EOY

Question 1

Criticisms of The Boulder Problem

argument

Answer 1

Firstly, the critic assumes throughout that if there is something specifiable which God cannot do, it denies the whole of his omnipotence,

If divine power is perfect, then this is too quick of a deduction

Question 2

Boethius’ understanding of Omniscience?

Answer 2

• God’s nature is that he is eternal – to understand eternal we compare it with temporal things
• I.e. We are temporal and only live in the present, however God is eternal and possess the ability to be in the past, present and the future.
• Therefore, God lives in something called a simultaneous present meaning that all events, regardless of when, are existing simultaneously.
• God Knows the world in a single act.

Question 3

What are simple and conditional necessities according to Boethius?

Answer 3

Simple Means that something must happen because of its nature

Conditional means that if a certain condition occurs then something must happen as an outcome and without the condition it doesn’t need to happen

Question 4

Criticisms of Boethius’ argument?

Answer 4

1.) The idea of simultaneous present is incoherent Anthony Kenny

Although you might argue that it is just because our finite, temporal minds cannot comprehend it

2.) The implication of his theory of the nature of God… causes some to argue that God is everlasting rather than timeless

Richard Swineburne would argue that God is everlasting and progresses through time

For God to have a relationship and to love, he must be within time

God known what is logically possible fo him to knows, and as the future hasn’t happened yet, it’s not logically possible for him to know, as the future hasn’t happened yet, it’s not logically possible for it to be known

Question 5

Plantinga’s Criticism of Simplicity?

Answer 5

Plantinga – ‘If God is identical with each of his properties then each of his properties is identical with each of his properties, so that God has but one property. The conclusion here is false, says Plantinga because God has several properties. It is, he ads also false because ‘if God is identical with each of his properties, then, since each of his properties is a property, he is also a property’

Question 6

Another criticism of Simplicity?

Answer 6

Secondly, Plantinga argues, if one restricts the realm of abstract objects that are identical with God to only the properties that God exemplifies, the doctrine is still problematic. Metaphysical simplicity states that God has no accidental (i.e. contingent) properties. Yet, it clearly does seem that God has accidental properties such as having created Adam, and knowing that Adam sinned. Some of God’s characteristics characterize him in every possible world and some do not.[14] Plantinga also argues that the conflation of God’s actuality with his potentiality inherits all the problems of the essence-accident complexity and is furthermore vexed in its own right. Just as it seems there are characteristics that God has but could have lacked, it also seems the case that there are characteristics that God lacks but could have had. No doubt God has not created all the persons he will create. If so, there is at least one individual essence such that God does not now have, but will have the characteristic of causing that essence to be instantiated. If so, God has potentiality with respect to that characteristic.[15]

Question 7

Teleological Argument

Answer 7

If they are complex in design they are most likely created by a “complex designer” as the probability of being created randomly is unlikely.

Therefore, Paley assumes God as the “complex designer” because it is the only logical and probable answer which fits within the characteristics of complex designer

Artifacts (such as a watch), with their means to ends configurations, are the products of (human)design

Works of nature, such as the human hand, resemble artifacts

Thus, the works of nature are probably the products of design

Furthermore, the works of nature are numerous and complex

Therefore, the works of nature were probably produced by a grand designer – one much more powerful and intelligent than a human designer

Question 8

Criticisms of Teleological Argument?

Answer 8

Eric Rust argues that, when speaking of familiar objects such as watches, “we have a basis to make an inference from such an object to its designer”. However, the “universe is a unique and isolated case” and we have nothing to compare it with, so “we have no basis for making an inference such as we can with individual objects. … We have no basis for applying to the whole universe what may hold of constituent elements in the universe.”[127]

Just because things in the world have designers, that doesn’t mean that the world itself has a designer. We have experience of house being designed and built, but we do not have experience of worlds being designed and built.

We judge the attributes of the creator by what is created. The presence of suffering and evil in the world suggests a cruel designer. (Hume 4 and J.S. Mill)

The designer of the world may have a designer: this leads to an infinite regress.

Analogous design argument’s (like Paley’s) constrain and reduce nature, because they suggest that nature is like man-made objects and artifacts. (Robert Hambourger).

The Design argument does not necessarily lead to the God of classical theism.

Question 9

Cosmological Design?

Answer 9

1. ) Everything which exists must have a cause of existence
2. ) There cannot be an infinite chain of causes stretching back into the past
3. ) There must have been some first cause uncaused by anything else
4. ) Thus, we call It God “the uncaused cause”

Question 10

COA of Cosmological Argument?

Answer 10

“Explanation of parts is sufficient”
“The Causal principle is spurious”

Merely explaining the pars is unsatisfactory  Circular Logic

If we can think of something not having a cause then it cannot have a cause

The causal Principle is also wrong because if something is conceivable doesn’t make it real

However, Mackie helps Hume out by saying that “It has only methodological utility and lacks ontological justification”

Question 11

William Rowe’s evidential arguments?

Answer 11

Evidential arguments regarding evil seek to show that the presence of evul in the world inductively supports or make the claim that God does not exist

1. ) There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse
2. ) An Omniscient, good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse
3. ) Therefore, ALL 3 ATTRIBUTES DON’T EXIST

Question 12

Ontological Argument?

Answer 12

God is the greatest thing of which nothing greater can be conceived

Things can exist in the mind or reality

It is better to exist in reality than in the mind

Therefore, God must exist in reality because he wouldn’t be the greatest thing of which can be conceived if he wasn’t

Question 13

Criticisms/Counter Criticisms of the Ontological Argument?

Answer 13

Guanilo’s Criticisms: He used the analogy of a piland
Uses Anselm’s strategy to deduce the existence of a perfect island, which Gaunilo rightly views as a counterexample to the argument form.

It is a conceptual truth that a piland is an island than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible island that can be imagined).

A piland exists as an idea in the mind.

A piland that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a piland that exists only as an idea in the mind.

Thus, if a piland exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine an island that is greater than a piland (that is, a greatest possible island that does exist).
But we cannot imagine an island that is greater than a piland.

Therefore, a piland exists.

BUT

The qualities that make an island great are not the sort of qualities that admit of conceptually maximal qualities.
No matter how great any island is in some respect, it is always possible to imagine an island greater than that island in that very respect.

For this reason, the very concept of a piland is incoherent.

Question 14

Kalam Cosmological Argument?

Answer 14

(i) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence,
(ii) The universe began to exist,
(iii) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence

Question 15

Criticisms of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

Answer 15

A common objection to premise one appeals to the phenomenon of quantum indeterminacy, where, at the subatomic level, the causal principle; “everything that begins to exist has a cause” appears to break down.

In his book A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing, cosmologist Lawrence Krauss has proposed how quantum mechanics can explain how space-time and matter can emerge from ‘nothing’ (referring to the quantum vacuum).

The philosopher Quentin Smith has cited the example of virtual particles, which appear and disappear from observation, apparently at random, to assert the tenability of uncaused natural phenomena.

Question 16

Kant’s Criticism to the Onotological Argument?

Answer 16

Kant goes on to write, “‘being’ is evidently not a real predicate”[63] and cannot be part of the concept of something.

He proposes that existence is not a predicate, or quality.

This is because existence does not add to the essence of a being, but merely indicates its occurrence in reality.

He states that by taking the subject of God with all its predicates and then asserting that God exists, “I add no new predicate to the conception of God”.

He argues that the ontological argument works only if existence is a predicate; if this is not so, he claims the ontological argument is invalidated, as it is then conceivable a completely perfect being doesn’t exis

Question 17

Bodily Criterion Argument?

Answer 17

1.) I will begin my examination with the Body Criterion Argument:

This Argues that two people are the same if they are
physically identical.

Arian Garret put forward an argument saying Person A is identical to Person B if at time one Person A looked the same as person B at time 2

Many believe that this argument is justified because they believe that you remain in the same body from life to death. Since you can’t switch, your own body is the only thing unique to you. This would suggest that the body is the core defining aspect of your identity.

Occams Razor + Default Position

The bodily criterion suggests two different thoughts: that a person’s identity consists in the identity of something called her body, and that we are identical with our bodies

Therefore, in relation to THE STIMULUS identity is determined by our physical appearance

Question 18

Criticisms to the Bodily Criterion Argument

Answer 18

Biologically speaking, our bodies are constantly changing

Our bodies regenerate themselves every seven years and so how I physically appeared seven years ago is completely different to how I appear now

This contradicts the bodily criterion argument as our identity is constantly changing even to the degree by day

Question 19

Evaluation of the Body Criterion Argument:

Answer 19

The Bodily Criterion Argument Fails

Question 20

Possible Counter Arguments to the Bodily Criterion Argument

Answer 20

We could argue that although our appearance may change, we are still physically the same due to our DNA which remains constant.

This is an appealing argument as it explains why we change and yet we are still the same person as we were seven years ago.

Question 21

Possible C.C.C to the Bodily Criterion Argument?

Answer 21

Michael Allen Fox: Only 10% of the DNA in our bodies were ours and the rest contributed in millions of microorganisms which resulted in our body.

This breaks down the DNA argument as if what defines us is DNA and that constitutes only 10% of our bodies then only 10% of how we physically appear is our identity

Question 22

Final Evaluation to the Bodily Criterion Argument?

Answer 22

The Bodily Criterion is on in which we’d like to appeal to the most, however, I believe that because our bodies are constantly regenerating and yet we still feel connected to our younger selves the bodily criterion provides insufficient criteria for what constitutes identity, so how do we define ourselves then.

Question 23

John Locke’s argument of identity

Answer 23

2.) John Locke, instead of focusing on something physical, looked to consciousness as a feature of how we define ourselves.

John Locke argued that identity resided in our consciousness and more specifically in our memories.

I can remember my youthful days, therefore I am connected tot hat younger self through my memories

Therefore, being humans is connected to our consciousness as well

Question 24

Criticisms to the John Locke Argument?

Answer 24

Thomas Reid provides a criticism, which devalues Locke’s argument

Thomas Reid provides the example of the boy, who became a soldier, who then became a General

The General remembers being the soldier but not the boy and the soldier remembers being the boy.

According to Locke’s argument of memories, the soldier and the boy are the same and the general and the soldier are the same yet the general and the boy are not the same as they are not connected by memories

This shows an obvious logical contradiction in Locke’s argument and thus shows that memories cannot constitute for identity.

Question 25

Counter Criticisms to Thomas Reid’s argument?

Answer 25

The argument of phycological continuity, however, was altered by Parfit to fit Reid’s argument

Parfit argues that identity is defined by psychological continuity

This is that one is connected to our previous self by either remembering directly that self or by remembering that at same point in the past I remember being younger

So with the example of the general and the boy, although the general doesn’t remember the boy he remembers that as a soldier he remembers being the boy and so there is psychological continuity.

This, therefore, resolves Reid’s criticism.

Question 26

C.C.C to John Locke’s argument for Identity?

Answer 26

However, the idea of using memories in general is fundamentally flawed as there are occasions when we can lose memories, an example being Alzheimer’s disease.

If we lose our memories, do we then lose our identity, and therefore have no identity

Sometimes memories can be faulty or false

This would mean therefore that we can have false identities. Therefore, using memories and consciousness as means to define identity is flawed

Question 27

Evaluation of John Locke’s argument for Identity?

Answer 27

I believe that the argument for identity residing in consciousness breaks down because our memories can be lost or can be false as this would suggest a total loss of identity or in the case of those whose memories have completely no identity, which would distinguish them as not humans. Therefore, after seeing that the argument from identity falls when it comes to assessing it through physical features and through consciousness, therefore it must come from something immaterial such as a soul.

Question 28

Descartes argument for Personal Identity?

Answer 28

Descartes argues for a distinction between the physical body and a immaterial mind.

From his meditations, he argues that he can know his mind exists as a thinking thing when says “ I am, I exist” however we can x his body.

Therefore, according to Liebniz’s law that two things are identical if they posses the exact same qualities, the mind must be distinguished from the body and therefore we must have an immaterial mind within us that defines who we are.

This is an argument from dualism that argues for the distinction between mind (or soul) and body

Question 29

Evaluation of Descartes argument?

Answer 29

I disagree that there is a problem with the idea of interaction

The mind and body do not need to be able to physically interact and we do not know how immaterial substances function as they are immaterial

The existence of an immaterial mind or soul is the only convincing argument to constitute for identity

Question 30

Conclusion of the Self Essay?

Answer 30

Overall, the bodily criterion is insufficient as our bodies are constantly regenerating
The argument from consciousness fails due to false and lost memories, therefore the best argument for what defines X is the existence of an immaterial soul within

Therefore, being human is connected to the soul

Question 31

What do Religious Exclusivists believe?

Answer 31

Koukl would claim that multi-faith societies and pluralist societies are a complete misunderstanding of the consequences of what he calls the “intolerance of tolerance”

Specifically he points to many dichotomies between religions for example the question of Christ, he is either a messiah or he is not

From this Koukl says that it is merely a matter of simple maths that both cannot be true and therefore one must be false and one must be correct

Question 32

What do some people assume about Religious Exclusivists and why are they wrong?

Answer 32

Such a position seems to assume that by assuming a multi-faith, pluralist position you are making a value judgement upon religions - this is not necessarily true.

Indeed one can admit that ultimately, it is possible for one religion to be correct and another to be false, however that in the coroporeal realm it is impossible to determine which, all should be tolerated - in this respect tolerance truly does not act as tolerance

Question 33

Criticisms of the Religious Exclusivists?

Answer 33

John Hick Escahtological Verification

One can have absolute knowledge of the validity of their religion

Secondly, it assumes that one religion is truly of a complete validity - given the multitude of mutually incompatible religions it seems heavily unlikely that any one religion is entirely correct.

Further, even were such certainty possible, given the existence of those outsde the religion, a theocracy of any kind seems to necessitate oppression

Indeed the implied oppression stands in stark contrast to much of religious doctrine - of course if one is forced to appear religious, it destroys the chance of any geniune connection with religion.

Question 34

John Hick’s view on Multiculturalism, Faith and Multi Faith Societies?

Answer 34

Hick’s conception of religious pluralism is indeed the position of Koukl characterises as the entire position, that is that all religions are equally valid and invalid to each other.

Question 35

Hick claims there are two ways of viewing reality: what are these?

Answer 35

The noumenal relates to the world as it is or the Real

Phenomenal is reality after it has been interpreted through human experience

Naturally for Hick the real contains a divine, however he acknowledges that any one religion can only describe part of this reality

All religion, however, aims at transforming one from self-centredness to reality-centeredness

Essentially through religion are we able to get closer to the noumenal

As such, Hick would dismiss the absolute adherence to any one religion, claiming it would give one a woefully insufficient grasp of the reality of the divine

Question 36

Criticisms of Religious Pluralism (Hick)?

Answer 36

It seems that Hick himself is certain that this noumenal does incorporate divine elements, something which as he admits, is impossible to entirely substantiate

Destroys Free Will

Purgatory (C.C)

Pluralism (exclusivism)

Question 37

D’Costa on Multiculturalism?

Answer 37

Inclusive Pluralism

Theocracy, Secular Modernity and accepting Pluralism which still has a single religion as its basis

Question 38

Augustine’s soul-deciding theodicy

Answer 38

Augustine believed that all humans were created perfect and that they were given free will.

However, humans use that free will to turn away from God and chose to sin.

God foretold that this fall would happen and therefore sent his son, Jesus Christ, so that humanity may be reconciled with God.

Augustine’s theodicy bases the origin of evil and suffering on humanity and takes that responsibility away from God.

In his document on faith, hope and love called The Enchiridion, Augustine stated that the definition of evil is the ‘privation of good.’ (3:11)
This means that evil does not exist in the same way that good exists, but rather that evil is the absence of good.

Evil does not have to exist in order for good to exist. There does not need to be an opposite.

This doctrine allows for God to exist as an omnibenevolent being. This is because God is not responsible for creating evil, as evil itself as an entity does not exist.

Question 39

Hick’s soul making-theodicy

Answer 39

Hick’s theodicy is based on the same one as Irenaeus.
However, Hick further developed the theory, called the ‘vale of soul-making.’

Hick agreed that humans were created as imperfect from the start, so that they could grow and develop into the ‘likeness’ of God.

He developed this further by explaining that through hardships and life, humans develop virtues, and these virtues are more meaningful than if they were simply graced to us by God.

These good, moral traits are best as they come from free will.

Unlike Augustine, who claimed that humanity destroyed a perfect world, Hick and Irenaeus say that the perfect world is one to look forward to.
Hick believes that everyone has the chance to achieve eternal life.

Question 40

Irenean Theodicy

Answer 40

Ireneas said that God made humans imperfect and therefore is slightly responsible for making humans evil.

To make humans perfect would take away their freedom to live in accordance with God’s will by creating imperfect humans.

Individuals are given the chance to develop and grow through a soul-making process into children of God.

Irenaeus states that eventually good will overcome evil and suffering

Question 41

Ordinary Language?

Answer 41

William Alston proposed that univocal language could be used with religious concepts – it can make discussion of religious concepts meaningful.

However, he advocated only partial univocity.

• Alston accepted the fact that we are physical limited beings, whereas God is not.
• However, you must accept that two different things can possess the same feature but in different ways.

EXAMPLE – “A new computer and a new acquaintance can both be “intriguing” in a single sense of the term,
even though what makes the one intriguing is very different from what makes the other intriguing.” (Alston - Divine Nature and Human Language: Essays in Philosophical Theology)

Question 42

Univocal Language?

Answer 42

Univocal = One meaning only, the same meaning in all situations.

Univocal Language = The term, regardless of who it relates to, signifies only one
thought/points to only one thing.

For religious language, this could mean that when we say ‘God is good’ we have exactly the same meaning of ‘goodness’ as when we say ‘man is good’.

Question 43

Why is God a social Construct to Freud?

Answer 43

his argument revolves around the central theme of human nature. Since humans have an infantile emotional need for a powerful, supernatural God, they create a being of higher authority to please the unconscious mind’s need for wish fulfilment. This is also argued by Freud in his works of Future of an Illusion, where he regarded God as an “illusion”. According to him, religion, is necessary to help us restrain violent impulses earlier in the development of civilization, can now be set aside in favour of reason and science. Therefore, using Freud as evidence, it would follow that God is a social construct since we can’t make a claim of the opposite since we are being irrational. Under these chains of reasoning, Freud’s argument may appear to be very convincing. If it is true that humans are subject to fear, then Freud would have solved this argument in my eyes. However, there are two assertions that he makes, one of which he reconciles. Firstly, Alvin Plantinga said that Freud fails to provide any evidence to the assertion that religious beliefs are a wish fulfilment. His argument stems from the reasoning that most people dislike the idea of a powerful God watching over us. This argument is strengthened by the concept of Phycological Egoism, where our nature is filled with massive egos. Therefore, according to Plantinga, given that Freud has misconstrued human nature and his understanding of human nature set precedent for his thesis, people, like Freud, who agree with the fact that God is a social construct, have no right to believe in it whatsoever on the basis that Freud fails to understand human nature. On the other hand, Freud’s argument to this is that Plantinga is hardly describing the believer, and that such preferences do not seem incompatible with wishing there was a God on the part of the theists. Thus. it can be said that Plantinga hardly describes a typical unthinking, uncritical believer. However, Freud faces his second assertion, of which he cannot extinguish. This is the notion that referring to God himself as an illusion is an illusion itself. If we take Freud’s argument of human nature to be true, it will mean that Freud’s argument is also based out of fear because the argument for the existence of God as a social construct was only made from fear of God. I see to this, that Freud has no suitable explanation to counter this argument. Thus, the social construct argument fails on the grounds that they have an unrealistic understanding of human nature. Therefore, the claim that God is nothing more than a human being fails since God is not a social construct – this argument is invalid.

Question 44

Kierkegaard?

Answer 44

Given that Rudolf Otto and Freud seem to make invalid arguments, I will turn to the only solution to the dilemma at hand – faith. This is supported by Kierkegaard’s view of faith which was radically opposed to the dominant religious paradigm. The “Christian Socrates” like Socrates, Kierkegaard challenges outdated assumptions. Kierkegaard’s faith is astounding. an independent re-confidence in the improbable. Many Christians, Kierkegaard claimed, possessed a doctrine-based faith. acquiescence He longed to flee and insisted that Each person’s interaction with the unlikely determines their faith. He believed that what many called “faith” was actually “hope,” There is a chance something is true, but true trust requires belief. Anything while knowing it’s impossible and there’s no need to believe it. In the realm of impossibility, only faith matters. Faith, according to Kierkegaard, trumped reason, and experience. Faith begins where reason’s bounds are discovered. This is not a rational choice of faith. Kierkegaard says it’s a one-time thing. Faith movements take time. Choosing to ignore reason in favour of faith in the impossible. This re-choice process is circular, and no developmental progress is made. Therefore, God is not nothing more than a human being himself but to make this claim we need to take a massive “leap of faith” since God is transcendent and is above and beyond human understanding. This seemingly demonstrates that Kierkegaard posits better arguments as he respects the fact that we can’t prove God being nothing more than a human being himself, which also denies arguments from Religious Experiences going towards God and Freud which try to implement the use of reason, which seemingly gets us nowhere. Therefore, under Freud’s chains of reasoning, if we hold God’s Transcendence to be true, then I would deem the position of faith as irrefutable. On the other hand, Philosophers such as Aquinas would refute this claim on the basis that God can be described regardless of his transcendence. They use the analogy of proportion to suggest that while we can’t understand God’s essence, we can get a glimpse of his characteristics. This seems to refute Kierkegaard, meaning that Faith is unnecessary as Kierkegaard assumes that Faith is the only alternative to reason. However, Aquinas’ argument undermines Simplicity. The fact that we can’t refer to God as parts or properties acknowledges that Aquinas’ Analogy of Proportion is false. Thus, Kierkegaard’s argument is the most successful in eliminating criticisms as it respects God’s transcendence the most. Thus, I can claim that God is not nothing more than a human being himself, with Kierkegaard as evidence.