Notes
Notes
Notes
Omnipotence
1. Limited
Aquinas: God can do everything that is within his nature therefore cannot be cruel or unwise
Swinburne: God can do everything possible but logical impossibilities are not things
Vardy: God deliberately limits his own power - he created the world in such a way that his own
power has to be limited. Does not undermine God as he chose to do this in order to create a world
suitable for free and rational human beings Cf. Kenosis - God deliberately empties himself of his own
power Cf. Philippians - In incarnation God deliberately limited his power.
2. Objections
Objection: If God cannot do things and is limited by his own nature then he is not truly omnipotent
Is omnipotence a problem of religious language where we do not have the words to frame an
adequate concept of God’s power?
3. Unlimited
Descartes: God has no limitations at all, even things which are logically impossible
God could make a square circle or make 2+2=5 because God is supreme perfection and therefore
can have no limitations at all
God is the source of logic and has the power to suspend logic or replace it whenever he wants. To
deny this would reduce him to Zeus figure who was at the mercy of the Fates.
Laws of mathematics only exist the way they do because God created them that way.
God is also capable of doing evil (because of his omnipotence) and incapable (because of his loving
nature) at the same time, even though this involves a logical contradiction. We cannot see how such
a God exists because we are limited by logic and the smallness of human understanding.
4. Objections
1. If God can do anything then he can do things that go against his loving nature e.g. cruelty
2. Things that are logically impossible e.g. stones too heavy for God to lift are not really ‘things’
because they are impossible (Swinburne)
3. Problem of Evil
4. Problem of Miracles: If God is all powerful, why doesn’t he perform miracles on everyone?
(Maurice Wiles)
Whitehead and Hartshorne: a totally omnipotent God is not as impressive as a God who could
meet resistance.
Eternity
1. Timeless
Timeless: being eternal in a way that exists entirely outside time
God knows the future but it is not the future for him as he does not exist within time but instead in
a continuous present.
Strength: Explains how humans can retain their free will with an omniscient God who could see
every human’s future = God exists outside time whereas humanity does.
Aquinas in Summa Theologica: In the human world, change and time are inextricably linked e.g.
humans born, grow old and die. If God exists within time, he would be constrained by the same laws
which time inflicts upon the universe and would be susceptible to change. A perfect being cannot
change therefore must exist outside time and space.
Anselm: four-dimensionalist approach - God is in all times at once and all times are ‘in God’. We are
restricted in one place at one time with free will, but God is without restrictions
2. Objections
1. If God is timeless then he does not change and he cannot respond to people’s behaviour with
anger or love
2. If God knows everything for all time our freedom is restricted
3. If God is outside time he cannot be omniscient as he cant know what day it is.
4. God does change in the Bible. The Bible describes moments when God is described as surprised
(Isaiah 5) then that suggests he is susceptible to change
5. God does enter the human time-frame. God enters the human time-frame to intervene directly by
answering prayers or coming of Jesus. If God existed outside time he would have no concept of past,
present and future, but that seems impossible as he chose a specific date for incarnation.
6. Swinburne argues the timeless view of God is an idea brought by Ancient Greek philosophy and
not inherently Christian.
RESPONSE: Impossible for humans to fully understand God’s nature and the way he acts.
3. Everlasting
Everlasting (its existence is inextricably linked to time and as long as time exists, so too will the
object exist)
Richard Swinburne: idea that God sees everything and knows everything outside time in a
simultaneous present is incoherent. God cannot know what it is like to be in 1995 unless he was in
fact in 1995, in which case God must be within time.
Strength: This gives us genuine free will and allows us to have a relationship with God who responds
to our behaviour and prayers.
4. Objections
1. Makes God seem less impressive because God is restricted by time
2. Timeless view of God is superior as it allows God to relate to us in all of our lives in his all at once
duration (Elenore Stump). Cf. daughter who I cant relate to her as a child after she grows up. This
allows God to be closer and more intimate to us.
3. It raises questions on what God was doing before he created the universe.
4. Neither Aquinas nor Boethius claim that all of time takes place at once, but that the nature of
God’s knowledge is so different to humans’ that he as an omniscient being sees all of eternity as a
simultaneously present i.e. God takes all knowledge of the universe simultaneously, the events do not
happen simultaneously.