‘Swinburne is successful in resolving the problem of divine knowledge, benevolence, justice, eternity and
human free will’.Assess[40]
'Richard Swinburne provides the most useful way of looking at God's nature.' Discuss.
Richard Swinburne describes God as everlasting(sempiternal) rather than atemporal
unlike thinkers such as Boethius and St Anselm. This has significant implications for the
conflict between God’s divine attributes of omniscience and human free will. Through
critical analysis it will become clear that swinburne provides the most useful of looking
at God’s nature because he conceptualises a God with whom we are able to have a
relationship with.
Free will:
Swinburne provides the most useful way of looking at God’s nature because he
resolves the issue of free will because in his model the future is not fixed unlike
Boethius’ and Anselms. Throughout the bible, God is seen as interacting with mankind.
For example, in Isaiah, King Hezekiah is ‘at the point of death’ and he prays to God and
God ‘adds fifteen years to his life. God can change his view as time goes on because
the future is not fixed in this model. People can make genuinely free choices about what
to do next and no one knows what they will choose, not even God until it happens.
Whereas, Boethius by unconvincingly argued that God does not see past, present, and
future in temporal terms as humans do but rather simultaneously ‘as though from a lofty
peak’. The fact that God can see us making those choices, and knows what our future
choices and their consequences will be, does not restrict our freedom to act freely as
emphasised by Lady Philosophy when she states that God’s foreknowledge is not the
cause of future events happening. Ideas of past, present and future work differently for
God. God’s knowledge of our choices is not foreknowledge (knowledge in advance) as
there is no ‘in advance’ for God. Boethius limits our free will because God still knows
our choices with certainty, and while this might not be ‘beforehand’ for God, it is still
‘beforehand’ for us, as we do exist in time. Therefore, it is clear that Swinburne provides
the most useful nature because his model means that people have free will unlike
Boethius who removes temporal distinctions and thus removes our ability to have free
will.
Relationship
Swinburne presents the most useful way of looking at God’s nature because he
conceptualises a God with whom we are able to have a relationship with. Anselm
developed Boethius’ understanding of time and proposed the four-dimensionalist
understanding of time. He argued that the past and future exist in the same way that
present does. Time should therefore be understood as the 4th dimension alongside
height, width and depth. God is in control of time and space. God actively
communicates with his people and this would not be possible if God existed outside
human free will’.Assess[40]
'Richard Swinburne provides the most useful way of looking at God's nature.' Discuss.
Richard Swinburne describes God as everlasting(sempiternal) rather than atemporal
unlike thinkers such as Boethius and St Anselm. This has significant implications for the
conflict between God’s divine attributes of omniscience and human free will. Through
critical analysis it will become clear that swinburne provides the most useful of looking
at God’s nature because he conceptualises a God with whom we are able to have a
relationship with.
Free will:
Swinburne provides the most useful way of looking at God’s nature because he
resolves the issue of free will because in his model the future is not fixed unlike
Boethius’ and Anselms. Throughout the bible, God is seen as interacting with mankind.
For example, in Isaiah, King Hezekiah is ‘at the point of death’ and he prays to God and
God ‘adds fifteen years to his life. God can change his view as time goes on because
the future is not fixed in this model. People can make genuinely free choices about what
to do next and no one knows what they will choose, not even God until it happens.
Whereas, Boethius by unconvincingly argued that God does not see past, present, and
future in temporal terms as humans do but rather simultaneously ‘as though from a lofty
peak’. The fact that God can see us making those choices, and knows what our future
choices and their consequences will be, does not restrict our freedom to act freely as
emphasised by Lady Philosophy when she states that God’s foreknowledge is not the
cause of future events happening. Ideas of past, present and future work differently for
God. God’s knowledge of our choices is not foreknowledge (knowledge in advance) as
there is no ‘in advance’ for God. Boethius limits our free will because God still knows
our choices with certainty, and while this might not be ‘beforehand’ for God, it is still
‘beforehand’ for us, as we do exist in time. Therefore, it is clear that Swinburne provides
the most useful nature because his model means that people have free will unlike
Boethius who removes temporal distinctions and thus removes our ability to have free
will.
Relationship
Swinburne presents the most useful way of looking at God’s nature because he
conceptualises a God with whom we are able to have a relationship with. Anselm
developed Boethius’ understanding of time and proposed the four-dimensionalist
understanding of time. He argued that the past and future exist in the same way that
present does. Time should therefore be understood as the 4th dimension alongside
height, width and depth. God is in control of time and space. God actively
communicates with his people and this would not be possible if God existed outside
