the concept and nature of god Flashcards
1
Q
the three approaches to thinking about God
A
-
perfect being theology
- god as ‘maximally great’: nothing can be greater than god, Augustine - to think of god is to ‘attempt to conceive something than which nothing more excellent or sublime exists’
- perfection: what is perfect as more real than what is not, perfection as self sufficiency, ultimate reality as not dependent on anything else
- key scholar: Anselm -
natural theology
- since god is the creator, the natural world reveals things about god, we can study the creation and learn more about god and prove that he exists
- key scholar: Thomas Aquinas -
revealed theology
- learning about god through revelation from god, this could be religious experiences or through sacred texts
2
Q
omniscience
A
- all knowing
- is it possible to know everything - e.g. if we have free will, perhaps it is impossible to know what we will freely choose in the future
- god is the most perfect possible being, so omniscience is ‘knowing all the truths that it is possible to know’
- what form does ‘perfect’ knowledge take? - does god know via language or propositions or inference, or only directly
- Aquinas said that all god’s knowledge was non discursive (direct)
3
Q
omnipotence
A
- all powerful
- but is omnipotence the power to do everything
- what about the logically impossible - could god draw a square circle
- Aquinas would say no, what is impossible is a contradiction in terms
- the words that you use to describe the impossible literally contradict each other, so any description of a logically impossible state of affairs or power is not meaningful, so what is logically impossible is not anything at all
- there is no limitation on god’s power - there is still nothing god can’t do
4
Q
supreme goodness
A
- if good = perfect, then god is simply perfect
- there are lots of ways to be perfect, this is a metaphysical sense of ‘goodness’
- if good = morally good, then ‘god is good’ means god’s will is always in accordance with moral values
- connection: what is morally good is more perfect that what is not - evil as a lack or absence of goodness
5
Q
god and time
A
- god is self sufficient
- therefore, god is dependent on nothing else for existence
- therefore, nothing can end god’s existence
- and nothing could bring god into existence
- so, if god exists, god’s existence has no beginning or end
6
Q
everlasting v. eternal
A
- everlasting: lasting through all time without beginning or end
- eternal: timeless, outside time, atemporal - without beginning or end because these are temporal concepts
7
Q
omnipotence means
A
- omnipotence means all powerful and can do anything
- ‘nothing is impossible with god’ - Luke 1:37
8
Q
problems for omnipotence
A
- can god draw a square circle
- can god commit an evil act
- can god change the past
- can god bring it about that I freely teach this lesson
- can god create a stone he cannot lift
9
Q
paradox of the stone
A
- could an omnipotent being create a stone it could not lift
- if we say yes, there is something an omnipotent being cannot do (can’t lift the stone)
- if we say no, there is something an omnipotent being cannot do (cannot make the stone)
- either way there is something an omnipotent being cannot do
- so, the idea of omnipotence is incoherent (god could not exist as we traditionally understand him)
- could an omnipotent being limit itself, if it can’t does that mean he lacks power in some sense
10
Q
voluntarism
A
- Descartes argued that since God existed before the laws of logic, he was limited by them
- this means god can do the impossible (even contradictions)
- avoids all the problem cases
- it is difficult to make sense if the idea of preforming an impossible act
11
Q
responses to the paradox of the stone
A
- voluntarism
- act based accounts
- result based accounts
- omnipotence and benevolence
12
Q
act based accounts (Aquinas)
A
- aquinas claimed that god can preform any possible act (and that is what should omnipotence is)
- avoids problems like drawing a square circle
- doesn’t deal with paradox of the stone
13
Q
act based accounts (Swinburne)
A
- Swinburne claimed that god can preform any possible act that is consistent with everything that has already happened
- god can create a stone he cannot lift, but there is no such stone, until he creates the stone, theres nothing limiting him
- deals with the paradox of the stone, god can do everything until he creates that stone
- god could limit himself (god could give up hos omnipotence)
14
Q
results based accounts
A
- Leibniz claimed that god can bring about any possible state of affairs
- deals with the paradox of the stone - the state of affairs with a stone god cannot is impossible
- seems incompatible with human free will, only i can bring about my free actions
15
Q
omnipotence and benevolence
A
- Wallenberg claimed that god is never limited because of power, but can be limited by other things
- hercules example - he is omnistrong and he is never limoted by his strength but can be by other factors
- explains why god cannot do evil
- does it make sense to say that god has the power to do things he cannot do
16
Q
god and time
A
some things that are said about god and time:
- eternal
- everlasting
- timeless
- outside of time
- exists at all times
17
Q
Boethius
A
- god is eternal - god exists at all times, but is not a being in time
- god does not experience time like we do - he experiences all time at once
- two analogies: god relates to time like the centre of a circle relates to each point on the circumference; god sees time like the person at the top of a hill sees things below
18
Q
Swinburne (time)
A
- Swinburne rejects the idea of a timeless god
- only a being in time can have loving relationships
- god is in time so can therefore change
- he argues that this fits better with the god of the bible
- (perfection —> love —> response —> change)
19
Q
argument for divine timelessness
A
- if god is everlasting what was he doing before he created the universe, and how did he decide when to create
- response: Swinburne says that time was not measurable before god created things
- divine timelessness follows from god being simple and unchanging
- response: we should reject the idea of god being simple and unchanging
- divine timelessness explains how god’s foreknowledge is compatible with free will
- response: other solutions, e.g. deny god has knowledge of the future
20
Q
arguments for a temporal god
A
- only a temporal god can know what time it is
- response: god knows the relations among times and that is all there is to know
- only a temporal god can act in the world
- response: Aquinas denies that god relates to the world in any way, things in the world relate to him
- a temporal god is what is described in the bible
- response: these descriptions are only to aid human understanding
21
Q
omniscience
A
- all knowing
some related ideas: - infallibility: cannot be wrong
- god’s beliefs are non discursive (Aquinas)
22
Q
foreknowledge
A
- does god know the future
- reasons for: seems to follow straightforwardly from omniscience; numerous religious traditions claim that god has revealed the future to people
23
Q
free will
A
- free will is having the ability to do otherwise or having the power to bring something about
- free will means that at least part of the explanation for why an action happened is determined by the agent herself
- but if god knows all our actions before we ever existed then how can we be free to do otherwise
24
Q
the problem with omniscience
A
- foreknowledge means, for example, that god knew 100 years ago that you would come to this class today
- if god knew 100 years ago that you would come to this class today, then there was nothing you could have otherwise today
- if there was nothing tou could have done otherwise then you do not have free will
- therefore, you do mot have free will
25
Q
Boethius (free will)
A
- the nature of god’s knowledge is not like our knowledge
- god is timeless, so his knowledge is timeless (strictly speaking god does not have foreknowledge)
- seeing that something is the case is not the same as causing it to be the case
- god doesn’t know the future because he doesn’t experience the future
- distinction: simple necessity (it is necessary that)/conditional necessity (given that…it is necessary that)
26
Q
objections to Boethius
A
- does a timeless god make sense
- can god relate to the world if he is timeless
- can god have knowledge about today
- is the problem really solved - it was still true 100 years ago that god knew what you would do today
27
Q
alternatives to Boethius (free will)
A
- deny that there are any truths about the future (Aristotle) - there is no fact until tomorrow happens
- deny that any truths about the future are knowable (open theism) - god must be in time to have this view
- accept backwards causality
28
Q
euthyphro dilemma
A
- ‘is the pious loved by the gods because it it pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the god’ - euthyphro dilemma
- the Euthyphro dilemma looks at whether morality is created by, or independent of, God
- the answer must be one of these options, yet both face objections
- so, is our concept of god, e.g. as both good and omnipotent, coherent
- (assumption - morality is not subjective as if god exists, it is highly unlikely that morality is subjective)
29
Q
morality and god
A
- morality is independent of god
- morality is independent of what god wills
- to be good, god’s will must conform to something independent of god (god wills what is morally right because it is right)
- if correct, god is not omnipotent, because he cannot change morality
- morality depends on god
- morality is whatever god wills (what is morally right is right because god wills it)
- if this is right, if murdering babies were commanded by god, then it would be morally right of us to murder babies
- this violates our sense of morality, it would not be right to murder babies even if god commanded it
- this presents a challenge to god being omnibenevolent
30
Q
is morality independent of god
A
- can what is good change, or must what is good be good
- if it is logically impossible to change morality, then morality is no limitation on god’s omnipotence
- but why think moral truths are necessarily true - ‘murdering babies is right’ isn’t a contradiction; so what could make it impossible for an omnipotent being to change morality
31
Q
morality is arbitrary
A
- if morality is dependent on god, whatever god willed would be morally right
- there are no reasons for god to will what he does: if god invents morality, there are no moral reasons for actions before god will them
- reply: god’s will is guided by god’s love - this makes love the standard of morality (objection)
