god 3 and 5 markers

Question 1

what is meant by gods omniscience (3)

Answer 1

• all-knowing
  -god knows everything that is possible to know
• god believes no false propositions

Question 2

what is meant by god’s omnibenevolence (3)

Answer 2

• gods will is always in accordance with moral values
• god is perfectly good

Question 3

what is meant by god being eternal (3)

Answer 3

-timeless
- atemporal
- exists outside of time

Question 4

what is meant by god being everlasting (3)

Answer 4

• temporal
• existing throughout all time
• having no beginning or end

Question 5

difference between eternal and everlasting

Answer 5

eternal:
-timeless
- atemporal
- exists outside of time

everlasting:
- temporal
- existing throughout all time
- having no beginning or end

Question 6

what does william paley mean by spatial order and purpose (3)

Answer 6

spatial order-
parts working towards a purpose
complexity
order

Question 7

what does swinburne mean by temporal order/regularity (3)

Answer 7

regularities of succession: the laws of nature, processes that operate the same way every time.the laws of nature are predictable and consistent

Question 8

what is the difference between ontological arguments and teleological arguments? (3)

Answer 8

• ontological arguments are a priori: so prove god’s existence through reason only and are deductive
• teleological arguments make an inference based on the nature of the world to prove a posteriori and inductively the existence of god

Question 9

what is an inductive argument (3)

Answer 9

an argument whose conclusion is supported by its premises, but is not logically entailed by them i.e if the premises are true, then this makes it likely that the conclusion is true, but it is still possible that its false.

Question 10

what is a deductive argument (3)

Answer 10

an argument whose conclusion is logically entailed by its premises i.e if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false

Question 11

what is an argument from analogy (3)

Answer 11

to argue by analogy is to argue that because two things are similar, what is true of one is true of another

p1: object X and object Y are similar in having properties
p2: object has property A
C: object Y has property A

like effects have like causes

Question 12

how does anselm define god (3)

Answer 12

that than which nothing greater can be conceived

Question 13

how does descartes define god (3)

Answer 13

the concept of god is a supremely perfect being

Question 14

what is the difference between spatial and temporal order (3)

Answer 14

• spatial order refers to regularities of co presence (how parts are organised to serve a purpose). refers to the tendency for things to turn up together in orderly pattern
• temporal order refers to regularities of succession which refers to the laws of nature. this refers to orderly processes that operate the same way every time. the orderliness in which one thing follows from another

Question 15

define the causal adequacy principle (3)

Answer 15

The causal adequacy principle (CAP), or causal reality principle, is a philosophical claim made by Descartes that the cause of an object must contain at least as much reality as the object itself.​

Question 16

define fallacies of composition (3)

Answer 16

inferring that something is true for the whole from the fact that its true for some part of the whole

Question 17

what is moral evil (3)

Answer 17

evil committed by free moral agents; for example murder

Question 18

what is natural evil (3)

Answer 18

states of affairs which, considered in themselves, are those that are part of the natural world, and so are independent of the intervention of a human agent and which lead to pain and suffering. ​

Question 19

what’s the difference between moral and natural evil (3)

Answer 19

Evil: an immoral extreme which leads to feelings of moral horror. ​

​
Moral evil: evil committed by free moral agents; for example murder.​

Natural evil: states of affairs which, considered in themselves, are those that are part of the natural world, and so are independent of the intervention of a human agent and which lead to pain and suffering.

Question 20

outline views of gods relationship with time (5)

Question 21

outline the paradox of the stone (5)

Answer 21

p1: either god can create a stone that he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone that he cannot lift
p2: if god can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (as there is at least one thing he cannot do which is to lift the stone)
p3: if god cannot create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (as there is at least one thing he cannot do which is to create the stone)
p4: therefore, in any case, there is at least one thing that god cannot do
c: therefore, god is not omnipotent.

Question 22

explain why the euthyphro dillemma shows that the concept of god is incoherent (5)

Answer 22

p1: either god condones good actions because they are good, or they are good because god makes them so
p2: if god endorses good actions because they’re good, this limits god’s power and he is not omnipotent
p3: if good actions are good because god makes them so, his decisions are arbitrary, and his goodness is not meaningful but rather derived from his omnipotence
c: god cannot be both omnipotent and meaningfully good.
is god is not omnipotent he isnt coherent

Question 23

explain how the existence of an omniscient god and free human beings is compatible (5)

Answer 23

by omniscience it is meant that god is all-knowing. thus, god has all possible knowledge or god knows that which it is logically impossible

• gods exists outside of time - aquinas - god = atemporal
• for god there is no past, present and future - all simultaneously
• he knows what i happen to choose but he doesn’t make me choose it.
• A uses analogy of road

Question 24

explain why the existence of an omniscient god and free human beings is not compatible (5)

Answer 24

• by omniscience it is meant that god is all-knowing. thus, god has all possible knowledge or god knows that which it is logically impossible
• god may possibly know all true propositions but could not know that which is false as this would be a contradiction in the definition of knowledge
• if god has all possible knowledge, it is conceivable that god knows what i will do in the future
• therefore it is logically possible to say that god must know the future
• if god is omniscient then it is impossible for me to act contrary to how god knows i will act.
  – free will is the ability to have acted otherwise

omniscience thus challenges free will as god cannot know what i will do while also leaving my free will intact and allowing me to act otherwise
- if i act otherwise then god would be wrong and this is impossible if he knows all

Question 25

outline competing views on god’s relationship to time, including god being timeless (eternal) and god being within time (everlasting) (5)

Answer 25

• if it is that god is eternal, it is to say that he is timeless, atemporal, and that he exists outside of time
  — however, if this is correct than he cannot intervene in the world, which weakens his omnipotence
• if god is everlasting, then he is within time, with no beginning or end, temporal.
  —- yet this means god cannot know the future, what you will do next so this challenges his omnipotence
  C: either way, this challenges his omnipotence

Question 26

explain the argument that human freedom is impossible if god is omniscient (5)

Answer 26

• by omniscience it is meant that god is all-knowing. thus, god has all possible knowledge or god knows that which it is logically impossible
• god may possibly know all true propositions but could not know that which is false as this would be a contradiction in the definition of knowledge
• if god has all possible knowledge, it is conceivable that god knows what i will do in the future
• therefore it is logically possible to say that god must know the future
• if god is omniscient then it is impossible for me to act contrary to how god knows i will act.
  – free will is the ability to have acted otherwise

omniscience thus challenges free will as god cannot know what i will do while also leaving my free will intact and allowing me to act otherwise
- if i act otherwise then god would be wrong and this is impossible if he knows all

Question 27

outline the difference between inductive and deductive arguments to prove the existence of god (5)

Answer 27

• an inductive argument is one where the argument is intended to be strong.
• an inductively strong argument with actually true premises is ‘cogent’
  – provides reason at best to believe that the conclusion is probably true
• deductively valid: if the premises are true, the conclusions must be true
• a deductively valid argument with actually true premises is ‘sound’
• a deductive argument provides reasons to believe that the conclusion is certainly true
• SUCCESSFUL INDUCTIVE ARGS. FOR GOD AT BEST PROVES GODS PROBABLE EXISTENCE
• SUCCESSFUL DEDUCTIVE ARGS FOR GOD ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF GOD WITH CERTAINTY

Question 28

outline the design argument from analogy, as presented by hume (5)

Answer 28

p1: human artifacts, such as cameras and machines have certain teleological properties (spatial order’: i.e complexity, order, parts working towards a purpose.)
p2; nature itself, and entities within it such as eyes, also have these teleological properties (spatial order: i.e complexity, order. parts working towards a purpose)
p3: human artifacts have these teleological properties because they have been designed by an intelligent being
p4: similar effects/properties have similar causes/explanations
c: therefore, nature has these teleological purposes because they have been designed by an intelligent being - god.

Question 29

outline william paleys design argument (presented from spatial order/purpose) (5)

Answer 29

P1: In the organisation of parts for a purpose nature resembles the products of human design.​
P2: Similar effects have similar causes.​
P3: The cause of the products of human design is an intelligent mind that intended the design.​
P4: A designer must be distinct from what is designed.​
C1: Therefore, the cause of nature is an intelligent mind that (a) intended the design of the word, and (b) is distinct from what is designed.​
C2: Therefore, an intelligent designer (God) exists

Question 30

outline richard swinburnes design argument (argument from spatial order/purpose) (5)

Answer 30

P1: The universe as a whole contains temporal order/regularities of succession (i.e. the ​
regular and universal fundamental laws of nature).​

P2: There are two possible hypotheses: (H1) temporal order has a scientific explanation; ​
or (H2) temporal order has a personal explanation

P3: (H1) fails: science can only explain the existence of regularities of succession in terms ​
of more fundamental regularities of succession. So, we cannot give a scientific ​explanation of the temporal order displayed in the fundamental laws of science (science ​cannot itself explain why the fundamental laws of science exist as they do).​

P4: (H2) can explain (fundamental) scientific regularities of succession. They are similar ​
to regularities of succession produced by human agents, and so, ​by analogy, are produced by rational agency.​

P5: The agency in question would have to be of immense power and intelligence, free ​and disembodied, which is to say God.​
C1: Therefore, God exists.

Question 31

outline humes objection to the design argument from analogy (5)

Answer 31

analogy: like effects have like causes
if the universe resembles a machine, then its designer must resemble a human designer: it must be an intelligent designer

• as the universe is finite we cannot infer an infinite cause
• just as human objects are created by many individuals, it would be rational to infer that the universe was made by a group of gods.

inference cannot be safely made - lack of evidential basis that the universe resembles a machine
- argument fails to prove the existence of an intelligent designer

Question 32

explain why the problem of spatial disorder (as posed by hume and paley) can become an issue for the design argument (5)

Answer 32

spatial disorder refers to:
- flaws and imperfections (irregularities, natural objects which fail to achieve their purpose)
- natural objects which don’t seem to have a purpose
-natural events that go against the purpose of the ‘machine’

examples:
- wisdom teeth, appendix, vast area of space
- cancer, disease

-question the inference!!!!
significant spatial disorder means we can infer there is no designer
THEREFORE spatial order fails to prove there is an intelligent designer

Question 33

explain humes’s argument that the design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case (5)

Answer 33

• our inferences from effects to causes are based on repeated observations between two events
• however, in case of universe, we only have experience of one universe and therefore cannot legitimately make any inference to a purposeful cause (unlike human creations, which we have so much experience of)
• we can never tell, from a single instance of an event, what the cause is, let alone that it’s an intelligent purposeful agency
• to make an inference about the production of universes we would need to have experience of many universes, which we lack
  key problem : we have no pattern of observed correlations between universes and their designers

Question 34

explain why god may not be considered the best or only explanation to prove design (5)

Answer 34

• in order to infer that there is a designer of nature, we have to rule out other explanations of the organisations of parts for a purpose, and these other explanations may be no less plausible
  e.g:
• theory of evolution by natural selection has the benefit of being a simple explanation as it does not ‘multiply entities beyond necessity’
• existence of the universe is a brute fact that requires no further explanation

Question 35

outline the kalam argument (5)

Answer 35

p1: everything that begins has a cause
p2: the universe began to exist
c1: therefore, the universe had a cause of its existence
p3: the cause of the universes existence must be distinct from the universe
c2: therefore, the universe had a cause of its existence that is distinct from itself

Question 36

outline aquinas’ 1st way (5)

Answer 36

p1: things in the world are in motion
p2: movement is a reduction from potentiality to actuality
p3: nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality except by something already in actuality
p4: the same thing cannot be both potentiality and actually something
C1: therefore a thing that is moved cannot move itself
C2: therefore what is moved must be moved by another
p5: there cannot be an infinite regress
C3: therefore there must be an unmoved mover, which is god

Question 37

outline aquinas’ 2nd way (5)

Answer 37

p1: we know (through experience) that the world contains efficient causes
p2: nothing can be the efficient cause of itself (if it could it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible)
p3: if the series of (efficient) causes was infinite, there would not be a first (efficient) cause
p4: if there was no (efficient) cause there would be no subsequent (efficient) causes (contradicting p1)
C1: therefore there is a first (efficient) cause, and this is god

Question 38

outline aquinas’ 3rd way (5)

Answer 38

• there are things which are both possible to be and not to be
• matter in the universe is contingent - it’s caused and comes into being
• therefore, at one point in time, there was nothing in existence
• without an uncaused causer, it would be impossible for anything to start to exist, and even now there would be nothing
• however, we know there is something
• we therefore need to accept a being whose existence is necessary
• without the necessary existence of this being, nothing would exist
• being whose existence is necessary = god

Question 39

outline descartes argument from causation (5)

Answer 39

p1: i am not the cause of my existence as i do not have all perfections
p2: some cause is needed to keep me in existence as my existence is not uncaused
c1: therefore, i depend on someone else to exist

p3: i am a thinking being and i have the idea of god
p4: there must be as much reality in the cause as in the effect
c2: therefore, what causes my existence must be a thinking being and have the idea of god

p5: if it’s existence is caused by another cause, then the point repeats: this second cause is in turn either the cause of its own existence or its existence is caused by another cause
p6: there cannot be an infinite sequence of causes
C3: some cause must be the cause of its own existence, which is god

Question 40

outline leibniz’s argument from the principle of sufficient reason (5)

Answer 40

p1: there are two kinds of truth: those of reasoning and those of fact
p2a: truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible
p2b: truths of fact are contingent, and their opposite is possible
C1: therefore to provide a sufficient reason for any contingent fact, we must look outside the sequence of contingent facts
C2: therefore the sufficient reason for contingent facts must be a necessary substance (or being) that is a sufficient reason for all contingent facts
C3: this necessary substance is god, therefore god exists

Question 41

outline the issue, for the cosmological argument, of the possibility of an infinite series (5)

Answer 41

hume
- why does the existence of anything have to have an ultimate reason in terms of which it is intelligible
- only the human inclination to think that everything is intelligible requires us to assume an end to the explanation
- an infinite series is not inconceivable: what is conceivable is logically possible. an infinite series is, contrary to what the kalam argument suggests, conceivable
- something has always existed, and caused what existed next - it’s not an analytic truth that an infinite regress is not possible.

Question 42

outline hume’s objection to the causal principle (5)

Answer 42

• there is no a priori reason to believe that everything has a cause or a reason by means of which it is explained or understood. and no set of observations can establish a posteriori the truth of the causal principle (the principle that everything has a cause)
• hume states that it’s a mistake to conceive of the cosmological question of the universe’s origin in terms of cause and effect because this takes us beyond the scope of human ideas and understanding

Question 43

explain why the cosmological argument commits the fallacy of composition (russell) (5)

Answer 43

fallacy of composition: assumes that a characteristic of parts of a thing is also characteristics of a whole thing.
speaking about causes makes sense only in regard to things in the universe, not the universe or totality
hume and russell: idea that just because one ‘effect’ in a chain has a ‘cause’ it doesn’t follow that a whole series of cause and effects has one single cause.
knowing causes within the universe doesn’t entitle us to move to a cause of the whole universe

Question 44

explain the argument that the kalam argument commits the fallacy of composition (5)

Answer 44

the kalam argument claims that the universe began to exist, just like everything else that needs a distinct cause. therefore, this means it has a cause that is distinct as well: god
fallacy of composition: assumes that a characteristic of parts of a thing is also characteristics of a whole thing.
speaking about causes makes sense only in regard to things in the universe, not the universe or totality
hume and russell: idea that just because one ‘effect’ in a chain has a ‘cause’ it doesn’t follow that a whole series of cause and effects has one single cause.
knowing causes within the universe doesn’t entitle us to move to a cause of the whole universe

Question 45

explain the impossibility of a necessary being (hume and russell) against the cosmological argument (5)

Answer 45

• hume states that its a mistake to conceive of the cosmological question of the universes origin in terms of cause and effect because this takes us beyond the scope of human ideas and understanding
• russell: word ‘necessary’ is useless, except as applied to analytic propositions, not to things
  — there’s no being whose existence is self contradictory to deny – thus, there is no necessary being

Question 46

outline anselm’s ontological argument (5)

Answer 46

first way;
p1: the concept of god is the greatest possible being
p2: if god exists in the mind alone then we can imagine a greater being to exist in the mind and in reality
p3: this being would be greater than god
C: therefore, god cannot only exist in the mind, he must exist in reality

second way:
p1: the concept of god is the concept of the greatest possible being
p2: it is greater to be a necessary being than a contingent being
p3: if god was contingent and we could imagine he could not exist, then a greater being can be imagined that cannot be conceived not to exist
p4: this being would be greater than god
C: therefore, god is a necessary being (god is that which nothing greater can be conceived)

Question 47

outline descartes ontological argument (5)

Answer 47

p1: god is by definition a supremely perfect being
p2: existence is a perfection
p3; a supremely perfect being lacks no perception
c: therefore god exists

Question 48

outline malcolm’s ontological argument (5)

Answer 48

1. If God exists, his existence is necessary.
2. If God does not exist, his existence is impossible.
3. Either God exists or he does not exist.
4. God’s existence is either necessary or impossible.
5. God’s existence is possible (it is not impossible).
6. Therefore God’s existence is necessary.

Question 49

outline gaunilo’s perfect island objection (5)

Answer 49

p1: we can imagine an island which is the greatest conceivable island
p2: it is greater to exist in reality than merely in understanding
C: therefore, the greatest conceivable island must exist in reality

• if anselm’s proof were sound then we could give a second proof for the existence of s greatest conceivable island
  — we cannot give a sound proof of the existence of a greatest conceivable island
  — anselm’s proof for the greatest conceivable being is not sound

Question 50

outline empiricist objections to the ontological argument (5)

Answer 50

P1 there are two types of propositions: those which add something to the concept and those which describe a state of affairs.

P2 everyday use of language makes it possible to talk about non-existent things with apparent meaning.

P 3 for example, if I talked about “the present King of France” - as soon as I start talking about this meaningless entity, even if to state that it does not exist, I imply that the concept is a valid one.

P4 statements can only be true or false if they refer to a meaningful concept.

P5 existence doesn’t add anything to any concepts: saying something exists is meaningless.

P6 what the ontological argument states is that God’s necessary existence is necessary, which is a circular argument.

C therefore the ontological argument fails to prove the existence of God.

Question 51

explain kant’s objection based on evidence not being a predicate (5)

Answer 51

P1 A predicate is a property that a thing can either possess or lack: for example, A predicate might be a single word like ‘John laughed’ where John is the subject and ‘laughed’ is the predicate.

P2 to say that something exists is to say that the concept of that thing is exemplified in the world.

Therefore, existence is not a matter of a thing possessing a property i.e. existence.

P3 therefore existence is not a predicate: existence is not a property that can be attributed to beings like we can attribute other properties such as being blue, hard, or round

C therefore we cannot prove that God exists by saying existence is a necessary attribute of God.

Question 52

outline the logical problem of evil (5)

Answer 52

p1: if god is supremely good, then he has the desire to eliminate evil (since a good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can)
p2: if god is omnipotent, then he is able to eliminate evil (since there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do)
( p3: if god is omniscient then he knows that evil exists and how to eliminate it )
c1: therefore, if god exists, and is supremely good, omnipotent, and omniscient

Question 53

what is the verification principle (3)

Answer 53

• a method used by logical positivists to determine if a concept/claim is meaningful or meaningless.
• if the answer to the question ‘is the sentence analytical or verified by sense experience (sight, smell, touch etc) is yes, then it is meaningful. if the answer is no, then it’s meaningless
• e.g the statement ‘god loves you’ is not analytic and it also can’t be deduced from a priori claims. it’s also not an empirically verifiable sentence since no experience counts towards establishing or refuting the claim. therefore, the sentence ‘god loves you’ is meaningless

Question 54

what does hick mean by eschatological verification (3)

Answer 54

hick understands eschatological verification as being the removal of rational doubt concerning a claim based on some kind of (predicted) experience which can only happen at the end of time/after our death

Question 55

what are bliks in religious language (3)

Answer 55

bliks are unfalsifiable claims that are still meaningful to there person who holds them
- e.g the unfalsifiable belied that ‘god exists’ is meaningful enough to change peoples behaviour, such as praying or going to church.
in addition to being non verifiable, they’re a fundamental assumption which is non-cognitive

Question 56

explain the distinction between cognitivism and non-cognitivism about religious language (5)

Answer 56

• cognitivst account: religious claims aim to describe how the world/reality is, express beliefs that such-and-such is the case, truth apt
  – e.g the sentence ‘god exists’ expresses the belief that god exists, which is true or false depending on whether it describes or falsely describes reality
• non-cognitivist account: religious claims don’t aim to describe the world through assertions which may be true or false (not truth-apt), express non-belief-like attitudes towards the world, such as emotions, desires, faith or guiding principles
  — e.g the sentence ‘god exists’ expresses a commitment to a certain way of life/of interpreting the world

Question 57

explain the empiricist/logical positivist challenges to the status of religious language (5)

Answer 57

• logical positivists: only statements that are logically true (i.e analytic propositions) or that can be verified empirically have meaning.
• meaningful statements are ones that are definitions and ones that can be confirmed by sense experience
• logical positivism’s verification principle claims that religious language is meaningless; statements such as ‘god loves me’ and ‘god created the universe’ aren’t analytical or empirically verifiable, thus making them meaningless.
  in addition to this, ayer claimed the original verification principle required a ‘strong’ verification which is then and there in person. verification in practice requires that the verifier can make an observation (s) that will in practice confirm or deny what is being claimed
  — this therefore makes all religious language meaningless because it’s not truth-apt

Question 58

outline hick’s response to ayer (eschatological verification) (5)

Answer 58

hick’s theory of eschatological verification: religious claims such as ‘there is an afterlife’ are verifiable and therefore meaningful
- however, these statements are only verifiable after death
——————- celestial city example
- this meets the requirements of the modified verification principle that one should be able to state the conditions under which the statement can be verified
- statements about this life such as ‘this life is a preparation for the next’ are either true or not true, but this status is impossible to determine during this life

Question 59

outline anthony flew’s argument on falsification (wisdom’s gardener) (5)

Answer 59

• flew: falsification shows religious language is meaningless
• falsification principle: for a statement to be synthetic and meaningful you need to know what observation would make it false.
• he illustrates that when a claim can’t be falsified, it’s meaningless through the parable of the invisible gardener—–
  through invisible gardener, flew is making the point that a reasonable belief should be falsifiable. if nothing counts as decisive evidence against the belief because the believer constantly qualifies the belief to allow it to survive, it becomes meaningless
  — religious beliefs are unfalsifiable as religious believers find ways to justify their claims despite the wider belief

Question 60

outline basil mitchell’s response to flew (the partisan) (5)

Answer 60

basil: religious assertions are cognitive and open to falsification. religious assertions aren’t scientific claims and they’re significant articles of faith instead
— story of partisan and the stranger
- mitchell compares this belief in the stranger to belief in god, showing it’s about trust. as with faith in a friend, trust in god implies giving the benefit of the doubt
- although a belief is not self-evident, there are still grounds for believe it because it’s the product of a functioning mind, showing it is meaningful

Question 61

outline hare’s response to flew (blik and the lunatic) (5)

Answer 61

Hare responds to Flew and agrees that religious language is non-cognitive but objects on the grounds that it’s not meaningful. He provides an example of a lunatic who believes all his dons are going to kill him. All his friends try and convince him that this isn’t true, set up meetings with the dons who try and persuade him that it’s not true yet the lunatic will not change his mind because of his blik. A blik is a world-perception, a subjective way in which we see the world that cannot be falsified because we are stuck in it. Similarly, a religious believer has the blik of God’s existence and this cannot be true or false like a scientific fact. Whilst a blik cannot be falsified, it is meaningful because it is the way in which we see the world. Rather than an assertion of a fact, religious language is an assertion of a blik that is non-cognitive yet meaningful

Question 62

outline the evidential problem of evil (5)

Answer 62

-evidential problem of evil: put forward by mill and developed by rowe = an empirical, inductive, a posterior argument
- claims there is too much evil in the world for an all-loving god to exist and therefore god’s existence seems unlikely – this conclusion is probable, not definitive bc its not deductive

p1: there exists instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent being could’ve prevented without the loss of some greater good
p2: a supremely good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could
c: therefore, as instances of suffering do occur, despite god being able to prevent them, there does not exist an omniscient, all-loving god

Question 63

outline how the free will defence responds to the problem of evil (5)

Answer 63

-FWD: aims to show the existence of evil as compatible with the existence of god, argues against the logical problem of evil by stating the opposite
- instead of evils existence rendering god as unable to be supremely good, it does the opposite. god gives us free will, ensuring that our lives are meaningful and not robotic. god gives us free will because he is supremely good.
- the FWD argues that evil comes about due to our free will of being able to do evil. therefore, it’s a price to pay for being able to have free will
– midgley argues that because we have free will to respond to out natural impulses in a positive way, we also have free will to respond in a negative way. therefore, this creates evil in the world that god cannot be blamed for
— if evil didn’t exist, we wouldn’t have free will and therefore, there would be no good. without evil and good as contrasts, the world would be a neutral, unfree place
- therefore, god exists and is wholly good

Question 64

outline how the soul making theodicy responds to the problem of evil (5)

Answer 64

• evidential evil: an inductive argument that postulates that the excessive amount of evil ensures that god’s existence is improbable.
• hick responds with the soul making theodicy: we are born in the image of god, but have to develop into the likeness of god. this development is crucial; we have to go through the vale of soul making in orfer to develop into the likeness of god.
• evil exists because the rules are consistent and fair and we develop virtues through these hardships + evil exists because it poses challenges that allow us to grow e.g poverty is an evil that exists, but allows for the virtue of charity. without poverty, there would be no charity
• we can only go through the vale of soul making and develop because we are at an epistemic distance from god - we are never certain of god’s existence which allows us to make meaningful moral choices
• hick argues that universal salvation is the result of all evil and is the answer to why there is so much random or excessive evil

Question 65

aquinas

A
god can only do the logically possible:
- this is not a restriction on his power - essentially, if god can do it, then it can be done
- god cannot make a square circle e.g
— therefore the paradox of the stone is a flawed argument

–

13
Q
mavrodes

Answer 65

aquinas

A
god can only do the logically possible:
- this is not a restriction on his power - essentially, if god can do it, then it can be done
- god cannot make a square circle e.g
— therefore the paradox of the stone is a flawed argument

–

13
Q
mavrodes

A
argues paradox of the stone makes a faulty assumption: presupposes the possibility of something logically impossible
- the claim that someone, x, can make something that is too heavy for x to lift is self-contradictory when x is an omnipotent being.
- so the power to create a stone an omnipotent being can’t ‘lift’ is not a possible power. if god lacks it, god still doesn’t lack any possible power

–

14
Q
savage

A
the very concept of omnipotence doesn’t make sense.

mavrodes uses concept of omnipotent being to argue that ‘a stone that an omnipotent being cannot lift’ is a self-contradiction.
paradox is instead trying the show that the concept of an omnipotent being is self-contradictory