The concept and nature of God (God) Flashcards
omnipotent
all powerful
Descartes’ understanding of God’s omnipotence
- God is not subject to the laws of logic.
- No limit on their power - God must be more powerful than the evil demon who tries to deceive.
-Therefore, God can do anything, including logically impossible tasks (ie square circles).
= god can do anything
Aquinas’ issue with Descartes’ understanding + further refined def
(against logically impossible tasks)
Aspects of God’s character seem to limit God’s ability to do all things…
Descartes claims ‘God can do anything’ but…
1) God is immutable (changeless) -> So there is at least one thing God cannot do… change .
2) God cannot alter what has already happened, or force us to choose something freely. God cannot do anything logically contradictory.
3) God is perfect -> God cannot sin. This is not logically contradictory, but undermines God’s character.
Therefore, Aquinas came up with this refined understanding…
= God can do anything that is logically possible and does not undermine God’s perfection.
Does Aquinas’ explanation limit God’s omnipotence?
NO…
Just because God cannot do the logically impossible tasks does not undermine his omnipotence. This is because some tasks are ‘pseudo-tasks’ = not meaningful at all.
Logically, there is no such thing a square circle because it is a contradiction.
Therefore, God remains omnipotent as these contradictions are not ‘real’ tasks.
Argument for the incoherence of gods omnipotence
The paradox of the stone;
P1: Either God can create a stone too heavy for God to lift or God cannot do this.
P2: If God can create a stone too heavy to lift, God is not omnipotent.
P3: If God cannot create this, God is not omnipotent.
C: Therefore, God is not omnipotent.
Response against The Paradox of The Stone (for omnipotence) + counter point
C.S Lewis
= A stone that is too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift is an object that could never exist - so it not existing is not a failure on God’s part, the concept itself is nonsensical.
However, still assumes that an omnipotent being exists - which is precisely what the POTS suggests is impossible.
Omnibenevolence
All good
Personal vs Metaphysical vs Moral omnibenevolence
Personal O -> Gods goodness is understood in terms of gods love and mercy. This account makes the problem of evil, particularly problematic. E.g. how can a God who loves the world allows so much pain?
Metaphysical O -> God’s goodness is understood as a perfection. God is perfectly good and has no flaws or imperfections. Also includes being all powerful and all knowing.
Moral O -> God’s goodness is understood in moral terms. Gods cannot commit any morally wrong acts and Whatever God wills is good. This leads to the Euthyprho dilemma.
Euthyphro Dilemma
If God is Omnibenevolent then whatever God commands,is morally good… But why?
2 horns:
1) Things are morally good because God wills them to be
P1: God is assumed to be all good.
C1: Whatever God wills is good.
C2: But God could command people to do horrific acts i.e. genocide.
P2: We cannot claim that genocide is morally good.
C3: Therefore, God as omnibenevolent is incoherent.
2) Gods commands are good because they conform to an external moral source.
P1 : God adheres to moral principles.
C1: So, whatever God wills is good as they conform to external moral sources.
P2: But Gods’s omnibenevolence is dependent on something external.
C2: It is the external moral source that is all good, not God.
C3: God as omnibenevolent is incoherent (also undermines Gods omnipotence).
How does Aquinas think the Euthyphro dilemma misrepresents God’s goodness? (Weak objection)
Omnipotence means that God can do anything logically possible.
- This Means God cannot go against their own character so, even if we accept that morality is arbitrary, God would never do horrific things and call them good.
Swinburne’s argument (omnibenevolence)
There are different moral commands that are dependent/independent on God depending on whether they are necessary of contingent.
1) Necessary moral truths (true in all possible worlds)
= eg ‘murder is wrong’
- So God is restricted by these as much as logic because as by definition murder is wrongful killing, so the statement cannot be denied without contradiction. So God is restricted by these laws in the same way as the laws of logic. God can’t make murder good any more than God could make a triangle four sided.
2) Contingent moral truths (not true in all possible worlds)
= eg ‘the 7th day is holy’
- God could have made the 6th day holy instead. These are good because God commands them
Therefore, Euthyphro dilemma is solved.
Omniscience def
All knowing
Does God have knowledge of
i) propositional
ii) ability
iii) acquaintance
i) Propositional knowledge is knowing that a statement is either true or false. To hold this knowledge, you need a mind. God has a mind. Therefore, God can have propositional knowledge.
ii) Ability knowledge is knowing how (ie how to ride a bike). For this, you need a body. God is incorporeal, so he does not have a body. So, God cannot have ability knowledge .
iii) Acquaintance knowledge is knowing of (via experience). If God has no body and is perfect, can it be said God knows what it is like to feel pain?
Kretzmann’s argument that it is logically impossible for a perfect being to exist (against God being omniscient)
P1: If God has knowledge of a changing world, then God’s knowledge is changing.
P2: If God’s knowledge is changing, then God is changing.
C1: If being unchanging (immutable) and omniscient are necessary components of perfection, then a being cannot be unchanging, omniscient and perfect.
‘Omniscience’ redefined to deal with issues of knowledge + immutability
“God knows everything that is possible for God to know”
= We could say it is impossible for an incorporeal being to know pain or riding a bike and impossible for an immutable being to have changing knowledge about the present state of the world.
