Nature and Attributes of God Flashcards
What does Descartes argue about the nature of God’s omnipotence and why?
He argues for VOLUNTARISM which says that God can do the logically impossible, like make 2+2=5, even if we can’t comprehend it.
“It would be rash to think that our imagination reaches as far as his power.”
Descartes argues that this is because of God’s immensity. Everything that exists depends on him, including maths and logic. Logic is a limitation for humans but not God.
What is a weakness of Voluntarism?
If God can do the logically impossible, then it isn’t logically impossible. This means Voluntarism is self-defeating.
Voluntarism undermines God’s omnibenevolence. If he can do the logically impossible, he could get rid of evil and maintain our free will. So why hasn’t he?
What does Aquinas argue about God’s omnipotence and why?
He argues that God’s omnipotence is defined by his ability to do the logically possible only. This is because God’s power is based on his infinite divine nature which “possesses within itself the perfection of all being.”
God cannot create something which exists and does not exist because it “has not the nature of a feasible or possible thing.” This isn’t a weakness because his power is already perfection.
How does the Paradox of The Stone criticise Aquinas’ beliefs on God’s omnipotence?
Could God create a stone so heavy that he can’t lift it? If he could, then there is something he cannot so - lift the stone. If he couldn’t, then there is something he couldn’t do - make the stone.
It is easy for Aquinas to dismiss logically impossible things like creating a four-sided triangle, but surely creating a really heavy stone isn’t impossible? There must be a logically possible task that God cannot do, then.
How would Mavrodes defend Aquinas from the Paradox of the Stone?
The full context of the stone is “a stone too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift.” This would be logically impossible as the stone being too heavy for an all-powerful God is self-contradictory.
What is the third way to legitimise God’s omnipotence?
The idea that God has imposed self-limitations. God still has the power to do anything, because these limitations are imposed by God himself.
God might self-impose limitations to keep the universe orderly and not disrupt its logical order.
God might also self-limit to preserve human free will. If God intervened, we might have technical free will, but our actions would be irrelevant.
What are some criticisms of God imposing self-limitations on his omnipotence?
Genuine limitation requires inability to not do certain things. But God is merely choosing not to do things.
Voluntarists might say that self-imposed limitation is useless. If God wants to achieve a loving and close relationship with humans by limiting himself, why doesn’t he just preserve free will and interfere, as he can do the logically impossible?
How did Boethius reconcile God’s foreknowledge with human free will?
He argues that God is eternal - he exists outside of time. He sees all of time (the past, present and future) at the same time, living in an eternal present. He simply sees the outcomes of our free choices without interfering.
Therefore, God’s knowledge is not foreknowledge: it doesn’t exist prior to our actions as it exists outside of time.
How does Boethius defend himself from the criticism that our actions must be predetermined if God can see them outside of time?
He distinguishes simple and conditional necessity.
He illustrates conditional necessity by using the analogy of someone walking. If you see someone walking, then it is necessary that they walk. But them walking is based on the condition that they decided to walk. If the walker chose not to walk, it wouldn’t have been necessary.
Simple necessity is just something that has to occur regardless of circumstance; water must be H2O.
Therefore, the actions that God sees are necessary, but only if we chose them.
How does Anselm develop Boethius’ beliefs?
In the Proslogion, Anselm notes that if God is outside time, how does he affect what is in time?
Anselm says that God can affect what is in time by saying that all of time is in God because God is much greater than time. All of time constantly exists in divine eternity.
He can therefore make an impression on time’s events because time is always with him and inside him. It is a divine construct.
What are the four dimensions in Anselm’s four-dimensionalist approach?
1D - a straight line
2D - a flat plane
3D - a cube or another structure. Where we exist.
4D - time
5D - could be seen as eternity.
The fourth dimension contains all other dimensions, so we can use 4D to consider how time’s extension and how God contains time.
What is the controversial outcome of the four-dimensionalist approach?
It asserts that God knows our choices because the outcomes exist with him in eternity, yet they are not actually fixed in time. Anselm concludes that God learns when he sees our future actions, as this is the only way to preserve free will.
How does Kenny critique the idea that God is eternal/timeless?
He finds the idea that all events are happening at the same time to be “radically incoherent.” There is a clear line of cause and effect in history. The fire of Rome necessarily happened before Kenny wrote his paper, but a God experiencing both at once wouldn’t know this, calling his omniscience into question.
How does the four-dimensionalist approach reject Kenny’s criticisms?
Anselm distinguishes between temporal simultaneity and eternal simultaneity.
Temporal events like the fire of Rome and Kenny writing his paper are temporally non-simultaneous as they don’t happen back to back, but they are eternally simultaneous because they are happening at the same time with God.
It’s not like Boethius’ concludes that God is outside time watching it play out as it is. Rather, Anselm argues that since all of time is contained in eternity, all events are objectively simultaneous.
What does Swinburne argue about God’s everlasting position in time?
He argues that God exists within time. He existed in a durationless non-metric time before the creation of the universe, where time unfolded moment after moment, with God experiencing it at the same time.
God can see our past and present, but can only know what logically possible choices we could make in the future, not what choice we will take.
This resolves omniscience and free will, as he has no effect on our future.
Also, an eternal God wouldn’t respond to prayers as that would involve acting in time.
