Attributes of God, Research Paper Example

Introduction

There are many conceptions of God that encompass a large number of different belief systems. Many of these conceptions and arguments hinge on the seemingly impossible nature of an all-powerful being. These concepts present certain problems that seem to make the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient God impossible, considering the nature of the observable world. This paper will discuss the benevolent, emotional nature of God and argue that the concept of God as being omnipotent and omniscient is not inconsistent because the nature of God is atemporal.

The Perfection of God and His Temporal Nature

The perfection of God relies on two main concepts: omnipotence and omniscience. Because God is the creator of everything in existence, He would necessarily be knowledgeable about all of creation. In addition, many of the actions that are attributed to God necessarily imply the notion of omniscience as well. For example, the act of prayer is one in which a person may speak to God through thought or private speech. Humans expect God to know and understand everything and it is important to His nature. Additionally, God is omnipotent, meaning that He is capable of creation, destruction, and alteration of anything in existence.

The consistent nature of God rests on His atemporal nature. Humans tend to think about God in the same way that they think about themselves. Richard Dawkins argues, for example, that God could not be omnipotent and omniscient because He could not make a decision, only to change his mind later¹. This would seem to damage the conception of God as omnipotent and omniscient because, if He can make a decision, or take an action, He can not later contradict that decision or action because, to do so, He would either need to be limited in power, or limited in knowledge, in other words, the God who exists in time is not perfect.

Dawkins’ mistake is in assuming that God must exist temporally. It can be countered that God does not exist at one time differently than another. Instead, the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are completely consistent with the notion of an atemporal God, who, instead of seeing one point of time, sees all of time at once, existing outside of the fabric of space time, and being outside of the universe altogether.

This is also more consistent with most concepts of God. He is omniscient as part of His omnipotence, and views the universe in its eternal state rather than it current state from moment to moment. Instead, God sees the acorn, the oak tree, and the stump all at once. In a matter of speaking, He must exist outside of time, and there is no inconsistency about omnipotence and omniscience outside of normal space and time.

The atemporality of God is also key to understanding the eternal consistency of God. He exists unchanging throughout time because he is not subject to time. In a sense, God can not change his mind, at least not in the way that people understand that concept. Instead, if God seeks a change in the universe, he is only omnipotent if he can change the past, and he can only change the past if he exists outside of time. Therefore, just as omnipotence depends on omniscience, it also depends on atemporality.

The Religious Problem of Evil

Even if it is accepted that God is both omnipotent and omnipresent, there is still the Religious Problem of Evil. It is seemingly inconsistent to consider a God who is both capable of preventing evil, capable of predicting evil, and also completely benevolent. Epicurus summed this problem up best when he said

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?”²

The Religious Problem of Evil is one that has been problematic in explanation. It seems that, if God were truly benevolent, He would prevent suffering. His failure to prevent evil, to some, seems to suggest that God either lacks power or lacks interest or benevolence.

To understand the Religious Problem of Evil, it is necessary to understand the nature of evil itself. Moral evil is the evil that is perpetrated by humans against each other. Theft is an example of moral evil, as is murder. Moral evil is seemingly easily explained by God’s gift of free will. Humans are free to make decisions about good and evil on their own, outside of God’s direct control and, therefore, may conduct evil if they so choose³.

The concept of natural evil is harder to explain. Natural evil exists in nature, an example of which would be a hurricane or typhoon. An earthquake that causes damage is outside of the control of any evil person and it is necessarily destructive. Presumably, God could prevent an earthquake and the destruction, suffering, and death that follows. This presents a problem when people try to consider the benevolent nature of God and His inability or unwillingness to prevent what seems like unnecessary suffering on earth.

One answer to the question of evil is the Iranaean Theodicy, which states that experiencing evil is how the human spirit grows. This can account to natural evil and even moral evil. For a spirit to grow and become ready for God, suffering is necessary. In this way, God is providing the means by which people can become more spiritual. The death and destruction that follows from an earthquake may lead people to become more religious, or pray, for example⁴.

An alternate view is that God has created the best possible world. The earthquake, therefore, is a necessary part of the creation of Earth, while hurricanes and tornados result from the necessity of designing Earth to support life. This response is still problematic because it discounts the omnipotence of God. Presumably, an omnipotent God controls the nature of Earth as well as the nature of humanity. God, as an omnipotent being, could design a world that works without natural evil.

This is a question that is difficult to address, and it applies directly to the nature of God as omnipotent and omniscient. Does He lack power and love, or is the apparent evil that is witnessed by humans just part of the plan in some way? It seems reasonable to believe that even a God who is omnipotent would fail to stop natural evil. Those who suffer and die could presumably find happiness in an afterlife. For this reason, the problem of evil is not inconsistent with the concept of God as omnipotent, or even omnibenveolent.

The Mind and Emotions of God

These questions lead to the questions about the nature of God. Does He feel and think like people, or is he some other sort of being entirely. Gregory R. Peterson, in his book Minding God, argues that people must believe in God as a person who shares humanlike qualities in order to conceptualize Him⁵. This is interesting because there is nothing that implies that human conception of God is close to His true nature. If people must alter views of how God exists in time, it seems reasonably to conclude that it may also be necessary to alter the conception of Him as a personal, emotional entity.

Conclusion

It is acceptable to say that God is omniscient and omnipotent, and the real debate lies in human conception of His intentions and His nature. It is not possible or even necessary to understand His personal nature in order to understand God as a concept. Belief systems are build around faith in His benevolence and power, and those belief systems are widespread enough that it seems safe to assume that His nature is benevolent.

Notes

1. Dawkins, Richard The God Delusion (2010) pp 137-181.
2. Baird, Forrest E. and Kaufmann, Walter eds. in Ancient Philosophy Fifth Edition (2008) pp 468.
3. Kellenberger, James Introduction to Philosophy of Religion (2007) pp. 117-118
4. Ibid 123.
5. Peterson, Gregory R. Minding God: Theology and Cognitive Sciences (2003) pp. 183-197

Bibliography

Dawkins, Richard The God Delusion New York, New York: Houghton, Mifflin Company, 2010.

Peterson, Gregory R. “Minding God: Theology and Cognitive Sciences Minneapolis MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2003.

Kellenberger, James Introduction to Philosophy of Religion Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Pretice Hall, 2007.

Baird, Forrest E. and Kaufmann, Walter eds. in Ancient Philosophy Fifth Edition Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Pretice Hall, 2008.