• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Gods omniscience and omnibenevolence are compatible. Discuss.

Extracts from this document...


God?s omniscience and omnibenevolence are compatible. Discuss. A number of philosophical problems are raised by the concept of God being omniscient and omnibenevolent, thus leading to the suggestion that these two attributes of God are incompatible. The most well known problem raised that would suggest the two attributes are not compatible is the problem of evil in the world. If God knows evil things are happening- why would he allow them to happen if he was omnibenevolent? A second argument to suggest that the two are incompatible is that an all-loving God would not punish humans if he was omniscient. Also, as God has not made our nature perfect, it suggests he either does not know how to, or is not loving enough to do so. These three problems suggest that omniscience and omnibenevolence are not compatible. However, if these problems are showed to be flawed, then omniscience and omnibenevolence can indeed be said to be compatible. Determinists argue that if God knows the future it is thus caused by God, so we therefore have no free will. Aquinas supported this view that God?s knowledge causes our choices to happen. Just as a sculptor for instance, has knowledge of her creation before she creates it, God?s knowledge is thus the source of everything. ...read more.


However, this criticism has no solid evidence for it. One cannot assume God can do things we consider to be impossible when we have seen no signs of such occurrences happening in our universe- especially as the argument holds that God is everlasting and thus immanent. Thus it seems fair to conclude that there are two solutions to this philosophical problem that effectively show that omniscience and omnibenevolence are compatible. If a person considers God?s nature to be ?eternal?, then Boethius? argument preserves God?s omniscience while allowing for freewill. If a person considers God?s nature to be ?everlasting?, then Swinburne?s argument does likewise. An argument to suggest that omnibenevolence and omniscience are incompatible can be taken from the work of Descartes in his fourth meditation from ?Meditations on First Philosophy?. As God is perfect, he would not want to deceive us. If God creates us, he is also responsible for our knowledge and judgement. If God does not want to deceive us, this judgement he gives us must be infallible. However, humans constantly make mistakes. Thus, either God is not omniscient so is not able to likewise give humans perfect judgement as he may not have it himself, or God is omniscient, but is not omnibenevolent because he has not granted us with the perfect judgement he possesses. ...read more.


Many philosophers have contemplated this issue. However, I feel the most convincing response to this has been mentioned above- free will. Originally formulated by Iranaeus in his theodicy, he effectively argues that it is most loving to allow humans free will by remaining at an epistemic distance from the Earth, by not interfering with it. Evil is necessary for humans to reject and thus be able to do good. It is also necessary for humans to be able to willingly choose to follow God or not. If God intervened and prevented evil, everyone would be aware of God?s existence, so their free will would be limited, which is not all loving. Thus, God can be omnibenevolent while being omniscient. It seems clear to conclude that God?s omniscience and omnibenevolence are compatible. Every argument put forward to suggest the attributes were incompatible was effectively destroyed, and turned around to show that therefore the two attributes are compatible. Boethius and Swinburne put forward convincing arguments to show that God can be omniscient while humans have free will, thus meaning he is justified in judging us- preserving his omnibenevolence. Descartes and Hegel effectively showed that God can be omniscient and omnibenevolent, despite not giving us perfect judgement. Iranaeus? point about free will also nullifies the problem of evil, showing that omnibenevolence and omniscience are compatible attributes. I therefore agree with the statement. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Christianity section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Christianity essays

  1. The Kingdom of God was the centre of Gods teachings Discuss.

    Since no one no one knows the day or hour when the final accounting will be taking place, there must be constant readiness, as the attendants of the bride waiting bridegroom to arrive at the wedding 9 (Matthew 25:1-13) Some parables illustrate great day of reckoning, when those who merely

  2. Outline the cosmological argument for the existance of God. and plan.

    And this includes the theory of God. Kant refuses to accept God as a satisfactory answer to the universe. Russel describes the universe as a 'brute fact' and says that we have to deal with it. Some people would argue that this is a very immature response to the problem and that to refusing to take the

  1. Outline the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

    He began his argument by saying that even a 'fool' (atheist) can grasp or understand the concept of a being than of 'which nothing greater can be conceived' as they already have an understanding or idea of what it means in their mind.

  2. In what ways might evil and suffering create philosophical problems for people with ...

    Augustine believed that the "ugliness of sin is never without the beauty of punishment In the scientific age of the twenty-first century people no longer believe in angels. The whole idea of the fall is nonsensical and is only fit for a pre-scientific view of the world.

  1. Descartes logically proved the existence of an infinite and truthful being - Discuss.

    In Catholicism the two kinds of sin are Mortal and Venial. Mortal sins are called mortal because what it does is kill your salvation. You must repent a mortal sin to receive God's grace once again. A Venial sin is a less serious one that still lets you receive God's grace.

  2. 1.) Examine the evidence and reasons to support belief in God based on religious ...

    Furthermore, for believers, religious experiences are not random occurrences. They play a crucial part in their lives. The argument is a posteriori. Psychologist Carl Jung said that ?religious experience is absolute, it cannot be disputed. Those who have had it possess a great treasure, a source of life, meaning and

  1. Reasoned arguments cannot account for the amount of evil in the world. Discuss.

    When Job emerges from this extremely trying situation, he emerges as a man who is even more pious and righteous than he was before.

  2. God is responsible for everything that happens in the Universe. Discuss.

    Other people see it differently. They believe that God cannot be blamed for human suffering as often it was humans? own choices that led to their suffering. Earthquakes are natural occurrences and they only affect people who live in earthquake zones and if people voluntarily choose to live there, God

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work