Download - Divine Simplicity
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
1/69
Divine simplicity
Not to be confused with monotheism .
In theology , the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God
is without parts. The general idea of divine simplicity can be
stated in this way: the being of God is identical to the
"attributes" of God. In other words, such characteristics as
omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc. are identical to
God's being, not qualities that make up that being, nor
abstract entities inhering in God as in a substance.
Varieties of the doctrine may be found in Jewish, Christian,
and Muslim philosophical theologians, especially during the
height of scholasticism, though the doctrine's origins may
be traced back to ancient Greek thought, finding apotheosis
in Plotinus' Enneads as the Simplex. [1][2][3]
In Christian thought
Part of a series on the
Attributes of God
AseityEternity
Graciousness
Holiness
Immanence
Immutability
Impassibility
Impeccability
Incorporeality
Love
Mission
OmnibenevolenceOmnipotence
Omnipresence
Omniscience
Oneness
Providence
Righteousness
Simplicity
Transcendence
Trinity
Veracity
Wrath
v t e
Part of a series on
St. Thomas Aquinas
Thomism
Scholasticism
negative theology
divine simplicity
Quinquae viae
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
2/69
Beatific vision
Actus purus
Sacraments
correspondence theory of truth
hylomorphism
substance theory (Ousia)
accident
substantial form
quiddity ( essence / nature )
peripatetic axiom
principle of double effect
cardinal virtues
theological virtues
intellectual virtues
natural law
just war
just price
concupiscenceWorks
Summa Theologica
Summa contra Gentiles
Contra Errores Graecorum
Commentaries on Aristotle
Influences and people
Aristotle ("The Philosopher")
St. Paul ("The Apostle")
Pseudo-Dionysius
St. Augustine ("The Theologian")
St. BoethiusAvicenna
Peter Lombard ("The Master")
Averroes ("The Commentator")
Maimonides ("Rabbi Moses")
St. Albertus Magnus
Reginald of Piperno
Related
Pange Lingua
Aristotelianism
Dominican Order
School of Salamanca
Catholic theology
Doctor of the Church
Empiricism
Neo-Thomism
terni Patris
Philosophy Portal
Catholicism Portal
v t e
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
3/69
See also: Classical theism , Trinity, and Nontrinitarianism
In Christian theism (to be accurate " Classical theism "), God
is simple , not composite, not made up of thing upon thing .
In other words, the characteristics of God are not parts of
God that together make up God. Because God is simple,
God is those characteristics; for example, God does not
have goodness, but simply is goodness. For typical
Christian theologians, divine simplicity does not entail that
the attributes of God are indistinguishable to thought. It is
no contradiction of the doctrine to say, for example, that
God is both just and merciful. Thomas Aquinas, for
instance, in whose system of thought the idea of divine
simplicity is central, wrote in Summa Theologica that
because God is infinitely simple, God can only appear to the
finite mind as infinitely complex. [ citation needed ]
Theologians holding the doctrine of simplicity tend to
distinguish various modes of the simple being of God by
negating any notion of composition from the meaning ofterms used to describe it. Thus, in quantitative or spatial
terms, God is simple as opposed to being made up of
pieces, present in entirety everywhere, if in fact present
anywhere. In terms of essences, God is simple as opposed
to being made up of form and matter, or body and soul, or
mind and act, and so on: if distinctions are made when
speaking of God's attributes, they are distinctions of the
"modes" of God's being, rather than real or essential
divisions. And so, in terms of subjects and accidents, as in
the phrase "goodness of God", divine simplicity allows that
there is a conceptual distinction between the person of Godand the personal attribute of goodness, but the doctrine
disallows that God's identity or "character" is dependent
upon goodness, and at the same time the doctrine dictates
that it is impossible to consider the goodness in which God
participates separately from the goodness which God is.
Furthermore, according to some, if as creatures our
concepts are all drawn from the creation, it follows from
this and divine simplicity that God's attributes can only be
spoken of by analogysince it is not true of any createdthing that its properties are identical to its being.
Consequently, when Christian Scripture is interpreted
according to the guide of divine simplicity, when it says that
God is good for example, it should be taken to speak of a
likeness to goodness as found in humanity and referred to in
human speech. Since God's essence is inexpressible ; this
likeness is nevertheless truly comparable to God who
simply is goodness, because humanity is a complex being
composed by God "in the image and likeness of God". The
doctrine aids, then, in interpreting the Scriptures so as to
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
4/69
avoid paradoxas when Scripture says, for example, thatthe creation is "very good", and also that "none is good but
God alone"since only God is goodness, while neverthelesshumanity is created in the likeness of goodness (and the
likeness is necessarily imperfect in humanity, unless that
person is also God). This doctrine also helps keep
trinitarianism from drifting into tritheism , which is the belief
in three different gods: the persons of God are not parts or
essential differences, but are rather the way in which the
one God exists personally.
The doctrine has been criticized by some Christian
theologians, including Alvin Plantinga , who in his essay
Does God Have a Nature? calls it "a dark saying indeed." [4]
Plantinga's criticism is based on his interpretation of
Aquinas's discussion of it, from which he concludes that if
God is identical with properties of God such as goodness
etc., then God is a property; and a property is not a person.
Plantinga concludes that divine simplicity does not dojustice to the personal nature of the Christian God. [5]
In Jewish thought
In Jewish philosophy and in Jewish mysticism Divine
Simplicity is addressed via discussion of the attributes
(
) of God, particularly by Jewish philosophers within
the Muslim sphere of influence such as Saadia Gaon , Bahya
ibn Paquda, Yehuda Halevi, and Maimonides , as well by
Raabad III in Provence. A classic expression of this position
is found in Maimonides' Guide to the Perplexed, 'If, however,
you have a desire to rise to a higher state, viz., that of
reflection, and truly to hold the conviction that God is Oneand possesses true unity, without admitting plurality or
divisibility in any sense whatever, you must understand that
God has no essential attribute in any form or in any sense
whatever, and that the rejection of corporeality implies the
rejection of essential attributes. Those who believe that God
is One, and that He has many attributes, declare the unity
with their lips, and assume plurality in their thoughts.' [6]
Some identify Divine simplicity as a corollary of Divine
Creation : "In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth" (Genesis 1:1). God, as creator is by definition
separate from the universe and thus free of any property
(and hence an absolute unity); see Negative theology .
For others, conversely, the axiom of Divine Unity (see
Shema Yisrael ) informs the understanding of Divine
Simplicity. Bahya ibn Paquda ( Duties of the Heart 1:8 )
points out that God's Oneness is "true oneness" (
) as opposed to merely "circumstantial
oneness" (
). He develops this idea to show that
an entity which is truly one must be free of properties and
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
5/69
thus indescribable - and unlike anything else. (Additionally
such an entity would be absolutely unsubject to change, as
well as utterly independent and the root of everything.) [1]
The implication - of either approach - is so strong that the
two concepts are often presented as synonymous: "God is
not two or more entities, but a single entity of a oneness
even more single and unique than any single thing in
creationHe cannot be sub-divided into different partstherefore, it is impossible for Him to be anything other than
one. It is a positive commandment to know this, for it is
written (Deuteronomy 6:4) 'the Lord is our God, the Lord isone'." ( Maimonides, Mishneh Torah , Mada 1:7 .)
Despite its apparent simplicity, this concept is recognised
as raising many difficulties. In particular, insofar as God's
simplicity does not allow for any structureevenconceptuallyDivine simplicity appears to entail thefollowing dichotomy .
On the one hand, God is absolutely simple, containing noelement of form or structure, as above.
On the other hand, it is understood that God's essence
contains every possible element of perfection: "The First
Foundation is to believe in the existence of the Creator,
blessed be He. This means that there exists a Being that
is perfect (complete) in all ways and He is the cause of all
else that exists." ( Maimonides 13 principles of faith , First
Principle ).
The resultant paradox is famously articulated by Moshe
Chaim Luzzatto (Derekh Hashem I:1:5 ), describing the
dichotomy as arising out of our inability to comprehend theidea of absolute unity:
Gods existence is absolutely simple, without combinationsor additions of any kind. All perfections are found in Him in
a perfectly simple manner. However, God does not entail
separate domainseven though in truth there exist in Godqualities which, within us, are separateIndeed the truenature of His essence is that it is a single attribute, (yet)
one that intrinsically encompasses everything that could be
considered perfection. All perfection therefore exists in God,
not as something added on to His existence, but as an
integral part of His intrinsic identityThis is a concept thatis very far from our ability to grasp and imagineThe Kabbalists address this paradox by explaining that
God created a spiritual dimension[through which God]interacts with the Universe... It is this dimension which
makes it possible for us to speak of Gods multifacetedrelationship to the universe without violating the basic
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
6/69
principle of His unity and simplicity(Aryeh Kaplan,Innerspace ). The Kabbalistic approach is explained in
various Chassidic writings; see for example, Shaar
Hayichud , below, for a detailed discussion.
See also: Tzimtzum ; Negative theology ; Jewish principles
of faith; Free will In Jewish thought; Kuzari
See also
Tawhid (the Islamic concept of divine unity)
Ein Sof (A Jewish Kabalistic concept of divine unity)
References
1. ^ Bussanich John, Plotinus's metaphysics of the One
in The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus, ed. Lloyd
P.Gerson, p.42, 1996, Cambridge University Press,
UK. For instances, see Plotinus, Second Ennead,
Fourth Tractate, Section 8 ( Stephen MacKenna 's
translation, Sacred Texts)
2. ^ Plotinus, Fifth Ennead, Fourth Tractate, Section 1
(MacKenna's translation, Sacred Texts)3. ^ Plotinus, Second Ennead, Ninth Tractate, Section 1
(MacKenna's translation, Sacred Texts).
4. ^ Plantinga, Alvin. "Does God Have a Nature?" in
Plantinga, Alvin, and James F. Sennett. 1998. The
analytic theist: an Alvin Plantinga reader . Grand
Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 228. ISBN
0-8028-4229-1 ISBN 978-0-8028-4229-9
5. ^ K. Scott Oliphint in turn criticizes Plantinga for
overlooking the better expressions of divine simplicity ,
saying that his argument is "admirable" as a critique
of the impersonalism of speculative philosophy, but"not so valuable" as a criticism of the Christian
formulation based on verbal revelation. K. Scott
Oliphint, Reasons [for faith]: philosophy in the service
of theology (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian &
Reformed, 2006. ISBN 0-87552-645-4 ISBN
978-0-87552-645-4
6. ^ "Moses Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, Part 1,
chapter 50"
. Friedlnder tr. [1904], at sacred-texts.com.
Retrieved 2013-10-29.
Bibliography
Burell, David. Aquinas: God and Action . London;
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979.
Burell, David. Knowing the Unknowable God: Ibn-Sina,
Maimonides, Aquinas. . Notre Dame: Notre Dame
University Press, 1986.
Leftow, Brian. "Is God and Abstract Object?". Nous. 1990.
Maimonides, Moses. The Guide of the Perplexed , trans. M
Friedlnder. New York: Dover, 1956.
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
7/69
Plantinga, Alvin. Does God Have a Nature? Milwaukee,
WI: Marquette University Press, 1980.
Plato. Parmenides. Many editions.
Plotinus. Enneads V, 4, 1; VI, 8, 17; VI, 9, 9-10. . Many
editions.
Pseudo-Dionysius. The Divine Names in Pseudo-
Dionysius: The Complete Works , trans. Colm Luibheid.
New York: Paulist Press, 1987.
Stump, Eleonore and Kretzmann, Norman. AbsoluteSimplicity. Faith and Philosophy. 1985.Thomas Aquinas. On Being and Essence ( De Esse et
Essentia ), 2nd ed., trans. Armand Maurer, CSB. Toronto:
Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1968.
Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica I, Q. 3, A. 3 "On the
Simplicity of God". Many editions.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. "Divine Simplicity". Philosophical
Perspectives 5: Philosophy of Religion. Atascadero,
Calif.: Ridgeview Publishing, 1991, 531-52.External links
General
Divine Simplicity , Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy
God and Other Necessary Beings , Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Making Sense of Divine Simplicity (PDF ), Jeffrey E.
Brower, Purdue University
Christian material
On Three Problems of Divine Simplicity , Alexander R.
Pruss, Georgetown UniversitySt. Thomas Aquinas: The Doctrine of Divine
Simplicity
, Michael Sudduth, Analytic Philosophy of Religion
Jewish material
"Paradoxes", in "The Aryeh Kaplan Reader", Aryeh
Kaplan , Artscroll 1983, ISBN 0-89906-174-5
"Innerspace", Aryeh Kaplan, Moznaim Pub. Corp.
1990, ISBN 0-940118-56-4
Understanding God , Ch2. in "The Handbook of Jewish
Thought", Aryeh Kaplan, Moznaim 1979, ISBN
0-940118-49-1
Shaar HaYichud - The Gate of Unity , Dovber Schneuri
- A detailed explanation of the paradox of divine
simplicity.
Chovot ha-Levavot 1:8 , Bahya ibn Paquda - Online
class , Yaakov Feldman
v t e
Theology
Outline
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
8/69
Conceptions of God Theism Existence of God
God as
the Devil
Sustainer
Time
God in
the Abrahamic religions
the Bah'Faith
Buddhism
Christianity
Hinduism
Islam
Jainism
Judaism
Sikhism
Zoroastrianism
more...
Names of God inChristianity
Hinduism
Islam
Jainism
Judaism
more...
Theism
Deity
Divinity
Numen
MaleFemale
Gender
Deism
Dystheism
Henotheism
Hermeticism
Kathenotheism
Nontheism
Monolatrism
Monotheism
Mysticism
Panentheism
Pandeism
Pantheism
Polydeism
Polytheism
Spiritualism
Theopanism
more...
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
9/69
Singular God
Absolute
Brahman
Emanationism
Logos
Supreme Being
more...
Trinitarianism
Athanasian Creed
Comma Johanneum
Consubstantiality
Homoousian
Hypostasis
Perichoresis
Shield of the Trinity
Trinitarian formula
Trinity
Trinity of the Church FathersTrinitarian Universalism
more...
Other conceptions
Aristotelian view
Attributes of God in Christianity / in Islam
Binitarianism
Demiurge
Divine simplicity
Divine presence
Egotheism
Godhead in ChristianityLatter-Day Saints
Great Architect of the Universe
Great Spirit
Apophatic theology
Olelbis
Open theism
Personal god
Phenomenological definition
Philo's view
Sarav vipakTaryenyawagon
The All
Tian
Unmoved mover
more...
Existence of God
Against
Arguments from
Free will
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
10/69
Inconsistent revelation
Nonbelief
Poor design
Other arguments
God of the gaps
Incompatible properties
Noncognitivism
Omnipotence paradox
Problem of evil
Problem of Hell
more...
For
Arguments from
Beauty
Consciousness
Degree
Desire
LoveMiracles
Morality
Proper basis
Reason
Religious experience
Other arguments
Christological
Cosmological
Ontological
Pascal's wager
TeleologicalTrademark
Transcendental
Witness
more...
Apologetics Criticism Opposition
Persecution
Apologetics
General
List of apologetic works
Polemic
Positive deconstruction
more...
Christian
Apologists
List of works
Ecumenical
Presuppositional
Epistle to Diognetus
Trilemma
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
11/69
Urmonotheismus
more...
Other faiths
Bah'
Muslim apologists
Criticism of
Buddhism
Christianity
Hinduism
Islam
Jainism
Judaism
Opposition to
Christianity
Catholicism
Protestantism
Anti-Christian sentiment
GnosticismHinduism
Islam
Judaism
Cults / New religious movements
more...
Persecution of
Buddhists
Christians
Muslims
Zoroastrians
Related topicsDisengagement from religion
Secularism
Separation of church and state
Eschatology
By faith
Buddhist
Christian
Hindu
Islamic
Jewish
Taoist
Zoroastrian
Topics
Afterlife
Apocalypticism
Doomsday films
Ghosts
Ghost Dance movement
Heaven
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
12/69
Personifications of death
more...
Theologies
Christian
History
Outline
Biblical canon
Glossary
Christology
Cosmology
Ecclesiology
Ethics
Hamartiology
Law
Messianism
Movements
Nestorianism
New TestamentOld Testament
Philosophy
Practical
Sophiology
Soteriology
more...
Feminist
Buddhism
Christianity
Hinduism
IslamJudaism
Mormonism
Goddesses
more...
Hindu
Philosophical concepts
Ayyavazhi theology
Krishnology
more...
Islamic
Oneness of God
Prophets
Holy Scriptures
Angels
Predestination
Last Judgment
more...
Jewish
Abrahamic prophecy
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
13/69
Aggadah
Denominations
Kabbalah
Philosophy
Other
Death of God
Exotheology
Holocaust
Pope Pius XII
Process
More...
Education People and resources
Seminaries and
theological colleges
Anglican
Buddhist
Eastern Orthodox
EvangelicalIslamic
Jewish
Lutheran
Madrassas
Methodist
Reformed Church
Roman Catholic
more...
Schools by affiliation
Anglican
Assemblies of GodBah'
Buddhist
Baptist
Eastern Orthodox
Hindu
Islamic
Jewish
Latter Day Saints
Lutheran
Mennonite
Methodist
Nondenominational Christian
Presbyterian
Quaker
Roman Catholic
Seventh-Day Adventist
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
14/69
Divine retribution
For the TV series, see Divine Retribution (TV series) .
Part of a series on the
Attributes of God
Aseity
Eternity
Graciousness
Holiness
Immanence
Immutability
Impassibility
Impeccability
Incorporeality
Love
MissionOmnibenevolence
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Omniscience
Oneness
Providence
Righteousness
Simplicity
Transcendence
Trinity
VeracityWrath
v t e
Divine retribution is supernatural punishment of a person, a
group of people, or everyone by a deity in response to some
action. Many cultures have a story about how a deity
exacted punishment on previous inhabitants of their land,
causing their doom.
An example of divine retribution is the story found in many
cultures about a great flood destroying all of humanity, as
described in the Epic of Gilgamesh , the Hindu Vedas , or
Book of Genesis (6:9-8:22), leaving one principal 'chosen'
survivor. In the former example it is Utnapishtim , and in the
latter example Noah . References in the Qur'an to a man
named Nuh who was commanded by God to build an ark
also suggest that one man and his followers were saved in
a great flood.
Other examples in Hebrew religious literature include the
dispersion of the builders of the Tower of Babel (Genesis
11:1-9), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
15/69
18:20-21, 19:23-28), and the Ten Plagues visited upon the
ancient Egyptians for persecuting the children of Israel
(Exodus, Chapters 7-12). Similarly, in Greek mythology , the
goddess Hera often became enraged when her husband,
Zeus , would impregnate mortal women, and would exact
divine retribution on the children born of such affairs. In
some versions of the myth, Medusa was turned into her
monstrous form as divine retribution for her vanity; in
others it was as punishment for being raped by Poseidon.
In most cases, the Bible refers to be divine retribution as
being delayed or "treasured up" to a future time. [1] Sight of
God's supernatural works and retribution would mitigate
against faith in God's Word. [2]
Divine retribution is aligned with divine vengeance . [3]
Almighty God alone is a just judge. [4] Delayed judgment
will eventually become eternally displayed. [5]
The wrath of God is aligned with God's nature where He
loves righteousness and hates wickedness. [6] The wrath ofGod is closely associated with Divine administration of
justice . The wrath of God is commonly contrasted with the
love of God .
Some religions have no concept of divine retribution, or of a
god being capable of expressing such low human
sentiments as jealousy, vengeance, or wrath. For example,
in Deism and Pandeism , the Creator has no need to
intervene in our Universe at all, and so exhibits no such
behavior. In Pantheism (as reflected in Pandeism as well),
God is the Universe and encompasses everything within it,
and so has no need for retribution, as all things againstwhich retribution might be taken are simply within God.
This view is reflected in some pantheistic or pandeistic
forms of Hinduism, as well.
The concept of divine retribution is resolutely denied in
Buddhism. Gautama Buddha did not endorse belief in a
creator deity , [7][8] refused to express any views on creation
[9] and stated that questions on the origin of the world are
worthless. [10][11] The non-adherence [12] to the notion of
an omnipotent creator deity or a prime mover is seen by
many as a key distinction between Buddhism and other
religions.
But Buddhists do accept the existence of beings in higher
realms (see Buddhist cosmology ), known as devas, but
they, like humans, are said to be suffering in samsara , [13]
and are not necessarily wiser than us. The Buddha is often
portrayed as a teacher of the gods, [14] and superior to
them. [15] Despite this there are believed to be enlightened
devas. [16] But since there may also be unenlightened
devas, there also may be godlike beings who engage in
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
16/69
retributive acts, but if they do so, then they do so out of their
own ignorance of a greater truth.
Despite this nontheism , Buddhism nevertheless fully
accepts the theory of karma , which posts punishment-like
effects, such as rebirths in realms of torment , as a
consequence of wrongful actions. Unlike in most Abrahamic
monotheistic religions, these effects are not eternal, though
they can last for a very long time. Due to nontheism, these
are not punishment as in something imposed by an
authority from above, rather they are regarded as a natural
consequence of wrongful action.
"Wrath of God"
"The wrath of God", an anthropomorphic expression for the
attitude which some believe God has towards sin, [17] is
mentioned many times in the Christian Bible . Leaving aside
the references to it in the Old Testament , where it is used of
God not only when punishing the wicked but also when
sending trials to the just, as in Job 14:13 , it is mentioned inat least twenty verses of the New Testament . Examples are:
John 3:36 - Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life;
whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the
wrath of God remains on him.
Romans 1:18 - For the wrath of God is revealed from
heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of
men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Romans 5:9 - Since, therefore, we have now been justified
by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from
the wrath of God.
Romans 12:19 - Beloved, never avenge yourselves, butleave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance
is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
Ephesians 5:6 - Let no one deceive you with empty
words, for because of these things the wrath of God
comes upon the sons of disobedience.
Revelation 6:17 - For the great day of his wrath has
come, and who is able to withstand?
Revelation 14:19 - So the angel swung his sickle across
the earth and gathered the grape harvest of the earth and
threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.
Revelation 15:1 - Then I saw another sign in heaven,
great and marvelous: seven angels having the seven last
plagues, for in them the wrath of God was finished.
Revelation 19:15 - From his mouth comes a sharp sword
with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule
them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the
fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.
The New Testament associates the wrath of God
particularly with imagery of the Last Day, described
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
17/69
allegorically in Romans 2:5 as the "day of wrath", and the
Book of Revelation .
Divine Retribution in the Pentateuch
Divine retribution is easily seen in the Pentateuch or first
five books of the Bible which set a hermeneutical
foundation of the other Bible books. Major examples of
divine retribution in the Pentateuch include:
Biblical passages
incident
reason
Genesis 3:14-24
Curse upon Adam and Eve and their expulsion from the
Garden of Eden
disobedience and excuses including blaming God
Genesis 4:9-15
Curse upon Cain after his slaying of his brother, Abel
deceit, murder, lies
Genesis 6-7The destruction of the Great Flood
rampant evil and Nephalim
Genesis 11:1-9
The confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel
impiety on a massive scale
Genesis 19:23-29
Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
people of no redeeming value
Genesis 38:6-10
Destruction of Er and Onan
wickedness in the Lord's sightExodus 7-14
Plagues of Egypt
to establish his power over that of the gods of Egypt
Exodus 19:10-25
Divine threatenings at Mount Sinai
warn that the mountain is off limits and holy
Exodus 32
Plagues at the incident of the golden calf
disowning the people for breaking his covenant with them
Leviticus 10:1-2
Nadab and Abihu are burned
offering unauthorized fire in their censers
Leviticus 26:14-39
Curses upon the disobedient
divine warning
Numbers 11
A plague accompanies the giving of quail meat in the
wilderness
rejecting his gracious gift of heavenly food and failing his
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
18/69
test of obedience
Numbers 16
The rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram - Their
supernatural deaths and the plague that followed
insolence and attempting self-promotion to roles they were
unworthy of holding
Numbers 20:9-13
Reprimand of Moses at the water of Meribah
disobeying the Lord's instruction, showing distrust and
indfference in God's presence
Numbers 21
Murmuring of the people and the plague of fiery serpents
spurning God's grace
Numbers 25
Whoredom with the Moabites and resulting plague
breaching God's covenant through sexual immorality and
worshipping other gods
Deuteronomy 28Curses pronounced upon the disobedient
another divine warning
Other notable biblical retributions
The Bible being full of cases of divine retribution, some
instances are particularly notable for heralding in new eras,
while others were meant to serve as abject lessons in
dealing with God and keeping faithful to his commands.
Biblical passages
Incident
Reason
(1 Samuel 6:19)some/many men of Beth Shemesh killed
looking into the ark of the covenant thus displaying
irreverent curiosity
(2 Samuel 6:1-7)
Uzzah struck dead after touching the Ark of the covenant
despite good intentions he was in clear violation of the
instructions given on how to deal with the object
(1 Kings 11)
God promises to tear Solomon's kingdom from his son
except for a single tribe.
Idolatry and unrepentance.
(Acts 5:1)
Ananias and his wife Sapphira struck dead
committed the first recorded sin of the new church by
pretending to be generous and lying to The Holy Spirit
about an offering.
Culture
Divine retribution is the driving force [ citation needed ] of
Shakespeare 's War of the Roses tetralogy, comprising the
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
19/69
plays 1 Henry VI, 2 Henry VI, 3 Henry VI and Richard III, in
which the House of York and Lancaster are made to atone
for the sin of deposing Richard II.
Divine providence
Part of a series on the
Attributes of God
Aseity
Eternity
Graciousness
Holiness
Immanence
Immutability
ImpassibilityImpeccability
Incorporeality
Love
Mission
Omnibenevolence
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Omniscience
Oneness
Providence
RighteousnessSimplicity
Transcendence
Trinity
Veracity
Wrath
v t e
In theology , divine providence , or providence , is God's
intervention in the world. "Divine Providence" (usually
capitalized) is also used as a title of God . A distinction is
usually made between "general providence", which refers to
God's continuous upholding the existence and natural order
of the universe , and "special providence", which refers to
God's extraordinary intervention in the life of people. [1]
Etymology
The word comes from Latin providentia "foresight,
prudence ", from pro- "ahead" + videre "to see". The current
use of the word has the sense of "knowledge of the future"
or omniscience , understood as an attribute of God.
Catholic theology
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
20/69
Eye of Providence
Augustine of Hippo is perhaps most famously associated
with the doctrine of Divine Providence in the Latin West.
However, Christian teaching on providence in the high
Middle Ages was most fully developed by Thomas Aquinas
in the Summa Theologica . The concept of providence as
care exercised by God over the universe , his foresight and
care for its future is extensively developed and explained
both by Aquinas himself and modern Thomists. One of the
foremost modern Thomists, Dominican father Reginald
Garrigou-Lagrange , wrote a study of providence entitled
"Providence: God's loving care for man and the need for
confidence in Almighty God." In it, he presents and solves,
according to Catholic doctrine, the most difficult issues as
related to providence.
Reformed theology
See also: Reformed theology
This term is an integral part of John Calvin's theologicalframework known as Calvinism , which emphasizes the total
depravity of man and the complete sovereignty of God.
God's plan for the world and every soul that he has created
is guided by his will, or providence. According to Calvin, the
idea that man has free will and is able to make choices
independently of what God has already determined is based
on our limited understanding of God's perfection and the
delusion that God's purposes can be circumvented. [ citation
needed ] In this mode of thought, providence is related to
predestination . This concept remains prominent among
many Protestant denominations that identify with Calvinism,the Reformed churches .
Lutheran theology
See also: Lutheranism
In Lutheran theology, divine providence refers to God's
preservation of creation , his cooperation with everything
that happens, and his guiding of the universe. [2] While God
cooperates with both good and evil deeds, with the evil
deeds he does so only inasmuch as they are deeds, not with
the evil in them. God concurs with an act's effect, but he
does not cooperate in the corruption of an act or the evil of
its effect. [3] Lutherans believe everything exists for the
sake of the Christian Church, and that God guides
everything for its welfare and growth. [4]
According to Martin Luther , divine providence began when
God created the world with everything needed for human
life, including both physical things and natural laws . [5] In
Luther's Small Catechism , the explanation of the first article
of the Apostles' Creed declares that everything people have
that is good is given and preserved by God, either directly or
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
21/69
through other people or things. [6] Of the services others
provide us through family, government , and work, he writes,
"we receive these blessings not from them, but, through
them, from God." [7] Since God uses everyone's useful tasks
for good, people should look not down upon some useful
vocations as being less worthy than others. Instead people
should honor others, no matter how lowly, as being the
means God uses to work in the world. [7]
Swedenborgian theology
See also: The New Church
Divine Providence is a book published by Emanuel
Swedenborg in 1764 which describes his systematic
theology regarding providence, free will, theodicy , and other
related topics. Both meanings of providence are applicable
in Swedenborg's theology, in that providence encompasses
understanding, intent and action. Divine providence relative
to man is 'foresight', and relative to the Lord is 'providence'.
[8] Swedenborg proposes that one law of divine providenceis that man should act from freedom according to reason,
and that man is regenerated according to the faculties of
rationality and liberty. [9]
In Jewish thought
Main article: Divine providence (Judaism)
Divine providence (Hebrew
Hashgochoh
Protis / Hashgachah Pratit lit. [Divine] supervision of the
individual) is discussed throughout Rabbinic literature , and
in particular by the classical Jewish philosophers. These
writings maintain that Divine Providence means that God is
directing (or even recreating) every minute detail ofcreation. This analysis thus underpins much of Orthodox
Judaism 's world view , particularly as regards questions of
interaction with the natural world.
Specific examples
The text of Scripture
Those who believe in the inerrancy of the original biblical
manuscripts , often accompany this belief with a statement
about how the biblical text has been preserved so that what
we have today is at least substantially similar to what was
written. That is, just as God "divinely inspired the text," so
he has also "divinely preserved it throughout the
centuries." [10] The Westminster Confession of Faith states
that the Scriptures, "being immediately inspired by God, and
by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages,
are therefore authentical." [11]
This is an important argument in the King James Only
debates: Edward F. Hills argues that the principle of
providentially preserved transmission guarantees that the
printed Textus Receptus must be the closest text to the
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
22/69
Greek autographs.
Omnibenevolence
Omnibenevolence (from Latin omni - meaning "all", and
benevolent , meaning "good") [1] is defined by the Oxford
English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence ". It
is often held to be impossible, or at least improbable, for a
deity to exhibit such property alongside omniscience and
omnipotence as a result of the problem of evil . However,
some philosophers, such as Alvin Plantinga , argue the
plausibility of co-existence . The word is primarily used as a
technical term within academic literature on the philosophy
of religion , mainly in context of the problem of evil and
theodical responses to such. Although even in said contexts
the phrases "perfect goodness" or "moral perfection" areoften preferred because of the difficulties in defining what
exactly constitutes 'infinite benevolence'.
Philosophical perspectives
The term is patterned on, and often accompanied by, the
terms omniscience and omnipotence , typically to refer to
conceptions of an "all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful"
deity. Philosophers and theologians more commonly use
phrases like "perfectly good", [2] or simply the term
"benevolence". The word "omnibenevolence" may be
interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful,
or any number of other qualities, depending on preciselyhow "good" is understood. As such, there is little agreement
over how an "omnibenevolent" being would behave.
The notion of an omnibenevolent, infinitely compassionate
deity, has raised certain atheistic objections, such as the
problem of evil and the problem of hell . Responses to such
problems are called theodicies and can be general, arguing
for the coherence of the divine, such as Swinburne 's
Providence and the Problem of Evil , or they can address a
specific problem, such as Charles Seymour's A Theodicy of
Hell.
Proponents of Pandeism contend that benevolence (much
less omnibenevolence) is simply not required to account for
any property of our Universe, as a morally neutral deity
which was powerful enough to have created our Universe as
we experience it would be, by definition, able to have
created our Universe as we experience it.
Religious perspectives
Part of a series on the
Attributes of God
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
23/69
Aseity
Eternity
Graciousness
Holiness
Immanence
Immutability
Impassibility
Impeccability
Incorporeality
Love
Mission
Omnibenevolence
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Omniscience
Oneness
Providence
RighteousnessSimplicity
Transcendence
Trinity
Veracity
Wrath
v t e
The acknowledgement of God's omnibenevolence is an
essential foundation in traditional Christianity; this can be
seen in Scriptures such as Psalms 18:30: "As for God, his
way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler
to all those that trust in him," and Ps.19:7: "The law of theLord is good, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord
is sure, making wise the simple." This understanding is
evident in the following statement by the First Vatican
Council [ original research? ] :
The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church
believes and acknowledges that there is one true and
living God, Creator and Lord of Heaven and earth,
almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible,
infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.
Since He is one, singular, completely simple and
unchangeable spiritual substance, He must be declared
to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world,
supremely happy in Himself and from Himself, and
inexpressibly loftier than anything besides Himself
which either exists or can be imagined. [3]
The philosophical justification stems from God's aseity : the
non-contingent, independent and self-sustained mode of
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
24/69
existence that theologians ascribe to God. For if He was not
morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but
nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would
involve an element of contingency, because one could
always conceive of a being of greater benevolence. [4]
Theologians in the Wesleyan Christian tradition (see
Thomas Jay Oord ) argue that omnibenevolence is God's
primary attribute . As such, God's other attributes should be
understood in light of omnibenevolence. Christians believe
in the idea of unconditional love.
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While
we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8 NIV)
Islam does not hold to the idea of omnibenevolence: [5]
"God loves not the unbelievers" (Sura 3:33)
"God loves not the impious and sinners" (Sura 2:277)
"God loves not evildoers" (Sura 3:58)
"God loves not the proud" (Sura 4:37)
"God loves not transgressors" (Sura 5:88)"God loves not the prodigal" (Sura 6:142)
"God loves not the treacherous" (Sura 8:59)
"God is an enemy to unbelievers" (Sura 2:99)
Rather, God has a conditional love of the elect:
"If you should love God, then follow me, God will love you
and forgive you your sins." (Sura 3:31)
"Work and God will surely see your work." (Sura 9:105)
"Every soul shall be paid in full for what it has
earned." (Sura 2:282)
"Those who believe and do deeds of righteousness and
perform the prayer and pay the alms--their wage awaitsthem with the Lord." (Sura 2:278)
"To those who believe and do righteousness, God will
assign love." (Sura 19:97)
Etymology
"Omnibenevolence" appears to have a very casual usage
among some Protestant Christian commentators. The
earliest record for its use in English, according to the Oxford
English Dictionary, is in 1679. The Catholic Church does not
appear to use the term "omnibenevolent" in the liturgy or
Catechism .
Modern users of the term include George H. Smith in his
book Atheism: The Case Against God (1980), [6] where he
argued that divine qualities are inconsistent. However, the
term is also used by authors who defend the coherence of
divine attributes, including but not limited to, Jonathan
Kvanvig in The Problem of Hell (1993), [7] and Joshua
Hoffman and Gary Rosenkrantz in The Divine Attributes
(2002).
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
25/69
Omnipotence
Omnipotence (from Latin : Omni Potens : "all power") is
unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute
omnipotence to only the deity of whichever faith is being
addressed. In the monotheistic philosophies of Abrahamic
religions, omnipotence is often listed as one of a deity's
characteristics among many, including omniscience ,
omnipresence , and omnibenevolence . The presence of all
these properties in a single entity has given rise to
considerable theological debate, the problem of theodicy
prominently included.
Meanings
The term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of
different positions. These positions include, but are not
limited to, the following:1. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do. [1]
2. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its
own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical
consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is
truth, then it is not able to lie ).
3. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent
and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go
against its own laws unless there was a reason to do
so. [2]
4. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its
omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.5. Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being
performed by the deity, either due to omni-
immanence, or because all actions must be
'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity.
Under many philosophical definitions of the term "deity",
senses 2, 3 and 4 can be shown to be equivalent. However,
on all understandings of omnipotence, it is generally held
that a deity is able to intervene in the world by superseding
the laws of physics, since they are not part of its nature, but
the principles on which it has created the physical world.
However many modern scholars (such as John
Polkinghorne) hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be
consistent and that it would be inconsistent for a deity to go
against its own laws unless there were an overwhelming
reason to do so. [2]
The word "Omnipotence" derives from the Latin term " Omni
Potens ", meaning "All-Powerful" instead of "Infinite Power"
implied by its English counterpart. The term could be
applied to both deities and Roman Emperors. Being the one
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
26/69
with "All the power", it was not uncommon for nobles to
attempt to prove their Emperor's " Omni Potens " to the
people, by demonstrating his effectiveness at leading the
Empire. [3]
Scholastic definition
Part of a series on the
Attributes of God
Aseity
Eternity
Graciousness
Holiness
Immanence
Immutability
Impassibility
Impeccability
Incorporeality
Love
MissionOmnibenevolence
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Omniscience
Oneness
Providence
Righteousness
Simplicity
Transcendence
Trinity
VeracityWrath
v t e
Thomas Aquinas acknowledged difficulty in comprehending
a deity's power. Aquinas wrote:
"all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to
explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists."
In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally
understood to be compatible with certain limitations or
restrictions. A proposition that is necessarily true is one
whose negation is self-contradictory.
"It is sometimes objected that this aspect of omnipotence
involves the contradiction that God cannot do all that He
can do; but the argument is sophistical; it is no
contradiction to assert that God can realize whatever is
possible, but that no number of actualized possibilities
exhausts His power. Omnipotence is perfect power, free
from all mere potentiality. Hence, although God does not
bring into external being all that He is able to accomplish,
His power must not be understood as passing through
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
27/69
successive stages before its effect is accomplished. The
activity of God is simple and eternal, without evolution or
change. The transition from possibility to actuality or from
act to potentiality, occurs only in creatures. When it is said
that God can or could do a thing, the terms are not to be
understood in the sense in which they are applied to
created causes, but as conveying the idea of a Being
possessed of infinite unchangeable power, the range of
Whose activity is limited only by His sovereign Will".
"Power", says St. Thomas
"is not attributed to God as a thing really different from His
Knowledge and Will, but as something expressed by a
different concept, since power means that which executes
the command of the will and the advice of the intellect.
These three (viz., intellect, will, power), coincide with one
another in God". (Summa, I, Q. xxv, a. 1, ad 4).
Omnipotence is all-sufficient power. The adaptation of
means to ends in the universe does not argue, as J.S. Millwould have it, that the power of the designer is limited, but
only that God has willed to manifest His glory by a world so
constituted rather than by another. Indeed the production of
secondary causes, capable of accomplishing certain effects,
requires greater power than the direct accomplishment of
these same effects. On the other hand even though no
creature existed, God's power not be barren, for "creatures
are not an end to God." Summa Theologica upon a deity's
power, as opposed to implying infinite number of contingent
kinds of abilities: there are certain things, however trivial or
absurd, that even an omnipotent deity cannot do. Medievaltheologians drew attention to some of the fairly trivial
examples of restrictions upon the power of a deity. So, the
statement "a deity can do anything" is only sensible with an
assumed suppressed clause, "that implies the perfection of
true power". This standard scholastic answer allows that
creaturely acts such as walking can be performed by
humans but not by a deity. Rather than an advantage in
power, human acts such as walking, sitting or giving birth
were possible only because of a defect in human power. The
ability to 'sin ', for example, is not a power but a defect or an
infirmity. In response to questions of a deity performing
impossibilities (such as making square circles) Aquinas
says that "Nothing which implies contradiction falls under
the omnipotence of God". [4]
In recent times, C. S. Lewis has adopted a scholastic
position in the course of his work The Problem of Pain .
Lewis follows Aquinas' view on contradiction:
His Omnipotence means power to do all that is
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
28/69
intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically
impossible. You may attribute miracles to him,
but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If
you choose to say 'God can give a creature free
will and at the same time withhold free will from
it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything
about God: meaningless combinations of words
do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because
we prefix to them the two other words 'God
can.'... It is no more possible for God than for
the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of
two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because
his power meets an obstacle, but because
nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk
it about God.
Lewis, 18
In psychologyEarly Freudianism saw a feeling of omnipotence as intrinsic
to early childhood. 'As Freud and Ferenczi have shown, the
child lives in a sort of megalomania for a long period...the
"fiction of omnipotence"'. [5] At birth. 'the baby is everything
as far as he knows - "all powerful"...every step he takes
towards establishing his own limits and boundaries will be
painful because he'll have to lose this original God-like
feeling of omnipotence'. [6]
Freud considered that in a neurotic 'the omnipotence which
he ascribed to his thoughts and feelings...is a frank
acknowledgement of a relic of the old megalomania ofinfancy'. [7] In some narcissists , the 'period of primary
narcissism which subjectively did not need any objects and
was entirely independent...may be retained or regressively
regained..."omnipotent" behavior'. [8]
D. W. Winnicott took a more positive view of a belief in early
omnipotence, seeing it as essential to the child's well-
being; and "good-enough" mothering as essential to enable
the child to 'cope with the immense shock of loss of
omnipotence' [9] - as opposed to whatever 'prematurely
forces it out of its narcissistic universe'. [10]
Rejection or limitation
Some monotheists reject the view that a deity is or could be
omnipotent, or take the view that, by choosing to create
creatures with freewill, a deity has chosen to limit divine
omnipotence. In Conservative and Reform Judaism , and
some movements within Protestant Christianity, including
process theology and open theism , deities are said to act in
the world through persuasion, and not by coercion (for open
theism, this is a matter of choicea deity could act
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
29/69
miraculously, and perhaps on occasion does sowhile forprocess theism it is a matter of necessitycreatures haveinherent powers that a deity cannot, even in principle,
override). Deities are manifested in the world through
inspiration and the creation of possibility, not necessarily by
miracles or violations of the laws of nature.
The rejection of omnipotence often follows from either
philosophical or scriptural considerations, discussed below.
Philosophical grounds
Process theology rejects unlimited omnipotence on a
philosophical basis, arguing that omnipotence as
classically understood would be less than perfect, and is
therefore incompatible with the idea of a perfect deity. The
idea is grounded in Plato's oft-overlooked statement that
"being is power."
My notion would be, that anything which
possesses any sort of power to affect another, orto be affected by another, if only for a single
moment, however trifling the cause and however
slight the
effect, has real existence; and I hold that the
definition of being is simply power.
Plato, 247E [11]From this premise, Charles Hartshorne argues further that:
Power is influence, and perfect power is perfect
influence ... power must be exercised uponsomething, at least if by power we mean
influence, control; but the something controlled
cannot be absolutely inert, since the merely
passive, that which has no active tendency of its
own, is nothing; yet if the something acted upon
is itself partly active, then there must be some
resistance, however slight, to the "absolute"
power, and how can power which is resisted be
absolute?
Hartshorne, 89The argument can be stated as follows:
1) If a being exists, then it must have some active
tendency.
2) If a being has some active tendency, then it has some
power to resist its creator.
3) If a being has the power to resist its creator, then the
creator does not have absolute power.
For example, though someone might control a lump of jelly-
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
30/69
pudding almost completely, the inability of that pudding to
stage any resistance renders that person's power rather
unimpressive. Power can only be said to be great if it is
over something that has defenses and its own agenda. If a
deity's power is to be great, it must therefore be over beings
that have at least some of their own defenses and agenda.
Thus, if a deity does not have absolute power, it must
therefore embody some of the characteristics of power, and
some of the characteristics of persuasion. This view is
known as dipolar theism .
The most popular works espousing this point are from
Harold Kushner (in Judaism). The need for a modified view
of omnipotence was also articulated by Alfred North
Whitehead in the early 20th century and expanded upon by
the aforementioned philosopher Charles Hartshorne.
Hartshorne proceeded within the context of the theological
system known as process theology.
Scriptural groundsIn the Authorized King James Version of the Bible , as well
as several other versions, in Revelation 19:6 it is stated
"...the Lord God omnipotent reigneth" (the original Greek
word is , "all-mighty"). [12] Although much ofthe narrative of the Old Testament describes the Judeo-
Christian God as interacting with creation primarily through
persuasion, and only occasionally through force. However,
it could further be argued that the ability to conflict with
truth is not an appropriate representation of accepted
definitions of power , which negates the assertion that a
deity does not have infinite powers.Many other verses in the Christian Bible do assert
omnipotence of its deity without actually using the word
itself. There are several mentions of the Christian deity
being referred to as simply "Almighty", showing that the
Christian Bible supports the belief of an omnipotent deity.
Some such verses are listed below:
Psalms 33:8-9: Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the
inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spoke,
and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
Genesis 17:1: And when Abram was ninety years old and
nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am
the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. (The
Hebrew word used here is "shadday") [13]
Jeremiah 32:27: Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh:
is there any thing too hard for me?
At his command a storm arose and covered the sea. ( Psalm
107:25)
Several parts of the New Testament claim Jesus to be one
with the Father, who is omnipotent, and others show Jesus
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
31/69
to have some separation from the Father and even self-
imposed limitations on his power. (Gospel of John)
Paradoxes
Main article: Omnipotence paradox
Some believe that omnipotence in any form can arguably be
disproved. A classical example goes as follows:
"Can a deity create a rock so heavy that even the deity
itself cannot lift it? If so, then the rock is now unliftable,
limiting the deity's power. But if not, then the deity is still
not omnipotent because it cannot create that rock." [14]
Augustine, in his City of God , argued, instead, that God
could not do anything that would make God non-
omnipotent:
For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing
what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He
wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no
means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do somethings for the very reason that He is omnipotent. [15]
Uncertainty and other views
All the above stated claims of power are each based on
scriptual grounds and upon empirical human perception.
This perception is limited to our senses . The power of a
deity is related to its existence.There are however other
ways of perception like: reason , intuition , revelation , divine
inspiration , religious experience , mystical states, and
historical testimony.
According to the Hindu philosophy the essence of God orBrahman can never be understood or known since Brahman
is beyond both existence and non-existence, transcending
and including time, causation and space, and thus can
never be known in the same material sense as one
traditionally 'understands' a given concept or object. [16]
So presuming there is a god-like entity consciently taking
actions, we cannot comprehend the limits of a deity's
powers. [17]
Since the current laws of physics are only known to be valid
in this universe, it is possible that the laws of physics are
different in parallel universes, giving a God-like entity, more
power. If the number of universes is unlimited, then the
power of a certain God-like entity is also unlimited, since
the laws of physics may be different in other universes, and
accordingly [18] making this entity omnipotent.
Unfortunately concerning a multiverse there is a lack of
empirical correlation. To the extreme there are theories
about realms beyond this multiverse (Nirvana , Chaos ,
Nothingness ).
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
32/69
Also trying to develop a theory to explain, assign or reject
omnipotence on grounds of logic has little merit, since
being omnipotent would mean the omnipotent being is
above logic. A view supported by RenDescartes [19] He
issues this idea in his Meditations on First Philosophy.
Allowing assumption that a deity exists, further debate may
be provoked that said deity is consciously taking actions. It
could be concluded from an emanationism [20][21] point of
view, that all actions and creations by a deity are simply
flows of divine energy (the flowing Tao in conjunction with
qi is often seen as a river; [22] Dharma (Buddhism) the law
of nature discovered by Buddha has no beginning or end.)
Pantheism and/or panentheism sees the universe/
multiverse as 'the body of God', making 'God' everybody
and everything. So if one does something, actually 'God' is
doing it. We are 'God's' means according to this view.
In the Taoist religious or philosophical tradition, the Tao is
in some ways equivalent to a deity or the logos . The Tao isunderstood to have inexhaustible power, yet that power is
simply another aspect of its weakness.
Omnipresence
Look up omnipresence in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Part of a series on the
Attributes of GodAseity
Eternity
Graciousness
Holiness
Immanence
Immutability
Impassibility
Impeccability
Incorporeality
Love
Mission
Omnibenevolence
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Omniscience
Oneness
Providence
Righteousness
Simplicity
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
33/69
Transcendence
Trinity
Veracity
Wrath
v t e
Omnipresence or ubiquity is the property of being present
everywhere. This characteristic is most commonly used in a
religious context, as most doctrines bestow the trait of
omnipresence onto a superior, usually a deity commonly
referred to as God by monotheists , as with God in
Christianity. This idea differs from Pantheism , which
identifies the universe and divinity; in divine omnipresence,
the divine and universe are separate, but the divine is
present everywhere; see panentheism for a third variant.
Introduction
Hinduism, and other religions that derive from it, incorporate
the theory of transcendent and immanent omnipresence
which is the traditional meaning of the word, Brahman . Thistheory defines a universal and fundamental substance,
which is the source of all physical existence.
Divine omnipresence is thus one of the divine attributes,
although in Western Christianity it has attracted less
philosophical attention than such attributes as
omnipotence , omniscience, or being eternal.
In western theism, omnipresence is roughly described as
the ability to be "present everywhere at the same time", [1]
referring to an unbounded or universal presence. It is
related to the concept of ubiquity, the ability to be
everywhere or in many places at once. [2] This includesunlimited temporal presence. [3]
Some[ who? ] argue that omnipresence is a derived
characteristic: an omniscient and omnipotent deity knows
everything and can be and act everywhere, simultaneously.
Others propound a deity as having the "Three O's",
including omnipresence as a unique characteristic of the
deity. Most Christian denominationsfollowing theologystandardized by the Nicene Creedexplains the concept ofomnipresence in the form of the "Trinity", by having a single
deity (God) made up of three omnipresent persons, Father,
Son and Holy Spirit.
Historical origins
Several ancient cultures such as the Vedic and the Native
American civilizations share similar views on omnipresent
nature; the ancient Egyptians , Greeks and Romans did not
worship an omnipresent being. While most Paleolithic
cultures followed polytheistic practices [ citation needed ] , a
form of omnipresent deity arises from a worldview that does
not share ideas with mono-local deity cultures. Some
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
34/69
omnipresent religions see the whole of existence as a
manifestation of the deity. There are two predominant
viewpoints here: pantheism , deity is the summation of
Existence; and panentheism, deity is an emergent property
of existence. The first is closest to the Native Americans '
worldview; the latter resembles the Vedic outlook. [ citation
needed ]
Judeo-Christian beliefs constitute a third opinion on
omnipresence. To both mainstream Jewish and Christian
religions, God is omnipresent; however, some heterodox
branches, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, reject
omnipresence. [4] However, the major difference between
these monotheistic religions and other religious systems is
that God is still transcendent to His creation and yet
immanent in relating to creation. God is not immersed in the
substance of creation, even though he is able to interact
with it as he chooses. He cannot be excluded from any
location or object in creation (Thomas C Oden "The LivingGod: Systematic Theology Vol 1, pg 67). God's presence is
continuous throughout all of creation, though it may not be
revealed in the same way at the same time to people
everywhere. At times, he may be actively present in a
situation, while he may not reveal that he is present in
another circumstance in some other area. The Bible reveals
that God can be both present to a person in a manifest
manner ( Psalm 46:1, Isaiah 57:15) as well as being present
in every situation in all of creation at any given time (Psalm
33:13-14). Specifically, Oden states (pg. 68-69) that the
Bible shows that God can be present in every aspect ofhuman life:
God is naturally present in every aspect of the natural
order, in every level of causality , every fleeting moment
and momentous event of natural history ...(Psalm 8:3,
Isaiah 40:12, Nahum 1:3)
God is actively present in a different way in every event in
history as provident guide of human affairs (Psalm 48:7)
God is in a special way attentively present to those who
call upon his name, intercede for others, who adore God,
who petition, who pray earnestly for forgiveness ( Gospel
of Matthew 18:19, Book of Acts 17:27)
God is judicially present in moral awareness, through
conscience (Psalm 48:1-2, Epistle to the Romans 1:20)
God is bodily present in the incarnation of his Son, Jesus
Christ (Gospel of John 1:14, Colossians 2:9)
God is mystically present in the Eucharist , and through
the means of grace in the church , the body of Christ
( Ephesians 2:12, John 6:56)
God is sacredly present and becomes known in special
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
35/69
places where God chooses to meet us, places that
become set apart by the faithful remembering community
( 1 Corinthians 11:23-29) where it may said: "Truly the
Lord is in this place" (Genesis 28:16, Matthew 18:20)"
In the Judeo-Christian religions, God is omnipresent in a
way that he is able to interact with his creation however he
chooses, and is the very essence of his creation. While
contrary to normal physical intuitions, such omnipresence
is logically possible by way of the classic geometric point
or its equivalent, in that such a point is, by definition, within
all of space without taking up any space.
Omniscience
For the album by Swans, see Omniscience (album) .This article needs additional citations for verification .
Please help improve this article by adding citations to
reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged
and removed. (March 2011)
Omniscience /mnns/ , [1] mainly in religion , is thecapacity to know everything that there is to know. In
particular, Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions (Judaism ,
Christianity, and Islam ) believe that there is a divine being
who is omniscient. An omniscient point-of-view , in writing,
is to know everything that can be known about a character,
including past history, thoughts, feelings, etc. In Latin,omnis means "all" and sciens means "knowing".
Definitions
Part of a series on the
Attributes of God
Aseity
Eternity
Graciousness
Holiness
Immanence
Immutability
Impassibility
Impeccability
Incorporeality
Love
Mission
Omnibenevolence
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Omniscience
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
36/69
Oneness
Providence
Righteousness
Simplicity
Transcendence
Trinity
Veracity
Wrath
v t e
There is a distinction between:
inherent omniscience - the ability to know anything that
one chooses to know and can be known.
total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can
be known.
Some modern Christian theologians argue that God's
omniscience is inherent rather than total, and that God
chooses to limit his omniscience in order to preserve the
freewill and dignity of his creatures. [2] John Calvin, amongother theologians of the 16th century, comfortable with the
definition of God as being omniscient in the total sense, in
order for worthy beings' abilities to choose freely, embraced
the doctrine of predestination .
Controversies
Omnipotence (unlimited power) is sometimes understood to
also imply the capacity to know everything that will be.
Nontheism often claims that the very concept of
omniscience is inherently contradictory.
Whether omniscience, particularly regarding the choices
that a human will make, is compatible with free will hasbeen debated by theists and philosophers . The argument
that divine foreknowledge is not compatible with free will is
known as theological fatalism . Generally, if humans are
truly free to choose between different alternatives, it is very
difficult to understand how God could know what this
choice will be. [3]
God created knowledge
Omniciencia , mural by JosClemente Orozco
This section needs additional citations for verification .
Please help improve this article by adding citations to
reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged
and removed. (July 2013)
Some theists [ who? ] argue that God created all knowledge
and has ready access there to. This statement invokes a
circular time contradiction: presupposing the existence of
God , before knowledge existed, there was no knowledge at
all, which means that God was unable to possess
knowledge prior to its creation. Alternately if knowledge
was not a "creation" but merely existed in God's mind for
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
37/69
all time there would be no contradiction. In Thomistic
thought, which holds God to exist outside of time due to his
ability to perceive everything at once, everything which God
knows in his mind already exists. Hence, God would know
of nothing that was not in existence (or else it would exist),
and God would also know everything that was in existence
(or else it would not exist), and God would possess this
knowledge of what did exist and what did not exist at any
point in the history of time.
The circular time contradiction can suppose anything
concerning God, such as the creation of life, meaning before
God created life, he wasn't alive. Moreover to assume any
more attributes, to then say God is merciful, but before the
creation of mercy, he wouldn't have been merciful, and
before the creation of the concept of negation (meaning to
assume something as not), no one would have any concept
of what is not. These apparent contradictions, however,
presuppose that such attributes are separately defined anddetached from God, which is not necessarily so. It is not a
given that attributes which can be assigned to or used to
describe mankind, can be equally (or even similarly)
ascribed to God. Take good and evil for example: goodness
is biblically defined as that which is of God; it is intrinsic to
his being and is revealed most prominently through his
provision of Old Testament Law, the keeping of which is the
very definition of goodness and the neglecting of which (on
even the slightest of grounds), is the epitome of evil. A
similar argument could be laid down concerning God's
omniscience (i.e. knowledge). It even eludes the idea a lotmore even to assume the concept of " nothing " or negation
was created, therefore it is seemingly impossible to
conceive such a notion where it draws down to a paradox.
To assume that knowledge in Plato's sense as described to
be a belief that's true, it then means that before everything
came into being, it was all to be conceived as total
imagination by God until the set of truth. One verse "God
created man in his own Image" states that God imagined the
form of humans, taking image as a root word for imagine,
mistakenly understood as man to look like God. [this verse
from Genesis 1 is in the Hebrew Scriptures. The word
'Image' is translated from two Hebrew words 'demuth' -
likeness or similitude and 'tselem'- an obscure word which
translates as image or idol. [4] It is difficult, therefore to
make a case for the author's reading of this verse to mean
'God imagined the form of humans']
The above definitions of omniscience cover what is called
propositional knowledge ( knowing that), as opposed to
experiential knowledge (knowing how ). That some entity is
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
38/69
omniscient in the sense of possessing all possible
propositional knowledge does not imply that it also
possesses all possible experiential knowledge. Opinions
differ as to whether the propositionally omniscient God of
the theists is able to possess all experiential knowledge as
well. But it seems at least obvious that a divine infinite
being conceived of as necessary infinitely knowledgeable
would also know how , for example, a finite person [man]
dying feels like as He [God] would have access to all
knowledge including the obvious experiences of the dying
human. There is a third type of knowledge: practical or
procedural knowledge ( knowing how to do ). If omniscience
is taken to be all knowledge then all knowledge of all types
would be fully known and comprehended.
Omniscience vs free will
A question arises : an omniscient entity knows everything
even about his/her/its own decisions in the future, does it
therefore forbid any free will to that entity ?See : Determinism , Freewill and argument from free will
Non-theological uses
Game theory studies omniscience; in the context of a game
players can be omniscient.
The field of literary analysis and criticism can discuss
omniscience in the point of view of a narrator. An
omniscient narrator , almost always a third-person narrator,
can reveal insights into characters and settings that would
not be otherwise apparent from the events of the story and
which no single character could be aware of.
A collection of surveillance techniques which togethercontribute to much disparate knowledge about the
movements, actions, conversation, appearance, etc. of an
individual (or organisation) is sometimes called omniscient
technology. [ citation needed ]
The word "omniscient" characterizes a fictional character in
the Devin Townsend album " Ziltoid the Omniscient ".
Theological representations
This section possibly contains original research . Please
improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline
citations . Statements consisting only of original research
may be removed. (June 2010)
This section does not cite any references or sources .
Please help improve this section by adding citations to
reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged
and removed . (June 2010)
The concepts of omniscience can be defined as follows
(using the notation of modal logic ):
x is omniscient =def
In words, for total omniscience:
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
39/69
x is omniscient =def For all propositions p: if p (is
true), then x knows that p (is true)
For inherent omniscience one interprets Kxp in this and the
following as x can know that p is true, so for inherent
omniscience this proposition reads:
x is omniscient =def For all propositions p: if p (is
true), then x can know that p (is true)
But a critical logical analysis shows that this definition is
too naive to be proper, and so it must be qualified as
follows:
x is omniscient =def
In words:
x is omniscient =def For all propositions p: if p (is
true) and p is (logically) knowable, then x knows [/
can know] that p (is true)
The latter definition is necessary, because there are
logically true but logically unknowable propositions such as
"Nobody knows that this sentence is true":N = "Nobody knows that N is true"
If N is true, then nobody knows that N is true; and if N is
false, then it is not the case that nobody knows that N is
true, which means that somebody knows that N is true. And
if somebody knows that N is true, then N is true; therefore,
N is true in any case. But if N is true in any case, then it is
logically true and nobody knows it. What is more, the
logically true N is not only not known to be true but also
impossibly known to be true, for what is logically true is
impossibly false. Sentence N is a logical counter-example
to the unqualified definition of "omniscience", but it doesnot undermine the qualified one.
There are further logical examples that seem to undermine
even this restricted definition, such as the following one
(called "The Strengthened Divine Liar"):
B = "God does not believe that B is true"
If B is true, then God (or any other person) does not believe
that B is true and thus does not know that B is true.
Therefore, if B is true, then there is a truth (viz. " B is true")
which God does not know. And if B is not true (= false), then
God falsely believes that B is true. But to believe the falsity
that B is true is to believe the truth that B is not true.
Therefore, if B is not true, then there is a truth (viz. " B is not
true") which God doesn't know. So, in any case there is a
truth that God does not and cannot know, for knowledge
implies true belief.
While sentence N is a non-knower-relative unknowability, B
is a knower-relative unknowability, which means that our
concept of omniscience apparently needs to be redefined
again:
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
40/69
x is omniscient =def
In words:
x is omniscient =def For all propositions p: if p (is
true) and p is (logically) knowable to x , then x
knows [/can know] that p (is true)'
Omniscience in Buddhist India
The topic of omniscience has been much debated in various
Indian traditions, but no more so than by the Buddhists.
After Dharmakirti 's excursions into the subject of what
constitutes a valid cognition, ntarakita and his studentKamalala thoroughly investigated the subject in theTattvasamgraha and its commentary the Panjika. The
arguments in the text can be broadly grouped into four
sections:
The refutation that cognitions, either perceived, inferred,
or otherwise, can be used to refute omniscience.
A demonstration of the possibility of omniscience through
apprehending the selfless universal nature of allknowables, by examining what it means to be ignorant
and the nature of mind and awareness.
A demonstration of the total omniscience where all
individual characteristics (svalaksana) are available to
the omniscient being.
The specific demonstration of Shakyamuni Buddha's non-
exclusive omniscience.
Transcendence (religion)
Not to be confused with Transcendentalism.
This article needs additional citations for verification .
Please help improve this article by adding citations to
reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged
and removed. (August 2009)
In religion , transcendence refers to the aspect of God's
nature and power which is wholly independent of the
material universe, beyond all physical laws. This is
contrasted with immanence, where God is fully present in
the physical world and thus accessible to creatures in
various ways. In religious experience transcendence is a
state of being that has overcome the limitations of physical
existence and by some definitions has also become
independent of it. This is typically manifested in prayer ,
sance , meditation , psychedelics and paranormal "visions".
It is affirmed in the concept of the divine in the major
religious traditions, and contrasts with the notion of God , or
the Absolute , existing exclusively in the physical order
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
41/69
(immanentism ), or indistinguishable from it (pantheism ).
Transcendence can be attributed to the divine not only in its
being, but also in its knowledge. Thus, God transcends the
universe, but also transcends knowledge (is beyond the
grasp of the human mind).
Although transcendence is defined as the opposite of
immanence, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive .
Some theologians and metaphysicians of the great religious
traditions affirm that God, or Brahman , is both within and
beyond the universe ( panentheism ); in it, but not of it;
simultaneously pervading it and surpassing it.
View by religion
Bah'Faith
Bah's believe in a single , imperishable God , the creator of
all things, including all the creatures and forces in the
universe. [1] God is described as "a personal God,
unknowable, inaccessible, the source of all Revelation,
eternal, omniscient, omnipresent and almighty." [2] Thoughinaccessible directly, God is nevertheless seen as
conscious of his creation, with a mind, will and purpose.
Bah's believe that God expresses this will at all times and
in many ways, including through a series of divine
messengers referred to as Manifestations of God or
sometimes divine educators . [3] In expressing God's intent,
these manifestations are seen to establish religion in the
world. Bah'teachings state that God is too great for
humans to fully comprehend, nor to create a complete and
accurate image. [4]
BuddhismIn Buddhism "transcendence", by definition, belongs to the
mortal beings of the formless realms of existence. However,
although such beings are at 'the peak' of Samsara ,
Buddhism considers the development of transcendence to
be both temporary and a spiritual cul-de-sac, which
therefore does not eventuate a permanent cessation of
Samsara. This assertion was a primary differentiator from
the other Sramana teachers during Gautama Buddha's own
training and development. [5]
Alternatively, in the various forms of BuddhismTheravada, Mahayana (especially Pure Land and Zen) and
Vajrayanathe notion of transcendence sometimesincludes a soteriological application. Except for Pure Land
and Vajrayana, the role played by transcendent beings is
minimal and at most a temporary expedient. However some
Buddhists believe that Nirvana is an eternal, transcendental
state beyond name and form, so for these Buddhists,
Nirvana is the main concept of transcendence. The more
usual interpretation of Nirvana in Buddhism is that it is a
-
5/20/2018 Divine Simplicity
42/69
cessation - a permanent absence of something (namely
suffering), and therefore it is not in any way a state which
could be considered transcendent.
Primordial enlightenment and the dharma are sometimes
portrayed as transcendent, since they can surpass all
samsaric obstructions.
Christianity
Part of a series on the
Attri