nature & attributes of god

omnipotence

all powerful

can god create a boulder he cannot lift?

1- descartes view on god

-god can do anything, including the logically impossible

-god’s existence is prior to the laws of logic; he could create a square triangle, he could exist and not exist at the same time

against descartes

aquinas + lewis

-descartes’ claims are nonsense statements; placing ‘god can’ before nonsense statements doesn’t changes it’s meaning

-undermines the logical problem of evil and therefore all theodicies

-if god can do the logically impossible, it’s possible so he can’t do the impossible only the possible; a contradictory claim

2- aquinas/swinburne view of god

-god can only do what is logically possible

-god cannot make a square circle as that is logically impossible, god could exist or not exist but not at the same time

-to keep god consistent, it may involve self-limitation to allow for the freedom of humans

-j. mcquarrie; god chose to limit himself in the incarnation and becoming jesus

against aquinas/swinburne

-paradox of the stone; either god can’t create a really heavy boulder or god isn’t powerful enough to create a really heavy boulder HOWEVER they would argue that a stone god cannot lift is logically impossible object, as god can do anything and lift any boulder

3- augustine

-god’s omnipotence means he can do whatever he chooses/wills to do

-his will is always to do good so if he can do evil is purely theoretical question

-god’s omnipotence means he ‘self-imposes’ certain limitations that are contrary to his nature

-it is precisely because god is omnipotent that he does not commit evil or unjust actions

-god can do everything he wishes without hinderance or limitation

against augustine

-seems to undermine the problem of evil

-reliant upon his literal reading of genesis

-an all loving god would will evil to stop

-circular argument and also a non-answer; he can create a boulder he can’t lift if he wants and he can then lift it if he wants

a. kenny

there is no difference between what god has the power to do and it is logically impossible for god to do

p. geach

-omnipotence comes from the greek ‘pantokrator’ (almighty)

-meaning power over everything rather than power to do everything

-this essentially sidesteps a lot of issues as being all powerful no longer involves ‘doing’ anything

william of occam

-argued god had absolute power pre creation

-after creation he chose to limit his power to ordained power

-this limit is what allows genuine free will

god in time

1. boethius

2. anselm

3. swinburne

boethius - timeless god

-god is eternal; everything is now, there is no past or future, everything is simultaneously present and god sees it in one glance

-god is atemporal and transcendent

-simple necessity; something which just has to be the case

-conditional necessity; something which is only the case because it has been chosen

-a distinction between knowing and deciding, god knows what we do but it is conditional on our decisions, god knows what we will do but what we will do is still chosen by us

supports boethius

-just because we can’t make sense of something does not mean it is not possible

-if god does interact with the world, god is arbitrary and biased

-believers could change how they pray

-offers a coherent explanation for the beginning and end of creation; god persists through both as he is not limited by time

against boethius

-divine foreknowlegde; if god has already seen your decision and you do make it, even if you could have chosen another decision, you in that moment are not free

-god seeing everything at once is incoherent

-if god is outside of time, it is not cohesive with the god in the bible; meaning he cannot be jesus and he cannot answer prayers

anselm - timeless god

-god is eternal, god is immanent

-god exists from himself, and his essence is his existence - god IS

anselm’s four-dimensional approach-

• four-dimensional; all times and places are equally real and present

• god encompasses the entire timeline of the universe

• each point in time is equally accessible and fully real for god

• god exists in a state of timeless simultaneity

-preceding necessity; there is no free agent or choice involved e.g., laws of nature (sun rising)

-following necessity; the moment of free choice is known in god’s eternal present, the choice is the source of god’s knowledge since he is alongside us when we make the choice, his knowledge follows from our choice

supports anselm

-descriptions of time depend on perspective, god cannot know the ‘future’, as the ‘future’ describes time from human perspective; all moments of time are equally in god, no tenses in his perspective

-due to proceedings and following necessity god knows all things without limiting our free will

-god is not limited by human perspective on time, so we can’t properly comprehend it

against anselm

-difficult to imagine what god’s experience of time is like, anselm still uses the language of time e.g., before and after

-he doesn’t know what day it is, we can’t have a relationship with god

-our choices have already been made; limiting our free will, god is alongside us allowing us to choose evil

-doesn’t explain how an eternal god can interact with the world, it is incoherent

-struggles with the idea of a ‘perfect’ being interacting with time

swinburne - in time god

-an eternal god is incoherent and unbiblical

-an eternal god is lifeless, uncaring and not intervening; this is not the god in the bible as biblical god cares for the world

-for god to be part of the sequence of events he has to be in time, this allows us to form relationships with god sequentially

-if god is outside time he cannot answer prayers and our free will is limited

-god, for swinburne, has experienced the past with us and he is experiencing the present as humans do, he doesn’t know the future as he only knows the logically possible

a timeless god makes sense (boethius and anselm)

-god is infinite; we cannot comprehend him cause we cannot comprehend infinity

-god is more transcendent and unchanging, can’t respond to prayer, explains why you don’t see god in the world

-god can be truly omniscient in this view because he has knowledge of every moment, a god without time challenges omniscience

an everlasting god makes sense (swinburne)

-everlasting god fits with the view that god can only do and know the logically possible, how we understand and think about linear time

-if god is within time, he can hear prayer and bond with us

-everlasting god questions god’s omnipotence and omniscience but overall coherent in comparison to a timeless god

omniscience

dummett

-difference between human knowledge and god

• human knowledge has bias/perspective

• god has no perspective as he knows things intrinsically

-god’s knowledge is beyind perspective as it is everything

-god’s knowledge is timeless, as he is beyond time; god knows what there is to know