Essay
Aqa 6 A* Metaphysics of God essays
- Course
- Institution
Aqa 6 A* Metaphysics of God essays Coherence of god Problem of evil Cosmological Teleological Ontological Religious language
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
rachelfindlay52
Content preview
6 A* Epistemology philosophy essays1. Coherence of God
2. Problem of evil
3. Cosmological
4. Teleological
5. Ontological
6. Religious language
, Is the concept of God incoherent?
The concept of God is usually viewed as the three perfections outlined in natural theology.
Religious believers argue that omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolence is compatible
with God. However, the Euthyphro dilemma, the paradox of the stone and the
incompatibility of omniscience and free will demonstrate that these attributes are not
coherent. In this essay it will be argued that the concept of God is not coherent with the
Euthyphro dilemma being the most damaging to the idea of the coherence of God.
God is said to have all perfections, including that of omnipotence, omniscience and
omnibenevolence. The view that God is omnipotent is God as all powerful. God created the
world, rose Jesus from the dead and it is referenced in the bible that “with god all things are
possible.” The definition of omnipotence brings issues already as there are competing
definitions. Some philosophers define omnipotence as God can do anything or some say
that God can only do that of the logically possible. God is also seen as omniscience meaning
that he possesses perfect knowledge and God knows the past, present, and future. Finally,
God is omnibenevolent meaning he is all loving or supremely good. There are multiple ways
of seeing gods omnibenevolence including personal (Gods goodness as love and mercy),
metaphysical (God having all perfections) and ethical (God as the moral standard of
goodness).
However, there are issues with all three attributes of God. God’s omnipotence can be
challenged by the paradox of the stone to show that an all-powerful being is not possible
and therefore God’s omnipotence cannot be said to be coherent. The paradox of the stone
asks, “Can God create a stone which is so heavy that he cannot lift it?” Either God can make
the stone which he cannot lift meaning that he is not omnipotent as he cannot lift the stone,
or God cannot make the stone that he cannot lift meaning that he again is not omnipotent
as he is unable to create the stone. Either way of the dilemma it is shown that it is
impossible for God to be omnipotent as there is a task which he is not powerful enough to
do. Mavrodes argues that the task itself is incoherent. The question “Can a being whose
power is sufficient enough to do anything, create a stone which cannot be lifted by that
being?” By rewording this question, it is clear that the task is self-contradictory and as
Mavrodes holds the view that God’s omnipotence does not include the logically impossible
and self-contradictory tasks then it still retains that god can be omnipotent. However, as
Descartes claims, this view can be easily overcome as if God cannot do the logically
impossible then he is not omnipotent as there is something he cannot do. Therefore, the
paradox of the stone demonstrates that the omnipotence attribute of God is not coherent
as God cannot do the logically impossible which an omnipotent being would be able to do.
There is also a conflict between gods omniscience and our ability to have free will because if
god is all knowing then he knows what we will do, limiting our free will. Religious believers
claim that we have free will as God did not create humans as robots and humans are
responsible for our actions. Without free will we cannot be judged and praised for our
actions and therefore it is a necessary condition in religious belief. However, humans have
free will and god’s omniscience so knows beforehand everything that will happen. If God
knows what humans will do, then their actions are not free. Therefore, omniscience and
free will are not compatible. This is a valid argument as the religious believer would rather
, have to give up on their belief in free will or omniscience which are both crucial,
demonstrating that the concept of God is not compatible.
The debate between God as eternal or everlasting is critical to this debate it changes the
knowledge that God would have. Aquinas argues that God is eternal as he is immutable.
Everything in time changes but God is immutable meaning he does not change and
therefore God cannot be within time but must be outside of it. However, Wolterstorff
argues that God is everlasting. God interacts with and makes personal connections with the
world however the world is temporal and any being that interacts with the temporal world
must be temporal themselves. Therefore, God must exist within time.
A criticism of the incompatibility of omniscience and free will is that Stump and Kretzmann
take the eternal view and argue that God can see every temporal event simultaneously but
cannot see what we do “beforehand” as there is no beforehand to God. Although God can
see everything we are going to do, the choices we make are still free and so we still have
free will. However, this is not a successful criticism as God cannot be wrong and everything
that he knows will happen must necessarily happen and therefore our lives are determined
and not freely chosen. Therefore, omniscience is incompatible with free will and the
concept of God is incoherent as to have genuine free will, the future cannot be known but
as this is known by God, genuine free will is not possible.
Finally, the third attribute of God that is incoherent is omnibenevolence because the
Euthyphro dilemma outline how God’s goodness is arbitrary or not created by him. The
Euthyphro dilemma states that either god’s commands are good because they come from
god making his goodness arbitrary as he could chose to make something horrific such as
murder or rape a good action, or Gods commands are good because they conform to an
external moral source. If Gods' goodness is dependent on an external moral source, then he
is not supremely good as he did not create the moral standard. This is the most damaging
argument against the incoherence of God because not only does this demonstrate that God
cannot be omnibenevolent, but it also attacks Gods omnipotence. In the second dilemma, if
God conforms to an external moral source, then he must not have the power to make
something good nor command us to do it. Aquinas suggests that God does conform to a
moral standard but that “natural law” of morality is created by God. As he is
omnibenevolent God cannot command something outside of his good nature meaning that
he cannot arbitrarily decide what is good or bad. However, this is an unsuccessful response
as it assumes God’s omnibenevolence and then uses that to explain how God cannot chose
arbitral goodness. This does not explain why God does not have to power to choose
something to be good and only assumes God is good by nature. Therefore, the criticism
stands as God cannot be omnibenevolent and omnipotent considering this dilemma.
Overall, God’s omnipotence can be shown to be incoherent due to the paradox of the stone
and the unsuccessful redefinition of omnipotence is not compatible with what is commonly
understood as all powerful. God's omniscience can be shown to be incoherent as although
God may not influence our decisions, he knows what we are going to do, and this cannot be
changed so our lives must be determine so free will and omniscience is not compatible.
Finally, Gods omnibenevolence is not coherent because the Euthyphro dilemma shows that
God cannot be supremely good and threatens his omnipotence. Therefore, as the three
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 or Stuvia-credit 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 rachelfindlay52. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $6.83. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
75619 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now