The concept and nature of 'God' — AQA A-Level Philosophy
Teaching note based on the AQA specification.
Test yourself on The concept and nature of 'God' with AQA A-Level practice questions.
A week of Premium from your first lesson · Then the free plan continues · No card, no charge
The concept and nature of 'God' explained
The concept and nature of 'God' covers 5 specification points, including God as omniscient, omnipotent, supremely good… and Competing views on such a being’s relationship….
Read the full explanation
Open a point below for its explanation and revision guidance.
God's attributes: God as omniscient, omnipotent, supremely good (omnibenevolent), and the meaning(s) of these divine attributes
This topic concerns the classical concept of God and the meaning of three attributes. Omniscience is the claim that God knows everything, including all truths and, on some accounts, future contingents. Omnipotence is the claim that God is all-powerful; candidates must consider what 'all-powerful' means, for example whether it includes the power to do the logically impossible. Omnibenevolence is the claim that God is supremely good, which raises questions about the relation between goodness and God's will. The phrase 'meaning(s)' signals that each attribute is contested: learners should be able to state a definition, explain an interpretation and identify a difficulty, such as whether omnipotence and omnibenevolence are consistent with evil.
competing views on such a being’s relationship to time, including God being timeless (eternal) and God being within time (everlasting).
This topic asks how the being described as God relates to time. Two competing views are required. On the timeless (eternal) view, God exists altogether outside time: there is no earlier or later for God, no succession in the divine life, and God sees all times at once, as a whole. On the everlasting view, God exists within time: God has a past, present and future, experiences one moment after another, and so can act and respond within history. A useful test is to ask whether it makes sense to say God did something before or after something else. The eternal view must explain how a timeless God can know and act in a changing world; the everlasting view must explain how a God in time can be unchanging and know the future. Questions may ask you to identify which view a description expresses or to distinguish the two.
arguments for the incoherence of the concept of God including: the paradox of the stone
An incoherence argument claims that the concept of God contains a contradiction, so no such being could exist. The paradox of the stone targets the idea of omnipotence. It asks whether God can create a stone so heavy that God cannot lift it. If God can create it, there is a stone God cannot lift, so God is not all-powerful. If God cannot create it, there is something God cannot do, so again God is not all-powerful. Either way omnipotence seems undermined. A common reply is that the paradox trades on an incoherent task: 'a stone too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift' is like a square circle, not a genuine possibility, so failing to do it is no limitation. Questions may ask you to identify the two horns of the dilemma, the attribute under attack, or the standard response.
the Euthyphro dilemma
The Euthyphro dilemma is a challenge to divine command theory, the view that actions are right because God commands them. It asks whether God commands what is good because it is good, or whether things are good only because God commands them. If goodness is independent of God's commands, then God is not the source of morality and appears to be subject to a standard beyond himself. If things are good simply because God commands them, morality looks arbitrary: any cruelty could have been commanded and would then count as good. A third move, that God's commands express his necessarily good nature, is a response to consider rather than a solution the dilemma settles by itself. In an MCQ, identify which horn of the dilemma a stem describes and whether it targets God's independence or the arbitrariness of morality.
the compatibility, or otherwise, of the existence of an omniscient God and free human beings.
This topic asks whether an omniscient God can coexist with genuinely free human beings. Omniscience means God knows all truths, including truths about future human actions. If God infallibly knows now that you will choose X tomorrow, then tomorrow you cannot choose not to do X, since that would make God's knowledge mistaken. This is the classic problem of divine foreknowledge and free will. Learners should set out the incompatibilist argument, then evaluate responses: that God is outside time and sees all times at once, so his knowledge does not cause or constrain the act; that foreknowledge is logically consistent with freedom because knowledge does not cause the action; and compatibilist redefinitions of freedom. Assess each response's strengths and weaknesses, and reach a reasoned judgement about whether compatibility can be defended.
Your focus
- Define omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence accurately.
- Explain at least one contested interpretation of each attribute.
- Assess how the attributes relate to one another and to a further argument such as the problem of evil.
Show all 15 objectives
- State the timeless (eternal) view of God's relationship to time.
- State the everlasting view of God's relationship to time.
- Distinguish the two competing views and identify which a given description expresses.
- Explain how the paradox of the stone is constructed as a dilemma.
- Identify omnipotence as the attribute the paradox challenges.
- Evaluate a standard response that the paradoxical task is logically impossible.
- State the two horns of the Euthyphro dilemma accurately.
- Explain what each horn implies about God and about morality.
- Distinguish the dilemma from a proposed response to it in an MCQ stem.
- Explain the problem of divine foreknowledge and human freedom.
- Evaluate responses including the causation/knowledge distinction, divine timelessness and compatibilism.
- Reach and justify a reasoned judgement on the compatibility of omniscience and free will.
The concept and nature of 'God' exam tips
Marking Points
- Omniscience: God knows all truths; discussion may include whether this extends to future contingent events and what that implies for human freedom.
- Omnipotence: God is all-powerful; a key issue is whether omnipotence can include logically impossible actions such as making a square circle.
- Omnibenevolence: God is supremely good; learners should consider whether goodness is defined independently of God or by God's nature/will.
- The meaning(s) of the attributes: each term admits more than one interpretation, and the interpretation chosen affects further arguments such as the problem of evil.
- Relations between attributes: for example, whether perfect knowledge and perfect power together with perfect goodness are consistent with the existence of suffering.
- Correctly identifies the timeless (eternal) view as holding that God exists outside time, without succession, seeing all times at once.
- Correctly identifies the everlasting view as holding that God exists within time, with a past, present and future and successive experience.
- Distinguishes the two views accurately rather than treating 'eternal' and 'everlasting' as synonyms.
- Recognises a consequence of each view, for example how a timeless God relates to change, or how an everlasting God relates to temporal events.
- Rejects a distractor that confuses the two views or that treats God as simply having a very long lifespan as the definition of timelessness.
- Identifies omnipotence (being all-powerful) as the divine attribute the paradox of the stone attacks.
- States the first horn correctly: if God can create such a stone, then there is a stone God cannot lift, so God is not omnipotent.
- States the second horn correctly: if God cannot create such a stone, then there is something God cannot do, so God is not omnipotent.
- Explains that the argument aims to show the concept of God is incoherent or contradictory, not merely difficult.
- Recognises a standard response, for example that the task described is logically impossible and so not a genuine power, meaning the paradox fails to show a real limitation.
- Identifies the dilemma as a challenge to divine command theory, the claim that right and wrong depend on God's commands.
- States the first horn: if God commands what is good because it is already good, goodness is independent of God and God is not its source.
- States the second horn: if things are good only because God commands them, morality appears arbitrary, since any command would make its object good.
- Recognises that the dilemma forces a choice between God being subject to an external standard and morality being arbitrary.
- Distinguishes a response (for example that God's commands flow from his good nature) from the dilemma itself.
- Explains omniscience as God's knowledge of all truths, including truths about future human actions.
- Sets out the incompatibilist argument: infallible foreknowledge that a person will do X means the person cannot do otherwise, so the act is not free.
- Explains the distinction between God's knowledge causing an action and merely knowing it, and assesses whether this rescues freedom.
- Evaluates the timelessness response, that God is outside time and sees all events at once, considering whether it avoids the problem or merely relocates it.
- Considers compatibilist accounts that redefine freedom as acting without external constraint, and assesses whether this is an adequate account of moral freedom.
- Reaches a reasoned judgement on whether an omniscient God and free human beings are compatible.
Examiner Tips
- 💡Define each attribute precisely before evaluating it; vague definitions lose credit.
- 💡When a question asks about 'meaning(s)', show that you recognise competing interpretations rather than giving one fixed definition.
- 💡Link attributes to a live argument, such as the problem of evil, to demonstrate understanding rather than listing definitions.
- 💡Learn a one-line definition of each view and a one-line consequence, so you can match a description to the correct view quickly.
- 💡When a stem describes God 'seeing all at once' or 'without succession', link it to the timeless view; 'one moment after another' links to everlasting.
- 💡Check the exact wording of each option: a single word such as 'within' or 'outside' can reverse the meaning.
- 💡Write the dilemma as two clear 'if... then...' branches so both horns are visible.
- 💡Name the attribute under attack (omnipotence) explicitly in your answer.
- 💡When a stem asks for the conclusion of the argument, choose the option about incoherence or contradiction, not about God's goodness.
- 💡Read the stem and decide which horn it describes before looking at the options.
- 💡Eliminate options that mislabel the dilemma as a proof of God's non-existence.
- 💡Check whether an option describes the dilemma itself or a proposed response to it.
- 💡Define omniscience and freedom precisely before building the argument.
- 💡Use a concrete example, such as a person's choice tomorrow, to make the incompatibilist argument clear.
- 💡Evaluate each response rather than merely describing it, and end with an explicit judgement.
Common Mistakes
- Defining omnipotence as the power to do absolutely anything, including contradictions; the correction is to recognise the standard qualification that omnipotence concerns power over what is logically possible.
- Treating 'omnibenevolent' as merely 'does good things' without addressing whether goodness is independent of God; the correction is to explain the Euthyphro-style dilemma.
- Assuming the three attributes are unrelated; the correction is to show how they interact, for example in the problem of evil.
- Confusing omniscience with foreknowledge only; the correction is to define it as knowledge of all truths and then discuss future contingents as one issue.
- Treating 'eternal' and 'everlasting' as meaning the same thing; correction: eternal means outside time altogether, everlasting means lasting through all time within time.
- Assuming a timeless God must be inactive or uncaring; correction: the view claims God acts and knows without temporal succession, which is the point to explain.
- Describing the everlasting view as God being outside time; correction: on that view God is within time and experiences succession.
- Thinking the paradox attacks God's omniscience; correction: it targets omnipotence, the power to do all things.
- Presenting only one horn of the dilemma; correction: the force of the paradox depends on showing both options lead to the same conclusion.
- Treating the reply 'God can do the logically impossible' as obviously correct; correction: the standard response is that logically impossible tasks are not genuine powers, and this needs argument.
- Treating the dilemma as an argument that God does not exist; correction: it is a problem for divine command theory about the source of morality, not a direct proof of atheism.
- Confusing the two horns; correction: the first horn concerns goodness being independent of God, the second concerns morality being arbitrary because God's command alone makes it good.
- Assuming the dilemma is settled once a response is offered; correction: a response such as grounding goodness in God's nature must itself be assessed, and the dilemma remains a live issue.
- Confusing foreknowledge with causation; correction: the argument must show that knowing an action will occur makes it unfree, not merely that God causes it.
- Treating omniscience as God knowing only the past and present; correction: omniscience includes knowledge of future free actions, which is what generates the problem.
- Assuming the timelessness response settles the debate; correction: it must be evaluated, for example by asking whether a timeless God can genuinely know temporal choices.