Are the divine attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and eternity coherent, and can God's foreknowledge be reconciled with human free will?
Component 01 The nature of God: the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and eternity, the dilemma of foreknowledge and free will, and the contrast between God as timeless (Boethius, Aquinas) and everlasting (Swinburne).
An OCR A-Level Religious Studies Component 01 guide to the nature of God. Covers omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and eternity, the coherence problems each raises, the dilemma of foreknowledge and free will, and the contrast between a timeless God (Boethius, Aquinas) and an everlasting God (Swinburne), with the AO2 evaluation the exam rewards.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
OCR Component 01 asks about "ideas about the nature of God": the classical attributes of God and whether they are coherent, both in themselves and together. The headline problem is the apparent clash between God's omniscience (including knowledge of the future) and human free will, which turns on whether God is timeless or everlasting. You study Boethius and Aquinas on eternity and Swinburne's alternative. The exam rewards explaining each attribute precisely and then evaluating whether the concept of God holds together.
The answer
Omnipotence
Omniscience and the dilemma of foreknowledge
Eternity: timeless or everlasting
Omnibenevolence
Examples in context
Try this
Q1. "An eternal God cannot be a personal God." Discuss. [40 marks]
- What the marker wants. An AO2 essay weighing the timeless model (Boethius, Aquinas) against the everlasting model (Swinburne), judging whether a timeless God can act, love and respond, and which better fits classical theism. AO1 out of 25, AO2 out of 15.
Q2. Assess whether omnipotence is best understood as the power to do whatever is logically possible. [40 marks]
- Cue. Aquinas's restriction dissolves the paradox of the stone but seems to limit God; Descartes refused the limit. Weigh coherence against unlimited power and judge.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of OCR exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
OCR H573/01 2019 (style)20 marksAssess whether God's omniscience is compatible with human free will. (The full OCR tariff for this essay is 40 marks; the worked answer below is scaled to a 20-mark exemplar.)Show worked answer →
A 40-mark Component 01 essay on the six-level scheme (AO1 out of 25, AO2 out of 15). Explaining the dilemma earns AO1; the higher levels reward judging whether the solutions work.
Explain (AO1). If God knows now what I will freely do tomorrow, it seems my action is already fixed and so not free. Boethius answers that God is timeless: God does not foreknow but sees all times at once in an eternal present, so divine knowledge does not determine the act. Swinburne instead limits omniscience to all that is logically knowable, excluding undetermined future free acts.
Evaluate (AO2). Boethius preserves both attributes but raises the question whether a timeless God can act in time or know tense facts. Swinburne keeps God in time and active but weakens omniscience. Aquinas develops the timeless view.
Judge. A top answer decides which solution best preserves both freedom and a worship-worthy God, and defends the verdict.
OCR H573/01 2022 (style)20 marksCritically assess the claim that the concept of an omnipotent God is incoherent. (The full OCR tariff for this essay is 40 marks; the worked answer below is scaled to a 20-mark exemplar.)Show worked answer →
A levels-of-response essay testing AO1 understanding of omnipotence and AO2 evaluation of its coherence.
Explain. The paradox of the stone (can God make a stone too heavy to lift?) seems to show omnipotence is self-contradictory. Aquinas replies that omnipotence means the power to do all that is logically possible, and a stone an omnipotent being cannot lift is a logical contradiction, not a real task, so the paradox dissolves. Descartes by contrast held God could do even the logically impossible.
Evaluate. Aquinas's restriction preserves coherence but limits God; critics ask whether a God bound by logic is truly all-powerful. The tension with omnibenevolence (the problem of evil) and with human freedom adds further strain.
Judge. A high-level answer weighs whether the logically-possible definition rescues omnipotence, and reaches a justified conclusion.
Related dot points
- Component 01 The problem of evil: the logical and evidential problems (Mackie, Rowe), the Augustinian theodicy (privation, the Fall, free will) and the Irenaean (Hick's soul-making) theodicy, with their strengths and weaknesses.
An OCR A-Level Religious Studies Component 01 guide to the problem of evil. Covers the logical problem (Mackie's inconsistent triad), the evidential problem (Rowe), the Augustinian theodicy (privation of good, the Fall, free will) and the Irenaean soul-making theodicy (Hick), with the strengths, weaknesses and AO2 evaluation the exam rewards.
- Component 01 Arguments from observation: the cosmological argument of Aquinas (the first three Ways, from motion, causation and contingency) and the Kalam argument, together with the criticisms of Hume and Russell.
An OCR A-Level Religious Studies Component 01 guide to the cosmological argument. Covers Aquinas's first three Ways (motion, causation, contingency), the Kalam argument from a beginning in time, and the criticisms of Hume (the causal leap) and Russell (the universe as a brute fact and the fallacy of composition), with the AO2 evaluation the exam rewards.
- Component 01 Ancient philosophical influences: Plato (the Forms, the Form of the Good, the analogy of the cave) and Aristotle (the four causes and the Prime Mover), and the contrast between Plato's rationalism and Aristotle's empiricism.
An OCR A-Level Religious Studies Component 01 guide to ancient philosophical influences. Covers Plato's Theory of Forms, the Form of the Good and the analogy of the cave, Aristotle's four causes and the Prime Mover, and the contrast between Platonic rationalism and Aristotelian empiricism that the exam asks you to evaluate.
- Component 02 Free will and moral responsibility: hard determinism, libertarianism and compatibilism (soft determinism), the influence of religious ideas of predestination, and the implications for moral responsibility, praise, blame and punishment.
An OCR A-Level Religious Studies Component 02 guide to free will and moral responsibility. Covers hard determinism, libertarianism and compatibilism (soft determinism), the influence of religious predestination, and the consequences for moral responsibility, praise, blame and punishment, with the AO2 evaluation the exam rewards.
- Component 03 Knowledge of God's existence: natural knowledge of God (reason, the world, the sensus divinitatis of Calvin), revealed knowledge (faith, grace, scripture, Christ), and Barth's rejection of natural theology.
An OCR A-Level Religious Studies Component 03 guide to knowledge of God's existence. Covers natural knowledge of God through reason and the world and Calvin's sensus divinitatis, revealed knowledge through faith, grace, scripture and Jesus Christ, and Barth's rejection of natural theology, with the AO2 evaluation the exam rewards.
Sources & how we know this
- OCR A Level Religious Studies (H573) specification — OCR (2016)
- Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy (Book V), translated by H. R. James — Project Gutenberg (1897)