Bibliography: 

Author: ANU

Type: University Class

Tags: #philosophy 

Concepts

- The existence of God - The OmniGod Thesis - Doctrine of Divine Simplicity

Quotes

N/A

Dot Points

- The Christian concept of God defines Him as a necessary being, existing in every possible world, unlike contingent beings, whose existence depends on external factors. - God’s nature is also described as omniperfect, possessing omnipotence (all-powerful), omnibenevolence (all-good), and omniscience (all-knowing). - Philosophers like Yujin Nagasawa raise criticisms of the OmniGod thesis, pointing out internal inconsistencies in God’s attributes (e.g., the paradox of the stone), conflicts between attributes (e.g., omnipotence vs. omnibenevolence), and contradictions with empirical facts (e.g., the problem of evil). - Another debate concerns God’s relationship with abstract objects, such as numbers, which are also seen as necessary. - How can abstract objects, which are immutable and unchanging, depend on God, especially if both God and these objects are necessary. - The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity (DDS) further complicates this issue, suggesting that God is identical to His attributes. This implies God is self-sufficient but risks reducing Him to an abstract property, creating tensions between His simplicity and ability to act in the world.

Summary

The Christian concept of God defines Him as a necessary being, existing in every possible world, unlike contingent beings, whose existence depends on external factors. God is seen as the creator and sustainer of the universe, though this belief is not exclusive to Christianity. God’s nature is also described as omniperfect, possessing omnipotence (all-powerful), omnibenevolence (all-good), and omniscience (all-knowing). St. Anselm’s “that than which no greater can be conceived” reflects this idea. However, philosophers like Yujin Nagasawa raise criticisms of the OmniGod thesis, pointing out internal inconsistencies in God’s attributes (e.g., the paradox of the stone), conflicts between attributes (e.g., omnipotence vs. omnibenevolence), and contradictions with empirical facts (e.g., the problem of evil).

Another debate concerns God’s relationship with abstract objects, such as numbers, which are also seen as necessary. Some philosophers question how abstract objects, which are immutable, can depend on God. The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity (DDS) further complicates this issue, suggesting that God is identical to His attributes. This implies God is self-sufficient but risks reducing Him to an abstract property, creating tensions between His simplicity and ability to act in the world.

Detail

The concept of God, especially within Christian philosophy, holds that God possesses unique and fundamental characteristics that define His nature. First, God is often described as a necessary being, meaning that He exists in every possible world and could not have failed to exist. This contrasts with contingent beings, like humans and the physical universe, whose existence depends on external factors. Some abstract objects, such as numbers or propositions, are also considered necessary, but God is distinct in being a conscious, volitional necessary being. From a Christian perspective, God is seen as having created and sustaining the contingent universe of space and time, although this isn’t a commitment exclusive to Christianity.

One core aspect of God’s nature is that He is omniperfect—meaning He possesses omnipotence (all-powerful), omnibenevolence (all-good), and omniscience (all-knowing). This conception, described by St. Anselm as “that than which no greater can be conceived,” is central to the OmniGod thesis. However, some philosophers challenge the coherence of these divine attributes. According to Yujin Nagasawa, criticisms of the OmniGod thesis generally fall into three types:

1. Type A: Some of God’s attributes are internally inconsistent. For example, the paradox of the stone asks if God can create a stone so heavy He cannot lift it, which challenges the concept of omnipotence.
2. Type B: God’s attributes are inconsistent with each other. For instance, omnipotence may conflict with omnibenevolence—if God is all-good, He cannot sin, which limits His omnipotence.
3. Type C: God’s attributes conflict with empirical facts, such as the problem of evil. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, how can He allow evil to exist?

Another important discussion revolves around God’s relationship to abstract objects. If God is necessary and everything depends on God for its existence, then even abstract objects like numbers must depend on Him. However, some philosophers question whether abstract objects should be necessary at all, or if they should exist in every possible world. This brings up the question of how abstract objects, which are immutable and unchanging, can depend on God, especially if both God and these objects are necessary.

The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity (DDS) further complicates this discussion. DDS posits that God has no parts—neither spatial nor temporal—and that God is identical to each of His attributes. This means God does not simply possess omnipotence or omniscience as qualities, but rather, He is omnipotence and omniscience. The implication is that God is self-sufficient, dependent on nothing, but this leads to a philosophical tension. If God is identical to His properties, then He might be reducible to just one abstract property. However, properties, being abstract entities, cannot cause or perform actions. This creates a dilemma in maintaining the view of God as both simple and self-sufficient while still capable of acting in the world.

Raw notes

Characteristics of God  - A necessary being  - A being who exists and could not have failed to exist, or a being who exists in every possible world  - The spatio-temporal universe and everything in it is considered contingent: you and I may not have existed  - Abstract objects (numbers, properties, propositions) exist and are often thought to be necessary  - Created and sustains the continent universe of space and time  - Assumption that God, of his own volition, chose to create our universe (and not others)  - Christian perspective  - Alternatives: universe has always existed, God created more than one universe  - Not commitments of Christianity   - Omniperfect: Omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient  - God is the greatest possible being, or as Anselm says, 'that than which no greater can be conceived'  - Natural to think this must be omniperfect, but can be denied  - God is thought to have these properties necessarily, since they are part of his essence or nature  Anselmian thesis  - God is that than which no greater can be thought  - Entails the omniGod thesis  OmniGod thesis  - God is omniperfect (as we have defined it)  Nagasawa essay  - Notes many philosophers have criticised the OmniGod thesis in a few ways, and Anselmians have then rebutted these case-by-case  - Nag finds this unsatisfactory  - But if the Anselmian thesis does not entail the OmniGod thesis, these attacks do not matter  Three types of attack on Anselmian thesis  - Type A  - One or more of God's attributes are internally inconsistent  - Paradox of the stone (can God create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?)  - Type B   - God's attributes are not consistent with each other  - Omnipotence incompatible with omnibenevolence: latter implies God cannot sin, former implies he could  - Type C  - God's attributes are inconsistent with empirical fact  - Argument from evil  - God knows about evil, can prevent it, chooses not to.  God and other necessary beings  - God is thought to be a necessary being  - If God is the greatest possible being, and a necessary being is greater than a continent being, then God must be necessary  - Anselm's ontological argument implies God is necessary  - Everything depends for its existence on God; so abstract objects depend on their existence on God; but abstract objects are necessary; so God must be necessary too  Second reading  - Many philosophers think that there are no abstract objects, and if so why do they need to be necessary?  - An abstract object in some world cannot change, but why must it exist in every possible world?  - How can you make sense of the idea that abstract objects depend on God if both are necessary?  - X depends on y just if had y not existed, x would not have existed either  - If both x and y are necessary there is no world in which either fails to exist  - Author considers various strategies:   - Restrict the normal analysis to contingent beings  - Deny there are necessary truths  - Play around with semantics  - Does the square root of 2 not depend on 2?  Divine simplicity  - God is thought to be simple  - No parts, spatial or temporal  - Doctrine of Divine Simplicity (DDS)  - God and his essential attributes cannot be distinguished   - God is identical to each of attributes  - God does not exemplify or instantiate omnipotence  - He is omnipotent  - If God had properties in the normal way, he would depend on them  - Yet God is self-sufficient; he depends on nothing  - If DDS is true, then God is identical to his properties, which means that he is exactly one property  - Properties are abstract entities and hence cannot cause things or do anything  - Pressure to regard God as simple and self-sufficient, hence not dependant on anything, but DDS seems to reduce God's properties to one, and that to God