Philosophy - Nature of God Flashcards
W. Chalmers Smith Quote and explanation
‘Immortal, invisible God only wise, In light inaccessible hid from our eyes, Most blessed, most glorious, the Ancient of Days, Almighty, victorious, Thy great name we praise.’
This quotation shows God’s eternal nature, since he is ‘immortal’ and so never dying. It also shows he is transcendent through ‘inaccessible hid from our eyes’.
Psalm 139:2-6 and explanation
‘You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether. You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it.’
This quotation shows that God has omniscience (all-knowing). God is aware of all our actions and knows so much more than we are capable of knowing (‘Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it’). It also shows that God is transcendent, meaning above and beyond the universe or outside time and space as God has this knowledge from ‘afar’.
Psalm 90:2 and explanation
Psalm 90:2 –
‘Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God’
This shows God’s omnipotence (‘you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God’) and his eternal nature (‘from everlasting to everlasting’).
Catechism of the Catholic Church 198 and explanation
‘Our profession of faith begins with God, for God is the First and the Last, the beginning and the end of everything. The Credo begins with God the Father, for the Father is the first divine person of the Most Holy Trinity; our Creed begins with the creation of heaven and earth, our creation is the beginning and the foundation of all God’s works.’
Shows God’s eternal nature (‘God is the First and the Last’), and his omnipotence (‘creation of heaven and earth’).
Hebrews 1:20-12 and explanation
‘In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.’
This quotation shows God’s omnipotence (‘you laid the foundations of the earth’) and his eternal nature (‘They will perish, but you remain’).
Quote from apostles creed about God having power
‘I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.’
Quote from nicene creed about God having power
‘We believe in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible’
God is conceived to be not only the most powerful being, but the …
source of all existence (creator) and the source and origin of all power (almighty)
Does Omnipotence mean the power to do literally anything? Rene Descartes view
Yes – God can do literally anything
.Descartes says that omnipotence means that God has the power to do actions which are logically impossible or contradictory
.E.g. God could make it so 1+1=5
.This seems nonsense to us, since God has made a world with unchanging laws such as arithmetic, such that 1+1 equals 2
.God could have created a different world with a wholly different arithmetic
.God is the creator not just of the world but of the laws of logic and mathematics as well
.God could change the laws of physics if he wanted
.It is logically impossible for God to do certain miracles as they go against the laws of nature, but he does them
Analogy to understand Descartes view on omnipotence
.Imagine God as the game designer, the universe the game, and us the players, we can’t change the rules of the game, but God can access the code and change the rules for himself if he so pleases
Does Omnipotence mean the power to do literally anything? Richard Swinburne view
No – God is limited to the logically possible
.Most theists insist on limiting God’s power to the logically impossible
.Swinburne says that God cannot make a round square because this is a nonsense task
.The phrase ‘round square’ makes grammatical sense but does not make any real meaningful sense
.For Swinburne, God not being able to do nonsense is no limit for God since there really is no task being described by the phrase ‘making a round square’
.Most theists have thought that God is able to do anything, but added the qualification ‘as long as it is logically possible’
.There are no round squares in the realm of possibility, so it is no limit on God that God cannot make one – there is nothing to make
Finish the Aquinas quote, ‘It is better to say that some things …
cannot be done, rather than God cannot do them’
If we take Swinburne’s view on omnipotence, it raises the question of the possibility of God doing evil. Outline the two views given to answer this problem
.Some theists say that God is able to sin, but because he is supremely good, God will never actually choose to sin
.God has such a moral fortitude that he will never give in to temptation, this is what makes him praiseworthy
.Others, such as Aquinas, say that God cannot sin
.It is just something that is impossible for God to do
.Aquinas thinks that sinning is not a rational action and instead a failure to do what is right
.It is an error, a consequence of not being perfect
.Since God is perfect, he cannot sin, but this doesn’t ruin the concept of God, since God is a perfect being he can’t make mistakes and so cannot sin
Problems that arise with Descartes view on omnipotence
Can God commit evil acts? Can God create a stone too heavy to lift? Does this contradict the Bible? The logical problem of evil
The definitions and ideas about God in the Judaeo-Christian tradition were heavily influenced by classical Greek philosophy, how?
Plato (form of the good) and Aristotle (prime mover)
Where does the idea of divine limitation goes back to?
ancient Christians and their idea of kenosis – the claim that God, by becoming Jesus, had to humble himself or become less than omnipotent
.God had to take on flesh and so make himself vulnerable to being hurt and hungry and eventually had to endure death on the cross
What is self-imposed limitation?
.A popular approach in recent times, idea that God in creation deliberately limits himself
How can self-imposed limitation be understood?
.One way to understand self-limitation is to think about creation
.Before creation, there would have been only God, and here God would have literally all the power since he is the only existing thing
.After creation, does God still have all the power? Or has he given some of it away to creation itself?
.Think of a tree, it is taking up water, absorbing light and resisting wind, doesn’t this mean it has its own powers?
Charles Hartshorne views on self-limitation?
.A process theologian like Charles Hartshorne accepts that after creation God is limited in the sense that he creates other things which have powers that are their own
.Creation means that God creates other centres of power, these other centres of power are not God
.Therefore, God has imposed limits on himself by creating things that are not God
Peter Vardy views on self-limitation
.God’s omnipotence is limited and it is wrong to suggest that everything which happens is because of the will of God
.God created the universe in such a way that his ability to act is limited
.It is tuned in such a way that if God acted differently, everything could not exist as it does
.It is perfectly suited for free, rational humans and to remain so, God’s omnipotence must be limited
.However, this limitation is self-imposed
John Hick views on self-limitation
.Philosopher John Hick presents the ‘Vale of Soul Making’ theodicy
.Through his theory he suggests that God exists at an ‘Epistemic’ distance from the world
.This distance allows humans to have genuine freedom
.If God does not impose limitations on himself we would be like robots who are preprogramed to behave and act in certain ways
.God has the omnipotence to interact within the world but chooses not to
Genesis 1:27-28
‘God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and rule it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’’
How does Genesis 1:27-28 support Vardy, Hick and Hartshorne?
This quote supports Vardy, Hick and Hartshorne’s views that God has self-imposed limitation as it shows that God has given some of his power to humans to rule the Earth.
Aquinas’ views on self-limitation
.Aquinas disagrees with the idea that God imposes limits on his omnipotence
.Aquinas wants to say that Gods creating of something that is not God (the world) makes no difference to God’s power, he is just as omnipotent as before and after creation
.In order to answer this, Aquinas distinguishes between primary causes and secondary causes
.According to this distinction, God is the primary cause of everything
.This means that the tree continues to exist and perform its various activities since God gives it the power to do so
.God is the ever present battery that powers the tree, he continues to give it existence and all its powers
.If God were to withdraw his power even for a second the tree would blink out of existence
How does Aquinas combat the idea that his views on self-imposed limitation imply that the tree itself does not do anything?
.Aquinas claims that it does not imply that
.Despite God continuing to have all power, the tree (and world) are independent of God in some sense
.There is a sense in which the tree has its own powers, Aquinas says the tree has its own secondary powers
.It is not wrong to say that the tree draws up water to its roots or that it resists the wind
.God, through primary causation, confers secondary causation on trees and creation as a whole
State some analogies that can be used to support Aquinas’ views on self-imposed limitation
.Imagine someone sawing some wood with a saw
.Without the person sawing the wood would not be cut, but this does not mean that the saw does nothing
.The saw is the secondary cause and the person sawing the primary
.Similarly, Aquinas says that created things in the world can do things like collect water from their roots even though it is also God who is doing it since he continues to give the tree the power to do so
.Other useful analogies might be, a plug as the primary cause and TV as the secondary, or a satellite as the primary cause and Netflix as the secondary
What other arguments does Aquinas’ self-imposed limitation views link to?
.Aquinas’ ideas appeal to his Aristotelian roots and is also similar to his cosmological argument
Why are Aquinas’ views on self-limitation good?
.If we accept Aquinas’ distinction, then it seems that God can have all the power and at the same time accept that things in the world have their own secondary powers
.If we accept this distinction, Aquinas argues that we can disagree with those who say that in creation God limits himself
.We can say that God does not limit himself in the slightest when he makes things which are not God
What does the reference to God’s omniscience point to?
the belief that God is aware of all that people do and that God has complete knowledge of the Universe; both how it comes to exist and why it exists
.God is described as knowing people through and through in Psalm 139: 1-4, which is:
‘O Lord, You have searched me and know me. You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you understand my thought from afar.’
God’s omniscience stretches before birth, what quote can be used to back this up?
‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.’ Jeremiah 1:5
The religious concept of God’s omniscience is echoed within philosopher’s comments, such as Anselm’s claim from the Poslogian, which is:
‘You are supremely perceptive’
In general the two definitions of omniscience can be split as follows:
Unlimited omniscience
Limited omniscience
What is unlimited omniscience
refers to God’s unlimited knowledge, including all history, past, present and future. According to this view, God is outside of time and has knowledge of the whole of time from beginning to end. This view fits in with belief that God is eternal timeless which means God exists outside of time and space
What is limited omniscience
refers to God being limited to what is logically possible to know or God chooses to limit what he knows to allow humans free will. According to this view God’s knowledge changes over time, since God acquires new knowledge as events occur. This view fits in with the belief that God is everlasting which means God has always existed but time passes for God
.Boethius argued that …
… God is changeless and does not exist in time – God’s life is not only endless but it is not like physical life, it does not involve experiencing life as a series of events one following the other
The problem of unlimited omniscience is
if God infallibly knows what I will do tomorrow, then, the future must be fixed, but if what I will do tomorrow is fixed, then I cannot be free since I cannot do anything else but what I do, divine foreknowledge seems to destroy freedom and require everything to be fixed in advance
Boethius quote for stating problem of unlimited omniscince
‘Therefore, human thoughts and actions have no freedom, because the divine mind in foreseeing all things without being led astray by falseness binds human thoughts and actions to a single manner of occurrence.’
Boethius quote for fixing problem of unlimited omniscience
‘Let us consider the nature of God’s eternity for this will make clear to us both the nature of God and his manner of knowing. Eternity, then, is the complete, simultaneous and perfect possession of everlasting life.’
What is Boethius’ answer to the problem of unlimited omniscience?
.Boethius contrasts our relationship with time with God’s
.Any creature has only a limited amount of time that is present to it, we only have the present moment, tomorrow is yet to come and is not presented to us, while yesterday has been and gone
.Boethius believes that God is the kind of being that knows all of time – yesterday does not fade away – it is present to God, likewise God does not have to wait until tomorrow
.To God all is as if it were present in his complete and perfect possession of the whole of time
.Boethius explains that, if you see someone in the present moment doing something, then, you can know with certainty that you are doing it, but that knowledge does not make what they are doing inevitable
.Present infallible knowledge of someone’s actions does not require their actions to be fixed
.If God is in time like us, and infallibly knows the future, the future would have to be fixed since otherwise how could he infallibly know it?
.But Boethius says that God’s knowledge is not like our knowledge, God knows what you will do tomorrow not by prediction (as that would require a fixed future) rather he sees you do it in his perfect present moment where all of time is seen at once
Boethius’ Answer to the Problem of Divine Foreknowledge in a Nutshell:
- The problem is that it appears that if God infallibly knows yesterday what you are going to do tomorrow, then, tomorrows actions must be fixed
- He cannot infallibly know that something will probably happen, therefore the future must be fixed for God to know it
- This means that there can be no free will since everything is fixed
- Boethius’ solution is to argue that God’s knowledge is not like our knowledge, God is present to the events of what we call tomorrow, this means he witnesses your free actions in his present
- Witnessing a free action and therefore knowing it with certainty does not require that the action is fixed or inevitable
Why does divine foreknowledge seem to destroy freedom?
Divine foreknowledge destroys freedom as if God knows what we will do then it is fixed, unchangeable, and so we don’t have freedom to change this future action of ours
Outline the difference between how humans view time and how, according to Boethius, God views time
- Humans view time chronologically, from today to tomorrow, only living in the present. Whereas Boethius says God views time as one, not chronologically, he witnesses past, present and future all at the same time – living at all points in time at once
How does Boethius’ view overcome he problem of divine foreknowledge
- By having God view time in this way, Boethius can overcome the problem of divine foreknowledge by having God witnesses actions as if they were happening in the present – when we witness actions (in the present) it does not mean that we have control over them, so by having God witness everything as present then it does not mean the action is fixed or inevitable
Swinburne’s view on Omniscience and Boethius
Limited omniscience
.Swinburne supports the view that God is everlasting
.He argues that Boethius’ idea of events occurring simultaneously to God cannot be made sense of
.He suggests that belief in an everlasting God fits more satisfactorily with God as revealed in the bible
Swinburne quote about eternal vs everlasting
‘For myself I cannot make much sense of this suggestion – for many reasons. For example, I cannot see that anything can be meant by saying that God knows (as they happen) the events of AD 1995 unless it means that he exists in 1995 and knows in 1995 what is happening then … hence I prefer that understanding of God being eternal as his being everlasting rather than as his being timeless.’ Swinburne, Is there a God?
Difference between everlasting and eternal
.Saying that God is everlasting is not meant to indicate any lessening of the power of God – it is a statement that God exists without end at all points in time but not that God exists timelessly in the sense of Boethius
Wolterstorff’s view on human actions
.Wolterstorff argued that the only way to understand some of God’s actions as indicated in the Bible is to understand them as free actions in response to human being’s behaviour, suggesting that God’s actions involve time passing
How can the everlasting view of God change the problem of omniscience
.When the everlasting view of God is adopted, then it can be thought that God can acquire new knowledge as time passes for God
.So as the events of history occur, God gains new knowledge
.Omniscience on this view is a claim that God can know what is logically possible to know
.So if the future has not yet happened, there is no future to be known, and God’s omniscience is not limited because it is impossible to know what does not exist or has not existed yet
.Instead, God is omniscient as God has perfect knowledge of what has occurred and is occurring
.Humans can have free will as God does not know future events until they occur
For swinburne, why is God’s omniscience limited?
.The reason why God’s omniscience is limited is that knowledge of future events would damage human freedom and take away the need for responsibility and development
.Swinburne argues that if God does not allow us to make real choices, including those to do harm, he would be like an overprotective parent who will not let his child out of sight for a moment
Swinburne and Wolterstorff’s Answer to the Problem of Divine Foreknowledge in a Nutshell –
- Both Swinburne and Wolterstorff reject Boethius’ idea that God is timeless and views all of time simultaneously or in one glance
- For Swinburne, this concept simply makes no sense
- Likewise, both Swinburne and Wolterstorff argue that the Bible implies God exists in time and reacts and responds to the actions of humans (for example, Genesis 3 – The Fall)
- It is God’s reaction to human action that shows they must have free will – the Bible implies that God reacts to the actions of humans
.All three of Boethius, St Thomas Aquinas and Anselm of Canterbury argue that God’s omniscient is unlimited
.They hold this view for two important reasons:
- God is a perfect and immutable being – this means God is without fault. God must have unlimited omniscience or God would learn new information and this would mean he is changing and less than perfect
- God is a timeless/transcendent being – this means God exists above and beyond our known universe thus having the ability to view all of time
.Both Wolterstorff and Swinburne argue that God can only know what is logically possible
.They hold this view for two main reasons:
- God cannot know the future because it has not happened yet. You can’t have knowledge of a non-event
- God exists within time and witnesses events chronologically – time passes for God
Why does Swinburne reject the view of Boethius?
Swinburne rejects the view of Boethius as he feels it is logically impossible to have knowledge of an event that has not actually happened yet, so instead he believes that God exists in time and witnesses events chronologically. As well as this, he believes Boethius’ view is not Biblically accurate but his is (since his allows for interaction with humans (Genesis 3 The Fall) but Boethius’ doesn’t).
.Theism from Plato onwards has affirmed that God is what?
purely good and could not do anything evil, God must possess perfect goodness, he must be good in all ways at all times and towards all other beings
What problem does God’s omnibenevolence bring?
.Is a loving God right to judge the actions of human beings? Does judgement (in particular punishment) fit with the understanding that God is all loving? Is judgment just (fair)
What is Swinburnes view on Divine benevolence and just punishment?
.God has limited omniscience and so punishment is just
.God has provided humans with clear guidance on how they act and behave (Bible and the Church)
.God has given them free will, so they have a choice between good and evil
.If humans misuse their free will and make bad decisions then God is just in his judgement and punishment
How does Swinburne liken God to a father when discussing divine benevolence and just judgement
.If we view God as a father, then like any good parent there is a requirement that bad actions are corrected
.It is the most loving thing to do so that children can learn from their mistakes
.We would question the actions of a parent if they continually overlooked their child’s bad actions due to ‘love’, just as we should question God’s actions if he were not to judge and/or punish
What does Boethius believe about divine benevolence and just punishment?
.Just because God knows what a person with free will is going to choose, doesn’t mean that he directed it
.God knows all things before they happen, but he doesn’t interfere with the free will of human beings
.God is outside of time so does not see the progression of events
.God knows the world in one single act, which includes knowledge of all choices of all human beings from the beginning of the wold to the end
.So he doesn’t influence these choices, but he knew of them as part of the whole foreknowledge of the world perceived in one single instance
.Therefore, God is just in his judgement because he does not control or influence human action
Is a loving God right to judge the actions of human beings? Does judgement (in particular punishment) fit with the understanding that God is all-loving?, who says yes?
Swinburne – God as a father is right to judge/punish Augustine – The fall/original sin Boethius – Humans are free Catholic Church – Under judgement John Hick – Universalism
Is a loving God right to judge the actions of human beings? Does judgement (in particular punishment) fit with the understanding that God is all-loving?, who says no?
Hume and Mackie – Inconsistent triad
JSM – The world is not just
Rowe – Evidential problem of evil (unnecessary evil)
Moral weakness Augustine – undeserved punishment
What are some other problems caused by omnibenevolence?
.John Mackie – inconsistent triad
.William Rowe – evidential problem of evil
.John Stuart Mill – poor design
.John Hick – soul making theory suggests God allows suffering to occur
Is it possible, or necessary, to resolve apparent conflict between the divine attributes? (Kierkegaard)
.Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard thinks not
.Unlike other scholars who look for solutions, he simply accepts that God is byon human understanding meaning that not understanding God causes no problems
Kierkegaard quote for attributes of God, latin and english
.Credo quia absurdum – ‘I believe because it is absurd’
Is it possible, or necessary, to resolve apparent conflicts between the divine attributes? Rene Descartes View
Yes
.Rene Descartes – It is possible due to God’s divine power
.Gods power means he is able to do anything including the logically impossible, for example, it appears logically impossible for God to perform certain miracles as they go against the laws of nature
.But imagine God as a video game designer, he can change the rules of his game to suit him, much like God can with the world as he created it
.God is not just the creator of the world but of the laws of logic and mathematics as well, God can do whatever God wants to o even if were unable to understand it
Is it possible, or necessary, to resolve apparent conflicts between the divine attributes? Boethius and Anselm view
Yes
.Boethius and Anselm would both argue that the divine attribute of omniscience does not cause problems for human freedom
.God has no foreknowledge as God is eternal
.God does not know the future, God just knows everything including all history as in a single glance
.Augustine supported this view and argues that God simply knows our choices (De Libero Arbitrio)
.For Boethius, God knows everything that is true, but God, being eternal, does not know things at a particular time or in an order through history – God simply knows eternally
Is it possible, or necessary, to resolve apparent conflicts between the divine attributes? Richard Swinburne view
Yes
.Richard Swinburne believes that God is everlasting rather than timeless, this makes it so time passes and God learns of the future as it unfolds
.The past is closed and unchangeable, and the future is open and not necessary
.What happens in the future may depend on events that are occurring now but what exactly will happen in the future remains open
.Luis Molina has suggested that God’s omniscience includes all possibilities of the future, in this sense there is no conflict with God’s omniscience
Is it possible, or necessary, to resolve apparent conflicts between the divine attributes? Kierkegaard view
No
Kierkegaard – Danish philosopher who celebrated the puzzles, paradoxes and conflicts between our different ideas about God
.He said these were not evidence against God, but FOR God
.Kierkegaard liked a quote from Tertullian, who had similar thinking to him on this topic:
Credo quia absurdum
‘I believe because it is absurd’
Is it possible, or necessary, to resolve apparent conflicts between the divine attributes? Evil and suffering argument
No
Evil and Suffering –
- If God is omnipotent, why does he not prevent evil and suffering?
- If God is omniscient, would he not have known that evil and suffering would have occurred?
- If God is omnibenevolent would he not want to remove evil and suffering?
- Therefore God is either not omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, or as Hume suggests, he does no exist
Is it possible, or necessary, to resolve apparent conflicts between the divine attributes? Free will argument
No
Free will –
.The most significant challenge to Gods omniscience
.Omniscience implies that God knows what I’m doing at 10 and at 11 and at the times in between
.Boethius says that God takes in all of history at a single glance, this suggests that God knows what I’m doing at 10 and knows the decision I will make at 10:30 before I have even made it
.If this is correct it means I don’t really have a real choice as God already knows what I will do
.Can we have genuine human freedom if God has unlimited omniscience?
In Judeo-Christian philosophy, the concept of God being eternal can have two senses, what are they?
Divine eternity (timelessness) and Divine action in time (everlasting)
What is divine eternity?
Divine eternity (timelessness) refers to God existing outside of time and space, this is often referred to as God being a transcendent being. To be transcendent means that God exists above and beyond the physical world.
What is divine action in time?
- Divine action in time (everlasting) refers to God having no beginning and no end, but time does pass for God. This is often referred to as God being an immanent being, to be immanent means that God exists within us, within the universe and is very much part of our time.
