ATTRIBUTES ESSAY PLANNING DOCUMENT
POSSIBLE TITLES: red= bad yellow = medium green= fine
Is the concept of g-d coherent (40)
What is the relationship between divinity and time? (40)
If g-d is omniscient, humans cant have free will- discuss (40)
Analyse the implications of g-ds eternity (40)
Can g-d be omnipotent? (40)
Can g-d be omnibenevolent (40)
‘The divine attributes of g-d conflict with each other’ (40)
Does g-d know future human actions (40)
G-d is limited by divine self-limitation- how far do you agree (40)
Does g-d have divine foreknowledge (40)
Critically compare Boethius with Swinburne on g-ds relationship with time (40)
Asses Anselm’s four dimensionalist approach (40)/ does it adequately explain divine action in
time?
‘It is not necessary to resolve the apparent conflicts between divine attributes’ (40)
What problems might be raised by using the word “everlasting” rather than the word “eternal”
about g-d (40)
‘If g-d knows what we are going to do then he has no right reward the good and punish the
wicked” (40)
,CRITICALLY ASSES THE PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS ABOUT THE BELIEF THAT G-D IS OMNISCIENT
(40)
INTRO:
What is omniscience= the ability to know everything
- Raises questions such as- what does it mean to know and what is everything that g-d must know of
- The problem of evil, human autonomy and the nature of g-ds other attributes
- The downfall in the omniscience of g-d lies in the issues of free will- if g-d is all knowing can humans
truly be free
Spoken about from the view of eternity- boethius and anselm and the view of everlasting, swinburne and
Aquinas
- Some parts of the argument work but there are major flaws
PARA 1: ETERNAL- AQUINAS
For:
- G-d is eternal and all-knowing of past, present and future- limited freedom
- Aquinas argues that g-ds simplicity means he cannot depend on the earth for knowledge and his
knowledge is casual- but this leads to determinism and the denial of human freedom
- “g-d is greater than all we can say, greater than all we can know, he is beyond the comprehension of
every human mind whatsoever”
Supported: Locke
- The analogy of the sleeping man in a dark room- free will is just an illusion
- Imagine a sleeping man, carried to a room and locked inside with someone he wishes to speak to
- On awakening, he willingly stays in the room, unaware that he could not have acted differently
- This shows that humans have no real control of their actions since g-d cannot have false knowledge
of the “future:
- As a result, humans live merely with the illusion of free will- much like the man in Lockes locked
room- ignorant of his inability to escape yet believing he chooses to stay
- Can also be supported by the Calvinists- who sacrifice the idea of free will and suggest prayer is
submission to g-ds will already decided
But- against
- Kant says “if we are not free we are not responsible and cannot be punished”
- The bible says that g-d gave humans free will and Augustine said that g-d gave himself epidemic
distance so that he could not interfere and humans would be free to make their own choices (divine
self limitation)
- What about evil?
, PARA 2: SWINBURNE
- G-d is everlasting and knows past/ present but not future- unlimited freedom
- Swinburne says that g-d knows what we have done and what we are doing but is inly aware of the
logically possibilities of our future
- Also known as middle knowledge- your choices are free but he knows what you will do in each situation
- G-ds omniscience must be understood in a way that excludes divine foreknowledge- this is a necessary
step in order to protect our freedom of the will
- Only an everlasting g-d, subject to the same temporal experience as humans, would be able to reply to
prayers- g-d could exists within time through the Holy Spirit as jesus, but g-d himself must be separate
Support:
- Peter geach “g-d is the supreme chess master, whatever the finite plays do, g-ds plan will be executed”
- The everlasting g-d cannot predict with complete certainty what we will do, but he knows his eventual
purpose will triumph, much like the chess master knows he will win
- “the heart of man paths his way, but the lord establishes his steps” proverbs
- Also Scheiermacher- analogy of close friends- can predict what we will do in a situation
Against
- Compromises his omnipotence if he cannot know our futures, makes him seem immanent as he is also
subject to human time
So- the argument of unlimited freedom is definitely more convincing than limited freedom as it is more coherent
with human free will through divine self limitation- still has some weaknesses tho
POSSIBLE TITLES: red= bad yellow = medium green= fine
Is the concept of g-d coherent (40)
What is the relationship between divinity and time? (40)
If g-d is omniscient, humans cant have free will- discuss (40)
Analyse the implications of g-ds eternity (40)
Can g-d be omnipotent? (40)
Can g-d be omnibenevolent (40)
‘The divine attributes of g-d conflict with each other’ (40)
Does g-d know future human actions (40)
G-d is limited by divine self-limitation- how far do you agree (40)
Does g-d have divine foreknowledge (40)
Critically compare Boethius with Swinburne on g-ds relationship with time (40)
Asses Anselm’s four dimensionalist approach (40)/ does it adequately explain divine action in
time?
‘It is not necessary to resolve the apparent conflicts between divine attributes’ (40)
What problems might be raised by using the word “everlasting” rather than the word “eternal”
about g-d (40)
‘If g-d knows what we are going to do then he has no right reward the good and punish the
wicked” (40)
,CRITICALLY ASSES THE PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS ABOUT THE BELIEF THAT G-D IS OMNISCIENT
(40)
INTRO:
What is omniscience= the ability to know everything
- Raises questions such as- what does it mean to know and what is everything that g-d must know of
- The problem of evil, human autonomy and the nature of g-ds other attributes
- The downfall in the omniscience of g-d lies in the issues of free will- if g-d is all knowing can humans
truly be free
Spoken about from the view of eternity- boethius and anselm and the view of everlasting, swinburne and
Aquinas
- Some parts of the argument work but there are major flaws
PARA 1: ETERNAL- AQUINAS
For:
- G-d is eternal and all-knowing of past, present and future- limited freedom
- Aquinas argues that g-ds simplicity means he cannot depend on the earth for knowledge and his
knowledge is casual- but this leads to determinism and the denial of human freedom
- “g-d is greater than all we can say, greater than all we can know, he is beyond the comprehension of
every human mind whatsoever”
Supported: Locke
- The analogy of the sleeping man in a dark room- free will is just an illusion
- Imagine a sleeping man, carried to a room and locked inside with someone he wishes to speak to
- On awakening, he willingly stays in the room, unaware that he could not have acted differently
- This shows that humans have no real control of their actions since g-d cannot have false knowledge
of the “future:
- As a result, humans live merely with the illusion of free will- much like the man in Lockes locked
room- ignorant of his inability to escape yet believing he chooses to stay
- Can also be supported by the Calvinists- who sacrifice the idea of free will and suggest prayer is
submission to g-ds will already decided
But- against
- Kant says “if we are not free we are not responsible and cannot be punished”
- The bible says that g-d gave humans free will and Augustine said that g-d gave himself epidemic
distance so that he could not interfere and humans would be free to make their own choices (divine
self limitation)
- What about evil?
, PARA 2: SWINBURNE
- G-d is everlasting and knows past/ present but not future- unlimited freedom
- Swinburne says that g-d knows what we have done and what we are doing but is inly aware of the
logically possibilities of our future
- Also known as middle knowledge- your choices are free but he knows what you will do in each situation
- G-ds omniscience must be understood in a way that excludes divine foreknowledge- this is a necessary
step in order to protect our freedom of the will
- Only an everlasting g-d, subject to the same temporal experience as humans, would be able to reply to
prayers- g-d could exists within time through the Holy Spirit as jesus, but g-d himself must be separate
Support:
- Peter geach “g-d is the supreme chess master, whatever the finite plays do, g-ds plan will be executed”
- The everlasting g-d cannot predict with complete certainty what we will do, but he knows his eventual
purpose will triumph, much like the chess master knows he will win
- “the heart of man paths his way, but the lord establishes his steps” proverbs
- Also Scheiermacher- analogy of close friends- can predict what we will do in a situation
Against
- Compromises his omnipotence if he cannot know our futures, makes him seem immanent as he is also
subject to human time
So- the argument of unlimited freedom is definitely more convincing than limited freedom as it is more coherent
with human free will through divine self limitation- still has some weaknesses tho
