MoG - Concept and Nature of God Flashcards
Define omnipotence
Having perfect power; the ability to do anything it is possible to do
What is the difference between Descartes and Aquinas definition of omnipotence?
Descartes: God can do anything, even that which is illogical or impossible
Aquinas: God can only do what is logically possible
Define omniscience
Having perfect knowledge; to know everything that can possibly be known
Define omnibenevolence
Being supremely good; to be perfectly morally good
Define God as an eternal being
God exists outside of time, with no beginning or end since these concepts rely on time
Define God as an everlasting being
God exists within time, with a beginning at the start of time and will continue to exist forever
Which philosophers gave explanations for God as an eternal being?
- Boethius (circle analogy)
- Stump and Kretzmann (features of an eternal being)
How did Boethius explain God as an eternal being?
Boethius compared time to a circle where human experience travels around the circle, while an eternal being at the centre experiences all points of the circle simultaneously
How did Stump and Kretzmann explain God as an eternal being?
Stump and Kretzmann built on Boethius’ explanation, outlining 4 features of an eternal being:
- Life (psychological)
- Limitless (no beginning or end)
- Atemporal (outside of time)
- Experiences all at once (like Boethius)
What are arguments for God as an everlasting being?
- God is thought to be alive
- God acts and causes things to happen, and actions are events and causation is linked to events, which are rooted in time
What are the 3 arguments for the incoherence of the concept of god?
- Paradox of the stone (omnipotence)
- Euthyphro dilemma (omnipotence + omnibenevolence)
- Compatibility of omniscience
Outline the paradox of the stone
The paradox argues that the concept of an omnipotent being is self-contradictory
“Can God create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?”
- If he can’t then he is not powerful enough to make the stone
- if he can then he is not powerful since he cannot lift it
What is Maverodes’ first solution to the paradox of the stone?
A stone that an omnipotent being can’t lift is self-contradictory; omnipotence is the ability to do anything possible, therefore the paradox describes nothing
What is the response to Maverodes’ first solution to the paradox of the stone?
The solution begs the question since the initial argument aims to challenge God’s omnipotence, whereas the response uses God’s omnipotence to argue the paradox is meaningless, which is circular and does not establish coherence of omnipotence
What is Maverodes’ 2nd solution to the paradox of the stone?
If we allow that God can lift any stone, then God can’t create a stone he can’t lift, which means God can lift any stone he creates - the paradox doesn’t disprove omnipotence, but rather the existence of such a stone existing
Define the Euthyphro dilemma
The dilemma asks whether morality is created by God or independent of God, challenging his omnipotence and omnibenevolence
What are the implications of God creating morality?
If God creates morality, then God willing something is what makes it morally right, however this may leas to morality being arbitrary since God could say ‘murdering babies is good’ when we disagree (God is not omnibenevolent)
What are the implications of morality being independent of God?
If morality is independent of God, then God is subject to morality, therefore God would not be the source of morality, therefore God is not omnipotent and the concept of God is incoherent
Outline the solution to the Euthyphro dilemma that morality is not arbitrary
God creates morality and is still omnipotent, since God bases morality on other factors such as his love for humanity, which means that morality is not arbitrary
What is a possible response to the criticism that morality is not arbitrary (criticism of the Euthyphro dilemma)
God’s love for humanity could still be an arbitrary factor to base morality on (love as a concept varies for people)
Outline the solution to the Euthyphro dilemma that “God is good” is not a tautology
“God” and “goodness” are different (if God creates morality) but relate to the same concept, like “H2O” and “water”; “H2O is water” is a discovery, like how “God is good” is a discovery
What is a possible response to the criticism that “God is good” is not a tautology (criticism of the Euthyphro dilemma)
H2O and water relate to the same thing, meanwhile ‘god’ and ‘good’ are not the same - they do not provide definitions for each other
Outline the issue of omniscience and free will for the coherence of God
It raises the question of whether the concept of omniscience is compatible with free will:
- Since God is omniscient, he knows everything, including what I will do before I do it. However, if God knows what I will do before I do it, then it is not possible for me to do anything else (therefore I must not have free will since free will is the ability to do or not do something). So, God is omniscient and we lack free will, or we have free will and God is not omniscient
What is the importance of humans having free will?
While we could abandon free will as a concept in favour of God being omniscient, free will is a great good that allows us to choose good or evil actions; if god is omnibenevolent, he would want our lives to be morally significant and meaningful - therefore God is either omniscient or omnibenevolent
What are 3 possible responses to the issue of omniscience and free will for the coherence of God?
- God is everlasting, and therefore he knows all that can be possibly known if he is observing time in a linear structure like us
- God is an eternal being, so he experiences all times at once - he simply observes you having free will at multiple points in time without interference
- God has counterfactual knowledge, so he can predict the possible outcomes if something were the case
