A timeless God makes more sense: God is more transcendent and unchanging- God could not respond to prayer or intervene (divine action) at one moment, as all moments are simultaneously present (Boethius) or equally in him (Anselm), but this fits with our definition of God in terms of perfection, God can be omniscient in the truest sense of the meaning. For every statement that is true, God knows to be true, for every statement this is false, God knows to be false, An eternal God outside of time may be Omniscient, but how could he be Omnipotent if she can not intervene?, If eternal, there's a conflict with free-will, how can we make free-choices if they are pre-ordained, B&A would argue that God knows at the moment we freely choose as every moment is simultaneously present or equally in him., An everlasting God makes more sense: Fits with our idea that God can only do the logically possible. This makes more sense a posteriori and empirically in terms of how we experience linear time., God can intervene, divine action, if God is within time, he can respond to prayer, do miracles, becomes more immanent, knowable and allows for a loving relationship, God can't be truely omniscient or has self-limited his divine foreknowledge. But that's a price worth paying for true free-will and to be immanent., If God is omniscient, he knows all the suffering in the world, if he is within time, then has the ability to stop it, if he sometimes intervenes then he is arbitrary. Prehaps God is omniscient and self limited his powers, but isn't omnipotent or omnibenevolent?,

L33 - AO2 Analyse & Evaluate

by
Print
Embed

Leaderboard

Visual style

Options

Switch template

Continue editing: ?