‘Richard Swinburne’s Account of God and Time is Unconvincing’
Swinburne suggested that God has to exist in time in order to have a loving relationship with
us and to allow free will. However, Swinburne’s account of God and time is unconvincing
because it suggests a severely limited God which seems to contradict many Christian
teachings about God. Boethius and other scholars such as Anselm and Aquinas believe that
God exists outside of time which is more convincing because it is coherent with commonly
accepted attributes which God is believed to have.
Swinburne believes that God was semipiternal – exists inside of time. He believed that it was
necessary for a loving God because a loving being has to be able to respond to events that
are happening in time. He believed that an atemporal God would be incaperable of love
because his intentions would be fixed for all eternity as he is immutable which leads to a
very distant and lifeless God. Swinburne argued that God is in continual interaction with his
creation and that his actions do not seem to be devised in advance. The Old Testament
seems to support this view as there are many stories of God interacting with events in the
world and seeming to change his mind e.g. the story of King Hezekiah in Isaiah, the king was
told by a prophet that he would die, but he prayed to God who then decided to grant him
15 extra years of life. This biblical support makes Swinburne’s argument more convincing. It
is also successful as it does not create a problem with free will, as God only reacts to our
choices and the future is not already fixed in Swinburne’s view. Swinburne rejected the idea
that a perfect being should be changeless – he believed that this was simply an idea of Plato
and we do not have to accept it. However, this is unconvincing as the definition of perfect
suggests that there is only one way for something to be perfect so if a perfect being
changes, they can no longer be perfect. Swinburne’s argument is also unconvincing because
it limits God’s omniscience and omnipotence. If God is on the same fixed timeline as us then
he does not have the power to change the future or the past nor does he know what the
consequences of out actions will be as he cannot know the future. It also may limit God’s
omnibenevolence because God would not know how to be the most loving if he did not
understand what the outcome of an action would be. Because of this, Swinburne’s
argument is not successful because it contradicts many fundamental attributes of God
meaning his argument does not seem to be applicable to a Christian God.
Other scholars believe that God is atemporal or outside of time. Boethius argued that God’s
knowledge ‘transcends all temporal change’ and he looks down upon us moving along out
timelines ‘as though from a lofty peak above them’. All events, past, present and future,
occur simultaneously for God in his eternal present and he takes in all of history ‘in a single
Swinburne suggested that God has to exist in time in order to have a loving relationship with
us and to allow free will. However, Swinburne’s account of God and time is unconvincing
because it suggests a severely limited God which seems to contradict many Christian
teachings about God. Boethius and other scholars such as Anselm and Aquinas believe that
God exists outside of time which is more convincing because it is coherent with commonly
accepted attributes which God is believed to have.
Swinburne believes that God was semipiternal – exists inside of time. He believed that it was
necessary for a loving God because a loving being has to be able to respond to events that
are happening in time. He believed that an atemporal God would be incaperable of love
because his intentions would be fixed for all eternity as he is immutable which leads to a
very distant and lifeless God. Swinburne argued that God is in continual interaction with his
creation and that his actions do not seem to be devised in advance. The Old Testament
seems to support this view as there are many stories of God interacting with events in the
world and seeming to change his mind e.g. the story of King Hezekiah in Isaiah, the king was
told by a prophet that he would die, but he prayed to God who then decided to grant him
15 extra years of life. This biblical support makes Swinburne’s argument more convincing. It
is also successful as it does not create a problem with free will, as God only reacts to our
choices and the future is not already fixed in Swinburne’s view. Swinburne rejected the idea
that a perfect being should be changeless – he believed that this was simply an idea of Plato
and we do not have to accept it. However, this is unconvincing as the definition of perfect
suggests that there is only one way for something to be perfect so if a perfect being
changes, they can no longer be perfect. Swinburne’s argument is also unconvincing because
it limits God’s omniscience and omnipotence. If God is on the same fixed timeline as us then
he does not have the power to change the future or the past nor does he know what the
consequences of out actions will be as he cannot know the future. It also may limit God’s
omnibenevolence because God would not know how to be the most loving if he did not
understand what the outcome of an action would be. Because of this, Swinburne’s
argument is not successful because it contradicts many fundamental attributes of God
meaning his argument does not seem to be applicable to a Christian God.
Other scholars believe that God is atemporal or outside of time. Boethius argued that God’s
knowledge ‘transcends all temporal change’ and he looks down upon us moving along out
timelines ‘as though from a lofty peak above them’. All events, past, present and future,
occur simultaneously for God in his eternal present and he takes in all of history ‘in a single
