Nature of God (Attribute of Omniscience): OCR Religious Studies (Part Three)

[@chickenfries558]

I always dreaded this topic because it was so long, but I’m absolutely in love with it now after watching your videos. Thank you so much!

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

That is so good to hear as I love this topic, so I am really pleased that the video helped ☺️

[@itsnotkit]

Thank you so much for your videos, I've really struggled getting to grasp A2 Philosophy topics and these have helped me understand the subject better !

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

That is wonderful to hear, so pleased my videos helped 😀 hope your revision is going really well!

[@beccalloydpoetry]

Thank you so much! We haven't been taught Year 2 philosophy yet (and our exams are days away) so your videos are saving me a lot

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

I am so pleased my videos are helping. I hope your revision is going well :)

[@LaraTang]

Thank you for this video! My philosophy a level is at 9am tomorrow and I am so stressed! I am really trying to understand this topic but Boethius' points really sound like circular waffle to me and I just can't see clear strong valid points in what he said!

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Hi Lara, NoG is a really tricky topic. There is no simple way of summarising this topic beyond what I do in the videos. Maybe focus your remaining time on knowing the other topics really well. Good luck tomorrow :)

[@jessicamckenziemorrell8518]

hi, thank you for this... is there not the last section on omnibenevolence or does that come in as a part of the other three ?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Hi Jessica, I link omnibenevolence near the end of the video. No separate section as links well with other elements :)

[@alexfacchino3030]

hiya, if the question was to ask for example- does boeithius offer the best understanding of omniscience? Should your essay consist of a debate with Swinburne and Boeithius and then use Anslem in the evaluation? Thank you

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

This would work well if you comparison between B and S is evaluative rather than descriptive. They have such different perspectives that with your line of argument the evaluation should come through. Anselm is a differing perspective so works well as an alternative :)

[@user-tj6lt7hi2f]

Hi thank-you so much. i have a few questions one is about the omnibenevolence of God what kind of question can come up with that. Also the sepc mentions this: whether or not it is possible, or necessary, to resolve the apparent conflicts between divine attributes. I am confused with this because I don't know how to plan this if an essay came up on this please can you advise on what you would do?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

You could get a general question such as 'critically assess the omnibenevolence of God' or 'a transcendent God cannot be omnibenevolent'. As far as the conflicting attributes I would discuss the pointers on the slides that talk about philosophical issues e.g can an eternal God but omnipresent :)

[@chloew968]

Would Aquinas then be saying that God does have divine foreknowledge, as He can see what choices you're going to make, but He doesn't interfere with them so we still have free will? Or is divine foreknowledge only when God seeing our future actions then means that we wouldn't have free will?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

With Aquinas' analogy it is best not to label it as it is a combination of views so God can see the future path/paths but we decide what to do on that path and he doesn't intervene but then some argue that this viewpoint is still within time others argue it isn't. Hope that helps :)

[@chloew968]

@@IThinkThereforeITeachThank you! Thank you so much for making your videos in general - they helped me so much with the philosophy exam today!! You’re a life saver

[@ade6609]

Hi Ms., I am really really struggling with this topic and its stressing me out. can you please advise on any tips when writing an essay on this topic? thank you.

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Hi Adeola, it is a really tricky topic. If you contact me through the blog (I Think Therefore I Teach) I can send you some essays to see if the help. Tips for essays is to keep the attributes separate like in my videos, this way you can discuss and handle the necessary areas without getting lost in your argument :)

[@ade6609]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach Thank you so much Ms! This will be really helpful. I have sent you a message

[@ellamcnamara8100]

thanks so much for this! our teacher has combined omniscience and eternal is this okay or should i keep them separate?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Hi Ella, this would work but I find as the topic is quite complicated and you could get a specific question just on eternal or omniscience I like to separate them so the points for each are clear for an essay. They overlap and Boethius never separated them, it is purely so that if a specific question is asked students know which sections to talk about. Hope this helps :)

[@ellamcnamara8100]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach thankyou so much!

[@conniegough8420]

hi, is Boethius's view compatible with Bible verses like Jeremiah 29:11 which suggest God has a plan for humankind?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Hi Connie, thanks for your question. I think it depends on the verse. 'Plan' to me implies more Calvinist/predetermination but you could link to Boethius as long as you make it clear that God has all knowledge but not the 'future' as we know it. Hope that makes sense :)

[@GracieAnwyl]

Hi, I'm slightly confused on the sections of divine, eternal and timeless. Do I need to distinguish between the three in an essay? Also, do I need to know which scholars and arguments fall into each? Thanks :)

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

If you get a question on omniscience then it is best to distinguish between the different arguments and use them against each other using the scholars mentioned. I distinguish between timeless omniscience (Boethius) and limited omniscience (everlasting/swinburne) so it is clear who is arguing what. Hope that makes it a little clearer :)

[@sophia-lm6dj]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach I am slightly confused because you have said here that only the everlasting/swinburne argument is classified as limited omniscience, but surely Boethius' omniscience is also limited since he argues that God isnt omniscient to the extent of knowing future actions?

[@aminataleee3345]

Brilliant argument .

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Definitely one of my favourite topics :)

[@jameshatherell6689]

Does anyone know if Aquinas' example of the paths was coined by Aquinas? Or is it just a random analogy by someone else to convey his point?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Hi James, after doing some more research I have not found anyone before Aquinas who uses it specifically, Aquinas seems to have developed it to confirm Boethius' argument of how God sees things as from a height. There are also links to Aquinas calling it an 'elevated tower' too all linking to the idea that God sees time differently to us who are on the path and how God's see the path from his perspective simultaneously all parts at once. Hope this helps :)

[@jameshatherell6689]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach Brilliant yeah thanks very much! Thanks for your videos as well, have helped greatly :)

[@annthomas2870]

Hi, if Boethius is saying God does not have divine foreknowledge, but still has omniscience, doesn't that contradict because if God is omniscient then he must have all knowledge which includes divine foreknowledge. In my opinion I think the arguement he makes about God being outside of time and just knowing time as 'one cluster' is too weak in arguing his point.

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

This would work as good evaluation. Boethius is trying to avoid divine foreknowledge and argue God has full omniscience of all time just not the linear perspective of time like a human. You can criticise this though as not full omniscience if you wish :)

[@annthomas2870]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach thank you!!