Paper 2: Metaphysics Of God

Question 1

What is a deductive argument?

Answer 1

A deductive argument can be a proof (Strong and certain) if the premises are valid. Can lead to a sound conclusion.

Question 2

What is an inductive argument?

Answer 2

An inductive argument is built on a number of cases / evidence and can be strong and lead to probable conclusions.

Question 3

What is an abductive argument?

Answer 3

An abductive argument is based on likelihood / best explanation considering relevant factors. Lead to conclusions that are more likely than not.

Question 4

What is St Anselm’s argument?

Answer 4

P1) God is the greatest possible being.
P2) Even a fool can understand God is the greatest possible being.
P3) The fool says there is no God in reality.
P4) The fool is convinced that God, the greatest possible being, exists only in his understanding and not in reality.
P5) It is greater to exist in the understanding and in reality.
P6) If the greatest possible being is genuinely the greatest, then it must exist in the understanding and in reality.
C) Therefore, God must exist in reality and the understanding, the fool is really a fool for denying the existence of a being that must exist.

Question 5

Define ontological arguments.

Answer 5

Ontological arguments use a priori reasoning and are deductive in structure. This is unlike the other arguments which use a posteriori reasoning and are inductive.

Question 6

What is the difference between analytic and synthetic statements?

Answer 6

Analytic statements are statements that are necessarily true or true by definition, being statements such as all triangles have three sides. Synthetic statements are statements such as some men have beards.

Question 7

What is Malcolm’s argument?

Answer 7

P1) God is the greatest possible being.
P2) God either exists or doesn’t.
P3) God cannot come into existence as this would limit its perfection.
P4) Therefore God’s existence must be necessary.
P5) God’s existence is not necessarily false because the existence of such a being is not self-contradictory.
C) Therefore God exists necessarily.

Question 8

What is Descartes’ argument?

Answer 8

P1) The nature of the triangle is fixed and unchanging.
P2) When I think of a triangle I am forced to think of a three angled shape.
P3) If I imagine anything else it is not a triangle.
P4) In the same way, the nature of God is fixed.
P5) When I think of God, I am forced to think of him as a supremely perfect being.
P6) A supremely perfect being does not lack perfections.
P7) Existence is a perfection.
P8) This is because the concept of God includes existence (existence and essence cannot be separated).
C) Therefore, God exists.

Question 9

What is Gaunilo’s perfect island objection?

Answer 9

P1) We can imagine an island which is the most excellent island.
P2) It is greater to exist in reality than merely in the understanding.
C) Therefore the most excellent island must exist in reality.

Question 10

Define cosmological arguments.

Answer 10

Cosmological arguments argue that everything has a cause and that there cannot be an infinite series, also known as regression.

Question 11

What is the Kalam argument (From temporal causation) by Al Ghazali?

Answer 11

P1) The principle of universal causation.
P2) The rejection of infinite regression.
C) Therefore the universe must have a cause.

Question 12

What is Aquinas’ first way (Argument from motion)?

Answer 12

P1) Things change (‘are in motion’) in the world.
P2) Change / motion means moving from a potential state (For example, a cold radiator that could be hotter) to an actual state (For example, a radiator that is now hot).
P3) This change (Move) from potential to actual can be caused only by something already in that actual state (For example, a hot boiler).
P4) Nothing can cause itself to change, so everything is caused to move by something else.
P5) This chain of motion / change cannot go back infinitely, otherwise there would have been nothing to start the whole chain and hence no chain!
P6) But there clearly is a chain and so there must have been a ‘first mover’ that started this chain of things in motion - and this first mover must itself be unmoved.
C) This first mover is God.

Question 13

What is Aquinas’ second way (Argument from atemporal causation)?

Answer 13

P1) There is an order of efficient causes (Sometimes rephrased as the causal principle: ‘every event has a cause’).
P2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (As it would have to be prior to itself, which is impossible).
P3) This order of efficient causes cannot go on infinitely, otherwise there would be no first cause, and hence no subsequent causes, which is false.
C1) Therefore there must be a first efficient cause, which is not itself caused.
C2) This first cause is God.

Question 14

What is Aquinas’ third way (Argument from contingency)?

Answer 14

P1) Things in the world are contingent (Coming into, and passing out of, existence).
P2) If everything was contingent, then it is possible there was a time when everything had passed out of existence.
P3) If once there was nothing, then there would be nothing now, but this is false (As there is something right now).
C1) Therefore not everything is contingent - there is one thing that is necessary.
C2) This necessary being is God.

Question 15

What is Descartes’ cosmological argument based on his continuing existence (From causation)?

Answer 15

P1) The cause of my existence as a thinking thing could be a) myself, b) I have always existed, c) my parents, d) a being less than God, or e) God.
P2) I cannot have caused myself to exist for then I would have created myself perfect. Nor can I sustain myself in existence, for then I would be God.
P3) Neither have I always existed, for then I would be aware of this.
P4) My parents may be the cause of my physical existence, but not of me as a thinking mind - nor do they sustain me each moment.
P5) I cannot be created by a being less than God, as I have the idea of God inside me and there must be as much reality in the cause as in the effect.
C) (By elimination) Therefore, only God could have created me.

Question 16

What is Leibniz’s argument from the Principle of Sufficient Reason (From contingency)?

Answer 16

P1) No fact can be true unless there is a sufficient reason why things are the way they are (Principle of Sufficient Reason).
P2) Contingent facts exist (hidden premise).
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 in that series.
C2) The sufficient reason for contingent facts and series must be outside of the series.
C3) The reason for facts / things must be in a necessary substance which we call ‘God’.

Question 17

What is the problem of the fallacy of the composition?

Answer 17

Russell’s example:
Every person has a mother.
The human race must have a mother.
This mirrors the logic of the cosmological arguments.
Everything within universe has a cause.
Therefore the universe must have a cause.
Russell says these are two very “different logical spheres”.

Question 18

What is Hume’s argument from analogy?

Answer 18

Hume is not arguing for the existence of God.
Instead, Hume is outlining an argument from analogy to show why it is unsuccessful.
Hume constructs this argument using characters to present different viewpoints -
Philo = Sceptic (Hume’s own views).
Cleanthes = Religious believer.

Question 19

What is Paley’s argument from spatial order?

Answer 19

P1) A watch has certain complex features, (For example it consists of parts, each of which has a function and they work together for a specific purpose).
P2) Anything that has these features must have been designed.
P3) Therefore, the watch has been designed by a designer.
P4) The universe is like the watch in that it possesses the same features, except on a bigger scale.
C) Therefore, that universe, like the watch, has been designed, except by a wondrous universe maker - God.

Question 20

What is Swinburne’s argument from temporal order?

Answer 20

P1) Temporal regularities occur either a) as natural phenomena (Eg. An apple falling from a tree to the ground) or b) as the result of human free action (Eg. Being hit by an apple your brother has thrown).
P2) Temporal regularities resulting from human action can be explained by the rational choices of free agents because they have the intelligence, the power and the freedom to act.
P3) Temporal regularities resulting from the laws of nature are explained in terms of other, more fundamental laws of nature.
P4) However, the operations of fundamental laws of nature cannot be given a scientific explanation.
P5) Temporal regularities produced by human agency are similar to temporal regularities produced by the laws of nature.
P6) Therefore, by analogy, temporal regularities resulting from laws of nature could be explained with reference to a rational agent.
P7) The universe is immense and its laws of nature are complex.
C) Therefore the best explanation for temporal regularities resulting from laws of nature is the existence of a rational agent with the immense intelligence, power and freedom needed to create such an ordered universe.

Question 21

How does natural selection challenge the argument from spatial order?

Answer 21

Physical characteristics and features displaying “contrivance” can be explained through the system of adaptation and the continuation of beings with these features.

• Animals that cannot acquire enough food will die before it can breed and produce offspring.
• Animals with random genetic mutations such as longer necks have a competitive advantage.
• The offspring are likely to inherit the gene, making longer necked-animals more common as a result.
• This process repeats over hundreds of millions of years, meaning adaptation is inevitable.

Question 22

What is the problem of the impossibility of a necessary being?

Answer 22

The problem is targeted at Aquinas’ third way and Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason.
In order for something to be deemed “necessary” it has to be contradictory to deny.
“God exists” - Not contradictory to deny.
“Triangles do not have three sides.”
A triangle is necessarily a three sided shape because to say a triangle is not three sided is contradictory.
“God doesn’t exist” - This is not self-contradictory and therefore not necessary.

Question 23

What is moral and natural evil?

Answer 23

Moral evil is pain and suffering as the result of human action, eg. Murder, theft. Natural evil is pain and suffering of sentient beings caused independently, eg. Disease, famine, natural disasters. Natural evil might be seen to be the result of moral evil. Human action such as over-farming and deforestation can lead to drought and famine.

Question 24

What is the Logical Problem of Evil?

Answer 24

The Logical Problem of Evil is an a priori, deductive argument that argues that God cannot exist. It is often referred to as the Inconsistent Triad (Hume’s point).

• If God is omnibenevolent, he must want to get rid of evil.
• If God is omnipotent then he is able to get rid of evil.
• If God is omniscient he knows that evil exists.
• Therefore, if God exists, evil should not exist.
• Yet evil does exist.
• Therefore God cannot exist.

Question 25

What is the Evidential Problem of Evil?

Answer 25

The Evidential Problem of Evil is an a posteriori, inductive argument that argues that God is unlikely to exist. On balance, the existence of evil in the world persuades us that the existence of an all powerful, supremely good God does not exist. Why is there so much pain and suffering in the world? Why doesn’t God intervene in terms of natural disasters and moral evil? For many (Hume, Mackie and Rowe) the evidence stacks up against the theist’s claim that the God of classical theism exists.

Question 26

What is Rowe’s Deer Example?

Answer 26

Rowe gives the example of suffering that seems gratuitous (Without a point).
- A deer trapped and burned in a forest fire, suffers immensely for days before eventually dying.
- This doesn’t disprove the existence of God but makes God’s existence unlikely.
Looking at the evidence, Rowe and Hume conclude that there is little evidence to support the God of classical theism.

Question 27

What is a theodicy?

Answer 27

A theodicy is an attempt to explain evil while maintaining the classical theistic definition of God having the attributes of omnipotence and supreme goodness.

Question 28

What is Plantinga’s Free Will Defence?

Answer 28

1) A world with free will in it is more valuable than one without.
2) To be able to choose the good, God had to create humans with free will.
3) God could not create humans with free will but determine them to always choose the good as this would not be genuine free will.
4) Sometimes people choose to do evil rather than good.
C1) Therefore evil can be explained as a result of having free will and having the possibility of choosing the good.
C2) Therefore, moral evil is consistent with the existence of God.

Question 29

What is the problem with Plantinga’s Free Will Defence?

Answer 29

The Free Will Defence seems to only address the existence of moral evil. We know that evil and suffering come in two forms and so this theodicy at best seems to only resolve one area and does not explain why we earthquakes and disease - Natural evils.

Question 30

What is Augustine’s Theodicy?

Answer 30

Augustine’s Theodicy is used to prop up Plantinga’s Free Will Defence. Human action led to disruption to the perfect world God created. Humans have had an impact on their environment and we now have chaos when there was once order.

Question 31

What are the problems with Augustine’s Theodicy?

Answer 31

There is no evidence for biblical account and the fossil evidence of arthritis in dinosaurs.

Question 32

What is John Hick’s Soul-Making Theodicy?

Answer 32

Hick summarises that creation is not a complete project and is in two stages. Hick believes this because he interpreted the verse as stating that humans were made in God’s image, meaning free will, but also meaning we are not yet perfect and must work towards it.
Stage 1) Creation.
Stage 2) Growth to perfection.
Hick’s theodicy is about achieving perfection through developing our souls.
Vale of soul-making: A world of faults, issues and opportunities to suffer is the perfect place for us to develop our souls.
Hick views this world as the best of all possible worlds because it serves its purpose as a place for growth and development for the soul and virtues.
Counter-factual = Thinking about the opposite case.
Counter-Factual Hypothesis: A world without evil or suffering is the worst of all possible worlds for humans to grow into the likeness of God because without hardship there would be no development of the soul or virtuals.
Epistemic = Knowledge.
Epistemic distance: A key element of Hick’s theodicy, meaning there must be a distance of knowledge of God’s presence, otherwise we would never truly be free.

Question 33

What is the problem of the levels of suffering?

Answer 33

There is a concern that Hick’s theodicy does not explain the need for the levels of suffering in our world, eg. Suffering of innocents and children. Fyodor Dostoevsky refers to two examples in Russia in his novel The Brothers Karamazov:

1) Soldiers occupying villages and befriending the youngest children only to use them as target practice.
2) An 8 year old who was hunted by a General’s hounds in front of his mother after accidently hurting the General’s favourite hound by accident.

Question 34

What are the responses to the problem of the levels of suffering?

Answer 34

Hick responds by maintaining the idea of an omnibenevolent God who allows everyone into Heaven.
Richard Swinburne addresses and explains levels of suffering, stating that for anything to have real meaning, they must all have real consequences. He thinks of a toy world in which things hardly matter and experiences aren’t life-changing, eg. A toy train falling off a track. We must have full consequences and real levels of suffering for life and death to have meaning.

Question 35

What is cognitivism about religious language?

Answer 35

• Claims are truth apt.
• We can claim that they are true / false.
• Eg. “Beyoncé is a musician”.
• Propositional claims - About the case.
• Eg. “God exists” = Divine being is in the universe.
• Have content in themselves (Intrinsically).

Question 36

What is non-cognitivism about religious language?

Answer 36

• Not propositions - Not fact claims about what is the case.
• Instrumental use - Express world-view.
• • Eg. “God exists” = Could be an expression of an idea that gives me hope.

Question 37

What is the Verification Principle?

Answer 37

Logical positivists believed that language is only meaningful if it is either analytically or synthetically verified. Statements such as “God exists” and “God is love” cannot be verified and are neither true nor false so they are meaningless. For this reason, there is no meaning to any form of religious language.

Question 38

What is Hick’s Eschatological Verification?

Answer 38

Hick agrees with Logical Positivists that meaningfulness is about verification but he disagrees about how to verify statements. Hick claims that Religious Statements might be eschatologically verifiable (Eschatological = End of times / after judgement).
Parable of Celestial City - Two travellers journey to a celestial city. One traveller claims that they will reach the celestial city while the other is sceptical.
Hick’s parable illustrates the idea that it is possible for the claims of a religious believer, eg. “God exists”, “Heaven awaits” are verifiable. It is possible, that events after life will verify / evidence these claims. These claims are truth apt as they have the potential to be TRUE (COGNITIVE).
Hick believes Religious Language is COGNITIVE, VERIFIABLE and MEANINGFUL.
Hick’s Eschatological Verification rests on the idea that identity is retained into afterlife for me to verify my claims, eg. “God exists”.

Question 39

What are Hick’s thought experiments?

Answer 39

Identity remains after death - Replica theory.
1) X disappears in London and an exact double appears in New York.
2) X dies in London and an exact double appears in New York.
3) X dies in London and an exact double appears in “Resurrection World”.
Hick’s point is that the idea of bodily resurrection and retention of identity after death are at least logically possible.

Question 40

What are Leibniz’s Law Of Indiscernibles?

Answer 40

1) In order for two things to be identical, they need to share all properties.
2) These replicas do not share continuity in space.
C) Therefore they are not the same (Different identity).

Question 41

What is Flew’s Falsification Principle?

Answer 41

1) In order to be meaningful, a claim must be capable of being true or false.
2) To falsify a claim is to show what the world would be like if that statement was false.
3) Example - ‘Lewis is the world’s fastest runner.’ If we find a faster runner we have falsified the claim.
4) Atheists give evidence of what the world would be like if “God exists” was false. It would have suffering or no evidence of God.
5) Instead of accepting these examples as falsifying, religious people qualify / change their claims.
C1) These religious claims such as “God exists are unfalsifiable.”
C2) Religious language is meaningless.

Question 42

What is the Parable of the Gardener?

Answer 42

• Two explorers come upon a clearing in the jungle with many growing flowers and many weeds.
• One explorer says “some gardener must tend this plot” while the other disagrees, “there is no gardener”.
• The two explorers set up tents and set a watch, but no gardener is ever seen.
• The explorer who believes there is a gardener says “but perhaps he is an invisible gardener”.
• The two explorers set up an electrified barbed-wire fence and patrol with bloodhounds, but no gardener is ever seen.
• The explorer who believes there is a gardener says “but there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves”.
• The other explorer asks “but what remains of your original assertion? How does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?”

Question 43

What is Mitchell’s response to Flew’s Falsification Principle?

Answer 43

Mitchell agrees with Flew in that he thinks that when religious people use religious language they do so in a cognitive way and think that statements are assertions (Communicate meaning). But Mitchell disagrees with Ayer and Flew that no evidence will count against a claim. He does think that religious statements can be falsified.

Question 44

What is the Parable of the Partisan?

Answer 44

• In time of war in an occupied country, a member of the resistance meets one night a stranger who deeply impresses him.
• They spend that night together in conversation and the stranger tells the partisan that he himself is on the side of the resistance, he is in command of it, and urges the partisan to have faith in him no matter what happens.
• The partisan is convinced of the stranger’s sincerity and constancy and trusts him.
• They never meet in conditions of intimacy again.
• But sometimes the stranger is seen helping the resistance and the partisan says to his friends “he is on our side”.
• Sometimes the stranger is seen in uniform of the police handing patriots over to the occupying power.
• On these occasions his friends murmur against him: but the partisan still says “he is on our side”.
• He still believes that, in spite of appearances, the stranger did not deceive him.
• Sometimes his friends say “well, what would he have to do for you to admit that you were wrong and that he is not on our side?”
• The partisan refuses to answer.
• Sometimes his friends complain “well, if that’s what you mean by his being on our side, the sooner he goes over to the other side the better”.
• The partisan of the parable does not allow anything to count decisively against the proposition “the stranger is on our side”.

Question 45

What is Hare’s response to Flew’s Falsification Principle?

Answer 45

Hare agreed with Flew that in an empirical way religious statements cannot be falsified. He disagreed with Flew that because religious statements are unfalsifiable, they must be meaningless. Hare takes a non-cognitivist perspective so he rejects the idea that religious statements attempt to give factual, empirical information. Hare’s point is that religious statements are not assertions at all, and therefore are immune to verification and falsification. Language can be meaningful if it represents a world view and has an impact on the way we live, which Hare calls “bliks”.

Question 46

What is the Parable of the Lunatic?

Answer 46

• A certain lunatic is convinced that all dons want to murder him.
• His friends introduce him to all the mildest and most respectable dons they can find, and after each of them has retired, they say “you see, he doesn’t really want to murder you; he spoke to you in a most cordial manner; surely you are convinced now?”
• But the lunatic replies “yes, but that was diabolical cunning: he’s really plotting against me the whole time, like the rest of them; I know it I tell you”.
• However many kindly dons are produced, the reaction is still the same.

Question 47

What is the problem with Hare’s response?

Answer 47

One of the main problems with Hare’s approach is that his description of religious statements does not match the way religious believers think about religious statements. Believers think that their statements ae cognitive, i.e. they are expressing truths about the world, whereas, Hare seems to deny this.