The Concept And Nature Of God Flashcards
Omniscience meaning
All knowing
Omnipotence meaning
All powerful
Omnibenevolence meaning
All loving
Which of God’s attributes does the paradox of the stone aim to attack?
Omnipotence
Aquinas’s view of omnipotence?
God can do anything which is logically possible and does not undermine his perfection.
Descartes view of omnipotence?
God can do anything: he created the laws of logic and therefore does not have to obey them. It would be a limit on his power if he couldn’t.
What question does the paradox of the stone ask?
Can God create a stone that he cannot lift?
The paradox of the stone in premise and conclusion form?
P1: Either God can make a stone too heavy for God to lift or God cannot do this.
P2: If God can do this, then God is not omnipotent (since he cannot lift the stone).
P3: If God cannot do this then God is not omnipotent (since God cannot do it)
C: Therefore, God is not omnipotent (either way).
Which philosopher was Mavrodes influenced by?
Aquinas
Mavrodes reply to the paradox of the stone?
The power of an omnipotent being to create a stone that an omnipotent being cannot lift is not a possible power. It is a logically impossible act and therefore if God cannot do it it is not a limit on his power and if God lacks the power to do it he isn’t lacking any possible power.
Rebuttal to Mavrodes reply to the paradox of the stone?
It begs the question. It assumes that we can coherently talk about an omnipotent being. It uses the coherence of an omnipotent being to talk about the coherence of an omnipotent being.
C Wade Savage reply to the paradox of the stone?
Imagine two beings: X and Y, and X can create stones of any weight and Y can lift stones of any weight. Just because Y can lift stones of any weight doesn’t mean that X’s power is limited. This still works when we combine this characteristics into the same being. Therefore that X cannot create a stone that X cannot lift doesn’t show that X’s power is limited. X is still omnipotent.
MY THOUGHTS: the paradox of the stone refers to making stones that are IMPOSSIBLE to lift, not of any weight. Implying that if that was X’s power, it WOULD be undermines if Y could lift it, so Savage’s reply is inadequate.
What is a dilemma?
when there are two ways something could be, each way leading to a problem. The two options are called horns.
The Euthyphro dilemma
in its modern form asks: is what God commands good because it is good (1st horn), or is it good because God commands it? (2nd horn).
the Euthyphro dilemma shows that there are two ways we could understand God being perfectly good.
The first horn
what God commands is intrinsically good independently of God. This suggests that God is perfectly good because he perfectly follows an intrinsically good moral standard that is separate from God. The problem this leads to is an apparent conflict with omnipotence, since this external moral standard is beyond God’s power to control.
The second horn
God’s act of commanding something that makes it good. This suggests that God is perfectly good because God is the ultimate arbiter and authority which determines which actions are good and which are bad. This leads to the arbitrariness problem, that God could change his mind about what is good.
Point of Euthyphro dilemma
If the dilemma is valid and neither of the problems it leads to can be solved, then the concept of omnibenevolence is incoherent. To defeat the Euthyphro dilemma, at least one of the options must be successfully defending from its issues.
Problem w 1st horn: The first horn leads to a conflict with God’s omnipotence
This seems to require that goodness is a standard which is independent of God and has some objective status of its own. In that case, God would be just as judged by that standard as we are, and God would not have the power to change it, otherwise what’s good would then ultimately reduce to his command. The idea that God cannot do something or is himself held to a standard higher than himself seems to conflict with his omnipotence.
Swinburne defends taking the second horn.
He argues that some moral truths are necessary. In that case, they must be true, so it would be logically impossible for God to change it. Most theologians agree that omnipotence involves the power to do any logically possible thing, not logically impossible things. An intrinsic moral standard external to God which involves necessary moral truths cannot possibly be changed. It is logically impossible to make necessary truths false.
In that case, that God cannot control or change morality is not actually undermining of God’s omnipotence.
What are people who accept the second horn called?
divine command theorists.
Problem for The second horn (Divine command theory) leads to the arbitrariness problem
This is the problem that if what is good is only good because God commanded it to be so, then it seems that God could change his mind tomorrow and command that murder is good, which would mean that it thereby became good on the divine command theory view.
Explain how the arbitrariness problem leads to nothing being right or wrong
God’s choice of murder to be what he commanded as wrong must have been random and arbitrary. On divine command theory, there was nothing wrong about murder until God commanded it wrong, but that means there was nothing that could have prompted God’s choice for it to be wrong. Once it is admitted that the only thing which confers rightness or wrongness is God’s command, then it seems that absent his command, nothing has any rightness or wrongness and his choice of what to command must therefore be completely random.
What quality of God does the 2nd horn attack/undermine?
This also seems to bring God’s reasonableness/rationality into question. If God is acting arbitrarily then he cannot be acting based on reasons.
The response that the Euthyphro is a false dilemma.
Medieval theologians (Augustine, Aquinas and Anselm) attempted to solve the Euthyphro dilemma by suggesting there is a third option, making it a false dilemma.
What is a false dilemma?
What is the case in the Eurythphro dilemma?
A false dilemma is one which poses two options when really there are others. Arguably there is a third option than the two proposed by the Euthyphro dilemma. This third option is that what God commands is good because it accords with God’s omnibenevolent nature.
Explain the 3rd horn
The goodness of God’s commands does not depend on God’s arbitrary choice, nor on some intrinsic standard of goodness external to God, but on God’s perfectly loving nature which is intrinsic to God. The claim that God is omnibenevolent in that God is the standard and source of moral goodness is therefore defended against the Euthyphro dilemma.
How does the 3rd horn solve the arbitrariness problem?
This solves the arbitrariness problem because God’s choices of what to command are not arbitrary but a consequence of his perfect omnibenevolent nature. Essentially, God won’t and can’t change his mind tomorrow about what is good because his commands are a result of his perfect unchanging omnibenevolent nature.
How does the third horn defeat the threat made by the first horn to God’s omnipotence?
The standard is God himself.
The issue of the grounding of God’s goodness.
.If the answer is God’s nature, then the question simply becomes why is God’s nature good or what is it that makes God’s nature good? This move by philosophers like Aquinas arguably merely kicks the can down the road.
Everlasting
God exists within time
Eternal:
God exists outside of time
How do humans experience time? vs how does an eternal being experience time?
humans experience time in succession, i.e. one moment at a time
eternal being experiences all moments simultaneously.
Incoherence of the idea that all time is simultaneous for an eternal being
Outlined by Anthony Kenny
P1 - Accordion to the classic conception of eternity, Rome burning to the ground in 64 CE is simultaneous with eternity
P2 - According to the classic conception of eternity, me typing this sentence now is simultaneous with eternity
P3 - Intermediate conclusion: Therefore, according to the concept of eternity, 64CE is simultaneous with 2021
P4 - This is absurd, as the past, present and future cannot be simultaneous with one another.
C - Therefore, the classic concept of eternity is incoherent
How did philosophers Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann distinguish between 2 types of simultaneity?
T-simultaneity
E-simultaneity
T-simultaneity
This applies to temporal (within time) beings, like humans. Humans can perceive two things happening simultaneously in the present moment only.
Explain E-simultaneity
This applies to atemporal (outside of time) beings, like God. God can perceive multiple things happening simultaneously at all times (what we would call the past, present, and future) from the perspective of an eternal present. For example, from God’s perspective, He can perceive you on your 7th birthday whilst simultaneously perceiving you on your 17th birthday.
How do Stump and Kretzmann use Einstein’s theory of special relativity to relate T simultaneity to E Simultaneity in order to proove the coherence of an eternal being?
According to Einstein’s concept of the ‘relativity of simultaneity,’ whether two unconnected events occur at the same time depends on the frame of reference of the observers: if one of these frames of reference is moving relative to the other, then one observer might see the two events as simultaneous, whereas the other might not.
What does Stump and Kretzmann’s example attempt to show?
Using Einstein’s ideas, they attempt to prove that there is no incoherence in God being eternal. They propose that: relative to the frame of reference for God, all events and entities are simultaneous (E simultaneity), but relative to temporal beings, events that happen at the same time are simultaneous (T simultaneity).
Problems with Stump and Kretzmann’s concept of an eternal being: God as removed
This theory leads to God being extremely far removed from our temporal world; if he experiences everything at the same time, he does not answer miracles, he does not have a personal relationship with people; this theory could be incompatible with God’s omnibenevolence, and also the classical Christian interpretation of God.
Immutability (and whether it is incompatible with omniscience)
Omniscience and immutability are necessary characteristics of a perfect being. Norman Kretzmann outlines that omniscience and immutability are incompatible:
Norman Kretzmann outlines that omniscience and immutability are incompatible, formally
P1 - A perfect being is not subject to change
P2 - A perfect being knows everything
P3 - A being that knows everything always knows what time it is.
P4 - A being that always knows what time it is is subject to change
C1 - A perfect being is subject to change
C2 - A perfect being is not a perfect being
C3 - There is no perfect being.
God as Everlasting argument
P1: God is believed to be omnibenevolent
P2: For God to be omnibenevolent God has to care about humanity and have a personal relationship with humanity.
P3: A God who is outside of the temporal order, is removed from the experiences of humanity and is unable to have an effective relationship with humanity.
P4: A God inside of time is able to experience the sufferings of humanity and answer prayers
C: God exists as Everlasting within time.
Weaknesses of God as everlasting
- problem of immutability, God would change if he was within time
- doesn’t reflect the nature of the transcendent God seen in the bible
- seems to limit his omnipotence and omniscience knowing the future doesn’t seem logically impossible so he lacks power of seeing into the future
