attributes of god Flashcards
what is omniscience?
one of the attributes of god - all knowing
what is the argument that god cannot be both omniscient and immutable?
p1) god isn’t subject to change
p2) god knows everything
c) a being that knows everything, also knows everything in time
p3) a being that knows things in time is subject to change
c2) therefore, god is subject to change - which contradicts premise 1
what are the defences to whether god could be omniscient and immutable?
the concept of omniscience could be redefined from
god knows everything to god knows everything that is logically possible.
does the defence work?
Kretzmann believes that there is no way that knowing something can limit my future knowledge - thus the defence does not work
what is omnipotence?
all-powerful
what are the ppcs for omnipotence?
p1) god can do anything
p2) god can do anything logically possible
c) god can do anything that is logically possible and which does not undermine his perfection
what is the problem with god can do anything?
god it said to also be immutable (unchangeable) and thus there is something he cannot do = CHANGE
then it can be changed to god can do anything logically possible BUT then there are still things he cannot do such as create evil (because it undermines his omnibenevolence). then it can be changed to god can do anything logically possible that does not undermine his perfection, however this too has problems (paradox of the stone)
what is omnibenevolence?
supreme goodness
what is the view that god is eternal?
god is atemporal and exists outside of time. he has no beginning or end. he experiences all things E-simultaneously (all at once)
what are the ppcs against god’s eternal?
p1) according to the classic conception of eternity, rome buring to the ground in 64CE is simultaneous with eternity
p2) me typing this sentance is also simultaneous with eternity
c1) therefore, according to that 64CE is simultaneous with noe
p3) this is absurd, as the past present and future cannot be simultaneous with one another
c2) therefore the concept of eternity is incoherent
what is the view that god is everlasting?
god exists within time. he was there at the beginning of time and will be there forever. he experiences things T-simultaneously - like humans.
what are the ppcs against gods everlasting?
p1) god is a temporal
p2) god interacts with the world
p3) the world is temporal
p4) any being that has a real relationship with the temporal world is itself temporal
c1) therefore, god is temporal
c2) therefore, 1 is false
what is the paradox of the stone?
this is an objection to the paradox of the stone by MAVRODES.
he begins with the question CAN GOD CREATE A STONE TOO HEAVY FOR HIM TO LIFT?
- either way there is something he cannot do: create the stone or lift the stone.
thus omnipotence is an INCOHERENT concept.
MAVRODES says that if god were omnipotent (can lift anything), would his power allow him to create a stone too heavy for him to lift?
but MAVRODES concludes that this is a contradictory task and thus the paradox of the stone does not provide a limitation at all.
what is the ppc for paradox of the stone?
p1) either god can create a stone too heavy for him to move or he cannot
p2) if god can do this, then god is not omnipotent
p3) if god can do this, then god is not omnipotent
p4) there is nothing logically impossible about either of these tasks
c) therefore, god is not omnipotent
what is the criticism of Mavrodes paradox of the stone?
Savage argues that Mavrodes presents a paradox that aims to prove God is not omnipotent whereas he should be presenting an argument that asks is an omnipotent being logically possible.
- he uses an example of X and Y. X creates stones and Y lifts stones. if Y could only lift stones up to 70KG and X cannot create a stone Y cannot lift then there IS a limitation whereas if Y was omnipotent and X could not create a stone Y cannot lift (because there isn’t one), there is NOT a limitation to X’s power.
what is the euthyphro dilemma?
this is a criticism against God’s omnibenevolance.
Euthyphro defines morality as that which is the will of the gods and so Socrates begs the question that is everything God wills moral or is everything God wills moral because he is following an external moral authority
horn 1 - God says killing babies is bad because it’s bad
horn 2 - killing babies is bad because God says so.
evaluate horn 1
this says that good exists INDEPENDENT of god.
- god issues commands which are good insofar as they comply with a moral code that lies beyond god
what is the problem with horn 1?
- objective morality does not need god - if moral goodness lies beyond God then we can bypass god if we wish to be moral - then why would we worship god
- objective morality limits god’s power - if god cannot change morality then it limits his omnipotence
- objective morality limits god’s omnibenevolance, because if it is the independant morals that we are obeying then surely they are supremely good rather than god
evaluate horn 2
assumes that god is the source and standard of all moral goodness.
-god could command us to do anything and they would become moral
what is the criticism of horn 2?
both horns may be avoided by philosophers who do not locate goodness in either gods will or commands.
- an alternative view is that moral goodness can be found in aquinas’ natural law
goodness = being good at something
what is the ppc for the criticism of free will and god?
p1) god is omniscient if and only if god knows all true propositions
p2) there are true propositions about the future
p3) god is omniscient only if god knows all true future propositions
p4) if god knows all true future propositions, then it is impossible for them to be false
p5) if it is impossible for them to be false, then it is also impossible for me to do otherwise than those specific actions and thus i am not free
c) therefore, if god is omniscient i am not free
