Metaphysics of God Flashcards
Explain the meaning on omniscience and how it applies to God.
Omniscient: All Knowing
But he cannot know the future as humans have free will. And does he only posses propositional knowledge, what about practical knowledge. But if he is incorporeal does it make sense to speak of him knowing how do do things? I.e Throw a stone.
We avoid the criticisms by simply saying, God knows everything, that is logically possible to know.
Explain the meaning of omnipotence and how it applies to God.
Omnipotence: All Powerful
But God can’t do things that are impossible such as create a four sided triangle, or things that would undermine his perfection - create something evil.
So, God is omnipotent in that he can do anything logically possible that does not undermine his perfection.
Explain the meaning of omnibenevolence and how it applies to God.
Omnibenevolent: All Loving/ Supremely Good
Personal, God’s goodness refers his love and mercy. Metaphysical, it refers to his perfection. Ethical, God’s goodness refers to him as the source of all moral value.
Outline the debate between God being eternal or everlasting.
They are both similar in that the different schools of thought both agree that God has and always will exist. The difference…
God being eternal/ timless:
- Everything in time changes, God does not change, God exists outside of time.
God being everlasting/ inside time:
- God is without beginning or end, but God interacts and so has a personal relationship with a temporal world. Thus, he is everlasting and exists in time.
Outline the problem of the stone.
If God is omnipotent, he must be able to create a stone so heavy he can’t lift it, thus:
A: Not omnipotent as he can’t lift the stone.
B: Not omnipotent as he can’t create it.
Counterpoint:
- Argument A is fine. But argument B is a logical contraction, correctly phrased: can a being capable of lifting anything, create a stone it cannot lift. This task is self contradictory and so the argument fails.
Outline the Euthyphro dilemma.
A: God’s commands are good because they come from him. But if God allows genocide, he must consider is good as he cannot allow evil (undermines perfection). God is not omnibenevolent.
B: God’s commands are good as they come from an external source of reality. But then the external source would be the ultimate good, not God.
Counterpoint:
- Aquinas different account of moral goodness avoids the first horn by saying God can only will what is good (though this undermines his omnipotence and the overall definition of God) and avoids the second horn by arguing for a “natural law” of morality that stems from God.
Outline the problem of human free will.
Religions often state that humans have free will, but that God is also omniscient. Thus, God must know my action prior to my doing it. Thus I do not have free will as God always knows what I will do. Thus:
A: God is omniscient but I do not have free will.
B: God is not omniscient as I have free will.
- Either way this is a serious dilemma for believers.
Counterpoint:
- God sees every temporal event simultaneously, but this does not imply that God can see what we will do “beforehand” as he exists outside time witnessing our past, present and future all at once. But this relies on God existing outside of time (eternal). If he is everlasting then this does not work.
- One could try to argue he only knows what is logically possible to know as an everlasting God, but then this undermines his omnipotence.
Explain the difference between Deductive, Inductive and Abductive arguments.
Deductive:
- Based on premises that are true. The strength of the conclusion is that if the premises are sound, then the conclusion must be true e.g Socrates.
Inductive:
- An argument built on generalising knowledge from a few cases to all cases. The strength is that if the argument is cogent (logical) then the conclusion is probably true e.g Black swans.
Abductive:
- Based on inference to reach the best explanation. The strength of the conclusion is that if the argument is strong, then the conclusion is more likely to be true than other possibilities.
Explain Anselm’s ontological proof for the existence of God.
Ontological arguments are deductive and attempt to prove God’s existence a priori.
P1: God is by definition a being greater than which cannot be conceived.
P2: We can coherently conceive of such a being.
P3: It is greater to exist in reality than in understanding alone.
C: God must exist in reality.
Anselm’s argument hinger on, if God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, then the only thing that can make him greater is existing.
Explain Descartes ontological argument for the existence of God.
Is it possible to separate existence from God’s perfection? - Descartes’s question.
P1: I have an idea of God as a supremely perfect being.
P2: A supremely perfect being must have all perfections.
P3: Existence is a perfection.
C: God exists.
Explain the difference between necessary and contingent existence an what N.M’s ontological argument rests on.
Contingent: Exists dependent upon something else.
Necessary: Exists independent of anything else.
Hinges on Anselm’s word that “God cannot be conceived not to exist…That which can be conceived not to exist is not God”.
Explain Malcolm’s ontological argument for the existence of God.
P1: God cannot come into existence.
P2: If God does not exist, existence is impossible.
P3: God cannot cease to exist.
P4: If God does exist, he exists necessarily.
C1: God’s existence is impossible or necessary.
( P1- C1 can be summed up by saying, since God is a perfect being, he cannot come into or out of existence as this would place limitations on his power).
P5: Something’s existence is impossible if it self contradictory.
P6: God’s existence is not self-contradictory.
P7: God’s existence is not impossible.
C2: God’s exists necessarily.
Outline Gaunilo’s argument VS Anselm.
Anselm’s argument is an example of poor deduction. Gaunilo proves this:
P1: The perfect island is an island greater than which cannot be conceived.
P2: We can coherently conceive of such an island.
P3: It is greater to exist in reality than in understanding alone.
C: The island must exist.
Anselm’s argument defines anything into existence.
Outline ontological argument (Mainly Malcom) VS Empiricism (Hume’s fork).
Something only counts as knowledge if it is a relation of ideas (a priori and a contradiction to be untrue) or a matter of fact (a posteriori and aren’t always true).
P1: A contradiction cannot be coherently conceived.
P2: “God does not exist” can be coherently conceived.
C: “God does not exist” is not a contradiction and ontology fails as it cannot prove God’s existence a priori.
Outline ontological arguments (Descartes here) VS Kant
Existence is not a predicate (adds something to our understanding of X) and so Descartes argument “existence is a perfection (predicate)” fails.
P1: A predicate adds to our conception of something and helps determine it.
P2: “Existence” does not do this (think about £100 VS thinking about £100 existing).
C: Existence is not a predicate.
Counterpoint:
- Malcolm tries to prove that God’s existence is necessary, but according to Hume’s fork - Malcom’s argument also fails.
Outline Hume’s teleological argument.
Design from analogy.
- Hume used one of his dialogues to put forward an argument for God, which he could then later argue against to demonstrate the issues with arguments from analogy.
P1: The universe consists of parts working together with incredible accuracy.
P2: The universe resembles a working machine.
P3: Effects that are similar have similar causes.
C1: The universe must be caused by a designer who is proportionally great to the grandeur of the universe.
C2: Therefore, God exists.
Outline Paley’s teleological argument.
Spatial order. If Paley comes across a watch lying in a road then he can assume it has a maker. This is because its properties are indicators of design, showing distinct order and purpose. He believes the same is for the universe.
P1: A watch has the features of spatial purpose.
P2: These features must have been designed so the watch has a designer.
P3: The spatial features of the watch also exist in nature on a wondrous scale.
C: The universe must have a wondrous designer, God.
Outline Swinburne’s design argument.
Recognised Hume’s criticisms about design arguments. His argument from analogy he believes works at proving, if not a God, then the existence of a powerful rational being responsible for temporal order.
Spatial order: Can be explained scientifically by Darwin’s theory of evolution. Paley and Cleanthes fail.
Temporal order: Either explained by rational human or laws of nature. LoN explained by more fundamental LoN - but their operations cannot be given a scientific explanation. Best explanation is powerful rational being who is creator.
Outline Hume’s objections to design arguments from analogy.
For Hume, all design arguments fail as we simply lack enough experience of the world to draw any conclusion regarding its origin.
- The analogy is weak and remote:
- We can only refer to the bit of the universe we observe for comparison (Philo vs Cleanthes). - Counter analogies:
- The universe is equally as close to a plant as a machine (both have parts that work together to produce result). A plant is a product of natural process and does not posses a designer. - Cherry-picked similarities:
- Analogies only pick the similarities that support their conclusion. Yes the universe might be like a machine, but a machine is the result of trial and error. Also, people who make machines are often flawed etc.
Explain Hume’s issue with the problem of spatial order.
Much of our world does not make sense. If our world is like a machine, we expect to see an incredible arrangement of parts working accurately together for some purpose. But, this is not the case:
- Volcanos are an example of things going wrong, poor craftsmanship (Philo).
- Other things: disease, pain, vast empty space.
Counterpoint:
- Paley agrees that issues with spatial order presents a problem. But even if a machine does not work well (i.e a faulty watch) not take away from the fact that it has been designed.
Explain Hume’s argument that the design argument fails as it is based of unique case.
Design arguments make inference that this universe was caused by a designer. But, we only ever make inferences that X causes Y because we have observed it multiple times - constant conjunction.
- e.g Running makes me tired.
We can’t just observe something once and generalise it. But, we have only ever observed one universe and never the origins of a single one. Therefore we can’t make inference about cause and so teleological arguments fail.
Outline the three issues regarding whether God may be the best explanation as an argument against teleological views.
- Finite matter, infinite time:
- Epicurean hypothesis. Over an infinite time-span, anything logically possible such as the universe being created and appearing stable and designed. Think, monkey typing… - Kant’s worldly architect:
- Designers are not always creators. No justification that designers posses God-like qualities. Teleological arguments at most prove existence of worldly architect. - Darwin’s evolution:
- Over time animals and the world change and adapt creating the appearance of design. Undermines Paley’s argument that anything with organised parts to serve a purpose must be designed.
Outline the similarities and differences between cosmological arguments from causation and contingency.
Cosmological arguments use a posteriori premises. They all try to prove God’s existence.
Causation: Everything in the universe has a cause, so must the universe. This cause is God (itself uncaused).
Contingency: Everything in the universe is dependant on something else, so must the universe. This is God (itself necessary).
Outline Kalam’s Cosmological argument.
Temporal causation.
P1: Whatever beings to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: The universe has a cause, God.
P1 relies on the metaphysical intuition that everything has a cause. P2 relies on the view that the universe could not have existed for an infinite amount of time. If these two are correct, the C follows logically.
Outline Aquinas’ first way.
First way - Argument from motion.
Things change/ move as a result of other things also undergoing change.
Change/ movement is from potential (the water could become hot) to actual (the water is hot).
The chain cannot go back infinitely, as there would be no beginning, and thus no chain. Therefore, there must be a first mover which started the chain - God.
Outline Aquinas’ second way.
Second way - Argument from causation.
Every event has a cause. BUT, nothing can be the cause of itself as it would occur prior to itself - which is impossible.
This order of causes cannot go back infinitely, as there would be no first cause, and thus no chain of causes.
There must be a first cause - GOD.
Outline Aquinas’ third way.
Third way - Argument from contingency
Things exist contingently, coming into and out of existence. If everything exists contingently, then at some point nothing existed.
If there was nothing once, then there would be nothing now - but there is something now. Thus at least one thing necessarily exists to sustain the universe - GOD.
Outline Descartes’ argument from causation.
The cause of myself as a thinking being is either:
- Myself, I have always existed, parents, a being less than God, God.
I cannot be the cause of my own existence else I would have given myself all perfections. I have not always existed as I would be aware of this. My parents are the cause of my physical existence but not of me as a thinking being. I cannot be created by a being less than God as I have the idea of God in me. There must be as much reality in the cause as the effect - thus only God could have created me.
Counterpoint:
- We could be caused by something else, the options presented are not exhaustive.
- Causal principle is correct about physical objects (similar to law of thermodynamics). But does it work the same in the world of ideas - minds easily create better versions of real objects without being caused by something more “real”.
Outline Leibniz’s argument from contingency.
Based on the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) that events cannot occur for no reason.
Necessary facts are true by definition, contingent facts are not and can only be explained by other contingent facts but never satisfactorily.
No fact can be true unless there is sufficient reason. Contingent facts (X) exist, but can only be explained in terms of other X. A series of X cannot be explained by X. Sufficient reason for X must lie outside of the chain. The sufficient reason must be a necessary substance - GOD.
Outline the possibility of an infinite series VS the cosmological.
The impossibility of an infinite series underpins the Kalam argument and Aquinas’ three ways. But it is a:
Mathemetical possibility:
- Newton and Leibniz invention of calculus used by Cantor to prove that and infinite series is mathematically possible - Hotel complex.
Scientific possibility:
- Big band originally supports Kalam argument (universe comes into existence). But big crunch hypothesis, universe continually expands and collapses, is theoretically possible and supports infinite series.
Logical possbility:
- Aquinas confuses a very long finite chain which needs a beginning with an infinite chain. An infinite chain has no beginning and so removing the first cause is not something that could happen.
Outline Hume’s fork VS causation in the cosmological.
Is causation a relation of ideas?
- If “every event has a cause” can be known a prior, then denying it leads to a contradiction. But “not every event has a cause” is not a contradiction. So it is not a relation of ideas.
Is causation a matter of fact?
- Our minds connect X and Y because often ne causes the other, we see them in constant conjunction. But this does not mean X will always lead to Y. We cannot observe the future and so cannot for certainty confirm that X will always cause Y. So we cannot know causation from experience, it is not a matter of fact.
Outline Russel’s fallacy of composition VS cosmological arguments.
Just because the parts something is made of share a property, the thing created must also have this property. This is a fallacy.
- Every human individual has a mother, the human species is composed of these individuals. The human species must have a mother.
Applied to Leibniz, just because everything in the universe requires sufficient reason to explain it does not mean the universe does.
Outline the impossibility of necessary being VS cosmological arguments.
For “God exists” to be a necessary truth as Leibniz argues, the statement must be a relation of ideas (as Hume puts it). His argument to prove that “God exists” is not a necessary truth goes:
Nothing that is distinctly conceivable entails a contradiction. For anything we can conceive of existing, we can also conceive of not existing. Therefore, there is no being who’s non-existence entails a contradiction.
Outline the differences between natural and moral evil.
Natural evil:
- Suffering that is caused by natural process such as a volcano.
Moral evil:
- Suffering brought about by deliberate human action such as murder.
However, Midgley points out they are similar as all moral evil has its root in natural process. Deep human instincts are a product of evolution - natural process; but these are what cause us to act immorally.
Outline the logical problem of evil.
A deductive a priori argument.
- Mackie points out that for believers to truly believe, they must hold inconsistent views regarding the nature of God.
P1 God is omnipotent, supremely good and omniscient.
P2 A God who is omnipotent and supremely good both wants to and can eliminate all evil.
P3 But an omniscient God knows that evil exists.
C1 If this God existed he would eliminate all evil, but evil exists.
C2 Therefore an omnipotent, supremely good and omniscient God does not exist.
Counterpoint:
- Plantinga disagrees with the view that believers agree with C1. There may be a greater good which existence of evil enables. Greater good could give us free will.
Outline the evidential problem of evil.
An inductive a posteriori argument.
- We have experience of intense suffering in the world that could have been prevented and not taken away from some greater good.
P1 There is intense suffering in the world which an omnipotent, omniscient and all loving being could have prevented without taking away from some greater good.
P2 An omnipotent, omniscient and all loving being should prevent this.
C A being like this does not exist.
Counterpoint:
- Hick disagrees with P1 stating that having consistent laws of nature is a greater good than God constantly interfering to prevent suffering.
Outline the free will defence and explain how it shows that God is compatible with the existence of evil - the first argument.
Free will = Metaphysical freedom. Freedom to choose or refrain from taking any action.
Causal determinism = Future events are entirely caused by and are inevitable consequence of past events and natural laws.
St Augustine (early version) claims that God’s perfect world includes free willed beings as part of its perfection. Though this means humans and Satan may do evil, it is for the consequence of greater good - free will.
Counterpoint:
- Mackie points out surely an X God could have created a world where we have free will, but always choose to act good. This would be much better than the universe we live in, but we don’t. God is not omnipotent, not supremely good or does not exist.
- Counter: A world where we can only act in a good manner restricts our choices and thus would not be a world in which we could have free will.
Outline Plantinga’s version of the free will argument.
P1 An X God can create significantly free agents, but not cause them to what is morally right.
P2 A world with significantly free agents capable of good and evil is better than a world without significantly free agents.
C Therefore God created this world and an X God is consistent with the existence of evil.
God is supremely good (wanted to create free willed humans) and is omnipotent (has the power to do it). But this is consistent with the existence of evil as removing evil would remove free will - a greater good.
Counterpoint:
- Plantinga’s argument only accounts for moral evil, what about natural evil? If this is a cause of free will as well he must fall back on Augustine’s argument that Satan is an agent causing natural evil due to free will.
Outline Hick’s soul making and demonstrate how it accounts for both moral and natural evil in God’s creation.
P1 An X God aims to create a world in which free agents can morally and spiritually develop.
P2 A world in which free agents are imperfect but spiritually grow is better than a world which is a safe and pleasurable paradise.
C1 Responding to pain and suffering allows free agents to spiritually grow.
C2 Greater good for God to create a world with pain and suffering.
Moral evil is the result of free will and helps humans develop spiritually (soul making) and natural evil as having consistent laws of nature is a greater good than God constantly interfering to prevent suffering.
Counterpoint:
- Evidential problem of evil problem of evil still raises the issue. Based on experience there is simply to much pointless evil and an unequal distribution of suffering. Pointless evil could be removed by God and humans could still develop.
Outline a cognitivist approach to meaning and explain how it applies to moral language.
Statements are meaningful in that they are expressions of our beliefs about the world. These expressions can be true or false.
Applied to moral language, the statement “God exists” is the claim that God exists independently in the world and there is support for this claim.
Outline a non-cognitivist approach to meaning and explain how it applies to moral language.
Statements are meaningful in that they express some type of mental state - emotion, commands, values. But, since they are not making a claim about the world, they cannot be true or false.
Applied to moral language, “God exists” are not claims about the world (purely a mental state) and so cannot be true or false. But “God exists” is still meaningful as it expresses an internal mental state.
Outline Ayer’s verification principle and how it can be applied to religious language.
A sentence is only meaningful if it is either:
- A tautology = Analytically true
- Is verifiable = Synthetically true
Metaphysical claims appear meaningful but are not. This is because they make claims about what lies beyond our experience and observation. This means it cannot be synthetically true - it is not verifiable. Furthermore, Ayer argues that the existence of anything is never a tautology and if something is true by definition, denying it become a contradiction. But saying “X does not exist” is never contradictory.
Counterpoint:
- The VP fails on its own logic.
