nature or attributes of God (7) Flashcards
God can do anything
Descartes argues that God can do anything, including logically impossible. God could make a square circle, he is not limited and leads to questions. Descartes view appears to be use conflicting reasoning.
God can do anything scholars
Aquinas argues that impossible things such as a square circle are a misuse of language.
CS Lewis says that adding the words ‘God can’ to a nonsense sentence doesnt change the nonsense.
God can do the logically possible
Aquinas argues that God can do all the things that are logically possible. Mavrodes solution to the paradox of the stone is if God has unlimited power then the stone he cannot lift and logically impossible.
Swinburne
argues that God cannot do the logically impossible. God can make the universe exist and not exist, not at the same time. God cannot make a square circle as it precludes idea of a square. Swinburne says must be limited to the logically possible. may be self limitation to allow humans not to be controlled.
other definitions of omni potence
Kenny- ‘the possession of all logically possible powers’. o difference between what God has the power to do and what is logically possible.
Geach- says omnipotence drives from greek word for almighty, power over everything rather than power to do everything
god’s omnipotence is limited
- Swinburne says God limited by logical possibility
- McQuarrie claims fit with God limiting himself by becoming Jesus
- God chose to create a limited universe that functions within natural laws
- William of Ockham suggests that since God created the world, he has ordained power so has taken on less control
god’s omnipotence is not limited
- Descartes argues that God has no limitations
- Aquinas and CS view logically impossible things as misunderstanding language
- Kenny argues that power is what God is, omnipotence is having the power to do what God wants to do.
Boethius
believes God is eternal and has a different relationship with time. Humans are finite, experience past and present. God is outside this and surveys time as an eternal present , seeing a film all at once rather than by frame. all the past and present is God’s ‘now’.
omniscience
Boethius thought it is possible to understand what knowledge is like if we understand nature of the knower. eternal nature of God is timeless and views everything as a simultaneous present. God knows what will happen, but as it is happening. God’s knowledge is providental rather than prior.
Aquinas’ illustration
imagine you are standing on top of a tower on a hill- you have a birds eye view of the whole road and who is walking, whereas the traveller only sees what is before/after.
Lady Philosophy
Boethius rights as a conversation between them. Boethius realises theres a problem: if God sees our future actions then there was no way we could do anything else. LP says God’s knowledge doesnt cause future events- free will does.
conditional neccessity
an actions is observed as it is freely chosen. example of man wlaking outside on a sunny day, the sun must be shining and the man walking. the sun is shining as it is something it must do (simple neccesity) but the man must be walking otherwise you wouldnt see him (CN). God sees what we consider to be in the future because
Boethius views of God’s eternity is successful
- just because we cannot make sense of something doesnt mean its possible
- If God interacted and saved one person, questions why God is partisan
- believers could change understanding of prayer from requirements made by God. instead, prayer would be communication with the divine.
Boethius’ view of God’s eternity is not successful
- Kenny argues that idea God experiences seperate events happen together is incoherent
- timeless God which is unintrested in the world seems to fit with philosophers and not religious. god interacts in BIble
- if God is timeless how could he enter the world as JC
- how could a timless God answer prayers?
four dimensionalism
Anselm uses time as a fourth dimension, like how we speak of spatial dimensions. Anselm states that God is not spatial/temporal- God has a different perspective of time. While we can say ‘tomorrow’, this would have no meaning for God.
Anselm overall argument
every moment is equally real and present for God, all times and places are within God equally. God encompasses all of time and God is eternity.
omniscience
Anselm’s knowledge means God is a matter of perspective, God knows what happened today and yesterday because every moment is equally present in God.
Anselm’s question
asks whether God knows we are going to sin or not, implication is if God knows what we will do means we cant do anything else.
preceding/following necessity
preceding- God knows the sun will rise tomorrow because it is PN, dependent on physical laws.
following- God knows there will be a revolution because he is beside the individual as they make their choice.
God knows the following necessity/ choice because is known in eternal present.
Anselm’s view on time is successful
- Anselm claims descriptions of time depend on perspective, God’s is different. All moments are equally present.
- God knows of nature because it is proceeding and choice because it is neccesity.
- protects free will, God is beside us making a decision
Anselm’s view on time is not successful
- very difficult to imagine what God’s experience is like, Anselm continues to use time words
- can God know what day it is now, there cannot be a more significant present because theyre all equal
- our choices are free, but God has seen them be made. challenges the existence of Free Will.
Swinburne
sees God as everlasting, he is within time but without a beginning or end. he has and always will exist. Culluman calls this ‘endless duration’.
criticism of timeless
too platonic to think that perfection and goodness must exist in an outside form.
timeless pros
a God that travels through time with us would experience past/present with us, he would be better at reacting to problems and helping. If God was within time the relationship can be strengthened and incarnation.
