Metaphysics of God

Question 1

Outline St Anselm’s ontological argument.

Answer 1

Ontological arguments claim that from a careful analysis of the concept of God we can know a priori that God must exist. Therefore according to proponents of the ontological argument it is an a priori, analytic truth that God exists.
Anselm’s ontological argument appears in The Proslogian and can be outlined as:
God is a being than that which nothing greater can be conceived (TTWNGCBC)
(We can coherently conceive of such a being)
It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind
Therefore, God must exist in reality.
Anselm’s argument defines God as TTWNGCBC meaning he is not claiming that God is the greatest being that exists but it is impossible to conceive of any being that could be greater than God. Hence, God is maximally great, and if one tohugh X was God but Y was greater, then an error has occurred and X is not God as nothing can be greater than God. P2 is not stated by Anselm but implied. It is vital to Anselm’s argument that the concept of God is coherent as if it is not then it could not be conceived, let alone exist in reality (e.g. a 4 sided shape cannot be conceived or exist in reality). To support P3 Anselm asks us to consider two beings, one that exists in mind and reality and one only in the mind and consider which is greater. He argues that the one who exists in reality is greater. As God is by definition the greatest being, He must exist in reality. Therefore, the ontological argument proves God’s existence.

Question 2

Outline Descartes’ ontological argument.

Answer 2

Ontological arguments claim that from a careful analysis of the concept of God we can know a priori that God must exist. Therefore according to proponents of the ontological argument it is an a priori, analytic truth that God exists.
Secondly, Descartes also outlined an ontological argument to prove the existence of God. His argument is:
I have the idea of God
The idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being
A supremely perfect being does not lack any perfections
Existence is a perfection
Therefore, God exists
Descartes’ argument is presented within the context of radical doubt and from ‘searching’ his mind he notes he has the idea of a God (P1) which he defines as a ‘supremely perfect being’. God can’t lack any perfections as then He wouldn’t be ‘supremely perfect’. Descartes argues existence is a perfection as it is entailed by omnipotence being a perfection, for to be omnipotent a being could not depend on anything else to exist and therefore must possess necessary existence. Therefore, the ontological argument proves the existence of God.

Question 3

Outline Norman Malcolm’s ontological argument.

Answer 3

Ontological arguments claim that from a careful analysis of the concept of God we can know a priori that God must exist. Therefore according to proponents of the ontological argument it is an a priori, analytic truth that God exists.
Norman Malcolms’s ontological argument is built on the disjunction that God’s existence is either a necessary existence or impossible, and because God’s existence is not impossible, God must exist. To support the disjunction Malcolm argues as follows. As ‘God is the greatest possible being’, nothing could stop him from existing, and neither could anything bring him into existence. This is because both situations imply God depends upon something to sustain or start his existence, which would mean he lacks some power. This can’t be the case as the ‘greatest possible being’ cannot lack anything. Therefore, if God does exist his existence must be necessary (i.e. it does not depend on anything else to exist) or if God does not exist, then he could never exist (i.e. his existence is impossible).
Now that this disjunction has been established Malcolm goes on to argue that the only way God’s existence is impossible is if the concept of God is self-contradictory (i.e. logically impossible, like a four-sided triangle). Asserting that the concept of God is not self-contradictory, Malcolm claims that God’s existence is not impossible, and therefore, what follows from the previously established disjunction is that God exists necessarily.

Question 4

Outline the issue for ontological arguments: Gaunilo’s ‘perfect island’ objection

Answer 4

A famous objection to Anselm’s ontological argument is Gaunilo’s ‘perfect island’ objection which runs a reductio ad absurdum attempting to show that Anselm must be wrong as the logic of the argument leads to absurd conclusions. It can be outlined as:
The perfect island is an island TTWNGCBC
(We can coherently conceive of such an island)
It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind
Therefore, the island must exist in reality.
However, the ‘perfect island’ does not exist and replacing ‘island’ with ‘God’ shows Anselm’s flawed reasoning that we cannot reason something into existence by adding the predicate ‘greatest conceivable’. In turn, this would also lead to an overload objection, in which the universe would have to contain an infinite number of perfect things. Thus, Gaunilo contends that these absurd implications means that Anselm cannot be right, an any claim that something exists (even those which are perfect or the greatest conceivable) must be supported by empirical evidence. Hence, contra Anselm, we cannot a priori that anything exists.

Question 5

Outline the issue ontological arguments: Empiricist objections to a priori arguments for existence

Answer 5

A final criticism of the ontological arguments is that according to empiricists nothing can be shown to exist by a priori reasoning. Hume’s fork separates what we can know a priori - ‘relations of ideas’ (e.g. 1 + 1 = 2) - from a posteriori claims about what exists ‘matter of fact’ (e.g. the sky is blue). Anything we can conceive of as existing, we can also conceive of as not existing without a logical contradiction so ‘God exists’ is not a relation of ideas but a matter of fact. Therefore, it can only be established a posteriori and since the ontological arguments use a priori reasoning, empiricists believe it is fallacious. Therefore, the onto is incorrect.

Question 6

Outline the issue for ontological arguments: Kant’s objection based on existence not being a predicate.

Answer 6

Kant argues against both Anselm and Descartes as he objects to the ontological argument based on existence not being a predicate. His argument is:
A genuine predicate adds to our conception of a subject and helps to determine it.
‘Existence’ does not add to our conception of a subject or help to determine it.
Therefore, existence is not a genuine predicate
Therefore, existence is not a part of the concept of God - meaning that ‘God exists’ is not an analytic truth. Consequently ‘God does not exist’ is not a contradiction and Kant comes to the conclusion that we cannot deduce the existence of God from the concept of God, and therefore ontological arguments cannot prove the existence of God.

Question 7

Outline the design argument from analogy (as presented by Hume).

Answer 7

Hume expresses his teleological argument as follows;
P1: ‘In the fitting of means to ends’, 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
C: Therefore the cause of nature is an intelligent mind that intended the design.
David Hume wrote his version of the design argument with the precise intention of criticising it and he used the argument to show many of the flaws he believes it contains. The argument is one from analogy as Hume draws a comparison between the intricate coordination of parts to achieve a purpose (the fitting means to ends) which he says is present in both nature and human design.

Question 8

Outline William Paley’s design argument: argument from spatial order/purpose.

Answer 8

Paley’s design argument can be outlined as follows:
P1: Anything that has parts organised to serve a purpose is designed
P2: Nature contains things which have parts organised to serve a purpose
C1: Therefore nature contains things which are designed.
P3: Design can only be explained in terms of a designer
P4; A designer must be distinct from what is designed.
C2: Therefore nature was designed by a mind that is distinct from nature
C3: Therefore such a mind (God) exists
William Paley compares our responses to finding a stone lying in a field and finding a watch lying in a field. Whilst we might accept that the stone had always been thre, we would not accept that the watch has always been there be the watch has parts thaat are organised and put together for a purpose and this is the ‘mark of design’ - they exhibit spatial order. Anything with the mark of design requires a designer. The watch has parts organised for a purpose so e can rightly infer the watch is designed. The works of nature have parts organised for a purpose and similarly also exhibit spatial ordre, so they also have a designer.

Question 9

Outline Richard Swinburne’s design argument: argument from temporal order/regularity.

Answer 9

Swinburne’s design argument from temporal order can be outlined as:
P1: There are some temporal regularities related to human actions that are explained in terms of persons
P2: There are temporal regularities related to the operton of the laws of nature, that are similar to those explained in terms of persons.
C1: We can by analogy explain the regulariteis relating to the operation of the laws of nature, that are similar to those explained in terms of persons.
P3: There is no scientific explanation of the laws of the universe.
P4: AS far as we lnpw there are only scientific and personal explanations.
C2: there is no better explanation for the operation ofthe law of nature than the explanation in terms of persons.
C3: The regularities in nature as also produced by a person
C4: THereforem such a person who acts on the entire universe exists.
Swinburne’s argument does not appeal to spatial order but rather temporal order - an orderliness in the way one thing follows another. These temporal regularites are described by the laws of nature. Whilst it can be claimed that spatial order appears asa result of evolution, Swinburne argues that the activity of a designer is the best explanation for the operation of hte laws of nature. All scientific explanations presuppose laws and therefore scientific laws require an explanation outside of themselves. We explain the products of human activity in terms of a person (a rational, free agent) so we can know of regulariteis in succession that can be caused by the activity of a person. Swinburne argues we can explain temporal order in the same way - there is aperson acting on the universe just as we act by moving our bodies.

Question 10

Explain the issue for teleological arguments: Hume’s objections to the design argument from analogy

Answer 10

Hume’s objections to the design argument fall into three different types, but they are equally underpinned by his empircisim - for Hume, we simply lack enough experience of worlds being made to draw any conclusion about their origins.
His first objection, argued by Philo, is that the analogy is weak and remote as the two objects being compared (machines and the universe) have very few similarities and a large number of differences . For example, the universe is ______ Moreover, Cleathes has to infer from a tiny part of the universe (the part we can observe) to the universe as a whole, which weakens the analogy still further. Because the analogy is so weak, Philo argues that there is very little we can ocnlude about what, if anything, designed the universe. Therefore, Humr suspends judgement about the origins of the universe because of his objection to the design argument analogy being weak and remote.

Question 11

Explain the issue for teleological arguments: the problem of spatial disorder (as posed by Hume and Paley)

Answer 11

Cleanthes (in Hume’s Dialogues) and Paley see evidence of spatial order throughout the universe, in particular the way nature has parts so well arranged they fit and function together for a purpose (such as the parts of an eye). Hume and Paley both address the issue of spatial disorder, to asses how far this disorder undermines design arguemtns.

One the main criticisms by Hume concern the issues of spatial disorder in the universe, which contrasts the orderly universe that would be created by a powerful, wise and benevolent God. This leads us to question whether, where there are design faults, do these indicate issues with the designer. Examples of spatial disorder in the universe include the uncertain behaviour of quantum particles and the unpredictabiltiy of human nature. but, there is an additional, more troubling imperfection in the universe, that there is a lot of suffering faced by those that live in the universe. Cleathes argues if there is a purpose or intention in the natural world then what is the purpose and intention behind the misery of animals (including humans)? From this, Philo concludes that the most reasonable conclusion is that the designer of the universe lacked the power, skill or love to create a universe with less disorder. This is far from the supremely perfect God we often suppose created the universe. Or, Philo musees, perhaps this flawed universe was created by an infant or senule God, or bu a being who is entirely indifferent tto our suffering. Therefore, from the problem of spatial disorder Hume concludes that we must suspend judgement if there is a designer, but if there is one it cannot be a perfect God.

Paley is aware that spatial disorder presents problems to the design argument but he doesn’t think the issue of spatial disorder is fatal to the design argument. Paley uses the example of a watch and a watch designer to illustrate his argument. He argues that whether or not a watch actually works is irrelevant; what is important is that the watch has qualities that indicate to us that it has been designed, THe same goes for the universe - spatial disorder does not matter if there is a mark of design: evidence of an arrangement of parts functioning together for a purpose.

Question 12

Explain the issue for telelogical arguments: the design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case (Hume)

Answer 12

Hume’s argument can be summarised as follows:
P1: Design argumetns make the inference that this universe and its properties were caused by a designer
P2: WE can make an inference that ‘X caused Y’ only if we have repeatedly observed excent X conjoined to event Y.
P3: We have observed only one universe- the universe- and its properties are a unique case.
P4: And we have never observed the origins of any universe.
C1: Therefore, we cannot make any inference about the cause (and origings_ of this universe and its properties.
C2: therefore, design arguments are based on an invalid inference.
Hume’s argument from a unique case follows from his empiricism: where he looks for empirical experience for every concept he analyses. Hume believes we cannot observe causation; instead, we should think of causation as our experience that two events are ‘constantly conjoined’. For example, dropping a mobile phone on the pavement multiple times we can observe that each time this is followed by the mobile phone cracking. From this we can infer that dropping the phone causes it to crack. Therefore, when we say something ‘causes’ something else, we are really saying that those events are observed to happened one after another repeatedly. THerefore, tp infer the universe was caused by a designer we’d have to observe the two events repeatedly. However, since the creation of the universe is a unique case, we cannot infer what caused it.

Question 13

Explain the issue for teleological arguments: whether God is the best or only explanation.

Answer 13

Design arguments conclude the best explantino for the appreatne of design in the universe is the existenceoof a designer with God-like attributes but there are alternative theories that may provide better explanations ofr design,

Hume offers a naturalistic explanation known as the EPicurian Hypothesism which can also account for order in the universe without reference to GOd, This is a very hugh prbalibty that a random system over a very long/linfinte period of time, will have periods of order and stability, /The universe could be in that period of stability and appear designed.

Kant states that the dsign argument does not warrant the conclusion that God exists, as the caseu must be in proportion to the evidence, For Kant, when we examine human artefacts, we are entitled to conclude that they hve properties that indicate they were designed - and that there was a designer. Bt, crucially, desingers such as watch-makers use materials that are available to them - they do not create the materials (the glass, the metal etc.) Kant concludes that the mos teh design argument demonstrates is a ‘worldy architect’ but not a crater of the world. Moreover, Kant argues there is no justification in the design argument to condlue tha the attributes of this worly architect aare the perfections normally ascribed to God (omnipotence etc._

The appearance of design may be explained by the process of natural selection as explained in Darwin’s theory of evolution. In the late 20th century, Dawkins proposed that the central unit of natural selection was the gene, and that it was genetic mutation that leads to a variatono in physical characteristic. Some of these characteristics enable a plannt/animal and their offspring to be better able to survive and reproduce. OVer millions of generations, and further mutations, simple features (e.g. light-receptive cells) become complex (e.g. eyes) wih parts working together for the survival of the organism. In this way, Darwin’s theory of evolution iss able to explain this appearance of design without any reference to a designer.

Best hypothesis as utilise natural world and do not need to posit existence of a metaphysical being and hteories such as evolution are backed with increasing scientific evidence e.g. fossils. Ockams razor

Question 14

Explain The Kalām argument (an argument from temporal causation).

Answer 14

Al-Ghazali was an Islamic philosopher who proposed a deductive argument to prove the existence of God, stating that the universe must have a beginning.
P1. The universe is composed of temporal phenomena – things that occur and exist in time – that are preceded by other temporal phenomena that are ordered in time
P2. An infinite regress of temporal phenomena is impossible
C1. Therefore, the universe must have a beginning
P3. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of existence
C2. Therefore, there is a cause of the existence of the universe
This cosmological argument deals with temporal causation as one thing is preceded by another that caused it, in this case, what preceded the universe was God. Furthermore, infinite regress is rejected (P2) because, according to Al-Ghazali, an infinite series of preceding temporal causes is impossible as it would imply that the universe has no beginning which is what is being disproven in this argument.

Question 15

Explain Aquinas’ 1st Way (argument from motion)

Answer 15

Aquinas’ first way from motion is an a posteriori, deductive cosmological argument for the existence of God. By motion, Aquinas means change and refers to how the properties of something change from ‘potential’ to ‘actual’. He argues nothing can have motion (change) unless moved by something which must have moved itself- an unmoved mover.
Furthermore, Aquinas rejects the concept of infinite regress, and so believes there must be a first cause. If there was no first cause, there would be no movement or change but we can see evidence of motion in the world so there must be a first cause.
Aquinas also says that the cause of the universe is a sustaining cause; our continual existence is dependent upon something. Aquinas then claims this first cause is God as God is the only being with necessary existence (He must exist in all possible worlds) and as humans are contingent beings (we may not exist in all possible worlds), we are dependent on him. This allows Aquinas to argue not only that God existed at one point in time, but that he has continual existence

Question 16

Explain Aquinas’ 2nd Way (argument from atemporal causation)

Answer 16

Aquinas’ second way is a cosmological argument from causation. It attempts to prove the existence of God by arguing that, as cause and effect exists in the world, there must be a first cause. It is based on the claim that an infinite regress of causes is impossible. It can be expressed in standard form as follows:
P1: The world contains cause and effect.
P2: Nothing can be the cause of itself (it would have to first exist in order to sustain its own existence).
P3: Sustaining causes follow in logical order – the first causally sustains the second, which causally sustains the third, and so on.
P4: If there is no cause, there can be no effect.
C1: Therefore, if there is no first cause (a sustaining cause which is not dependent on any other cause), then there will be no following causes. For example, if the first domino in a line of dominoes is removed, then it cannot cause the second domino to fall, which in turn will not knock down the third, and so if the first domino is removed there will be no following causes and none of the dominoes will fall.
P5: If there is an infinite regress of causes, there is no first cause.
C2: Therefore, given that there are causes in the world, there cannot be an infinite regress.
C3: Therefore, there must be a first cause which is not itself caused.
P6: God is the first cause.
C4: Therefore, God exists.
Aquinas argues in (P6) that the first cause must be God because the first cause must exist and not be causally dependent on anything else. This is contained within the concept of God – He is omnipotent, and therefore not dependent on anything else to exist, and exists necessarily. Aquinas argues not only that God caused the universe, but that He must continue to exist as a sustaining cause.

Question 17

Explain Aquinas’ 3rd way (an argument from contingency).

Answer 17

Aquinas provides a cosmological argument from contingency- rather than talking about causes and effects he touches upon logical and a priori concepts of necessary and contingent existence. Contingent existence is something that might not have existed, or it is possible for it to exist and not exist. He argues the following:
P1 Everything that exists contingently did not exist at some point
P2 If it is possible that something exists contingently then at some point nothing existed.
P3 If nothing existed then nothing could begin to exist
P4 but since things did begin to exist, there was never nothing in existence
C1 Therefore, there must be something that does not exist contingently but that exists necessarily
P5 This necessary being is God
C2 Therefore, God exists
For something to be in necessary existence, it must always exist and cannot go out of existence, and unlike things that exist contingently, God’s existence is not contingent on anything else. Aquinas mentions the causal principle in premise 3- which draws upon the claim that everything has a cause. Thus, showing that Aquinas uses necessary and contingent existence to argue that God exists.

Question 18

Explain Descartes’ argument based on his continuing existence (an argument from causation).

Answer 18

Descartes writes his cosmological argument in order to overcome philosophical scepticism. He presents an a posteriori deductive argument for the existence of God, as a way to answer the question of what caused his existence, rather than the existence of the universe.
The argument can be split into 5 parts as follows:
1. Descartes clarifies that he cannot be the cause of his own existence, as, if he were, he would have given himself all perfections. This is not the case, so something else must have caused his existence.
2. He then argues that he must depend on something else to sustain his existence, as his existence at one moment in time does not cause or entail his existence at another.
3. He concludes that his cause must be a thinking thing and have the idea of God, on the premise of the causal principle (the cause of something must have at least as much reality as its effect).
4. Descartes then rejects an infinite regress of causation, arguing that the ultimate cause of him must also be the cause of its own existence.
5. A thinking thing with the idea of God that is the cause of its own existence falls is God himself.
Therefore, Descartes’ cosmological argument attempts to prove the existence of God.

Question 19

Explain Leibniz’s argument from the principle of sufficient reason (an argument from contingency).

Answer 19

Leibniz’s cosmological argument can be summarised as follows:
P1: No fact can ever be true or existent unless there is a sufficient reason why things are as they are and not otherwise (Principle of Sufficient Reason)
P2: Contingent facts exist
P3: Contingent facts can only be partially explained in terms of other contingent facts
C1: The whole series of contingent facts cannot be sufficiently explained by any contingent fact within that series (from P1-P3)
C2: The sufficient reason for all contingent facts and for the series of facts must lie outside of the series of contingent facts (from P1-P3)
C3: The ultimate reason for facts/things must be in a necessary substance which we call ‘God’ (from C2)
Leibniz draws upon the Principle of Sufficient Reason which he saw as one of the key laws of human thought/logic (an epistemic claim) and also a feature of the world itself (a metaphysical claim) - that events cannot occur for no reason. Leibniz contends that all the contingent facts in the world can never be fully explained by reference to other contingent facts alone, but only by reference to a necessary fact/being - one that is self-explaining - which Leibniz calls God. Therefore Leibniz’s argument from contingency proves the existence of God.

Question 20

Explain the issue for cosmological arguments: the possibility of an infinite series

Answer 20

Infinity refers to a thing with no beginning or end – not simply a very large number. Conceptually, it may be sound, though for an endless thing to exist in reality – such as the universe – paradoxes appear.
Infinity being paradoxical support forms of the cosmological argument that challenge the concept of infinite regress – Aquinas’ 3 ways and the Kalam argument – and argue there must have been one initial cause of the universe, God. For if the universe was truly infinite, and infinite regress was viable, the universe would be infinitely old, and we would not be able to say the universe gets any older. One year plus infinity would still equal infinity. In addition, in would be impossible for us to reach the present moment if the universe was infinitely old, because it’s not possible for infinite years to have passed since the non-existent beginning of the universe, as infinite is not a numerical amount.
Thus, the paradoxical nature of an infinite series existing in reality, undermines the concept of infinite regress which aids the cosmological argument in aiming to demonstrate that an infinite sequence of temporal phenomena is impossible, establishing that there is a cause of the universe’s existence.

Question 21

Explain the issue for cosmological arguments: Hume’s objection to the ‘causal principle’

Answer 21

–

Question 22

Explain the issue for cosmological arguments: the argument commits the fallacy of composition (Russell)

Answer 22

The fallacy of composition is an error that occurs when one argues that something must be true of the whole because it is true for some parts of the whole. Several philosophers, including Russell and Hume, have found that the cosmological argument commits this fallacy with Hume outlining that you cannot infer from ‘every individual event has a cause’ to the conclusion that ‘the whole series of events must have a cause’.
Russell highlights how the cosmological argument is fallacious with an example in standard form:
P1) Every individual who exists has a mother
P2) The human species is composed of these individual humans
C) Therefore, the whole species must have a mother.
This conclusion is clearly false, and the cosmological argument can be said to use the same logic:
P1) Every event that has happened has a cause
P2) The universe is composed of all these individual events
C) Therefore, the universe as a whole must have a cause.
Russell concludes that just because individual events require a cause, we cannot conclude that the universe itself also has this property (of requiring a cause).

Question 23

Explain the issue for cosmological arguments: the impossibility of a necessary being (Hume and Russell).

Answer 23

–

Question 24

The nature of moral evil and natural evil.

Answer 24

Moral evil is physical pain and mental suffering brough about by the deliberate actions, or neglect, of human beings. It refers to acts of cruelty, injustice, negligence and viciousness carried out by humans on fellow humans and other creatures. An example of moral evil is in 1945 when the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasika were destroyed by Atomic bombs, killing 400,000 people.
Natural evil is pain and suffering that are not brought about by any human beings but are the result of natural events and physical processes. This includes evil with biological causes (cancer, viruses, genetic diseases etc.) as well as evil with physical causes (earthquakes, droughts, volcanoes etc.). An example of natural evil is the in November 1755, the Portugese city of Lisbon was destroyed by an earthquake and subsetquent trusnami and firestorm that killed a third of its inhabitants.

Question 25

The logical and evidential forms of the problem of evil.

Answer 25

The problem is deductive, a priori argument that originates with Epicurus but JL Mackie makes one of the clearest statements of the logical problem. He says that believers are committed to holding three inconsistent beliefs;​
God is omnipotent​
God is wholly good
Evil exists​
​
There is a contradiction that needs resolving here and Mackie argues for two of the propositions to be true the third one needs to be false. Believing all three is an essential part of being a theist so the believer must hold all three to be true and at the same time cannot hold all three to be true as they are contradictory.​ This means believers must give up their belief in God or admit that they have a ‘positively irrational’ and inconsistent belief in God.

Evidential problem is an inductive, a posteriori argument. David Hume said the sheer amount of evil in the world weighs against there being a God who is omnipotent and wholly good.​
This is not a logical argument as it does not aim to show that the theist holds an inconsistent set of beliefs. Instead, it is posing the question: Given the existence of evil which of the following is the more reasonable hypothesis:​
H1 There is an infinitely powerful, wholly good God who created the world​
H2 There is no such God.​
Hume argues the existence of evil is clear evidence in favour of the second hypothesis- “We must find it forever impossible to reconcile any mixture of evil in the universe with finite attributes.”​
William Rowe cites gratuitous and pointless evil as evidence a theistic God does not exist at all.​
Not deductive proof but gives rational grounds for accepting atheism.

Question 26

the Free Will Defence (including Alvin Plantinga)

Answer 26

A theodicy states precisely what God’s reason for the existence of evil might be.​
Plantinga’s defence shows what God’s reason might possibly be for the existence of evil. Plantinga is demonstrating there is no inconsistency in believing in the classical God of theism and believing God created a world with immense pain and suffering in it.​
We have freedom to either carry out an action or refrain from carrying out an action. Plantinga rejects determinism- he says there are no causal laws which determine whether or not someone will perform an act. ​
Plantinga questions whether God can really create any possible world eg: God cannot create a world where humans aren’t created by God.​
If God removed evil her would remove the capacity for free choice- evil is compatible with is good and powerful God.​

Question 27

soul-making (including John Hick).

Answer 27

–

Question 28

The distinction between cognitivism and non-cognitivism about religious language.

Answer 28

There are two distinct answers to the question of what way statements are meaningful - cognitivism and non-cognitivism - and this distinction can be applied to religious language.
Cognitivism claims religious language expresses beliefs. Beliefs can be true or false (are truth-apt), so religious claims can be true or false. To believe that God exists is to believe that the sentence ‘God exists’ is true. Religious language aims to describe the world. Cognitivists do not have to claim that this is all that religious language does but they argue that it is how religious language is meaningful.
Non-cognitivism claims that religious language does not express beliefs but some other, non-cognitive mental state. And so religious claims are not truth-apt. They express an attitude toward the world, a way of understanding or relating to the world. For example, Wittgenstein argues that when a believer says ‘God exists’ this is not the same as a scientist saying ‘black swans exist’. For when a believer talks about God, they are not putting forward something like a scientific hypothesis, they are expressing a way of seeing the world.

Question 29

The empiricist/logical positivist challenges to the status of metaphysical (here, religious) language: the verification principle and verification/falsification (Ayer).

Answer 29

A J Ayer argues that religious language is meaningless as it fails his verification principle - a criteria for identifying statements with meaning. His argument can be outlined as follows:
P1: The verification principle: all meaningful claims are either true by definition (analytic) or can be shown to be true or false (empirically verifiable)
P2: Religious language makes claims that are not analytic
P3: Religious language makes claims about metaphysical entities (e.g. God)
P4: Metaphysical entities are beyond observation and experience and cannot be verified
C1: Therefore religious claims are not factually significant because we do not know what conditions would need to be met for us to verify these claims as true or false
C2: Therefore religious language makes claims like ‘God exists’ that are not meaningful, but are pseudo-statements.
For Ayer, the metaphysical claims of religious language arguments for or against the existence of God are literally meaningless.

Question 30

Hick’s response to Ayer (eschatological verification) and issues arising from that response.

Answer 30

Hick agrees with Ayer that for a statement to have meaning it must be verifiable but claims religious language is verifiable using ‘eschatological verification’. His argument can be outlined as follows:
P1: Verification means we can describe a situation (in principle) in which rational doubt is removed.
P2: In principle, after someone dies, they will encounter and recognise God.
C1: Therefore, in principle, after someone dies the rational doubt that there is a God will be removed.
C2: Therefore the claim that ‘God exists’ can be verified in principle by at least one person.
He illustrates his argument using the parable of the Celestial City in that at the end the travelers would know if there is a city or not; similarly to how people would know if God exists after they die and it means that ‘God exists’ is empirically verifiable and hence meaningful.
An issue with Hick’s eschatological verification is that it depends on the metaphysical possibility of an individual surviving their own death. It is arguably meaningless to talk about life after death, as death is the end of life. Even if one can be resurrected, it creates a personal identity problem as it questions whether they are the same person as the one previous to death or an identical duplicate. Hick’s argument is most vulnerable at this critical point.

Question 31

Anthony Flew on falsification (Wisdom’s ‘Gardener’)

Answer 31

In the ‘University Debate’ Flew argues that religious language is meaningless since it fails the falsification principle. His argument can be summarised as follows:
P1: A meaningful assertion is one that can be falsified; a meaningless assertion cannot be falsified.
P2: To falsify an assertion means describing what the world would be like if that statement is false.
P3: Atheists provide many examples of what the world would be like if claims such as ‘God exists’ were false (such as pointless suffering in the world).
P4: Believers refuse to accept that these examples as falsifying - instead they qualify or amend their claims to avoid them being falsified.
P5: Moreover, believers cannot conceive of an example of what the world would look like if these claims were false.
C: Therefore believers’ claims are unfalsifiable and meaningless.
He re-words John Wisdom’s parable of the invisible gardener to show how the world can be in any state and this would not change religious claims as in each scenario the believer amends the claim to avoid it being falsified. Since they cannot be falsified, Flew concludes religious statements from theists are meaningless. However, Atheist religious statements are meaningful.

Question 32

Basil Mitchell’s response to Flew (the Partisan)

Answer 32

It can be outlined as follows:
Mitchell directly responds to Flew in the ‘University Debate’. He uses the parable of the partisan which shows that religious claims are assertions even if not conclusively falsifiable. He starts off with the same first two premises as Flew and then argues:
P3: Believers who claim that ‘God loves us’ recognise that the problems of evil/suffering do count against their assertion.
C1: Therefore ‘God loves us’ is a genuine assertion.
P4: However, the believer will not discard their belief, even if evidence counts against it; much like the partisan.
P5: This is because of their faith in God - and they will always commit to finding an explanation for the counter-evidence.
C2: Therefore religious statements like ‘God loves us’ are genuine assertions but not conclusively falsifiable.
Mitchell accepts Flew’s cognitivism that for a truth claim to be meaningful we must allow something to count against it. But he disagrees with Flew’s claim that an assertion is only meaningful if we are willing to withdraw it as false in light of certain experiences.
A criticism to Mitchell’s approach comes from Flew who accepts that Mitchell is correct in recognising that believers try to explain the problem of evil but Flew argues that the problem of evil is insoluble. We are unable to find any justification of evil that is compatible with an omniscient, omnipotent, supremely good God, and the only way out for religious bleeiers is to qualifty what they mean by God or his purpose for us. An example of this is non-realist theologians such as Don Cupitt have argued that ‘God’ does not refer to an objective being.
We can now object, though, that this now no longer an argmeunt about whether religious claims are meaningul but about whether they are true or coherent. - tbh idr get this

Question 33

Hare’s response to Flew (bliks and the lunatic)

Answer 33

Hare responds to Flew using a non-cognitivist approach to religious language. His argument can be summarised as follows:
P1: A blik is a foundational approach/attitue taht we have to the world, and our beliefs are based on these
P2: A blik cannot be falsified
P3: Religious claims like ‘God loves us’ are expressions of fundamental apporaoches/attitudes to the world
P4: Religiosu claims like ‘God loves us’ cannot be falsified
C: Therefore religious claims like ‘God loves us’ are not assertions, they are expressions of a blik
He uses the parable of the paranoid student to demonstrate that religious language is a blik. A blik cannot be falisifeid and so religious claims also cannot be falsified. Though, they are still meaningful because they impact our attitude towards the world; much like the student’s attitude towards his lecturers.
Flew attacks Hare’s non-cognitivist approach as he argues that believers, when they make statements about God, really are attempting to refer to a being that exists in the world. Flew says, “If Hare’s religion really is a blik, involving no assertinos about the nature and activities of a personal creatorm then surely he is not a Christian at all”. Therefore, Flew argues that religious claims derive meaning from making truth-apt claims about the world and therefore Hare’s non-cognitvist approach fails.
A further line of attack from Flew is that Hare does not explain how we can distinguish between a rational and irrational bliks. For example, in the parable of the paranoid student, the student’s bliks are irrational and Hare’s argument does not show how religious believer’s bliks differ. Therefore, Hare’s argument fails to show the religious language is meaningful due to failing to make sense of how religious believers actually use religious language and how to differentiate rational/irrational bliks.