How far is it true to claim that it is not necessary to resolve the conflicts between divine
attributes?
It is necessary to resolve the conflicts between divine attributes namely omnipotence and
omnibenevolence because this allows us to develop a relationship with God. Understanding
God’s omnipotence is necessary as this will allow us to develop into a loving, more meaningful
relationship. Descartes unconvincingly argued that God can do absolutely anything and this
includes the logically impossible. God is the source of logic and has the power to suspend logic
or replace it whenever he wants. This means he could make a square circle and could make
2+2=5. However, if we understand God to be capable of doing the logically impossible
Descartes turns God into an unpredictable and arbitrary tyrant. If God was really all-powerful in
the sense of being capable of doing anything and everything, God has to be capable of doing
evil, of being unforgiving, of turning against us and of failing. God is presented as a being
humans cannot rely on nor can hope to understand. It becomes difficult to have a relationship
with God or trust in him for salvation. Furthermore, the Bible itself does not support Descartes
as it emphasises that ‘it is impossible for God to lie’ (Hebrews). Whilst the power and greatness
of God is on a scale way beyond anything that humans can do or imagine God can only do what
is logically possible as this is the only way we can conceive of a relationship with him.
Therefore, it is necessary to resolve the conflict between omnipotence and omnibenevolence as
this allows us to develop a relationship with him.
It is necessary to resolve the conflicts between divine attributes such as God’s eternal nature
and human free will because this allows for God to judge us fairly. Ultimately, Boethius fails to
resolve the problems connected with God's attributes and human free will, unlike Swinburne
who interprets God to be everlasting and to exist within time. Boethius argues that God does
not see past, present and the future in temporal terms as humans do but rather simultaneously
‘as though from a lofty peak’. Therefore, we can still be praised or blamed for the moral choices
that we make in time because God’s knowledge of our choice is not foreknowledge as there is
no ‘in advance’ for God. Therefore, Boethius is unsuccessful in resolving the conflict between
God’s eternal nature and human free will. Nevertheless, it is absolutely necessary to resolve the
conflict so that we are able to develop free will. The divine conflict between God’s eternal nature
and omniscience must be resolved in order for us to have free will. Throughout the bible, God is
seen as interacting with mankind and ‘reacts with sympathy and anger’ to their actions. For
example, in Isaiah, King Hezekiah is ‘at the point of death’ and he prays to God and God ‘adds
fifteen years to his life. God actively communicates with his people and this would not be
possible if God existed outside time. Swinburne presents a more convincing view of God as he
exists in time and this seems to resolve the problems of human free will because the future is
not fixed in this model. God can change his view as time goes on. People can make genuinely
free choices about what to do next and no one knows what they will choose not even God until it
happens. Therefore, Boethius AND ANSELM do not resolve the problem connected with God’s
attributes and human free will as our future is fixed and God will always know our choices with
certainty whereas Swinburne does as he enables us to have free will. It is therefore necessary
to resolve the conflicts between divine attributes because this allows us to have a relstionship
with god.
attributes?
It is necessary to resolve the conflicts between divine attributes namely omnipotence and
omnibenevolence because this allows us to develop a relationship with God. Understanding
God’s omnipotence is necessary as this will allow us to develop into a loving, more meaningful
relationship. Descartes unconvincingly argued that God can do absolutely anything and this
includes the logically impossible. God is the source of logic and has the power to suspend logic
or replace it whenever he wants. This means he could make a square circle and could make
2+2=5. However, if we understand God to be capable of doing the logically impossible
Descartes turns God into an unpredictable and arbitrary tyrant. If God was really all-powerful in
the sense of being capable of doing anything and everything, God has to be capable of doing
evil, of being unforgiving, of turning against us and of failing. God is presented as a being
humans cannot rely on nor can hope to understand. It becomes difficult to have a relationship
with God or trust in him for salvation. Furthermore, the Bible itself does not support Descartes
as it emphasises that ‘it is impossible for God to lie’ (Hebrews). Whilst the power and greatness
of God is on a scale way beyond anything that humans can do or imagine God can only do what
is logically possible as this is the only way we can conceive of a relationship with him.
Therefore, it is necessary to resolve the conflict between omnipotence and omnibenevolence as
this allows us to develop a relationship with him.
It is necessary to resolve the conflicts between divine attributes such as God’s eternal nature
and human free will because this allows for God to judge us fairly. Ultimately, Boethius fails to
resolve the problems connected with God's attributes and human free will, unlike Swinburne
who interprets God to be everlasting and to exist within time. Boethius argues that God does
not see past, present and the future in temporal terms as humans do but rather simultaneously
‘as though from a lofty peak’. Therefore, we can still be praised or blamed for the moral choices
that we make in time because God’s knowledge of our choice is not foreknowledge as there is
no ‘in advance’ for God. Therefore, Boethius is unsuccessful in resolving the conflict between
God’s eternal nature and human free will. Nevertheless, it is absolutely necessary to resolve the
conflict so that we are able to develop free will. The divine conflict between God’s eternal nature
and omniscience must be resolved in order for us to have free will. Throughout the bible, God is
seen as interacting with mankind and ‘reacts with sympathy and anger’ to their actions. For
example, in Isaiah, King Hezekiah is ‘at the point of death’ and he prays to God and God ‘adds
fifteen years to his life. God actively communicates with his people and this would not be
possible if God existed outside time. Swinburne presents a more convincing view of God as he
exists in time and this seems to resolve the problems of human free will because the future is
not fixed in this model. God can change his view as time goes on. People can make genuinely
free choices about what to do next and no one knows what they will choose not even God until it
happens. Therefore, Boethius AND ANSELM do not resolve the problem connected with God’s
attributes and human free will as our future is fixed and God will always know our choices with
certainty whereas Swinburne does as he enables us to have free will. It is therefore necessary
to resolve the conflicts between divine attributes because this allows us to have a relstionship
with god.
