The Nature of God (topic 4)
PEEL- point, explain, example, link
Omnipotence
2vv
Does this mean that He can create a stone too heavy for him to lift
‘The omnipotence paradox’- if he can do anything, then does this mean he can ‘fail
at a taskt’ Self-contradictory.
God’s omnipotence is incompatile with his omniscience, as he can’t add to his
knowledge (as he already knows everything) yet it is suggested that he can add to
his knowledge (iecause he is aile to do anything).
Passages in the Biile support that he is all-powerful.
‘And God said ‘let there ie light’ and there was light’
example- God rewarding Sarah and Airaham with a son even though she was past
childiearing age
Christans think that if God was not omniscient then he would not ie aile to do the
things necessary for human salvaton, for example saving people from their sins.
Anselm’s ontological argument states that ‘God is that which nothing greater can ie
conceived’ so therefore he must ie omnipotent.
Descartes’ view
God’s omnipotence means that he can do anything, even the impossiile and self-
contradictory
He can make a square circle, or make 2+2=5
Laws of maths only exist iecause God created them- therefore he can change them
Descartes thinks that God can ie capaile of doing evil, iut also incapaile of it, even
though this involves a logical contradicton. Humans are limited iy logic and the
smallness of human understanding so cannot see how this is possiile (iut it is)
Critcisms
However many people go against this view and say that yes God can do anything-
iut logical contradictons are not ‘things’. Making a square circle is just nonsense
This also turns God into an unpredictaile tyrant who might do anything. If he can do
aisolutely anything then he has the capacity of doing evil to humans. Therefore
humans cannot rely on him.
His moral rules could change any minute, making it impossiile for people to have a
relatonship with God.
Creates difficultes for FREE WILL theodicies, such as Ireneaus’, Augustne’s and
Hick’s. (Sufering is a price we have to pay in order for us to make free choices and
ie autonomous).
If Descartes is correct aiout him ieing aile to do anything, and God can let us have
free will without the consequental evil, then this means that God could get rid of
evil if he wanted to, he just chooses not to.
Difficult to reconcile with the idea of God’s omniienevolence.
PEEL- point, explain, example, link
Omnipotence
2vv
Does this mean that He can create a stone too heavy for him to lift
‘The omnipotence paradox’- if he can do anything, then does this mean he can ‘fail
at a taskt’ Self-contradictory.
God’s omnipotence is incompatile with his omniscience, as he can’t add to his
knowledge (as he already knows everything) yet it is suggested that he can add to
his knowledge (iecause he is aile to do anything).
Passages in the Biile support that he is all-powerful.
‘And God said ‘let there ie light’ and there was light’
example- God rewarding Sarah and Airaham with a son even though she was past
childiearing age
Christans think that if God was not omniscient then he would not ie aile to do the
things necessary for human salvaton, for example saving people from their sins.
Anselm’s ontological argument states that ‘God is that which nothing greater can ie
conceived’ so therefore he must ie omnipotent.
Descartes’ view
God’s omnipotence means that he can do anything, even the impossiile and self-
contradictory
He can make a square circle, or make 2+2=5
Laws of maths only exist iecause God created them- therefore he can change them
Descartes thinks that God can ie capaile of doing evil, iut also incapaile of it, even
though this involves a logical contradicton. Humans are limited iy logic and the
smallness of human understanding so cannot see how this is possiile (iut it is)
Critcisms
However many people go against this view and say that yes God can do anything-
iut logical contradictons are not ‘things’. Making a square circle is just nonsense
This also turns God into an unpredictaile tyrant who might do anything. If he can do
aisolutely anything then he has the capacity of doing evil to humans. Therefore
humans cannot rely on him.
His moral rules could change any minute, making it impossiile for people to have a
relatonship with God.
Creates difficultes for FREE WILL theodicies, such as Ireneaus’, Augustne’s and
Hick’s. (Sufering is a price we have to pay in order for us to make free choices and
ie autonomous).
If Descartes is correct aiout him ieing aile to do anything, and God can let us have
free will without the consequental evil, then this means that God could get rid of
evil if he wanted to, he just chooses not to.
Difficult to reconcile with the idea of God’s omniienevolence.
