1. Philosophy of Religion Year 13Eternal, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent: Summary of Arguments Mr. DeZilva December 17th and 18th, 2013

3. For the Break: Will provide plenty of wider reading material, including further material on Boethius and Aquinas (Eternal God) Will provide an exam-type question to keep everyone sharp! Will send all of the powerpoints Will send a few review sheets For Wednesday: very brief and casual “test” to check your understanding.

4. Omnipotence Argument: - God is all powerful - God has supreme power, this is evident by giving human salvation and carrying out plans for the universe For example: The story of Abraham and his wife Sarah (“Is there anything too hard for the Lord?”) For example: Miracles

5. Omnipotence - Support Support: Anselm  God is “that which nothing greater can be conceived.” If God were anything less than omnipotent, then we would be able to conceive of a greater, more perfect, more powerful being. Descartes  God has all the perfections (including perfect power) and can do absolutely anything possible (even the logically impossible) Aquinas  God is in charge of the whole world, creating it, and keeping it in existence – while everything is dependent on God for its existence. ◦ God can do everything that is absolutely possible and is not capable of sin.

6. Omnipotence - Support Macquarrie  When we speak of the power of God, we are using analogy and should understand that God’s power is different from our own – there is still an element of “unknowable” to God. ◦ Any limitations that God may have are self-imposed. The Doctrine of Kenosis  “Emptied himself” of His own omnipotence

7. Omnipotence - Challenges Vardy  God’s omnipotence is limited. God is not in control of the whole of history, and it is wrong to suggest that everything which happens is because of the will of God. He is not able to move things around like “pieces on a chessboard.” Paradoxes  The Paradox of the Stone & The Paradox of the Free Will Creature Unpredictability  An arbitrary God, a random God capable of Evil

8. Eternal Argument Two perspectives: Atemporal  God is timeless, outside time, and not bound by time. The creator of time Sempiternal  God is everlasting and moves along the same timeline that we do, but never has a start or a finish. Example: Man on the Hill (Aquinas)  Atemporal = God on top of the hill watching the paths of people below him  Sempiternal = God on the paths with the people with perfect understanding of where they will go

9. Eternal - Atemporal - God exists outside time and can see the past, present, and the future with perfect knowledge - God is in control of time, He created it. - God is not bound by space and can be everywhere. - Not bounded by time – is part of every past and will be a part of every future. +  Shows that God is not limited and it does not affect his omnipotence. Shows that God is immutable (incapable of change). Supported by the Creation story (in Genesis). -  The idea of an unchangeable God limits God’s personal connection with humanity. A characterless God (no sympathy, emotion, etc).

10. Eternal - Sempiternal - God is everlasting, but along our timeline - Changeable, in order to have relationships and respond to people’s actions. - God exists within time because He is able to respond to it. +  A personal God and a responsive God that has relationships with His creation. If God is immutable, then He cannot be affected by anything (i.e. cannot love). More in-line with what the Biblical Scripture talk of with God. -  Is this God really “all-knowing” if He may not know the future?

11. Support - Atemporal Aquinas  God is the man on the hill; God is unchanging, loving and immutable. Knows perfect good and is perfect good. Anselm  God is outside of our knowing Augustine  God is immutable and cannot be other than he is. Boethius  God’s timeline is “all in one” – no past present or future. BUT (next slide)

12. Support - Sempiternal Pike  Process Theology: God is not outside time at all, but present in the world with us, acting, and responding as we do Swinburne  A timeless God contradicts the Bible; doesn’t need to be changeless, he interacts with people and decisions will change. Boethius  Able to understand our daily occurrences completely, as they happen, but does not limit our free will

13. Challenges - Atemporal ◦ Our thoughts and desires are all performed in the present with reference to a past and future. The claim of a timelessness for God demands that all of God’s actions and thoughts and desires take place simultaneously. There is only the “Now” for a timeless God. ◦ A timeless God is not able to love, because God is immutable and not affected by anything. ◦ Swinburne: “The God of the Old Testament […] is a God in continual interaction with men, moved by men as they speak to him, his action being more often in no way decided in advance” ◦ Pike: If we have a timeless, eternal God, then Free Will is certainly limited, given that God has known what will happen. (Handout) ◦ God became man (Jesus) and entered human history at a particular time. ◦ Because God is unchanging, is there any point to prayer?

14. Challenges - Sempiternal ◦ If God is bounded by time, this gives rise to his potential limitations; he would be limited in His present because of his past and future. ◦ Limits God’s “omnipotence” and “omniscience” ◦ Numbers 23:19 – An example of a fixed intention, unchanging God. ◦ Augustine: If God is everlasting, why did he pick a particular moment to create the universe, and what was he doing for all the “time” before that? ◦ If prayer can, in fact, change God’s mind, so that he ends up acting differently from the way He might’ve acted without prayer, thus, is God really a perfect being that is greater than that which can be conceived (Anselm)?

15. God as Impassible Impassible – incapable of suffering pain or harm; unfeeling; unchanging Problems that arise  If God is unchanging and incapable of feeling, then what is the point of prayer or the concept of a miracle? Charles Hartshorne  God cannot be loving if he is also impassible ◦ God is pure actuality; can give, but not take ◦ God remains unaffected, no matter the tragedy ◦ God cannot know us, interact with us, or hear us ◦ An immutable God could not have a purpose which related to a changing world. Nelson Pike  Rejected God’s timelessness because a timeless being could not be affected by another ◦ God is present in the world with us (Process Theology)

16. God as Impassible Aquinas  Defends God being immutable ◦ God is both able to be loving and unchanging ◦ Differentiated God’s Will and God’s Activity ◦ Will = God does not change his mind ◦ Activity = God making a change ◦ Other things change in relation to God Creel  God can know what his own will is in response to infinite possibilities. ◦ Weather & Decision example (options based on weather does not entail a change of mind)

17. Omniscience Argument - God knows everything - There is nothing that He cannot know - God has no false beliefs; cannot be mistaken - Whatever God knows, it is true - God’s knowledge includes things that are unavailable to the human mind - He knows something is going to happen even before it happens

18. Omniscience – Original Support Luis de Molina  God would know what people would freely choose to do in all circumstances where some choice was available; known as Middle Knowledge Descartes & Aquinas via Omnipotence arguments *Note: Omniscience is a subset of Omnipotence, so consider those arguments when discussion Omniscience.

19. Omniscience - Challenges Moral Value - Because God knows all, are we capable of having morality considering that He knows what we will do and when we will do it? Rewards & Punishment (Dan Barker) - What is the purpose of God rewarding and punishing acts (as He does in The Bible), if he already knows the acts are going to occur? The Problem of Evil - If God is, in fact, all knowing, then why does evil still exist. If all knowing, then surely evil would be avoidable for God given his omnipotence. No Free Will - Elements of God’s Omniscience argument takes away human free will and sets us up for a more Predestination (Calvin) life.

20. Omniscience – Challenges 2 Kant Without freedom, there can be no moral choices. If God’s omniscience determines our choices, can He then punish us for those choices? For Example: Robot Programmer

21. Omniscience – Support (Again) Friedrich Schleiermacher  argued that there is a solution to this problem of omniscience and free will. The Analogy of Close Friends The Analogy of Directions and Reliable Guess Richard Swinburne  The Sempiternal God still allows us to have free choice and does not limit His omniscience. He knows everything about us in that moment, but the decisions we make are ours Boethius  God can see things in a different way from the way in which we see them because humans exists within time, God does not have the same time constraints we do.

22. Omnibenevolence God is all Loving or all Good “God is Love” – First Letter of John God’s Goodness (God is Perfectly Good) is internal and an essential characteristic to God Morality is grounded in the character of god, who is perfectly good. Old Testament – hesed New Testament – agape (Unconditional Love)

23. Omnibenevolence - Support Aquinas  When we speak of the love of God, we are using analogy, God is infinitely greater than us and we can only understand a tiny proportion of divine love. William Alston  “We can think of God Himself, the individual being, as the supreme standard of goodness.” Jurgen Moltmann  The Crucified God Christianity shows that God gets involved with us and shares the pains of human existence to the extent of suffering death by torture (via Jesus Christ).

24. Omnibenevolence - Challenges Richard Dawkins  The God Delusion God of the Old Testament potentially has favourites, God’s punishments seem less than just, Scripture rules are “obnoxious” John Stuart Mill  “Nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another, are Nature’s everyday performances” There is no intelligent designer, and if there is, it is a cruel one. “Either there is no God, or there exists an incompetent or immoral God”

25. Further Challenges “Does God command things because they are good, or are things good because God commands them” – Plato in Euthyphro (Euthyphro Dilemma) - If God commands things because they are good, then it implies there is a standard of goodness independent of God. There is a standard of values outside of his control and creativity God’s love results in our own responsibility ◦ Being loved by God led a whole nation to obey his commands (The Ten Commandments) God punishes and judges those He loves the most ◦ The story from the Book of the prophet Amos