The nature or attributes of God

• Boethius

  -his idea of God being eternal means God has relationship with time which is different to how humans experience time

  -humans are finite (beginning in the past, experience the present & will have an end in the future)

  -God can't be subject to time, so to be eternal means to be outside of past, present & future

  -a God that's outside of time surveys the whole of time in an eternal present e.g. seeing a film at once

  -all the past, present & future is 'now' to God

  -calls God's eternity a 'simultaneous present'

  -our understanding of time is different to God's view
• Aquinas on Boethius

  -a supporter of Boethius' view

  -uses an illustration on standing on top of a tower/ hill. You have a bird's eye view of whole road & who is walking along it, whereas traveller sees only what is directly before/ behind them

  -God views eternity all in once glance rather than as a succession of events, one after another
• God's omniscience

  -for Boethius, it's possible to understand what knowledge is like only if we understand the nature of the knower

  -eternal nature of God is timeless (outside of time) viewing everything in one glance, as a simultaneous present

  -God doesn't know what will happen but knows only as it is happening

  -God's knowledge is providential rather than a prior knowledge of what will happen (foreknowledge)
• can we have free will?

  -if God sees our future actions, we can't do otherwise

  --> Lady Philosophy states God's foreknowledge isn't the cause of future events happening. The free will of humans causes these things
• Boethius' solution

  -involves simple & conditional necessity

  -uses example of man walking on a sunny day

  --> term necessity can be applied to both differently. Sun is necessarily shining as that is what the sun must do (simple necessity). Also necessary that the man is walking, or you wouldn't see him walking (conditional necessity), but he has freely chosen to walk

  -suggests God sees things we consider to be the future as they're the result of human free will (God knows the man is walking because the man has chosen to walk)

  -human free will completely independent of God's foreknowledge
• positive of possibility

  -just because we can't make sense of something doesn't mean it's not possible

  --> BUT Kenny argues the idea that God views events that happened years apart in one simultaneous moment seems incoherent. He jokes, "While I type these words, Nero fiddles heartlessly on" ('The God of the Philosophers', 1979)
• positive of interference

  -if God interacts with individuals, miraculously saving 1 person from disaster, this raises a problem of God being arbitrary and partisan

  -the view of God as timeless solves this as God can't intervene at moments within time

  --> BUT a timeless God seems to be transcendent, unchanging & uninterested in the world. Seems more like a God of the philosopher than a God of faith. God portrayed in Bible seems to be immanent & interacts with believers, unlike Aristotle's Prime Mover which thinks only about thinking
• positive of eternity and the incarnation

  -incarnation would have to be reinterpreted e.g. viewing Jesus as a perfect example of a human response to God, not God entering time and becoming human

  --> BUT if God is timeless, how could he enter time and become incarnate in Jesus Christ?
• positive of eternity and prayer

  -believers could change the understanding of prayer from a list of requests made to God

  -instead, prayer would be contemplation and communion with the divine

  --> BUT how can a timeless God answer prayers? God can't enter into a moment within time or change something in the future because all time is a simultaneous moment to God
• simple necessity

  The necessity of nature acting according to natural, physical laws.
• conditional necessity

  An action is observed only because it has been freely chosen.
• providence

  God's knowledge, not of the future but how God oversees the world and our free choices.
• Boethius quotes

  -'The Consolation of Philosophy', Book V

  --> "now, eternity is the possession of endless life whole and perfect at a single moment"

  --> "there seems to be a hopeless conflict between divine foreknowledge of all things and freedom of the human will"
• Anselm's four-dimensionalism

  All times and places are equally real and present to God.
• following necessity

  The moment of free choice is known in God's eternal present; God is with us because that moment is in God.
• preceding necessity

  There is no free agent or choice involved, e.g. God's knowledge of the laws of nature.
• Anselm and eternity

  -Anselm understands God to be timeless, but disagreed with Boethius

  -his view sometimes called four-dimensionalism as 'time' is a 4th dimension

  -God is neither spatial nor temporal

  -God's perspective of time is different, so 'yesterday' or 'next year' don't have any meaning to him

  -every moment is equally real and present to God e.g. my birth, marriage & funeral equally real & equally present to God

  -God encompasses all of time and so God is eternity

  -by implication there is a 5th dimension which is eternity
• analogy

  -if we consider the event ‘Mr Proctor wore glasses on the 20th January 2023'

  -from POV of someone in 2020 this is a non-determined action & a person can’t know whether or not Mr Proctor will wear his glasses

  -from POV of someone in 2024 this is certain as you're looking back into the past

  --> but knowledge doesn't inhibit his free will
• analogy explained

  -theoretically possible from POV of the end of time for someone other than God to know all events that've happened in the universe

  --> this person didn't control them & the events may have been the result of free will. We can see from a certain perspective in time all events can seem fixed but they weren't controlled & free will was possible

  -God, from his vantage point of eternity, is most like the person viewing things from the end of time

  --> he can see all things, all things seem fixed, yet people still have free will
• omniscience

  -Anselm argues God's knowledge is simply a matter of perspective too

  -using a human perspective, God knows what happened yesterday, what is happening today and what will happen tomorrow

  -but God knows because each moment is equally present in God
• free will

  -Anselm asks 'does God know whether I'm going to sin or not?'

  --> if he knows what we'll do, we can't choose differently

  -answers with preceding & following necessity

  -God knows sun will rise as preceding necessity & there'll be a revolution tomorrow because God is alongside each individual as they make their choice (following necessity)

  -actual choice is source of God's knowledge & doesn't cause/ determine their choice

  -moment of choice is known in God's eternal present

  -God chose to create free humans so has a self-imposed limitation on his omniscience & omnipotence
• Anselm quote

  -Proslogian 19

  -"you do not exist yesterday or today or tomorrow, but You simple are - [existing] beyond all time. For yesterday, today, and tomorrow are nothing other than [distinctions] in time ... You are not in place or in time, but all things are in You. For You are not contained by anything, but, rather, You contain all [other] things"
• positive of different perspective

  -Anselm claims descriptions of time depend on perspective

  -you may say 'I am here' but I say 'no you are there'

  --> similarly, God's perspective of time different to ours

  -God can't know 'future' as describes time from human perspective

  -all moments of time are equally in God (no tenses)

  -God more immanent than for Boethius, not just an external & remote observer looking in

  --> BUT difficult to imagine what God's experience of time is like. Still uses language of time e.g. preceding & following necessity implies passage of time (before & after)
• positive of omniscience

  -God has 2 types of knowledge

  --> knows about laws of nature and physics as have preceding necessity. Knows about human choices only because of following necessity (God's knowledge follows moment of choice)

  -God is omniscient, as nothing God doesn't know

  --> BUT problem with Anselm's view of divine knowledge is whether God can know what day it is now. Can't be a present or a more significant moment for God as all moments are equally present in God
• positive of free will

  -Anselm protects free will as God is alongside us in the moment of choice & knows our choice as a following necessity

  --> BUT from our perspective, our future choices are free, but an eternal, omniscient God has already seen these choices being made. This challenges the existence of free will. Also impacts problem of evil, as suggests God is alongside as we make choices; can he prevent or change those choices?
• other problems with eternity

  -philosophers such as Anthony Kenny think eternity concept is incoherent

  --> suggests from POV of God the same person would be dying & being born (logically incoherent rather than a mystery). Our usual understanding of the logically incoherent is that it's impossible. Whole idea of eternity is incoherent

  -others won't be persuaded with idea that free will can be harmonised with necessity. God may be able to have omniscience without controlling events, but if events are fixed from POV of eternity, some would argue someone other than God must be controlling them
• everlasting

  A view of divine eternity. God has no beginning or end, moves through time and is in time.
• God is everlasting

  -many modern philosopher have criticised Boethius & others as being too influenced by Platonic thought that perfection & goodness must be unchanging & exist in another realm, outside of time

  -Swinburne interprets 'eternity' as God being within time and everlasting, having no beginning or end, so God has and will always exist

  -Cullman calls this 'endless duration'
• an everlasting God

  -a God that travels through time has experienced the past & is experiencing the present, much as humans do

  -God would seem to be more immanent, to have a closer understanding of life's struggles and be able to intervene/act

  --> closer to God described by believers & in Bible e.g. responding to Hezekiah's prayer and granting him an extra 15 years to live

  -hard to develop a relationship with God if he's transcendent & unchanging, but possible if God is within time

  --> can change, respond, and even incarnation possible
• an everlasting God continued

  -if God is within time & can change, it causes questions about whether God is arbitrary

  --> why intervene sometimes to help 1 individual but ignore the plight of millions at other times?

  -difficult to see how a God that changes his mind can be trusted

  -is a changeable God worth worshipping?
• omniscience & free will

  -Swinburne defines omniscience as knowing everything that it's logically possible to know

  -as the future hasn't happened yet, can't logically be known

  -as God is everlasting, he can only know the past because it has happened & the present as its happening

  -God's knowledge may include all future events that are predictable by physical laws, but doesn't include free decisions made by humans

  -Swinburne suggests omniscience may even leave room for God's choice e.g. to respond to prayers
• problem with coherence

  -is God being timeless a coherent idea? Is Boethius or Anselm more coherent? Would it matter if humans can't understand infinitude of God? Just because our minds are limited may not mean it's false

  --> BUT everlasting view fits with view that God can only do and know the logically possible. Makes more sense as this is how we understand & think about linear time
• problem with prayer

  -God is more transcendent & unchanging; God couldn't respond to prayer or intervene at one moment as all moments are either simultaneously present (Boethius) or equally in him (Anselm)

  --> BUT if God is within time, it's possible for God to react & respond to prayer as he can interact with time-bound humans
• problem with omniscience

  -God can be omniscient in the timeless view as he has knowledge of every moment

  -a God within time can challenge omniscience; God can't know the future as it hasn't happened yet (not logically possible) so perhaps God is not fully omniscient
• problem with time

  -a problem with the view of a timeless God is that there could be conflicts with free will; how can we make a different choice if God already knows what we will decide?

  -a God within time means humans retain free will as the future isn't yet determined or known, so humans can make free choices
• problem with omnipotence

  -can God be all-powerful if he is outside of time or can't intervene in time?

  -while God may be all-powerful, it's difficult to see this from evidence in the world. Why would God let evil & suffering continue if he can stop it? Perhaps this raises another challenge; is God benevolent?
• in what ways can God be omnipotent?

  -omnipotence is often taken to mean all-powerful and that God can do everything

  -however, this definition raises problems, such as can God change the past, sin or lie? Does this mean God can do the logically impossible, or if God can end suffering and evil, why do they still exist?

  -problems of omnipotence quickly spill over to challenge other attributes of God, such as benevolence or omniscience
• God can do anything

  -Descartes argues God can do anything, inc. the logically impossible e.g. God could make a square circle

  -suggests God isn't limited by anything but leads to more questions e.g. can God create a married bachelor?

  -widely criticised as seems to be based on confused & conflicting reasoning

  -our lack of understanding of omnipotence may simply be a limitation of being human or, as Aquinas argues, impossible things are a misuse of language

  -C.S. Lewis said adding the words 'God can' to the beginning of a nonsense sentence doesn't change the meaning
• God can do the logically possible

  -Aquinas argues God can do all things that're logically possible

  -Mavrodes' solution to stone paradox is if God is a being of unlimited power, the idea of a stone he can't lift is a logically impossible task

  -Swinburne also disagrees with Descartes as argues God can't do the logically impossible

  -may involve self-limitation to allow freedom to humans who aren't controlled by God

  -once God has created free humans that he can't control, there are things we can do that would be labelled 'not done by God' (relinquished some omnipotence)
• Kenny & omnipotence

  -Kenny tries to solve problem by extending the definition to 'the possession of all logically possible powers which it is logically possible for a being with the attributes of God to have' ('The God of the Philosophers')

  -no difference between what God has the power to do & what it's logically possible for God to do

  -but is this really adding anything to our understanding of omnipotence?