concept and attributes of god

what does it mean to say that god is omnipotent?

god is all powerful - no being can exist with more power than god

generally means he can do anything that is logically possible - e.g. cannot create a 4 sided triangle because this would be a logical contradiction

what does it mean to say that god is omniscient?

god is all knowing - knows all true propositions that are possible to know

what does it mean to say that god is omnibenevolent?

god is all loving and perfectly good - always does what is morally good, never anything evil

what does it mean to say that god is eternal?

god exists outside of time - he is atemporal and not affected by time so has no beginning or end

what does it mean to say that god is everlasting?

god exists within time - exists all throughout time - existed at the beginning of time and will continue to exist forever so has no beginning or end

outline the paradox of the stone

challenges god’s omnipotence - all powerful

• can god create a stone he can’t lift?

• a) god creates a stone he can’t lift - there is something he cannot do (lift the stone)

• b) god cannot create a stone he can’t lift - there is something he cannot do (create the stone)

• therefore god cannot be omnipotent - concept of an omnipotent god is incoherent

outline mavrodes’ response to the paradox of the stone

• does not prove that the concept of omnipotence itself is incoherent

• instead the task set for god is incoherent - the concept of ‘a stone so heavy an omnipotent being cant lift it’ is a logical contradiction

• it is not a limitation on god’s power to say that he cant do what is logically impossible

outline savage’s response to the paradox of the stone

• asks us to imagine an alternate scenario

• being x can create a stone of any weight

• being y can lift a stone of any weight

• if x cannot create a stone that y cannot lift then this is not a limit on x’s power - both beings’ abilities are limitless

• can consider x and y to be two facets of god’s power - god can create a stone of any weight and lift a stone of any weight

• therefore the concept of omnipotence is coherent

outline kretzmann’s argument against god’s omniscience

• if god has knowledge of a changing world then god’s knowledge changes - and god is changing

• but god is immutable (unchanging)

• so god cannot be both immutable and omniscient

outline the argument that free will is incompatible with god’s omniscience

• if god knows beforehand what we are going to do then it is not in our power to not do that thing

• knowledge is of what is true - if god knows my future actions then it must be true that i will do these actions

• if it is true then i can not choose to act otherwise - so i am not free

• the view that our lives are predetermined conflicts with the idea that we can be accountable to god for our choices

• therefore the concept of an omniscient god is incoherent

outline aquinas’ response to the problem of free will

• god is eternal and exists out of time

• god does not experience the future and past the way we do - he sees them simultaneously

• god can see what actions we do happen to choose - but these actions are not predetermined and are freely chosen

• these actions are in the future to us, but not in the future to god - he has knowledge of them, not foreknowledge

outline the euthyphro dilemma

• plato’s dialogue euthyphro - concerned with piety - challenges god’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence - [briefly define]

• does god command something because it is good, or is something good because god commands it?

• a) if god commands things because they are good, this goodness cannot originate from god himself and must come from something external - god is reliant on something else so cannot be omnipotent

• b) if things are good because god commands them, this makes morality completely arbitrary - god could randomly decide that e.g. killing people is good, and we would be expected to follow god’s commands - therefore god cannot be omnibenevolent

• therefore the classical concept of god as being both omnipotent and omnibenevolent is incoherent as the dilemma requires us to reject one of these attributes in both horns

outline aquinas’ response to the euthyphro dilemma

• god’s nature is omnibenevolent - can only will what is good (avoiding problem of arbitrariness but limiting omnipotence)

• god cannot just arbitrarily decide what is good or bad - our nature and function have already been determined

• 'natural law’ of morality stems from god - god is the standard for moral values (avoiding problem of morality existing independent from god)

• so there are other options than the two horns of the dilemma

outline boethius’ view of god as eternal

• god’s perfection in being self-existent or without cause (aseity) means he is not dependent on anything - he is not governed by time and has no beginning or end

• god’s eternal relationship to time is the “whole, simultaneous, and perfect possession of boundless life”

• describes time as a circle - as humans we move around the circle experiencing time progressively - an eternal being (god) can exist in the middle of the circle and experience all points on the circle simultaneously

outline aquinas’ view of god as eternal

• eternal = existing outside of time

P1 everything in time changes

P2 but god is immutable and does not change

IC therefore god cannot be in time

C therefore god exists outside time (atemporal)

• analogy: a man on a road sees only what is immediately around him

• but someone on a hill can see everyone travelling alone on that road

• so god who is ‘above’ time can know and see things simultaneously across time

outline kenny’s criticism that god cannot be eternal

P1 according to the classic conception of eternity, rome burning to the ground in 64 CE is simultaneous with eternity

P2 according to the classic conception of eternity, me typing this sentence now in 2025 is simultaneous with eternity

IC therefore according to the classic conception of eternity, 64 CE is simultaneous with 2025

P4 this is absurd as the past, present and future cannot be simultaneous with one another

C therefore the classic conception of eternity is incoherent, and the concept of an eternal being is incoherent

outline the view that god is everlasting

• contemporary theologians like wolterstorff argue that god exists within time as an everlasting being - this god is personal, can love the world and interacts with the world

P1 god is without beginning and without end

P2 god interacts with and has a personal relationship with the world

P3 the world is temporal

P4 any being that interacts with and has a personal relationship with the temporal world is itself temporal

C therefore god is an everlasting being - he is temporal and exists in time

outline stump and kretzmann’s argument that an eternal god is coherent

• kenny’s argument misunderstands the meaning of simultaneity - this means two or more things existing/occurring at once - but simultaneity is different for different beings

• t-simultaneity applies to temporal beings like humans and means ‘existing/occurring at the same time’

• e-simultaneity applies to eternal beings like god and means ‘existing/occurring in the same eternal present’

• from einstein’s theory of relativity - what counts as simultaneous is different from different frames of reference

• e.g. a train travelling very fast is struck by two bolts of lightning at the front and rear - an observer next to the train sees both bolts simultaneously because the light is travelling the same distance - but a person on the train will perceive the front bolt before the other because they are moving in that direction

• therefore seeing things simultaneously depends on the observer - it is possible for an eternal being like god to see everything as simultaneous in the same eternal present AND for temporal beings like humans to see things as simultaneous when they happen at the same time - this is ET-simultaneity