Attributes of God - Omnipotence Flashcards
Descartes Voluntarism
-Argue for ‘voluntarism’; the view that God’s omnipotence involves the power to do anything, even the logically impossible
eg) make it false that 4x2=8
Based in apophatic reasoning that gods nature is beyond our undertsanding
“It would be rash to think that our imagination reaches as far as his power”
Descartes’ argument is that because of God’s ‘immensity’ “nothing at all can exist which does not depend on Him.” This includes maths and logic.
Cs Lewis – Voluntarism is incoherent
If it is possible for God to make 1+1=3, then it looks like it is possible for 1+1 to equal 3. In that case, it cannot be logically necessary that 1+1=2. By attributing to God the power to do the logically impossible, voluntaristic omnipotence seems to destroy logical necessity
-square circle is logically incoherent, undermines logically neccessary fact that square has sides
‘Nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God’
defense - if god is truly omnipotent he can overcome this conflict, but we cannot understand this
Descartes’ theory of omnipotence undermines theodicies
Theodicy’s rely on the existence of logical impossibility
notion its logically impossible for God to eliminate evil without contradicting his divine justice (Augustine), taking away our free will (Augustine & Plantinga) or opportunities for growth from evil (Irenaeus & Hick).
Mackie - voluntarism
J. L. Mackie argued: idea of logically impossible actions were ‘Only a form of words which fails to describe any state of affairs.” = there is nothing which is ‘logically impossible’. Logical impossibilities do not exist
Argument for compatibilism - all powerful god can create a way for free will to be consistent with morally good characters, that are directed to choose god
eval - Plantingas 1st sufficent reason. This is self contradictory, the will is not free if directed to do good
Crux of argument is wether logically neccesity exists - within language game most accept clear boundaries to logic
Aquinas - Omnipotence
-omnipotence was the ability to do any logically possible thing. - -God’s power is founded on God’s infinite divine nature which “possesses within itself the perfection of all being”.
– God’s omnipotence can only bring about things consistent with the perfection of being (logically possible)
“that which implies being and non-being at the same time” cannot be brought about by God
God cannot create something which both exists and does not exist
Avverodes -The paradox of the stone provides a criticism of Aquinas.
It is the question of whether God could create a stone so heavy he can’t lift it.
This is problematic for omnipotence because if God can create the stone, there is something he cannot do – lift the stone.
If he can’t make the stone, there is something he cannot do – make the stone.
Mavrodes defends Aquinas
the stone is logically self-contradictory if we notice the full context.
It’s not just a really heavy stone – it is a stone ‘too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift’.
Since by definition an omnipotent being could lift any stone, there is no such thing as a stone too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift
thus it is in fact a logically impossible thing, just like a four-sided triangle.
Plantinga
Idea of the free will defense
Idea that to remove evil without removing free will is a logical impossiblitliy
(as evil is a logically necessary consuquence of free will)
Develops Aquina’s idea god can do logically possilbe only, and this is no limit to him
-if god removed free will, no possiblity for greater good of free creatures choosing moral good
‘god can create free creatures/ but he cannot cause or determine them to do what is right’
AJ ayer on soft determism
Actions are not truly free but determined by Gods omnpitoence - by how he made us
A. J. Ayer argues that our choices are either determined or not. If not, they are random. If determined, they result from prior causes such as our character, which is itself determined by prior causes. In either case, we couldn’t have done otherwise.
Soft determinism
-’caused’ by internal factor to do x eg) character
-not an external cause eg) predestinatin, but interna
Mackies voluntarist critique
COMPATIBILISM - the idea that human freewill is compatible with (can exist alongside) a God who determines in advance that we always do the right thing.
- Mackie concludes that the only coherent definition of free will is a compatibilist one, where “free choice” is when our actions are determined by our character.
-, why could he not have made men such that they always freely choose the good? Its possible to be freewilled and yet choose good actions instead of evil ones - we all do that sometimes, perhaps most of the time - so why not create beings who ALWAYS do this?
- This allows Mackie to then argue that if there were a perfect God, he would have made sure to have given us all a morally good character.
Eval -Plantinga responded with his first morally sufficient reason: that it is actually not logically possible for God to create a world where free agents always make good choices. The possibility of a world of free creatures only choosing good depends on their free choices, which God cannot control without taking away their free will
Vardy -Self imposed limiation
to mainatin order and rules of logic
god can do the logically impossible, he just chooses not to by restricting himself. vardy states that this is how human free will is not compromised. he says “God is limited by the universe he has chosen to create.”
Logical – look to bible - Nothing is impossible with God – Luke 1:37)
With God, all things are possible – Matthew 19:26
Augustine on omnimpotence
God can do anything he wills or chooses to do
-to do evil is theoritecl as agaisnt gods will to do good
-god ‘self imposes’ these certian limiations that are contrary to his nature
Strong as rich and coherent - idea of a square cricle incoherent as no reason god would want to will this
Kenny
Idea god limits
‘to be a coherent notion , must be something less then the complete omnipotence’
Mquarrie -God limits self for love of humanity
When speaking of God’s power, we do so as an analogy. God’s power is very different from our own, so we are comparing similar things: our power to God’s but these can never be the same because God is infinitely greater than us.
God is not constrained by logic, the physical world or the actions of humans, but has self imposed limitations due to his love for humanity.
This idea of God having self imposed limitations is useful when explaining how Jesus was the Son of God, as Jesus did not display all of God’s power. Eg Jesus wasn’t timeless or incorporeal.
Theologians have developed a doctrine known as kenosis. This means “self emptying”. God deliberately emptied himself of some divine attributes in order to make the incarnation (Jesus coming to earth in human form) possible.
Mackie’s / Descartes Voluntarist critique of self-imposed limitation
self-imposed limitation idea is that, logically speaking, God has to limit himself in order to achieve his goal of bringing us into loving relationship with us
-yet merely choosing not to do certain actions because of his goals
-No need for god to self limit. Can simply use omnipotence to solve conflict
-self limitation inputs a problem unnecessarily
EVAL -weaknesses of voluntarism (CS Lewis and logical neccesity)
Mquarrie - Is the debate of God’s omnipotence an issue of
religious language?
When we apply the word “power” to God it cannot be applied
literally with a human understanding of power in this world.
To speak of the power of God is to use an analogy. In agreement
with Aquinas, Macquarrie stated there will always be elements of
God which are unknowable to use, but through analogy we can
partially understand and express some key ideas.
Thus nature of Gods omnipotence cannot be truly known
Hartshorne
God should be thought of as a being whose power cannot be
surpassed, rather than as a being with total power.
Total power is not impressive. To have total power means nothing
can put up any resistance to God. So, total power is as impressive
as someone winning a race against no competitors. It would be
far more impressive if you win the race whilst facing a challenge
from other competitors
