condensed: the nature/attributes of god

intro

believers ask questions about their god. the problem is in anthropomorphising god because he is beyond our reality and understanding. to say we know the mind of god is to blaspheme.

god’s infinite power and unknowability are referenced throughout scripture but we are still curious. but there is no answers to what is meant by ‘almighty’ and ‘creator’.

the biggest problem is trying to understand god, with our limited human minds and vocabulary.

divine attributes

over time people have considered god’s attributes while recognising the limitations of our language. in the past god was not personal, but now he is. the catholic encyclopaedia listed god’s attributes as including goodness, omnipotence, omniscience, will, justice and love, among others. the complexity here makes issues, such as misattribution. there is no objective criteria, either.

omnipotence

literally meaning all powerful, god can do anything. what is anything? descartes argued anything, literally, while aquinas said it was anything logical. so could god create a square circle? aquinas would say this is absurd because it is not logically possible. he argues this does not limit god’s power. c.s. lewis points out that nonsense is nonsense, even to god.

descartes, however, argued that god is prior to logical laws, so not bound by them. but this means god can changes them at any time making him unpredictable, and untrustworthy. descartes went as far as saying god could be sinful and perfect at once, which is not logically impossible to him.

j.l. mackie also argues this point of view, arguing that logical impossibilities are not impossible to god.

peter vardy agrees with aquinas, saying god created a world which limited his powers. his omnipotence allows him to restrict himself. he can do the logically possible but chooses not to. vardy says this is how free will is uncompromised. he says “God is limited by the universe he has chosen to create.”

‘nothing is impossible with God’ (luke) and ‘with God, all things are possible’ (matthew) biblically support these ideas.

aquinas’ argument is more rational but can god ride a bicycle? a human has balance and limbs but god is not like this. it is ridiculous and logically possible but physically impossible, so maybe even aquinas’ view is too wide.

augustine argued that the problem of evil shows that god can do what he wants and what he chooses. this is coherent; he can’t do evil because we always does good. god is not restricted like humans are. the paradox of omnipotence between descartes and aquinas seems to go away. god does not want to make a square circle, so why does it matter?

kind of lining up with aquinas, anthony kenny argues god’s power must be limited to be coherent. but god shouldn’t have to be understandable to us, should he?

omniscience

meaning ‘all-knowing’, god knows all things. but what is knowing?

divine knowledge interacting with temporal existence

is god in time and does not know the future? or is the future not a thing because it hasn’t happened yet? swinburne argues for this, saying god must be open and responsive to things as they happen.

or is god atemporal, not constrained by time? does this mean we have no free will since god knows all and we have no choice but to do what he knows? anselm says god is ‘supremely perceptive’ but if God knows the future, it must be necessary. it implies we do not have moral responsibility for our actions, since our decisions are already known by God.

timelessness

if god is timeless, he must be perfect, unable to change and develop like humans. if god doesn’t have all knowledge now, then he must be learning and changing, and imperfect.

god outside of time is consistent as a character. he must have no end and no start to be an ‘eternal refuge’. but this sets god too far apart from us. how can we relate to a timeless god? would he not be senseless to our problems? our human problems are time-bound, so god could not empathise, answer prayer or relate. he could not be omnibenevolent if he was timeless.

the idea of timelessness could be that god sees everything all at once, as prometheus calls it an ‘eternal now’. we can’t even start to comprehend this idea.

types of knowledge

god’s knowledge is not the same as ours. michael dummet argues god’s knowledge is beyond perspective because it includes everything; it has no limitations. god has complete understanding.

he goes further: “when we speak of god’s knowledge, we are using the tense of timelessness”. this makes sense for historical events, which are always true even if it was future to us. fleetingly true things like ‘i am behind you’, which are true and then not true are called ‘indexical‘ sentences. god’s knowledge may not be timeless in some ways.

but there are other types of knowledge.

• knowing what it is like to be something, if god knows everything, how can he know what being ignorant is like?
• knowing how to do something: there is a difference between knowing how i bicycle is ridden and how to ride a bike, only gained through practice

the same as omnipotence needs conditions, so does omniscience.

omnibenevolence

this is more challenging. the term means well-wishing. but is god only well-wishing? or well-doing? aristotle said someone is only truly just if their acts are just. god must do and want good. we must add the term beneficence to make this accurate. god does not only wish good things but do them.

but god seems to perform some miracles and answer some prayers. the problem is the problem of evil – if god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, why is there evil and why does god not stop it? maybe god is not morally good.

just judgment of human actions

brian davies argues god is not good like a well behaved child. he criticises richard swinburne‘s idea in ‘the coherence of theism’ that ‘god is so constituted that he always does the morally best actions’. davies claims this is simplistic and says ‘the idea seems to be that god…manages…to be well behaved’.

god is actively and positively good. M.B. Wilkinson argues god’s goodness is part of creative action: ‘when he commands good…[he is commanding] what our intelligence and imagination choose as good for humans’.

the problem is how can god be omnibenevolent and perfectly just? to be just is to give what is deserved. this is, to most people, the idea of heaven and hell. but hell is not good. we agree that evil acts deserve punishment that ends but hell is eternal, which is unjust. hell is part of the problem of evil: why would a good god punish instead forgive? but his justice fails if everyone goes to heaven.

aquinas says god’s justice is not like ours. there are two kinds of justice: conmutative, an equal exchange, and distributive, each person is given what is due. god doesn’t need things from us, but he does justly give what we need. he is the standard of justice. aquinas says this is clear in creation. but is this true? what about the problem of evil? if we say god’s justice is mysterious, it could then be unfair. he may be equal, but is he just?

willian frankena has pointed out that, morally, justice does not mean treating everyone the same way, but making the same relative contribution to the good of people’s lives. the may mean giving some more than others.

responses to god’s judgement of human actions

what about mercy? do only christians get this justice? john calvin points out human unworthiness compared to god’s greatness. mankind’s corrupt nature means we are damnable. we are blessed to have any mercy. selective salvation is mercy enough. but is this even mercy? is it truly good to offer no redemption or hope for the rest? calvin would respond that no one deserves this mercy, so there is no injustice.

aquinas viewed hell as just a separation from god, chosen by those who reject god, while calvin’s is more traditional torture and terror.

a modern catholic response is the baptism of desire saying that we can all be a part of faith without baptism. pope francis said “we are all sinners but we are all forgiven.” so here god’s mercy is offered to everyone who accepts him.

brummer said that god must be personal to be just and merciful. the sinner must accept their wrongdoings and the forgiver must absorb the pain for the sake of love. an impersonal god would not do that.