees God as infinite, perfect, immutable, and the ultimate ground of being — whose essence is identical to existence itself. 

What is the conflict between omniscience and free will?

Critics say if God knows future acts infallibly, humans cannot choose otherwise — but defenders like Boethius and Augustine argue divine timelessness preserves human freedom. 

To what extent is God’s omniscience compatible with human free will?

Omniscience = God knows everything. Boethius says God is timeless and sees all choices in an “eternal present,” so His knowledge doesn’t cause them. Aquinas says God knows us as their creator, not as a predictor. Augustine says free will and responsibility still stand. Critics like Mackie argue that if God infallibly knows what I will do, I cannot genuinely choose otherwise. Open Theism (Pinnock, Hasker) says God knows all possibilities, not a fixed future, to preserve freedom. The challenge: either limit God’s knowledge or redefine human freedom.

Is God’s omnipotence coherent?

Omnipotence = God can do all that is logically possible. Aquinas: God cannot do contradictions (square circles, evil actions) because that is not “power” but nonsense. Descartes suggested God could do absolutely anything — but this makes logic unstable. The paradox of the stone challenges coherence. Process theologians (Whitehead) claim God is powerful but not controlling. The Problem of Evil raises whether a truly omnipotent God could allow suffering. Many argue redefining omnipotence as “maximal power compatible with God’s nature” avoids contradictions.

Is belief in an omnibenevolent God reasonable in light of evil?

Omnibenevolence = perfect moral goodness. Augustine: evil is privation — God created everything good; evil comes from free misuse of will. Hick: God allows suffering as “soul-making.” Swinburne: free will is a greater good. Critics (Mackie, Rowe) argue there is pointless, excessive suffering that a loving God would prevent. Dostoevsky questions whether any good justifies child suffering. Some say omnibenevolence becomes empty if it is always redefined to fit reality.

Can God be both eternal (outside time) and personal?

Boethius: God is timeless — He sees all moments at once. Aquinas: timelessness protects immutability and perfection. But critics argue a timeless God cannot respond, change, or genuinely love. Swinburne defends God as everlasting in time — able to relate, respond, and answer prayer. The debate asks whether relationship requires change, and whether timelessness makes God remote.

Does divine immutability make sense?

Immutability = God does not change in nature or purpose. Classical theism says change implies imperfection, so God must be unchanging. But the Bible shows God responding, grieving, forgiving. Process thinkers (Whitehead, Cobb) say God changes relationally (emotion) but not morally. Critics ask: if God cannot change, how can prayer matter? Defenders say God’s eternal will always included responding to prayer — no change in essence.

Is God’s omnipresence compatible with His transcendence?

Omnipresence = God is everywhere. Transcendence = God is beyond creation. Aquinas says God is present as the cause sustaining existence. Augustine says God is “closer to me than I am to myself.” Critics see contradiction: how can God be wholly other and everywhere at once? Panentheists say the world is “in” God without being identical to Him. The tension helps explain majesty (transcendence) and closeness (immanence).

Does divine simplicity create more problems than it solves?

Divine simplicity = God is not made of parts; His attributes are identical with His essence. Aquinas says this protects God from dependence and change. Critics argue it makes God abstract, turning love, knowledge and power into the same thing, which seems incoherent. Plantinga says simplicity makes God’s properties meaningless. Supporters reply that God is not like creatures — language about Him is analogical.

Can God be impassible (unable to suffer) and still loving?

Classical theology: God is impassible, not affected by creation, ensuring stability and sovereignty. Aquinas: emotions imply change and dependence. Critics (Moltmann, process theologians) argue a God who cannot suffer cannot truly love or empathise — the Cross shows divine suffering. Defenders respond that God understands suffering perfectly without being overwhelmed by it.

Is God’s omniscience threatened by modern science and human responsibility?

Some argue neuroscience and determinism undermine free will and make divine judgement unfair. Augustine and Aquinas maintain humans still choose voluntarily. Calvin stresses sovereignty over freedom. Open Theism says God limits knowledge to protect responsibility. Others argue moral responsibility makes more sense without exhaustive divine foreknowledge.

Can classical theism respond successfully to all the challenges to God’s attributes?

Classical theism presents God as eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, simple and impassible. Strengths: philosophical coherence, protects divine perfection and transcendence. Weaknesses: appears distant, unrelational, and struggles with free will, evil and prayer. Alternative models (Open Theism, Process Theology) emphasise love and relationship but risk limiting God excessively.

Does God’s knowledge cause events to happen?

Augustine and Boethius: no — God knows because events happen; they don’t happen because He knows. Critics reply that infallible knowledge still fixes outcomes. Open Theism solves this by saying the future is partly open. Debate centres on necessity vs contingency.

Is the God of classical theism compatible with religious experience and prayer?

A timeless, immutable God seems unresponsive. Swinburne argues God must exist in time to answer. Teresa of Avila and mystics describe personal interaction. Classical theists reply God’s eternal plan includes His responses — He doesn’t “change,” but we experience change from our perspective.