METAPHYSICS OF GOD: issues with the coherence of the concepts of god Flashcards
what is the concept of god
the concept go god I the concept of a perfect being who created everything. it is therefore the concept of a being which must have perfect/complete knowledge, perfect/complete power and perfect/complete moral goodness
what are gods attributes
- omnibenevolence
- omnipotence
- omniscience
omnipotence
god can perform all tasks and bring about all states of affairs
example of gods omnipotence
surat al ahqaf 33: “allah, who created the heavens and earth…is able to give life to the dead? yes indeed, he is over all things competent”
omniscience
god has knowledge of all true propositions
examples of gods omniscience
surah mujadila 58: “allah knows whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is on the earth”
omnibenevolence
everything that god does, commands and desires is morally right and good
examples of gods omnibenevolence
- Marks 10: “no one is good but… god”
- Psalm 119: “you are good and do good; teach me your statutes.”
- James 1: “every good gift… is from.. the father.. with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change
what argument is for the incoherence of gods omnipotence
the paradox of the stone
paradox
a paradox occurs when:
- we are unable to reach a conclusion
- from apparently true premises and reasons
- using apparently good reasoning and logic
the conclusion appears unacceptable and false even though it has been proved by true premises
the paradox of the stone
P1: either god can make a stone that god cannot move or god cannot do this- there are no other options.
(based on 2 a priori logical principles: - the ‘principle of excluded middle’ where all propositions are either true or false, there is no middle ground between being true and false.
- The ‘principle of non-contradiction’ where a proposition cannot be both true and false)
P2: if god can make such stone, then there is a task god cannot do which is move the stone.
(it is true due to god not being able to make such stone shows that gods power could be limited to show that god is not omnipotent which can be a priori based on our understanding of the concept of god. an omnipotent being is a being that couldn’t possibly lack the power to do something).
P3: If god cannot make such stone, then there is a task that god cannot do which is make the stone.
C1: therefore, either way there will always be a task that god cannot do
C2: therefore, there cannot be a being that can perform all tasks.
C3: Therefore, an omnipotent being is impossible and the concept of omnipotence is incoherent. meaning the concept go god is incoherent since it necessarily involves the attribute of being omnipotent.
what argument is for the incoherence of gods omniscience
the incompatibility of the existence of an omniscient god and free human being
incompatibility arguments
aims to show that 2 different propositions cannot be true at the same time as they will be incompatible with each other.
- “god is omniscient” and “humans are free” are incompatible as hey cannot be true and at least one of the propositions is false
the incompatibility of the existence of an omniscient god and free human being
P1: If god is omniscient, then god knows all true propositions which comes from the definition of ‘omniscient’
P2: If god knows all true propositions then god knows what I will do. (all true propositions include propositions about the past, present and future. there are truths about what will happen in the future E.G. it is either true that I will dye my hair or that I will not, even if we don’t know the answer).
P3: if god knows what I will do, then I am unable to do anything else.
if gods beliefs count as knowledge then they must be true as truth is almost universally accepted as being a necessary condition for knowledge. you cant trick god here because whatever you end up doing will be what god knew what you would do.
P4: If I am unable to do anything else then I am not free.
a necessary condition of an action being done freely by S is that S has the ability and power to have done otherwise. S genuinely could have done something other than what they in fact did
C1: therefore, if god is omniscient then I am not free
P5: if I am not free then god is not omnibenevolent since a morally good being would give freedom if it could
C2: therefore, if god is omniscient then god is not omnibenevolent.
what type of argument Is the paradox of the stone
a deductive argument as the conclusions follow the truth of the premises with logical necessity
what argument is for the incoherence of gods omnibenevolence
the euthyphro dilemma
what is a dilemma
when there are only 2 options and both of them are unsatisfactory in some way
who originated the euthyphro dilemma
plato
the euthryphro dilemma
P1: there are only 2 ways of understanding an omnibenevolent gods relationship to moral goodness:
A: actions are morally right independently of gods commands and that’s why god commands them
B: Actions are morally right only because god commands them and they wouldn’t be otherwise. this refers to the DIVINE COMMAND THEORY.
P2: Option A is unacceptable because it means that:
- god cant really be the ultimate good being unless goodness depends on god.
god not being in charge of morality makes it hard to see how god is good given that many understand gods goodness in terms of god being the source of goodness and the reason why anything that is good is good. this challenges gods omnibenevolence
- god cant be omnipotent if morality is independent go god, since god would therefore not have created morality nor can god control or change it. this would mean that god is not omnipotent meaning god cannot change what is morally right as if god was omnipotent, morality is not a restriction on gods will, but depend on it. given the nature or god, morality must depend on god.
P3: option B is unacceptable because it means that:
- god cannot give an objective moral justification for particular actions being morally right/wrong- morality is arbitrary. this shows that there is no rational structure to morality.
there are no moral rules or reasons for any justification meaning that any choice is arbitrary
- actions that seem obviously morally wrong could have been or could yet be morally right. since there are no moral reasons or rules prior to gods commands, some actions would not be morally wrong prior to gods commands, making it counter-intuitive.
C1: therefore, there is no acceptable way to understand an omnibenevolent gods relationship to moral goodness.
C2: therefore, god cannot be omnibenevolent.
what is the divine command theory
the claim that morality is ultimately based on the commands or character of god and that the morally right action is the one that god commands or requires.
morality and moral obligations depend on god.
what is the principle of excluded middle
where all propositions are either true or false, there is no middle ground between being true and false.
what is the principle of non-contradiction
where a proposition cannot be both true and false
