Summary
Summary Metaphysics of God (7172)
- Module
- Metaphysics of God (7172)
- Institution
- AQA
Summary Metaphysics of God (7172)
[Show more]
Content preview
concept of God1 - omnipotence → all powerful
- does power include the logically impossible?
Aquinas on omnipotence
- distinguishes between what is possible and what is logically possible and what is impossible for God vs
for people
- eg, a human cannot fly but there is no logical contradiction that we can, but a human cannot be a
donkey because this is not logically possible
- argues that God’s omnipotence = God can do anything logically possible
- what is logically impossible is a contradiction in terms, so is not anything at all, so the limits of the
logically possible are not limitations on God’s power
- even if God can’t do the logically impossible, there is still nothing that God can’t do
Definition of omnipotence Discussion of this definition
1. God can do anything Aquinas (1225-74) argued that there were immediate problems with this
simple definition:
- God is immutable (changeless) so there’s at least one thing God
can’t do: change
- God can't alter what has already happened, or force us to choose
something freely
- God can't do anything logically contradictory
2. God can do anything that is This redefinition avoids the problems of definition 1. But issues remain:
logically possible - Aquinas asks whether God can create anything evil. This isn’t
logically contradictory – but Aquinas argues that God can't sin
- God can't act in a way that goes against, or contradicts, other
aspects of his fundamental nature
3. God can do anything that is This further redefinition avoids the issues raised in 1. And 2.
logically possible to do and that
doesn’t undermine God’s But atheists, such as J.L. Mackie, argue that there is still a paradox
perfection inherent in the concept of ‘omnipotence’.
paradox of the stone → can God create a stone that he can’t lift
- no: God cannot create the stone
- yes: God cannot lift the stone
response 1
- paradox fails because it presupposes the possibility of something logically impossible.
- ‘a stone an omnipotent being can’t lift’ is not a possible thing; as a self-contradiction, it
describes nothing
- ‘the power to create a stone an omnipotent being can’t lift’ is not a possible power
- if God lacks it, God still doesn’t lack any possible power
criticism
- assumes we can coherently talk of an omnipotent being
- if the concept is self contradictory, then it isn't true
- the reply is supposed to be trying to show that the concept is not self-contradictory, but in order
to do this, it has to assume that the concept is not self-contradictory
- fallacy of begging the question → an argument that assumes the truth of its conclusion in order
to show the truth of its conclusion, so this reply is unsuccessful
response 2
- “God cannot create a stone which God cannot lift” - if God can create a stone then God can lift it
- God can create a stone of any size and can then lift that stone
- there is no limit on God’s power of lifting stones, and so there is no limit on God’s power of creating
stones
, - God cannot create a stone that he can’t lift is no limit on the stones that God can create, so God lacks
no power related to lifting or creating stones
2 - omnibenevolence
what is omnibenevolence?
1) personal
- God’s goodness is understood in terms of God’s love and mercy
- God’s goodness is a fundamental attribute of God for believers, and is grounded in the description of
God’s actions and statements in sacred texts such as the Bible
- descriptions of a personal God, full of passion and love for creation
☒ makes the problem of evil particularly problematic for believers: how can a God who loves the world
allow such pain and suffering to exist?
2) metaphysical
- God’s goodness is understood as a perfection
- ‘God of the philosophers’ is a perfect God
- God’s goodness means that God has no flaws, no imperfections; God’s goodness also means
‘containing all other perfections’ (in the way that a good athlete has all the necessary qualities to
perform as an athlete)
☒ this is a problem if the perfections or attributes of God can be shown to be incoherent or
inconsistent.
3) ethical:
- God’s goodness is understood in moral terms, as the source of all value
- believers, religious philosophers and theologians often see God as the moral standard and the origin of
moral goodness
- this moral goodness then guides human action and can be seen in God’s creation
☒ whatever God wills is always God, raises the Euthyphro dilemma
Euthyphro dilemma (Plato) → does God say things because they are good or are things good because God
says they are good?
- it was first directed against the many Gods of ancient Greece, but can be adapted to the modern
concept of God
- looks at whether morality is created by or independent of God
- for example:
1) is torturing babies wrong because God says its wrong?
2) does God say ‘dont torture babies’ because it is wrong?
- if the second option is the case, then it is a challenge to God’s omnipotence
- God’s power would be limited by morality
- God is not powerful enough to make ‘torturing babies is good’ true
- if the first option is true, then what is good and bad is arbitrary
- God could say ‘torturing babies is good’ and it would be true
- why, then does he say some things are bad and not others?
- this undermines omnibenevolence
- if whatever God says is good, then ‘God is good’ is a tautology
- ‘God is good’ would say nothing meaningful about God it would be like saying ‘good is
good, or ‘red is red’ - both of which are trivially true
euthyphro claims to know the answer to ‘what is piety’ but after five failed attempts to define it, he runs away
concept of piety
- translated from the Greek word ‘hosion’, which can also be translated as holiness or religious
correctness
- piety has two senses
1) a narrow sense - knowing and doing what is correct in religious rituals
, - eg, knowing what prayers should be said on any specific occasion
2) broad sense - righteousness, being a good person
- euthyphro begins with the narrower sense of piety in mind, but socrates tends to stress the broader
sense - he is less interested in correct ritual than in living morally
euthyphro’s definitions of piety
1) piety is prosecuting wrongdoers, impiety is failing to do so
☒ socrates objection - that's just an example of piety, not a definition
2) piety is what is loved by the gods, impiety is what is hated by the goods
☒ the God’s sometimes disagree among themselves about questions of justice
☒ some things are loved by gods and hated, so these things would be both pious and impious
3) piety is what is loved by all the gods, impiety is what all the gods hate
☒ do the gods love piety because it is pious, or is it pious because the gods love it?
1) God says things because they are good - God’s omnipotence is limited
- essentialists believe this: they apply labels to things because they possess certain essential
qualities that make them what they are
- there is some other reason that things are good
- God doesn’t define the rules, he just reads them to us
- God cannot do everything, he is constrained by rules of morality outside of his control
- there is something God didn’t create - if God stopped existing morality would still exist
2) things a good because God says so - God’s omnibenevolence seems compromised
- conventionalists believe this → how we regard things determines what they are
- if God started making everyone suffer, that would be good
- God cannot be judged as ‘good; because he could not be otherwise
- if God does not exist, there is no morality
- there is no deep reason for morality, God just made it up
- if God demanded murder, that would be good
4) piety is that part of justice concerned with caring for the gods
☒ notion of care is unclear, and euthyphro can’t say what that goal is
- it can’t be the short of care a dog owner gives to its dog since that aims at improving the dog, but we
can’t improve the gods
- if it’s like the care a slave gives his master, it must aim at some definite shared goal
5) piety is saying and doing what is pleasing to the gods at prayer and sacrifice
☒ this is just another way of saying the third point
3 - omniscience - all knowing
what is perfect knowledge?
- omniscience is not a matter of what God knows, but of how God knows
- Aquinas argues that God knows everything that he knows directly
- to perfectly know something, Aquinas thought, the form of knowledge must match the nature of the
object, eg we know visible things best through sight
- to know each thing as the particular thing it is, rather than to just have general knowledge is better
- knowing each tree as the tree it is is more perfect than knowing general facts about trees
- direct knowledge of particulars is superior to knowledge that is mediated by concepts
- other philosophers disagree about whether God’s knowledge must always take the form Aquinas
claimed
- they argue that if God doesn’t know all true propositions then there is something God doesn;t
know
omnipotence and freewill
P1) for me to do an action freely, I must be able to do it or refrain from doing it
P2) if God knows what I will do before I do it, then it must be true that I will do that action
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller amelie3. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £2.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
56326 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now