Nature of God
Attributes of God:
Traditional view – Eternal/Everlasting
o Omniscient/Omnipotent/Omnibenevolent
Do these concepts fit together?
o By what definitions can God be all four and if we change the definition of
one, what is the knock-on effect
For religious believers, God is
o Transcendent – separate from creation
o Immanent – close to creation
Eternal:
Timeless:
Everything we experience is in time
God exists outside of time with no beginning and no end
Time exists within creation and doesn’t affect God
o Link – Plato and Forms – eternal + unchanging
o For Plato – time is the moving image of eternity
Nicolas Wolterstorff – a timeless God is not just from Classical Philosophy
o The view of a timeless God has to be different from human experience of
life in the physical world
Boethius – Book 5 of ‘The Consolation of Philosophy’
o God does not experience past, present or future – all time is present to
God at the same time
o God does not exist in time
o Eternity for Boethius is ‘the whole, simultaneous and perfect possession of
unending life’
Like watching a film and seeing the opening titles and credits in one glance
Supported by Augustine and Aquinas
Augustine – if God made the world at a particular point in time, what was God
doing before this?
o Bible – a timeless God is separate from day and night
o Time does not work in the same way – there was no ‘before’ for God
Aquinas – when we speak of God we are using analogical language
o God is not like us and we cannot use words to describe how he
experiences time
o ‘Eternity exists as a simultaneous whole and time does not’
God is unchanging and outside of time
Criticisms – contradicts a plain reading of scripture – God acts within time in
the Bible
o Counter – Don’t read the Bible literally, just analogically
Criticism – idea of God being personal and active is hard to fit in with a
timeless God
If God is timeless, it easier to say he is immutable
If he is in time, he may be subject to change
o E.g. his knowledge of England’s World Cup win changed to knowledge
they had won it
Anselm’s four dimensional approach:
Attempt to improve on Boethius’ idea of eternity
There are two main perspectives on time
o Presentism vs four dimensions
, Presentism – only focuses on the present moment, the past is gone and future
hasn’t happen
Anselm – terms such as ‘yesterday’ and ‘last week’ are subjective to the person
perceiving that moment
God is not limited by space and time – he is in the past, present and future at
the same time
God is not just ‘in every space and time’, every space and time is in God
o We still have free will – God can see all the choices we have made and will
make
Boethius – God’s view of our actions ‘as though from a lofty peak’
However Anselm – God literally sees everything as part of his timelessness
o Therefore judgement and consequent reward/punishment are just
Arguably the best approach
Criticisms of timeless:
Swinburne – the notion of time being simultaneously present to God is
incoherent
o However this argument is weak – Anselm’s theory doesn’t fail when
challenged
o God is with us in every moment in time because all time is in him
o Thus he establishes a constant connection and interaction with humanity
How can God be personal and act in creation/respond to people’s prayers
Boethius – ends up defining a God that is intrinsically different to the God of
Classical Theism
o More of a Deist God – leaves questions about incarnation, relevance of
prayer and interaction
Defence:
Paul Helm – God, considered as timeless cannot have any temporal relations
with his creation
Language that suggests God acting personally in the Bible reflects people of the
time encountering God
o Moreover, we can explain many things that happened in the bible (e.g.
parting of the red sea)
Maurice Wiles – God does not literally act in the world – would create a
partisan God
o God loves us all through the gift of creation
Everlasting:
Solution to the problems – God is everlasting
o God exists and will always exist without end – however time passes for
God
Swinburne’s argument – supports a present and active God answering
prayers/granting miracles
o Fits more satisfactory with the God in the Bible
God exists within time and is aware of what we have/will do in
past/present/future
Schleiermacher’s analogy of a parent – God knows us intimately well and can
understand how we will act
o Can react to us if not
Seemingly portrayed in the story of Jonah and the whale + 10 plagues – God set
people back on the right path
o If God was unaffected then there is no two-way relationship
Counter – God has some divine foreknowledge in the Bible – Judas betraying or
Peter denying
Attributes of God:
Traditional view – Eternal/Everlasting
o Omniscient/Omnipotent/Omnibenevolent
Do these concepts fit together?
o By what definitions can God be all four and if we change the definition of
one, what is the knock-on effect
For religious believers, God is
o Transcendent – separate from creation
o Immanent – close to creation
Eternal:
Timeless:
Everything we experience is in time
God exists outside of time with no beginning and no end
Time exists within creation and doesn’t affect God
o Link – Plato and Forms – eternal + unchanging
o For Plato – time is the moving image of eternity
Nicolas Wolterstorff – a timeless God is not just from Classical Philosophy
o The view of a timeless God has to be different from human experience of
life in the physical world
Boethius – Book 5 of ‘The Consolation of Philosophy’
o God does not experience past, present or future – all time is present to
God at the same time
o God does not exist in time
o Eternity for Boethius is ‘the whole, simultaneous and perfect possession of
unending life’
Like watching a film and seeing the opening titles and credits in one glance
Supported by Augustine and Aquinas
Augustine – if God made the world at a particular point in time, what was God
doing before this?
o Bible – a timeless God is separate from day and night
o Time does not work in the same way – there was no ‘before’ for God
Aquinas – when we speak of God we are using analogical language
o God is not like us and we cannot use words to describe how he
experiences time
o ‘Eternity exists as a simultaneous whole and time does not’
God is unchanging and outside of time
Criticisms – contradicts a plain reading of scripture – God acts within time in
the Bible
o Counter – Don’t read the Bible literally, just analogically
Criticism – idea of God being personal and active is hard to fit in with a
timeless God
If God is timeless, it easier to say he is immutable
If he is in time, he may be subject to change
o E.g. his knowledge of England’s World Cup win changed to knowledge
they had won it
Anselm’s four dimensional approach:
Attempt to improve on Boethius’ idea of eternity
There are two main perspectives on time
o Presentism vs four dimensions
, Presentism – only focuses on the present moment, the past is gone and future
hasn’t happen
Anselm – terms such as ‘yesterday’ and ‘last week’ are subjective to the person
perceiving that moment
God is not limited by space and time – he is in the past, present and future at
the same time
God is not just ‘in every space and time’, every space and time is in God
o We still have free will – God can see all the choices we have made and will
make
Boethius – God’s view of our actions ‘as though from a lofty peak’
However Anselm – God literally sees everything as part of his timelessness
o Therefore judgement and consequent reward/punishment are just
Arguably the best approach
Criticisms of timeless:
Swinburne – the notion of time being simultaneously present to God is
incoherent
o However this argument is weak – Anselm’s theory doesn’t fail when
challenged
o God is with us in every moment in time because all time is in him
o Thus he establishes a constant connection and interaction with humanity
How can God be personal and act in creation/respond to people’s prayers
Boethius – ends up defining a God that is intrinsically different to the God of
Classical Theism
o More of a Deist God – leaves questions about incarnation, relevance of
prayer and interaction
Defence:
Paul Helm – God, considered as timeless cannot have any temporal relations
with his creation
Language that suggests God acting personally in the Bible reflects people of the
time encountering God
o Moreover, we can explain many things that happened in the bible (e.g.
parting of the red sea)
Maurice Wiles – God does not literally act in the world – would create a
partisan God
o God loves us all through the gift of creation
Everlasting:
Solution to the problems – God is everlasting
o God exists and will always exist without end – however time passes for
God
Swinburne’s argument – supports a present and active God answering
prayers/granting miracles
o Fits more satisfactory with the God in the Bible
God exists within time and is aware of what we have/will do in
past/present/future
Schleiermacher’s analogy of a parent – God knows us intimately well and can
understand how we will act
o Can react to us if not
Seemingly portrayed in the story of Jonah and the whale + 10 plagues – God set
people back on the right path
o If God was unaffected then there is no two-way relationship
Counter – God has some divine foreknowledge in the Bible – Judas betraying or
Peter denying
