Omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence

Overview

Recall questions on the ways omnipotence has been understood, divine self-limitation of power, the paradox of the stone and Aquinas' answer, Matthew 19:26, definitions of omniscience and benevolence, why omniscience is said to conflict with human freedom, and whether the conflicts between the attributes can be resolved.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

1. 1

   What are the main ways omnipotence has been understood?

   Model answer

   In the widest sense, that God can do absolutely anything at all, including what is logically impossible, a view associated with Descartes. In the standard sense, that God can do anything logically possible, so that the inability to make a square circle is no limitation because there is nothing there to be done. In a third sense, that God can do anything consistent with the divine nature, which additionally rules out God lying or acting cruelly. Each version handles the problem of evil and the paradoxes differently.

2. 2

   What is the paradox of the stone, and how is it usually answered?

   Model answer

   The paradox asks whether God can create a stone too heavy for God to lift: if not, there is something God cannot make, and if so, there is something God cannot lift, so either way omnipotence fails. The usual answer is that the description is self-contradictory, since an unliftable object for a being who can lift anything is not a possible thing but a form of words. Critics reply that this restricts omnipotence to the logically possible, which is itself a limit, and defenders answer that a limit which excludes nothing real is no limit at all.

3. 3

   How has omniscience been defined?

   Model answer

   In the strongest sense, that God knows every true proposition, including every detail of the future. In a weaker sense, that God knows everything which it is logically possible to know, leaving open whether future free choices are among those things. Classical theism has generally taken the first; those who prioritise human freedom have often taken the second.

4. 4

   Must the apparent conflicts between the divine attributes be resolved, and can they be?

   Model answer

   For resolution: if the attributes are genuinely inconsistent then the concept of God is incoherent and nothing answers to it, so the believer has no choice but to address it; centuries of careful distinctions suggest progress is possible. Against: some argue the conflicts arise from applying human concepts of power and knowledge to a being who transcends them, so the resolution should be to admit the limits of language rather than to force a system; others accept the tension and treat it as a mystery that belongs to faith. What turns on it is whether a religion may hold beliefs it cannot render fully consistent without abandoning rationality.

5. 5

   How is Matthew 19:26 used in debates about omnipotence?

   Model answer

   Jesus says that what is impossible for human beings is possible for God, since with God all things are possible. It is cited for an unrestricted view of divine power, though it can be read as saying only that God can do what humans cannot, not what is logically impossible.

6. 6

   How does Aquinas answer the paradox of the stone?

   Model answer

   That omnipotence extends only to what is logically possible, and a stone too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift is a self-contradiction rather than a thing.

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.