Summary, Part 3: Swinburne's The Existence of God, Ch. 2

Okay.  So God's actions can be explained via personal explanation.  So can our actions. There are two differences between our actions and God's actions ito personal explanation.

1. God's actions cannot be explained ito scientific explanation, even in part.
2. God is a spirt, is not embodied.

Partial/Multiple Explanations

Let's first talk about partial and multiple explanations.  RS has previously argued that personal explanation cannot be explained ito scientific explanation and vv.  He does allow that there can be 2+ explanations of event E, but only if one of 3 conditions is satisfied:

1. The multiple explanations are all partial explanations.  E.g., where E = a man's death from cancer, E is a) partially explained by his smoking and b) partially explained by hereditary factors such as his parents' deaths from cancer.
2. The multiple explanations are, separately, full explanations and 'the causes and reasons cited in each explanation provide a partial explanation of the occurrence and operation of the causes and reasons cited in the other.'  E.g., where E = me moving my hand, it cb (I think) fully explained:
   1. scientifically: the workings of muscles, nerves, etc. in my arm, hand & wherever/whatever else physically happens when I move my hand,
   2. and personally: my intending to move my hand and having the power to do so,
   3. but the causes and/or reasons in each type of explanation partially explains the causes and reasons in the other type of explanation.
      1. part of the personal explanation - the part where I intend to move my hand - explains part of the scientific explanation - the part about muscles, nerves, etc. working.
      2. part of the scientific explanation - the part about how muscles, nerves, etc. work together - explains part of the personal explanation - the part about me having the power to move my hand.
3. Coincidental explanatory overdetermination of E.  The multiple explanations are, separately, full explanations that do not partially explain each other (as in condition #2), and each explanation has sufficient, but not necessary, causes and reasons for E.  E.g., where E = Marvin is killed, Marvin is killed by:
   1. Verne poisoning him at the same time that
   2. Charlene shoots him,
   3. where either the poisoning or the shooting would be sufficient to kill Marvin.
   4. It is possible that there's a third explanation that relates to the first and second explanations in condition #2.  I think that scenario would fall under condition #2 only.

I'm quite certain I've not explained the above very well, but I'll leave it for now.

God's Actions Cannot Be Explained ito Scientific Explanation, Even in Part

An agent can effect an event/phenomena, E, by intending to bring it about.  The explanation of an agent's action is a personal explanation.  That personal explanation may be partially explained ito scientific explanation.  My moving my hand by intending to move my hand and having the power to do so depends in part upon my body working properly, the ways in which muscles, nerves, etc. work together to move a body part, etc.  There exists a scientific explanation re: the ways in which muscles, nerves, etc. work together to move a body part, etc.  This scientific explanation explains part of the personal explanation re: my moving my hand.

Except when the agent is God.  God's intentions alone explain God's actions.  God does not rely on anything for anything.  As the omnibeing, everything relies upon God, directly or indirectly.  His actions do not depend on LON, as do our actions.  God created (or allowed to exist, develop, etc.) everything, including such things as LON, physical systems, material objects, the science we use to partially explain our actions, etc.  His actions could not depend upon anything he created.  He exists prior to and independently of anything he created.

We cannot effect an event solely by intending to bring it about.  Our ability to bring about an event depends upon other things.  Wide: we depend upon God for existence. Narrow: we depend upon our bodies, our mental and physical capabilities, the physical world around us, LON, etc.

So what is the nature of  God's ability to effect an event solely by intending to do so?  It's simply willing something to be the case.  If God wills X, X will be the case.  That God can do this is unusual and foreign to us with our limited abilities, but it is conceivable, coherent and logically possible.  RS calls God's ability to will something into being a 'brute fact'. 

A brute fact is something for which there is no explanation, but explains other things.  E.g., God's ability to will something into existence explains the universe's existence bc he willed that the universe should exist.  We cannot explain God's ability to will things into existence, but we can use this ability to explain things that do exist, such as the universe, the world, animals, inanimate objects, LON, SOAs, etc.

There is no explanation for the brute fact of God's powers.  This is bc it is an ultimate brute fact, i.e., not bc we just haven't figured out the explanation yet.  There is no such explanation to find.

So, in sum, God acts by intention.  He can bring about anything he desires simply by intending/willing it.  That he can do this is a brute fact, inexplicable in itself, but explicatory wrt other things.

God is a spirt, is not embodied.

First off, what does it mean to be embodied?  As per RS, a being is embodied if there exists a physical object to which it's related in all of the following four ways.

1. Jane can move her body via basic actions and can move Jill's body via mediate actions.  Jane can close her mouth by intending to close her mouth and having the ability to do so.  Jane can close Jill's mouth by intending to do so, reaching out to Jill's face, touching her jaw and pushing her jaw up until her gob is shut.  (What am I doing if I shut my own mouth this way?  Am I doing a basic action and a mediate action?)
2. Jane's mental life depends causally on her body's operation.  Jane can affect Jill's mental life by affecting Jill's body.  Jane stops dreaming when she wakes up.  Jane can make Jill stop dreaming by shaking her awake. 
3. Jane has direct access to her body's existence and operation.  Jane has access to Jill's body's existence and operation via affects on Jill's body.  Jane is aware of feeling cold and wet when snow falls on her.  Jane senses that Jill is cold and wet when Jane sees Jill shivering and looking cold as snow falls on her.
4. Jane's POV of the world from where her body is located.  Jane's mental life occurs within the space occupied by her physical body.

There are possibilities re: a being's partial embodiment or embodiment divided across space, but those don't figure here.

Now, God does not relate in any of the above four ways to any physical object.  God fails the four conditions bc:

1. God can make any effect in the universe via basic action.  Where Jane can only effect Jill's body by the mediate action of reaching out, touching her face and pushing her jaw closed, God can effect this same event simply intending/willing it to happen.
2. God's mental life does not depend on any physical object.  He is prior to and independet of the physical matter he created that makes up the world, including other beings' bodies.  God needn't shake Jill to wake her up and stop her dreaming, although he could.  He could simply intend that she awaken and she stops dreaming.  He could also intend that Jane shake Jill until she awakens and stops dreaming.
3. God has direct access and knowledge about everything.  Where Jane knows what she's thinking and feeling, she can only infer what Jill is thinking and feeling by her behavior, God always immediately and directly knows everything about everything and everyone, including what Jane and Jill are thinking and feeling.
4. God does not have a particular POV on the universe.  God does not perceive, view, act on, etc. the world from any particular vantage point.  RS has noted that whether God is timeless or outside of time doesn't affect his main argument, but the lack of POV makes me wonder about what God knows and when depending upon whether he's timeless or outside time.

So what kind of being is God?  Turns out he's a spiritual omnibeing; an unembodied rational being who knows everything about everything and everyone and can do anything and everything (logically possible?) via basic intentional actions.  While God's actions can be explained via personal explanation (i.e., his intention), the C + L of scientific explanation (conditions + LON) do not figure in God's actions or explanation of God's actions.