Is the Nature of God Coherent?
Statement of Intent: In this essay I will arguing that the nature of God is incoherent as although some parts
of his nature is coherent it still follows that the crucial issue of the euthyphro dilemma means that overall
the nature of God is incoherent. I will show that the Paradox of the Stone and the issues of omniscience
(God’s immutability and issue of free will) are resolved quite sucessfully, but the Euthyphro Dilemma fails
to be solved.
CHANGE ESSAY PLAN : omnipotence, omniscience is coherent, euthyphro dilemma is not therefore God’s
nature is no coheret.
RICE 1:
R: There is no contradiction involving omnipotence.
I: Paradox of the Stone.
C: The Paradox of the Stone is not an issue for the coherency of the nature of God. he phrase ‘a stone an
omnipotent being can’t lift’ is a self contradiction because by definition omnipotence is the ability to do
anything which contradicts it being unable to do something (lift the stone). Therefore God can’t do what is
logically possible and therefore he can’t lift the s
I: This is begging the question - the statement ‘is an omnipotent being not omnipotent’ is only a
contradiction if omnipotence is a coherent concept - which is what the very paradox is questioning. The
issue depends on the concept of omniscience being as being coherent already. Therefore it isn’t resolved.
Until we know that he conept of an omnipotent being is coherent concept we can’t legitimately use the
concept to show that ‘a stone an omnipotent being can’t lift’ is a contradiction.
C: Therefore a much stronger response to the Paradox is rather then trying to redefine what omnipotent is,
it is stronger to show that the question itself is a contradiction. You are asking if something can do
something they can’t do. If you frame the question to if God creates a stone can he lift it then the answer
is obvious that God can’t create a stone he can’t lift because if he was to create a stone he could lift it.
E: Therefore God’s omnipotence is shown to be coherent in any Paradoxes.
RICE 2:
R: There is no contradiction involving omniscience as some would suggest.
I: Free will + Omniscience as an example of of contradiction
C: The idea that God experience time ET-Simultaneously resolves the incoherency between omniscience
and free will and omniscience and immutability. Firstly, it resolves the first problem as God doesn't know
the future like we do temporally, he is experiencing the future, present and past at the same time and
therefore we have free will as we could've easily done otherwise he is just experiencing the future at the
same time as the present. God does know what will happen in the future but he knows the future in the
same way he knows the present and past - he is experiencing it now. Similarly with ET-Simultaneity he is
exercising time temporally and eternally which shows his omnipotent to experience both and he doesn't
change with his knowledge because he knows the time of every instance because he is outside of time. A
being that knows everything always knows in the eternal present what tie it is in the temporal present. But
the eternal being and therefore what it knows isn't with time so it isn’t changing.
I: Could the idea of ET-Simultaneity lead to incoherency with omnibenevolence? God is able to experience
e.g an earthquake that is happening 50 years later, and it is in his power to alter the future. Why does he
not intervene
C: However this question is beyond what is being asked and considers more the implications and turns
into the evidential problem of evil rather then the issue between omniscience and immutablity and free
Is the Nature of God Coherent? 1
Statement of Intent: In this essay I will arguing that the nature of God is incoherent as although some parts
of his nature is coherent it still follows that the crucial issue of the euthyphro dilemma means that overall
the nature of God is incoherent. I will show that the Paradox of the Stone and the issues of omniscience
(God’s immutability and issue of free will) are resolved quite sucessfully, but the Euthyphro Dilemma fails
to be solved.
CHANGE ESSAY PLAN : omnipotence, omniscience is coherent, euthyphro dilemma is not therefore God’s
nature is no coheret.
RICE 1:
R: There is no contradiction involving omnipotence.
I: Paradox of the Stone.
C: The Paradox of the Stone is not an issue for the coherency of the nature of God. he phrase ‘a stone an
omnipotent being can’t lift’ is a self contradiction because by definition omnipotence is the ability to do
anything which contradicts it being unable to do something (lift the stone). Therefore God can’t do what is
logically possible and therefore he can’t lift the s
I: This is begging the question - the statement ‘is an omnipotent being not omnipotent’ is only a
contradiction if omnipotence is a coherent concept - which is what the very paradox is questioning. The
issue depends on the concept of omniscience being as being coherent already. Therefore it isn’t resolved.
Until we know that he conept of an omnipotent being is coherent concept we can’t legitimately use the
concept to show that ‘a stone an omnipotent being can’t lift’ is a contradiction.
C: Therefore a much stronger response to the Paradox is rather then trying to redefine what omnipotent is,
it is stronger to show that the question itself is a contradiction. You are asking if something can do
something they can’t do. If you frame the question to if God creates a stone can he lift it then the answer
is obvious that God can’t create a stone he can’t lift because if he was to create a stone he could lift it.
E: Therefore God’s omnipotence is shown to be coherent in any Paradoxes.
RICE 2:
R: There is no contradiction involving omniscience as some would suggest.
I: Free will + Omniscience as an example of of contradiction
C: The idea that God experience time ET-Simultaneously resolves the incoherency between omniscience
and free will and omniscience and immutability. Firstly, it resolves the first problem as God doesn't know
the future like we do temporally, he is experiencing the future, present and past at the same time and
therefore we have free will as we could've easily done otherwise he is just experiencing the future at the
same time as the present. God does know what will happen in the future but he knows the future in the
same way he knows the present and past - he is experiencing it now. Similarly with ET-Simultaneity he is
exercising time temporally and eternally which shows his omnipotent to experience both and he doesn't
change with his knowledge because he knows the time of every instance because he is outside of time. A
being that knows everything always knows in the eternal present what tie it is in the temporal present. But
the eternal being and therefore what it knows isn't with time so it isn’t changing.
I: Could the idea of ET-Simultaneity lead to incoherency with omnibenevolence? God is able to experience
e.g an earthquake that is happening 50 years later, and it is in his power to alter the future. Why does he
not intervene
C: However this question is beyond what is being asked and considers more the implications and turns
into the evidential problem of evil rather then the issue between omniscience and immutablity and free
Is the Nature of God Coherent? 1
