omnibenevolence Flashcards
main issues of God’s omnibenevolence
- issues of hell and eternal punishment
- issue of the problem of evil
scholars
Swinburne
Augustine and Irenaeaus
Boethius
understanding the need for God’s omnibenevolence
- based on creation of creation as insinuates a want for a relationship, an evil being wouldn’t care for relationship = no creation
- doesn’t mean creation has to be perfect as impermanence causes pain and change = improvements
- imperfection = free will
Irenaeus and Hick’s view on an imperfect world
- imperfect world fuelled by love causes change to achieve perfection
- through the vale of soul making
Anslem and Aquinas’s view on God’s love
- love is not changing
- we grow closer to God not God growing closer to us as its impossible as God os timeless
what does true love require?
- sacrifice
- to fully give yourself to another you have to limit yourself
- God’s sacrifice wad creation
- Christians say Jesus is embodiment of true love as sacrifice himself for our salvation
what is proposed to combat the problem of evil ?
- Augustine and Ireanaus’s theodicies
why is God understood to be simple and perfect
- God is simply because he is perfect
- if something can change it means it can improve, for God to be perfect he has to be simple
Swinburne’s addressing the issue of an all-loving God punishing and not forgiving all
- analogy of the role of a parent
- God’s goodness requires rewarding and punishing his creation; punishment born of love
- psalm 103:13
- God’s goodness includes administering justice
- God has the right to punish as he is good - God is the standard of perfection we are expected to live up to
Swinburne’s analogy of a parent
- reward and punishment as a parent would to a child to ensure growth and development
Psalm 103:13
‘just as a father shows compassion to his children, so the lord shows compassion’
- punishment born of love
problems with God’s omnibenevolence
- eternal punishment
- selfish morality
- paradox of omniscience
- problem of evil
issue of eternal punishment
- punishment for growth and long term reward
- eternal punishment provides no growth or development
CA
- Irenaeus’ universal salvation - said all will be saved in the end = even in hell there is no eternal punishment
issue of selfish morality
- idea of rewards and punishment may lead people action morally simply to go to heaven
- self-interested morality
CA
- judged on moral motivations not on outward actions
- if God is omniscience will see their intentions
paradox of omniscience
- issue of omniscience and the existence of hell as seems unfair to punish one for a predetermined outcome
paradox: - Gods goodness should lead to no punishment because it was good for God to allow humans free will to do what they want
- Goodness should punish the person because that is justice
CA
- Swinburne rejects paradox
- arguing human free will must include ability to damn ourselves if necessary otherwise its not totally free
issue of the problem of evil
- paradox of God’s perfection - omnibenevolence and creation of evil
- totally perfect God wouldn’t have the ability to create evil, within in our world evil exists
- loving and good God would’ve created a place with no suffering or pain
CA
- Swinburne parent analogy
- Augustine and Irenaeus’ theodicies
do the theodicies successfully overcome the question raised about God’s omnibenevolence and the existence of evil?
Irenaeus - NO, the need for evil for development seems unnecessary and that suffering is unequal and suggests different people have different moral developments
Augustine - NO but more than Irenaeus - offers alternative that’s = evil not creation from God. Omniscience meant he would be known Angels and A&E would fall
what does Boethius say about the issues presented with the issue of omniscience and omnibenevolence
‘if God firmly knows things, then they become inevitable, things which seem fair such as the reward of good and punishment of the bad became fair’
how does Boethius’ view on time to solve the issue of God’s omniscience and judgement of human morality
- humans exist within time and God exists outside of time
- he has perfect knowledge of what we freely chose to do but not in ‘advance’ as this doesn’t exist for God
- eternal presence
- as we have free will therefore God can fairly pass judgement
strength of Boethius’ view
logically consistent as allows God to have omniscience without compromising human freedom and sense of divine justice
weakness of Boethius’ view presented by Vardy
- inconsistency with God’s simplicity as it means god depends on human beings for knowledge
- suggesting God is learning which doesn’t fit with him being simple and perfect
