nature of god Flashcards
voluntarism descartes
the view that God’s omnipotence involves the power to do anything, even the logically impossible. Descartes gives the example that God could have made it false that twice four makes eight. He thinks that God has the power to change mathematical, geometric, logical and moral truths
“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.”
incoherent - By attributing to God the power to do the logically impossible, voluntaristic omnipotence seems to destroy logical necessity. If God can do the logically impossible, then it is possible, and therefore it is not logically impossible
mackie argues that it’s wrong to say God can do the logically impossible because there is actually no such thing
‘only a form of words which fails to describe any state of affairs
voluntarism undermines the concept it is trying to make a claim about and is thus self defeating.
if God can do the logically impossible, then it seems he could eliminate evil without removing our free will or opportunities for growth. So why hasn’t he? Descartes’ Voluntarism therefore seems to undermine defence of God against the logical problem of evil.
aquinas
Aquinas argued that the correct definition of omnipotence was the ability to do any logically possible thing
Even though God cannot create impossible things, that is not a limitation of his omnipotence, once properly understood as power founded on the perfection of being.
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 here by arguing that in fact 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, and thus it is in fact a logically impossible thing, just like a four-sided triangle
- God can only do what a perfect God can possibly do - so he cannot sin
Kenny - God’s omnipotence should be understood as the ability to do anything that is logically possible and consistent with God’s nature.
however - possibly problematic for omnipotence? there is something that humans can do but god cannot + limiting gods power
self-imposed limitation
when creating the universe, God made it logically consistent and orderly. This means that if he did something logically impossible within the universe, that would disrupt the logical order of universe and make it chaotic, probably uninhabitable. Since God does not want to do that to his creation or to humans, he must have limited his ability to do logically impossible things within the universe.
our having genuine free will, or what Plantinga would call ‘significant’ free will, requires that God does not intervene to stop us every time we do something wrong
Peter Vardy - gods omnipotence is much more limited than many Christian’s have suggested
- created the universe in such a way that his ability to act is limited
- Universe is perfectly suited for free rational beings - in order to be this way, omnipotence is limited - self imposed
some could argue that genuine limitation requires actual inability which seems to require an inability to throw off or discard that limitation.
however - if God chooses to limit his power to logical actions when acting within the universe, technically he isn’t limiting himself, just choosing not to do certain things - perfectly consistent with omnipotence
Hartshorne - more impressive to be thought as someone who can overcome all resistance than as someone to whom resistance is not offered at all
boethius - free will vs omniscience
Boethius thought this needed solving because if we don’t have free will, then how can God judge us fairly, sending us to heaven or hell. That would seem to question his omnibenevolence. Yet if God didn’t know what we were going to do next, that would seem to question his omniscience.
Schleiermacher - analogy of knowledge that close friends have of each others future behaviour - his knowledge does not force or affect what we choose to do, and so we are morally responsible and can make genuinely free choices
- BUT gods knowledge is said to be infallible - he is also said to know, not predict, the future
- it is the certainty of omniscient knowledge that makes it difficult to reconcile with human freedom of choice
God is eternal – outside of time. This would mean God sees all time (past, present and future) simultaneously in the ‘eternal present’
God’s knowledge is not ‘foreknowledge’ – it does not exist ‘prior’ to our action as it exists outside of time.
Anthony Kenny argues ‘simultaneity’ is nonsense. I cannot either avenge a murder or forgive them until the murder has taken place. Each event is contingent on the preceding one.
the results of our choices are fixed and inevitable. Surely we cannot do anything other than what God knows we will in fact do. Therefore we don’t have the ability to do otherwise, and so how can we have free will?
Boethius responded to this challenge by distinguishing between simple and conditional necessity. He agreed that God knowing our future actions made our actions necessary – but only conditionally necessary. He illustrated conditional necessity with observing someone walking. If you see someone walking, it is necessary that they are walking. However, that necessity is conditional on their having chosen to walk
anselm
God’s eternity followed from the definition of God as ‘that than which none greater may be conceived’.
Being within a particular time/place is a limitation which ‘confines’ a being to having certain parts of itself existing at one time/place and other parts of itself at others. So, as an unlimited being, God cannot be within time like we are.
Anselm does not think that God is radically disconnected from time, as Boethius seems to suggest
“That he is not in place or time, but all times and places are in him” – Anselm.
Four dimensionalism is the view that we can understand time as an object’s extension through the fourth dimension.
Anselm scholar Katherin Rogers identifies Anselm as the “first coherent four dimensionalist”. Anselm claims that just as all of space is contained in one moment in time, so too is all of time contained in eternity. Eternity is thus the totality of the fourth dimension.
Our future actions do not yet exist within time, but in eternity they always exist.
A consequence of Anselm’s theory is that God learns our future actions by being with them in eternity. - conflicts with omniscience
BUT since God is outside time, he has always known our future actions. In eternity, our future actions always exist. So, there was never a time when God did not know our future actions, despite knowing them by learning them.
swinburne
Swinburne claims God exists within time. Once the universe had been created then time began to unfold moment by moment – both for creation and for God. God thus knows what we have done in the past and what we are doing in the present. However, regarding the future, God only knows the logically possible choices we could make, not which choice we will actually make
Swinburne argues that an eternal God could not respond to people’s prayers, since that would require acting within time.
Aquinas argues that Prayers aren’t responded to by God in real-time, however.
“We do not pray to change divine decree, but only to obtain what God has decided will be obtained through prayer”.
The function of a prayer is to make people feel psychologically closer to God or in order to gain the benefits that God has already designed
However Swinburne doesn’t think we can’t feel close in the sense of being in a loving relationship with an eternal being. He says an eternal God would be unchanging and thus be a “pretty lifeless thing”. Swinburne argued that a relationship with God based on love is a two-way process which requires an ability for God to respond to us
Aquinas argues that since God is perfect he cannot change, as any change for a perfect being would necessarily be a change away from perfection
Swinburne also argued that it only makes sense to understand God’s actions in the bible if we see them as responses to human’s free choices. E.g the 10 plagues of Egypt. God sent the first plague, waited to see if the Pharaoh would let the Jews go. He didn’t, so God sent the second plague, and so on until plague number 10.
- he interacts with people and his decisions may change because of his ongoing relationships with individuals
- Isaiah 38:1-5 - God had been planning to end King Hezekiah but changed his mind in response to his prayer
Karl Barth: The incarnation of Christ is a decisive and intentional action of God within time.
Jergen Moltmann: “The death of Christ only makes sense if God is able to suffer.” – The Crucified God.
N.T. Wright: “We need narrative, not timeless truth. I’m not a timeless person; I’ve got a story. The world’s not a timeless world; it’s got a story. ”
