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.
