Overview – The Concept of God
The concept of God in A level philosophy is the concept of God as understood by the three main monotheistic religions – Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
Typically, these religions agree that God has the following 5 divine attributes:
However, there are a number of arguments which claim that these characteristics are logically inconsistent.
God, as commonly understood, has a number of key characteristics. These characteristics can be described as the ‘divine attributes’. The divine attributes are as follows:
Omnipotence literally translates as all powerful.
God is imagined to be perfectly powerful – it’s not possible for there to exist a being with more power than God.
But this doesn’t mean God can do literally anything. For example, God can’t make “triangles have 4 sides” true, because it is a logical contradiction.
Omnipotence is thus best understood as the claim that God can do anything that’s logically possible.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that this isn’t a real limitation on God’s power. For something to be logically impossible is for it to contain a contradiction.
However, it is argued that the concept of omnipotence is itself contradictory. For more information, see the problem of the stone.
Omniscience literally translates as all knowing.
This is to say God has perfect knowledge. He knows everything – or, at least, everything it is possible to know.
For example, it is argued that God doesn’t know what we humans are going to do in the future – because we have free will. The claim is still that God knows everything it’s possible to know – but that it is not possible to know the future. For more information, see free will vs. omniscience.
Omnibenevolence literally translates as all loving.
It’s best understood as the claim that God is perfectly good. God always does what’s morally good – he never does anything bad or evil.
Whether God is eternal or everlasting depends on the nature of God.
If God exists within time, then he is everlasting. This is to say he was there at the beginning of time and will continue to exist forever.
If God exists outside of time, then he is eternal. He has no beginning or end – as these concepts only make sense within time.
God is often understood as a personal being – which is to say he has certain characteristics of human people.
For example, he is thought of as having a mind. Knowledge, for example, is a property of a mind. So, for God to be omniscient, he must have a mind.
Even though God is a personal being, he is not a person. He doesn’t have a body, for example, like most humans do.
If God is omnipotent (all powerful), can he create a stone so heavy he can’t lift it?
- If he can’t then he’s not powerful enough to create this stone
- But if he can then he’s not powerful enough to lift the stone
Either way, there is something God cannot do – which means he’s not omnipotent.
George Mavrodes replies to the problem of the stone by arguing that ‘a stone an omnipotent being can’t lift’ is not a possible thing – it’s a contradiction. And, as discussed in omnipotence, it’s not necessarily a limitation on God’s power to say he can’t do what’s logically impossible.
The Euthyphro dilemma takes its name from Plato’s Euthyphro.
Back then, it was directed against the many Gods of ancient Greece. However, it can be adapted to the modern concept of God.
The Euthyphro dilemma looks at whether morality is created by, or independent of, God.
Applied to the moral judgement ‘torturing babies is wrong’, we can ask:
- Is torturing babies wrong because God says it’s wrong?
- Or, does God say ‘don’t torture babies’ because it is wrong?
If the second option is the case – in other words morality is independent of God – then it’s a challenge to God’s omnipotence. The reason for this is that God’s power would be limited by morality. God is not powerful enough to make ‘torturing babies is good’ true.
But if the first option is true – and so God created morality – then it means that what is good and bad is arbitrary. In other words, God could say ‘torturing babies is good’, or whatever he wanted, and it would be true. Why, then, does he say some things are bad and not others?
This might not seem like much of a challenge to the concept of God, but it undermines a key teaching of religion: that God is good.
If what is good is 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.
This presents a challenge to God’s omnibenevolence.
- As an omniscient being, God knows everything.
- If God knows everything, then he must know what I’m going to do before I do it – for example, eat pizza
- If God already knows that I’m going to eat the pizza before I do it, then it must be true that I eat the pizza
- If it’s true that I eat the pizza, then it can’t be false that I eat the pizza.
- In other words, I don’t have a choice. And if I don’t have a choice to either eat or not eat the pizza, then I don’t have free will.
- God is omniscient but we don’t have free will
- We have free will but God is not omniscient
A possible reply to this is that free will makes it impossible to know the future. If God’s omniscience is understood as the claim that God knows everything it is possible to know, then he is still omniscient.