Concept and nature of God
What is God? What attributes are ascribed to God? Is the concept of God
coherent?
Revealed theology:
Sources of belief: faith, revelation, sacred texts, religious experience
Attributes of God: unique, holy, personal, the creator, everlasting, loving,
wise, powerful
Description: The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
Natural theology:
Sources of belief: reason, observation, argument, analysis
Attributes of God: omniscience, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal,
immutable, aseity
Description: The God of the philosophers
Two approaches share monotheistic belief (there is only one God:
Christians, Jews, Muslims) and that God is as great as any being could be
‘The greatest conceivable thing’ – St. Anselm
‘Containing all perfections’ – Descartes
God’s attributes
God is the most perfect being that could exist
Idea of perfection linked with idea of reality
1. What is perfect is more real than what is not
Imperfections involve something failing to exist in a better way
2. Perfection involves complete self-sufficiency
Not dependent on anything
Not to lack anything
Omniscience
Aquinas argues that God knows directly rather than through inference or
through understanding a system of representation
Form of knowledge must match the nature of the object
Direct knowledge of particulars is more perfect than knowledge that is
mediated by concepts
Other argue that if God does not know all true propositions, there is
something God does not know
- God has conceptual and propositional knowledge as well as direct
knowledge
Omnipotence
God has perfect power, the most possible power
Some say logic is no limit on God’s power but there is no meaningful way
to say this
Aquinas on omnipotence
,Correct understanding of God’s omnipotence is that God can do anything
possible
Any description of a logically impossible state of affairs/power is not a
meaningful description, because it contains a contradiction
What is logically impossible is not anything at all
Limits of the logically possible are not limitations on God’s power
Supreme goodness (omnibenevolence)
Metaphysical sense of goodness: God is perfect in all ways
Moral sense: God’s will is always in accordance with moral values
Plato and Augustine: what is perfect includes what is morally good
- Evil is type of lack or falling short or absence of goodness
- Evil does not have positive aspect, is not a genuine force or aspect of
reality that stands against goodness
- What is evil fails to be what is good
If evil is lack or failure, what is morally good is more real than what is not
What is morally perfect and what is metaphysically perfect are the same
thing
God and time
God is self-sufficient, dependent on nothing else for existence
If God exists in time, God exists throughout all time, having no beginning
or end (temporal being that is everlasting)
If God exists outside time, God is an atemporal being (timeless and
eternal)
God has no beginning or end because those ideas only exist in time and
God is not in time
God is not in time, so God cannot start or stop existing
Stump and Kretzmann on eternity
An eternal being such as God is one that has ‘the complete possession all
at once of illimitable life’ – Boethius
This life is possessed in its whole fullness such that ‘nothing future is
absent from it and nothing past has flowed away’, it is ‘always present to
itself’
For an eternal being, ‘now’ remains and does not move, it marks out the
whole eternal life of the being
An eternal being…
1. Has life
Life of eternal being cannot be physical/biological as this is temporal
Must be psychological life
2. Cannot have a beginning or an end, since it is illimitable: not only
limitless but cannot be limited
,This psychological life is not limited
3. Is atemporal is possessing its whole life all at once, giving distinct
meaning to ‘now’
Events that constitute the life of an eternal being do not (from God’s
perspective) follow one another in time
Its whole life is experienced as ‘now’
Boethius suggests time as circumference of a circle and God as
the centre point
God is simultaneous with every point in time
Types of simultaneity
T-simultaneity (temporal): things existing or occurring at one and the
same time
Presupposes those things are in time
Transitive relation: if it holds between x and y, and between y and z, then
it holds between x and z
E-simultaneity (eternal): for an eternal being, its whole life is present
Not transitive
ET-simultaneity explains relationship of an eternal being to time
‘From an eternal standpoint, the present is ET-simultaneous with the
whole infinite extent of an eternal entity’s life. Every time is present’ –
Stump and Kretzmann
Formal definition of ET-simultaneity:
Where x is some temporal event and y is some eternal event, x and y are
ET-simultaneous if…
a. For an eternal being (A), x and y are both present, x observed as
temporally present and y as eternally present
b. For a temporal being (B), x and y are both present, x observed as
temporally present and y as eternally present
Involves a special kind of duration, as no part of its life is ever absent
Atemporal duration: existence the whole of which is present
Form of existence in which no part of one’s existence has disappeared
into the past or has yet to come into existence in the future
Everything God ever was or will be, always is
Arguments for the incoherence of the concept of God
Paradox of the stone
Can God create a stone that he cannot lift?
If no, then God cannot create the stone
If yes, then God cannot lift the stone
There is something God cannot do, so God is not omnipotent
, First response: paradox presupposes the possibility of something
logically impossible
The concept of a stone an omnipotent being cannot lift is not possible, it is
self-contradictory, it describes nothing
The power to create a stone an omnipotent cannot lift is not a possible
power, so if God lack it, God does not lack any possible power
Criticism of response: begging the question
Response assumes that we can coherently talk of an omnipotent being
Second response: God lacks no power relating to lifting or creating
stones
God cannot create a stone which God cannot lift
If God can create a stone, then God can lift it
Euthyphro dilemma
Either,
1. 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 morally right
Or,
2. Morality is whatever God wills
What is morally right is right because God wills it
If 1. is correct, we place a constraint on God and God would not be
omnipotent because God cannot turn wrong into right
If 2. is correct, God can change wrong into right by an act of will, which
violates our sense of morality (murdering babies goes from being wrong
to being right)
Neither answer is satisfactory, so idea of God as coherent can be
questioned
There must be some independent standard we are implicitly relying on to
say that what God wills is morally good
But 1. is incompatible with God’s omnipotence
So we struggle to say that God is good
So concept of God is not coherent
Defending 1.
Showing what is morally good must be good and cannot be evil
If so, then God not being able to turn wrong to right is not a limitation of
God’s omnipotence, as it is logically impossible for moral good to be other
than they are
Response to defence of 1.: if God exists, nothing that exists is
independent of God. Everything that is morally good must relate back to
God as the ultimate reality
What is God? What attributes are ascribed to God? Is the concept of God
coherent?
Revealed theology:
Sources of belief: faith, revelation, sacred texts, religious experience
Attributes of God: unique, holy, personal, the creator, everlasting, loving,
wise, powerful
Description: The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
Natural theology:
Sources of belief: reason, observation, argument, analysis
Attributes of God: omniscience, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal,
immutable, aseity
Description: The God of the philosophers
Two approaches share monotheistic belief (there is only one God:
Christians, Jews, Muslims) and that God is as great as any being could be
‘The greatest conceivable thing’ – St. Anselm
‘Containing all perfections’ – Descartes
God’s attributes
God is the most perfect being that could exist
Idea of perfection linked with idea of reality
1. What is perfect is more real than what is not
Imperfections involve something failing to exist in a better way
2. Perfection involves complete self-sufficiency
Not dependent on anything
Not to lack anything
Omniscience
Aquinas argues that God knows directly rather than through inference or
through understanding a system of representation
Form of knowledge must match the nature of the object
Direct knowledge of particulars is more perfect than knowledge that is
mediated by concepts
Other argue that if God does not know all true propositions, there is
something God does not know
- God has conceptual and propositional knowledge as well as direct
knowledge
Omnipotence
God has perfect power, the most possible power
Some say logic is no limit on God’s power but there is no meaningful way
to say this
Aquinas on omnipotence
,Correct understanding of God’s omnipotence is that God can do anything
possible
Any description of a logically impossible state of affairs/power is not a
meaningful description, because it contains a contradiction
What is logically impossible is not anything at all
Limits of the logically possible are not limitations on God’s power
Supreme goodness (omnibenevolence)
Metaphysical sense of goodness: God is perfect in all ways
Moral sense: God’s will is always in accordance with moral values
Plato and Augustine: what is perfect includes what is morally good
- Evil is type of lack or falling short or absence of goodness
- Evil does not have positive aspect, is not a genuine force or aspect of
reality that stands against goodness
- What is evil fails to be what is good
If evil is lack or failure, what is morally good is more real than what is not
What is morally perfect and what is metaphysically perfect are the same
thing
God and time
God is self-sufficient, dependent on nothing else for existence
If God exists in time, God exists throughout all time, having no beginning
or end (temporal being that is everlasting)
If God exists outside time, God is an atemporal being (timeless and
eternal)
God has no beginning or end because those ideas only exist in time and
God is not in time
God is not in time, so God cannot start or stop existing
Stump and Kretzmann on eternity
An eternal being such as God is one that has ‘the complete possession all
at once of illimitable life’ – Boethius
This life is possessed in its whole fullness such that ‘nothing future is
absent from it and nothing past has flowed away’, it is ‘always present to
itself’
For an eternal being, ‘now’ remains and does not move, it marks out the
whole eternal life of the being
An eternal being…
1. Has life
Life of eternal being cannot be physical/biological as this is temporal
Must be psychological life
2. Cannot have a beginning or an end, since it is illimitable: not only
limitless but cannot be limited
,This psychological life is not limited
3. Is atemporal is possessing its whole life all at once, giving distinct
meaning to ‘now’
Events that constitute the life of an eternal being do not (from God’s
perspective) follow one another in time
Its whole life is experienced as ‘now’
Boethius suggests time as circumference of a circle and God as
the centre point
God is simultaneous with every point in time
Types of simultaneity
T-simultaneity (temporal): things existing or occurring at one and the
same time
Presupposes those things are in time
Transitive relation: if it holds between x and y, and between y and z, then
it holds between x and z
E-simultaneity (eternal): for an eternal being, its whole life is present
Not transitive
ET-simultaneity explains relationship of an eternal being to time
‘From an eternal standpoint, the present is ET-simultaneous with the
whole infinite extent of an eternal entity’s life. Every time is present’ –
Stump and Kretzmann
Formal definition of ET-simultaneity:
Where x is some temporal event and y is some eternal event, x and y are
ET-simultaneous if…
a. For an eternal being (A), x and y are both present, x observed as
temporally present and y as eternally present
b. For a temporal being (B), x and y are both present, x observed as
temporally present and y as eternally present
Involves a special kind of duration, as no part of its life is ever absent
Atemporal duration: existence the whole of which is present
Form of existence in which no part of one’s existence has disappeared
into the past or has yet to come into existence in the future
Everything God ever was or will be, always is
Arguments for the incoherence of the concept of God
Paradox of the stone
Can God create a stone that he cannot lift?
If no, then God cannot create the stone
If yes, then God cannot lift the stone
There is something God cannot do, so God is not omnipotent
, First response: paradox presupposes the possibility of something
logically impossible
The concept of a stone an omnipotent being cannot lift is not possible, it is
self-contradictory, it describes nothing
The power to create a stone an omnipotent cannot lift is not a possible
power, so if God lack it, God does not lack any possible power
Criticism of response: begging the question
Response assumes that we can coherently talk of an omnipotent being
Second response: God lacks no power relating to lifting or creating
stones
God cannot create a stone which God cannot lift
If God can create a stone, then God can lift it
Euthyphro dilemma
Either,
1. 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 morally right
Or,
2. Morality is whatever God wills
What is morally right is right because God wills it
If 1. is correct, we place a constraint on God and God would not be
omnipotent because God cannot turn wrong into right
If 2. is correct, God can change wrong into right by an act of will, which
violates our sense of morality (murdering babies goes from being wrong
to being right)
Neither answer is satisfactory, so idea of God as coherent can be
questioned
There must be some independent standard we are implicitly relying on to
say that what God wills is morally good
But 1. is incompatible with God’s omnipotence
So we struggle to say that God is good
So concept of God is not coherent
Defending 1.
Showing what is morally good must be good and cannot be evil
If so, then God not being able to turn wrong to right is not a limitation of
God’s omnipotence, as it is logically impossible for moral good to be other
than they are
Response to defence of 1.: if God exists, nothing that exists is
independent of God. Everything that is morally good must relate back to
God as the ultimate reality
