philosophy of God Flashcards
What are the 3 main characteristics of God?
Omniscient (all knowing), Omnibenevolent (all loving), omnipotent (all powerful)
What is the difference between Descartes and Aquinas definition of Omnipotent?
Descarte describes omnipotence as being able to do ANYTHNG, even the logically impossible. This is because God is the creator of everything even logic, so it is within his powers to exceed logic in this way.
Aquinas definition of omnipotence is that God has the ability to do anything that can be logically done. Even if he cannot do the logically impossible, he still lacks nothing.
What does it mean to state God is everlasting?
(temporal) God exists within time. He has a never-ending duration within time. He was present at the beginning of time and will continue to exist throughout time. Through God having a close relationship to time, he can have a close relationship to temporal beings – like humans. The world is temporal, yet God interacts with the world, therefore God must be temporal in some sense too.
What is the criticism to this?
What is the counter response to this?
If God is in time, it seems to bind him inside his creation and to particular moments. This doesn’t support the view that he is transcendent (exceeding usual limits). God may appear greater if he is free from time, as then he has the power to do anything – be omnipotent.
The thought that God is everlasting is supported by Christian theology and biblical texts. The Bible shows that God loves humans. Therefore, he must be everlasting, and not eternal, because an eternal God cannot love, as love changes, yet eternal beings are not subject to change.
What does it mean to say God is eternal?
(atemporal) God exists outside of time and acts independently from it. He exists simultaneously in the past, present and future. He does not have a beginning nor end. This is because God is self-sufficient, and not reliant on anything else (including time) to exist. If God depends on nothing, then nothing can bring God into existence or out of existence, so Gods existence has no beginning nor end.
^This interpretation is supported by the Genesis chapter of the Bible, showing how while God is creating the universe, he is outside of what he creates.
What is the criticism to this?
What is the counter response to this?
Can an eternal being act within time? Many religious people believe God acts in the world, either through miracles or through answering prayer. If God is outside of time, does it make sense to say that God has ever acted at a specific moment in time?
Gods action cannot occur in time, but the effects of Gods actions can.
What are the 3 arguments for the incoherency behind the concept of God?
the paradox of the stone, the Euthyphro dilemma and the problem of free will
What is the paradox of the stone story, to illustrate the incoherency behind the concept of omnipotence?
An omnipotent being is impossible, as the concept itself is self- contradictory. The paradox of the stone aims to show how logically there will always be one task that an omnipotent being could not do. The paradox states:
P1: either God can create a stone too heavy for him to lift, or he cannot.
P2: If God can create such stone, then he is not omnipotent – as he is limited in his ability to lift.
P3: Yet if God cannot create such stone, then he is limited in his ability to create.
P4: There is nothing logically impossible about either tasks.
C1: Therefore, God isn’t omnipotent, as there is always a task he cannot do.
What is the response to the paradox of the stone? From Mavrodes
Mavrodes states how this paradox assumes the possibility of the logically impossible. It is a contradictory paradox due to the definitions of the words it uses. It is logically impossible for an omnipotent being to be limited. ‘A stone an omnipotent being cannot lift’ is not a possible scenario, it describes nothing. This is not a possible power – if God lacks this power, he still lacks nothing.
What is the counter response?
And what’s the response to this?
This assumes that we accept the meaning of omnipotent to be coherent. The whole point of the paradox is to show that it is not.
Savage responds to Mavrode and states he has misunderstood what the paradox is trying to say. He thinks Mavrode has mistakenly assumed the paradox is showing how God is not omnipotent, rather than an omnipotent being is impossible. Instead, Savage looks to undermine the paradox by re-shifting the wording of the question. Let’s imagine that God can lift any stone but cannot create a stone that he cannot lift. This conversely means, if God creates a stone, God can lift it. Gods power of creation is not limited – God can create ANY stone, no matter how heavy or large. So, is there a stone logically that God cannot lift? No – God lacks no power of lifting or creating stones.
What is the Euthyphro dilemma, to illustrate the incoherency behind benevolence and omnipotence?
The Euthyphro dilemma looks to question whether it is possible for God to be all loving – as it either clashes with his omnipotence or is an empty description of him.
“Are good actions good because Gods wills it, or are good actions commanded by God because they’re good in themselves?”
What is the first horn (possibility) of the Euthyphro dilemma?
First horn: actions are good because God wills it
If this is the case, then it seems that God could command us to do anything, and we’d just have to accept it. Gods will therefore seems arbitrary as there is nothing guiding it other than himself. For example, meaningless tasks like standing on one foot we’d have to deem as moral as God commanded it. Or on the other hand, deeds we regard as immoral (Like Abraham being ordered to kill his Son) we intuitively know to be wrong yet would have to praise anyway.
What is the response to the first horn?
What is the counter-response to this?
and the response to this??
The divine command theory – states that whatever God commands is moral, no matter how we (inferior beings) feel about it. We do not know Gods wider plan/vision and it is illogical to assume our knowledge of morality could ever compete with Gods. As he is omnipotent, he is the origin and creator of morality, we are not.
Yet if he is the origin of morality, why are we worshipping him for being a good God? For example, you wouldn’t worship a CEO for sticking to the rules he places on his employees. Therefore, it seems that Gods goodness is an empty concept, as he has no other choice but to be good. Should we worship and praise something that could be no other way?
Yet if the greatest, most supreme being is not worthy of worship – what criteria must be met instead? This seems an illogical suggestion that the greatest being should not be worshipped, as if we had the complexities ourselves to ignore his divine nature
What is the second horn to the Euthyphro dilemma?
Second horn: actions are commanded by God because they are good
This means that there is a moral code independent from God as he is not the source of morality. If this is the case, there is no independent reason as to why we should worship God, when he is subject to the same code of morality that we are.
What is the response to the second horn?
Yet this is a miss understanding to Christian theology. There is nothing greater than God and there is nothing that humans have that God hasn’t given them. This is a misunderstanding of God being the creator of all things – including morality. Act 17;25 - “The God who made the world does not live in temples made by human hands, as if he needed anything”.
what is the clash between omniscience and human free will?
Omniscient is the quality of having perfect knowledge; knowing everything that is possible to know. How can free will co-exist with omniscient, if God already knows my future actions, even future actions I myself am yet to know? When i do eventually get around to choosing an action, was there really any other possible choice, other than the one God already knew? it seems the future is fixed if there is an omniscient being present.
This also brings into question Gods benevolence – a good God would want us to be free, as then our decisions and actions hold moral weight as they were chosen freely.
what is the response to this clash between omniscience and human free will?
The concept of an omniscient being and free will are compatible and can co-exist. Just because God knows what action we are going to pick doesn’t mean he is the reason we have picked it - we still always have a choice.
Thus, for God to know that I will do something in the future, it only means he knows that I won’t do anything else – not that I can’t do anything else. For example, my friend going “I knew you would say that” - I don’t suddenly feel like just because they knew it, means that they’re the cause of it. It’s an illogical jump to assume from knowledge alone he must also be the cause.
what is the counter response?
Yet God is omniscient – his beliefs aren’t merely reliable like the friend example, but his beliefs are infallible. Knowing someone’s character might give you knowledge of the general shape of their choices, but not every minute specific detail. It seems for God to have infallible knowledge on our actions, the future must be fixed in some way. Showcasing how we cannot pick an action otherwise to Gods knowledge, even if we tried.
what is an ontological argument?
arguments that prove Gods existence through the terms and definitions used to describe God alone. They are a priori, analytical arguments – we can derive at Gods existence through reason alone. The thought that God does not exist leads to a contradiction, deducing God must exist.
What is St.Anslems ontological argument? (formalized)
Anslems looks to prove the existence of God through the concept of God and his argument is reliant on the conceivability argument.
P1: We cannot conceive of a being greater than God
P2: It is greater to exist in reality than in the mind alone
P3: God does exist in my mind, and God is the greatest being
C1: God must exist in reality
^. It is incoherent to assume God only exists in the mind, because then we’d be able to conceive of something greater. To say that God does not exist in reality is to say the greatest being is not the greatest being – otherwise he would exist.
what is the response to St.Anslems ontological argument, from Gaunilos perfect island?
Gaunilo’s perfect island counterexample attacks St.Anselms inference that because God exists in the mind he must exist in reality. All Anselm shows is that IF God existed, he would be the perfect being.
P1: I can imagine an island greater than any other island
P2: to exist in reality is better to exist than in the mind
C1: The greatest island must exist, as if it didn’t, I could imagine an even greater island – one that actually did exist.
^Gaunilo proves how the gap between conceivability and metaphysical possibility is too wide to draw such conclusion about the existence of something. Therefore, as he mimics St.Anslems line of argument through his counter example, he provides a different light on why this line of logic is flawed.
what is the counter-response?
St.Anslems modifies his ontological argument in response to Gaunilos criticism. He states something is greater if it is self-sufficient – it doesn’t rely on anything else. An islands definition is it’s an areas of land enclosed by water. Therefore, the concept of an island is reliant on other external concepts, like an ocean being present, etc. Thus, when imagining the greatest possible island, this is a contingent truth, as it is reliant on other things. Thus, Gaunilos example doesn’t mimic St.Anslems reasoning, as a contingent thing cannot be proven through a priori reasoning – as it is not true by definition. Whereas God isn’t dependent on anything else and therefore can be proven through this line of thinking.
What is Descartes ontological argument? (formalized)
Descartes states that the relationship between God and existence is just like the relationship between a right angle and a triangle – it is a part of that concept, you cannot separate the two from each other.
P1: God is a supremely perfect being
P2: A type of perfection is necessary existence – it is more perfect to exist necessarily than contingently, as this makes you self-sufficient
P3: God contains all perfections
C1: God must exist
What is Kant’s response to Descartes ontological argument, stating existence is not a predicate?
existence is not a predicate (property). Existence is a condition rather than a property. For example, lets imagine a unicorn. Some properties of a unicorn are its horn, its 4 legs, tail, etc. Now let’s imagine that unicorn actually exists. Nothing to the concept of the unicorn itself has been added – illustrating how existence is not a property. Ontological arguments wrongfully treat existence as a predicate rather than a condition
What is the counter-response to Kant? (From Malcom)
Malcom argues that Kant’s criticism only works for contingent existence not necessary existence. A contingent being is reliant on something else in order to exist. For example, I am reliant on food and water in order to continue to exist. Yet a necessary being doesn’t depend on anything else for its existence, so contains the reason for existence within itself. Necessary existence can be a property of a necessary being – while existence cannot be a property of a contingent being. Thus, Kant’s argument does not work for the concept of God.
What is Malcom’s ontological argument? (formalized)
Malcom didn’t like either of their ontological arguments as both their arguments involve value judgements – like existence being greater than not existing (I think it’s more perfect for a podophile to only exist in the mind rather than reality) or existence being a perfection. Instead, Malcom looks to prove God through his own way.
P1: Either God exists, or he doesn’t exist.
P2: If God does exist, then God cannot go out of existence – as then he’d be dependent on something else. Thus, if God does exist, he exists necessarily.
P3: If God does not existent, God cannot suddenly come into existence. This is because his existence would then be dependent on something else, no longer making him the greatest being.
P4: Gods existence is either necessary or impossible
P5: There is no contradiction in the concept of God (unlike a triangle with 4 sides for example)
C1: Therefore, Gods existence is not impossible
C1: Therefore, God must exist
What is the criticism to Malcom’s ontological argument, stating God himself is a contradiction?
Yet it appears we can argue the concept of God is a contradiction, and therefore impossible. He has contradictory traits – like the existence of evil, his conflicting traits like the paradox of the stone example – etc. P5 is false and therefore cannot lead to the deductive conclusion that God exists instead.
What is the response to this criticism?
This criticism ignores all the possible responses to fix the incoherency in the concept of God, and it has misunderstood Christian theology for God being the greatest being. We are finite beings, and it should come as no surprise that we do not fully understand the nature of God – it is illogical to state the concept of God in itself is a contradiction.
What is the criticism from Hume’s fork, stating whatever we can conceive of existing, we can also conceive of not existing?
Humes fork states the only types of sentences that hold meaning are:
-relations of ideas are analytic truths, known apriori, true by the definitions of the words. For example: “ice is frozen water”. It cannot be denied without contradiction.
-matters of fact are synthetic truths, known aposteriori, true due to the state of the world. For example, “grass is green”. There is no logical contradiction in this truth being false one day.
Whether a being exists cannot be established through rational intuition or thinking alone - it must be established through experience / aposteriori. However the mission of a ontological argument is to establish God exists through the definition of God alone.
What is a teleological argument?
Arguments that claim certain phenomena in the universe seem to display features of design, that all have their purpose. “telos” means end/purpose.
What is the design argument from analogy? (Hume’s)
An analogy is used to show how two things that are similar in some respects are likely to be similar in further unknown respects. A good analogy will have lots of similarities strong enough to conclude further similarities must follow. Humes argument from analogy is an inductive argument, where he compares the design of man-made machines to the design of the world, to conclude their similarities in complexity must mean they both have a designer. The design argument is also an aposteriori argument as it is based on experience. It observes parts of the universe that appears to show some greater design.
Hume introduces his own design argument to show the flaws in using arguments from analogy to draw conclusions about the world.
P1: When you look at the universe you will see it has many different parts working together in a complex way working towards an end goal.
P2: The universe represents a machine – as they are both made up of many parts working towards an end goal.
P3: Machines require a human design to exist. These humans have thought and intelligence.
P4: similar effects have similar causes
C1: The creation of the world must also be from an intelligent thinker – God.
What are Hume’s own three crititiscm of his design argument?
Hume comes up with 3 criticisms of his own design argument, to show how this line of reasoning is flawed.
- cherry picked analogy – if we use the analogy for all of its elements, we can also find counter conclusions that go against the purpose of the analogy to prove that God exists. For example, human machines are made by multiple scientists, does this mean that there are multiple Gods? The humans who made the machine are flawed in some way, does this mean that God is also flawed? And finally, the machines made would’ve have multiple attempts before they got it right, does this mean that God also had multiple attempts before he got it correct?
- Counter analogies – there is nothing intrinsically convincing about the analogy and comparison between a machine. Thus, any counter analogy will hold the same weight as this one. For example, the universe could be compared to a plant, where the world has occurred due to the growth it has undergone. If this is an equally good analogy, then we may instead state that the universe has evolved like a seed does, rather than a designer.
- This is a weak analogy – a good analogy will have a lot of similarities, so much so that we feel comfortable in concluding further similarities must follow. For example, it is clear what the purpose of a machine is, yet it’s not clear what the purpose of the overall world is. Moreover, we don’t know everything about the universe and how it operates, yet topic scientists do know everything about the machine and how it operates.
What is the design argument from spatial order / disorder? (By Paley’s) Not formalized !!!!
Paley gets us to imagine we are walking along a heath and see a watch lying there. There is something about a watch that suggests it has not always been how it is. It is made of several interlinked parts and has complexity which allows it to perform its purpose.
If these parts were any different in any way, it would not succeed at its function of telling the time. Anyone who had found this watch, who had never seen a watch before, would be led to conclude the watch was designed by someone.
Paley compared this design to the design of the world. Just as someone who had found the watch would conclude it was made by someone due to its design alone, someone who looks at the universe must also conclude the same, as its complexities represent design.
This designer of the world must have a mind. Design requires a designer who has an idea in mind of what they want to create. They have the understanding in their mind on what conditions / arrangements must be met in order for such result to come about.
What is Paley’s argument formalized?
Formalised:
P1: Anything that has parts organised together to serve a purpose represents design
P2: Nature has parts organised together to serve a purpose
P3: Design can only be explained in terms of designer - an intelligent mind
C1: This mind is God
What is the criticism of Paley’s argument, stating the problem of spatial disorder?
the problem of spatial disorder. William Paley’s design argument is overly optimistic about how such great design must come from such a Great God. His argument ignores all the faults and flaws in the universe – flaws that don’t make much sense and don’t point to a designer for them to have come into existence. For example, large areas of the universe are empty. It is unclear what the purpose of this would be, and mass emptiness does not point to a God for an explanation. If lacking order is present in some parts of the universe, it is possible that the few areas of order have arisen from coincidence.
What is the response to this criticism?
Just because it is beyond our understanding to grasp what the design behind certain aspects of the world are, does not mean that there isn’t a design. Humans are finite, temporal beings and lack the understanding and knowledge that God would have about the design and reality of the world. A big bit of emptiness in the universe may seem useless to us, but God would’ve had the perfect understanding on why this space needed to exist in order for other things to exist. Therefore, the world must had been designed by the mind of God as there is nothing else as complex and intelligent as an omnipotent being.
What is the counter response?
Even if this does show how design requires a mind, it doesn’t show how this mind is Gods mind. What if my own mind is creating this reality? (argument from solipsism). Or what if it was the devil who created the world? This would better explain the disorder and pain that is present in the world. It appears that Paley doesn’t create a strong enough inference between a mind and Gods mind.
What is Swinburne’s design argument from temporal order and regularity? (not formalized)
Swinburne’s argument is an observation of temporal order. This means the order of events in time. He observes how one event follows another in the world – like if I were to let go of a ball from a height, it would fall. This is due to the laws of nature.
These laws of nature operate in such a unified, specific way throughout the whole of the universe, that the explanation mustn’t be the big bang or by chance. This is because the universe could’ve behaved in an infinite number of ways and so there is an extremely small chance that such complex order and regularity just fell into place by chance.
Regularities of succession (or temporal order) occur for two reasons: laws of nature and human free will.
We use human free will to explain why one thing follows another. For example, my intentions cause my actions. This sort of explanation explains orders of events in terms of a person. However, the regularity behind the laws of nature cannot be explained in terms of science because it will presuppose other laws. The most fundamental laws cannot be explained through other laws as then it would no longer be the most fundamental law – some other law is above it.
Therefore, the regularity and the temporal order within the world must be explained in regard to a person/mind.
What is Swinburne’s argument formalized?
P1: We observe that there is cause and effect in the universe (temporal regularities)
P2: Cause and effect can be explained through two ways: free will / a mind or the laws of nature
P3: Laws of nature cannot explain the universe as they are found within the universe
P4: The explanation for the origin of the world must therefore be through free will / an intelligent mind
P5: This mind mut be Gods mind - as only a omniscient, omnipotent being is powerful enough to create such effect (the world)
What is Hume’s criticism of Swinburne’s argument, stating this universe is the only universe we know?
(From Hume) The universe is the only universe we know. Thus, the creation of the universe is a unique event that has only ever happened once. We cannot make a design reference as we have never 1) witnessed the creation of this earth or 2) know what the creation of another universe would be like. We cannot make conclusions on the worlds potential design as we have no idea what this would look like. Swinburne has really just confused correlation with causation. Yes there is a correlation between persons and outcomes – but this does not mean that the outcome of the universe derives from a person.
What is the counter-response to Hume?
Just because the universe is the only universe we know, and just because we do not have another universe present to draw comparison, does not mean that we cannot make valid conclusions about the evidence we do have present. Cosmologists have drawn all sorts of conclusions about the universe based on what is available to us.
What is a cosmological argument?
the cosmological argument attempts to prove that God exists through analysing the worlds existence. Cosmos means the universe. Therefore, a cosmological argument makes us look into the world for explanations rather the mind – making it an aposteriori argument. These observations of the universe create the foundation for the cosmological argument.
What is the Kalam argument?
P1: Everything that comes into existence has a cause
P2: The world hasn’t existed forever - it came into existence
P3: The world has a cause
P4: This cause is God
W.L Craig adds aspect of science to the argument to defend the Kalam. He states scientific explanations cannot be used to explain the creation of the world, as these scientific laws are found within the world. Without this world, it is unclear as to whether these scientific laws would continue to exist. Therefore, science as a form of explanation in this case isn’t enough.
If a being were to be the cause of the universe, then it must have the power to create something from nothing (A). The being must also be outside time and space, since it created time and space (B). If there isn’t a scientific explanation for the cause of the universe, then it must be a personal explanation (C) – this being intentionality from an intelligent mind.
It seems these are all qualities that only God would have. We already know it cannot be a scientific explanation, as science uses its own theories to prove itself. Whereas our concept of God has the needed attributes to created something as grand and complex as the world. These attributes being A, B and C – which are individually necessary and jointly sufficient.
What is the Criticism to the kalam argument, of Humes fork objection to the causal principle?
The underlying assumption in the Kalam argument is that the causal principle is a legitimate assumption. However, if we find fault in the causal principle, then the whole argument will break down. Humes fork states a proper proposition is either 1) relation of ideas - analytic or 2) matters of fact – synthetic. The casual principle is not true by definition – it is not analytic. There doesn’t seem to be anything incoherent about something coming about without a cause – it is not self-contradictory. The casual principle is also not a matter of fact either – the causal principle makes a claim on every single possible case, yet this cannot be proven through empirical means alone. Experience in one case is not enough to conclude something on all possible cases. All we can claim is everything we have experienced so far has a cause. It does not follow from this that all cases have a cause. The cosmological argument therefore fails as its argument assumes there is a cause, and this cause is God – yet if there is no need for a cause, there is no need for a God.
What is the response to this?
Humes fork itself does not fit into Humes given categories of matters of fact and relation of ideas. The fork itself is neither analytic nor synthetic. Therefore, we do not need to have to abide a theory that does not even fit into its own theory. If Hume is claiming all that is worth knowing are synthetic and analytic truths, and if Humes fork is neither of these, we do not need to reject the causal principle on the grounds of Humes fork – because the fork itself is self-contradictory.
what is Aquinas first, second and third way?
Aquinas first way (argument from motion)
Aquinas second way (argument from atemporal causation)
Aquinas third way (argument from contingency)
What is Aquinas first way? (argument from motion)
P1: We observe that there are things in motion. Motion is the actualisation of something’s potential to be in motion (as it was once before stationary)
P2: Something can only come into motion by being moved – it cannot move itself
P3: The mover must be something already in a state of actuality, otherwise it wouldn’t be able to influence the other thing being moved
P4: There cannot be an infinite regress of movers – otherwise there would be no first mover and thus no act of motion
C1: There must be an original mover, and this mover itself must be stationary (otherwise something would’ve had to move that thing as well)
C2: The first mover must be of pure actuality – this is God.
^Motion requires from going from the potential to actual. For example, a stationary football has the potential to be moved. This sequence of change and motion cannot go on forever, there must be something that is of pure actuality to end this sequence. Yet it requires someone to kick it in order to actualise this potential. Something that is of pure actuality has no potential to change – it is unmoved.
What is Aquinas second way? from atemporal causation
P1: We observe that there is an order of cause and effect in the world
P2: Nothing can cause itself
P3: There cannot be an infinite regress of causes
P4: There must be an original cause (which itself is uncaused)
C1: This is God
What is Aquinas third way? argument from contgiency
P1: A contingent being depends on something else in order to exist
P2: A necessary being is not reliant on anything else in order to exist
P3: If everything is contingent, there must had been a time where there was nothing
P4: Yet something cannot come from nothing
C1: There must be a necessary being that started the sequence of contingent beings
C2: This must be God
what is the criticism of the third way, stating the impossibility of a necessary being (Hume)?
A necessary being is one that fundamentally exists – we cannot imagine it nothing existing and everything else running smoothly / the same as it did before. This fails Humes fork, as somethings existence would be a matter of fact. Yet all matters of fact can be conceived as false - whatever we can imagine as existent, we can also imagine as non-existent – this doesn’t create a contradiction in conception. As we can conceive of God not existing, it is possible he may not exist, and therefore not make him a necessary being. It seems that there is not a single being whose “non-existence” creates a contradiction.
What is the response to this? (The masked man fallacy)
Humes fork falls to the masked man fallacy – his argument depends on conceivability entailing metaphysical possibility. The masked man fallacy shows how we can conceive of the impossible. Let’s imagine that a man who was wearing a mask robbed a bank. I conceived that it is not my father under that mask. Yet if it actually was my father, then it’s impossible for it to had been anyone but him. Yet this is contradictory to what I conceived originally – showing how we can conceive of the impossible. Therefore, there is too big of a grey area between possibility and conceivability. Hume is therefore wrong to think that just because we cannot conceive of God not existing, then this must actually be the case.
what is the counter-crit to this?
The masked man fallacy only shows how we can conceive of the impossible when under complete ignorance. Yet would we call atheists to be under a state of complete ignorance? It doesn’t seem ignorant to state God may not exist, as we do not know enough about God to conclude that he does.
What is Descartes cosmological argument, based on his continuing existence? (argument from causation)
P1: something other than myself causes the continuation of my existence, since i could not create myself from nothing
P2: The cause of existence must be a thinking thing – since the cause (God) cannot be greater than the effect (me)
P3: Any cause that is not perfect lacks the attributes necessary for its own preservation
P4: There cannot be an infinite sequences of causes
C1: Therefore, the cause of my existence must be the cause of its own existence – God.
What is the further support of Descartes claim against the possibility of an infinite series?
W.L craig introduces his “infinite hotel” thought experiment to show how infinite collections are impossible, thus supporting P4 of Descartes argument. Let’s imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, and an infinite number of guests already staying in every room. Now let’s imagine a new guests shows up to the hotel ,asking for a room to stay in. The hotel manager can fit them in by moving the guest in room 1, to room 2 and so on. Thus, even though the hotel is full, with an infinite number of rooms and guests, you can still find a way to fit in more guests without needing anymore rooms. This shows ow the way of thinking about infinity is flawed. Infinity cannot exist.
What is the response to this?
The mathematical properties of something that is infinite is completely different to something that is finite – making Hilbert’s hotel example not an absurd comparison. It is only absurd for finite sets. For infinite sets it is not absurd, as it is their defining characteristic. When we think of a hotel, we have in mind the concept of a finite set of rooms, but such intuitions are not appropriate when considering infinite sets. Infinite sets simply have different mathematical properties, one of which is the possibility of a one-to-one relationship between the number of rooms in a hotel and the number of residents staying the night. Therefore, it appears Hilbert’s hotel example only seems convincing on face value because he uses a finite concept to argue against the possibility of an infinite concept. This is flawed, and therefore the possibility of an infinite regress may in fact exist, it is just a very complex for our minds to understand.
What is the counter-crit?
yet the mathematical properties of something that is infinite is completely different to something that is finite – making Hilbert’s hotel example not an absurd comparison. It is only absurd for finite sets. For infinite sets it is not absurd, as it is their defining characteristic. When we think of a hotel, we have in mind the concept of a finite set of rooms, but such intuitions are not appropriate when considering infinite sets. Infinite sets simply have different mathematical properties, one of which is the possibility of a one-to-one relationship between the number of rooms in a hotel and the number of residents staying the night
What is Leinbnizs argument from the principle of sufficient reason (an argument from contingency)?
Leibniz’s argument is apriori – it does not require inference from experience. His argument aims to show how there must be not just casual explanations, but a casual explanation that which provides a sufficient enough reason for everything that exists.
P1: For every fact, there is a sufficient reason for why it is the case, and not otherwise
P2: There are two types of truths: necessary truths and contingent truths
P3: Necessary truths can never not be the case, thus their opposite is impossible
P4: Whereas it is possible for contingent truths to not be the case. The sufficient reason for contingent truths cannot be discovered by other contingent truths, as they too require a sufficient explanation, and so on.
P5: A sufficient reason for contingent facts must be found outside a series of contingent facts (or things)
P6: This cycle can be broken by a necessary substance
P7: That necessary substance is God
^Nothing is not sufficient to create something. Only a necessary being is sufficient to explain the universe because otherwise there would be an infinite chain of contingent beings. Thus, a necessary being must have begun the chain of contingent beings, and is the sufficient explanation for the universe.
What is the response to Leibniz’s argument, stating that the argument commits the fallacy of composition?
The fallacy of composition – the whole is like its individual parts
It is a fallacy to assume what is true for a thing’s parts, must also be true for the overall thing in question. For example: just because every human has a mother, doesn’t mean mankind has a mother.
This same line of thinking can be used when undermining Leibniz’s argument from contingency. Just because contingent beings and contingent facts have an explanation, this doesn’t mean the whole series has its own explanation. Experience shows that parts within the world are contingent, this doesn’t mean that the world as a whole must be contingent.
He assumes that the universe itself must have a cause, when we only have evidence for parts within the universe having a cause. This is too large of a leap.
what is the difference between moral evil and natural evil?
Moral evil – evil caused by human action, for example murder, etc.
Natural evil – evil that occurs from the natural world. For example, earthquakes, famine etc. God created and designed the natural world which seems to make him responsible for the evil and suffering that it produces.
what is the logical problem of evil?
This an apriori form of argument, as it uses terms and definitions alone to show how the concept of God and evil logically contradict one another. God must lack one of his stated characteristics in order for evil to exist within the world. It is a deductive argument, as if all the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.
P1: If God exists, then he is omniscience, omnipotent and omnibenevolent
P2: If God is omniscient, then he has the knowledge that evil is in the world
P3: If God is omnipotent, then he has the power to remove such evil
P4: If God is omnibenevolent then he has the desire to remove all evil in the world
P5: God must lack one of these characteristics, yet it is these characteristics that makes such being a God.
C1: The concept of God is self-contradictory
what is the response to the logical problem of evil, from free will? (Plantinga)
Plantinga argues that it logically possible for God to co-exist with evil, because evil is the result of free will – which is the greater good. He states moral evil results from human action, and natural evil results from the freewill of the devil, or Gods justification from the original fall of man. If God didn’t give us free will, our universe, and the choices we make would have no real value. Therefore, no matter how much negative value that results from free will, value itself would not be possible without it. We learn what is good, not only from doing good, but also knowing what is bad.
P1: Evil is the result of free will
P2: God cannot remove evil without removing free will
P3: it is better to have free will than to not – as this gives value to our lives
P4: An all loving, powerful God would want free will
C1: God would therefore allow evil, as the cost of free will
Therefore, the existence of evil is a result of this greater good – free will. Evil is just the absence of good, and therefore we shouldn’t mistake it for its own identity. Its definition is a negative one (explaining it in terms of what it is not) - just like how darkness can only be explained as the absence of light, evil can be described as the absence of God. We have the choice to move away from God due to our free will and therefore cannot possibly blame God for what we have chosen.
what is the response to the free will argument?
(And response from ChRiStaIn theology)
However, we may question if free will is even compatible with God, let alone evil. If God is omniscient, he must know what we are going to do in the future. If this is the case, and our future is already known, can we do any action, but the action God knows? And if we can change our actions to Gods knowledge, is God still omniscient? For me to do an act freely, I must have the option to choose that action or another. Yet God characteristics don’t only seem to conflict with the existence of evil, but also the existence of free will – and therefore the argument from free will does not serve as a response to the problem of evil, as the concept itself is a problem.
YET, this argument fails to understand christain theology. Proverbs - “you may throw the dice; but God decides how it lands”. We are still the origin of our actions, we still freely choose them, we still throw the dice. Yet it is God who knows how such decisions pan out.
what is the evidential problem of evil?
This is an a-posteriori argument that states the evidence of evil within the world makes God an unjust God. There is a logical possibility that God and evil may co-exist together, yet the evidence is against that possibility actually being true. This is therefore an inductive argument, as it regards evil as evidence that God doesn’t exist – not ultimate proof. Although evil and a perfect God are compatible, the evidence of evil in the world makes belief in as God unjustified.
Hume, an empiricist, suggests we are only justified in believing in what we have evidence for.
P1: We are only justified in believing in what we have evidence on
P2: We have evidence of an imperfect world (made of both good and evil)
P3: We do not have evidence of a supremely good being
C1: The belief in a perfectly good God, is not justified
^Therefore, due to Humes focus on evidence, we cannot say God may have his own reason for this evil, as we have no evidence of this – and therefore it’s an invalid jump to rely on.
what is the response to the evidential problem of evil, from john hicks soul-making argument?
There is empirical evidence in the world that overcoming evil develops character. If there is no struggle, we will have no real value for the good in our life – as we have never experienced any different and cannot measure its worth against a different scenario / feeling. This process does seem to be a factual occurrence in life – that we have evidence for. Hicks believed that our soul develops in two stages.
Stage 1: spiritual immaturity
Stage 2: Grow into a relationship with God
Spiritual immaturity is needed in order to grow into a relationship with God, rather than be given this relationship from the start. Hick argued for the epistemic distance – the existence of God could never be blatant in our faces. If God made his existence obvious, we would have no other choice to follow him. We would have a relationship with him out of obedience, rather than out of our free will or faith. If God made himself undoubtable, we would obey his authority rather than loving what is good for its own sake – yet this is the morally superior action, and therefore the best environment for soul making. Life, nor our souls, would have no real value if we have only ever experienced goodness.
what is the criticism of this response?
the distribution of evil we can observe in the world isn’t distributed equally – and therefore doesn’t align with this universal “soul making” requirement. Some evil is so intense that it is soul breaking, rather than soul developing. It is unclear what the purpose of PTSD or depression would be for people who were never able to overcome such feeling. It also appears that the amount of evil present here outweighs the amount needed for soul development. For example, the holocaust. Given the mass amount of people who went through torture and pain, this far outweighs the few survivors in comparison who were strengthened by such event – and that’s assuming they were even able to recover from it in the first place. A few good cases does not justify millions of bad ones.
how may john hick respond to this?
These disparities are a result of human free will.
A perfect world where everyone’s actions (chosen from free will) resulted in ultimate soul-making for someone else would require Gods intervention every time someone misused their free will. This eventual outcome of soul-making would be so evidently clear that we would know there must be a god giving some moral, wider purpose behind all of our actions – this would break the epistemic distance. We would then only behave morally out of fear or obedience for God, rather than faith or goodness. Virtues and moral character cannot be built up in this way.
what is the debate surrounding religious language?
The debate within religious language is whether religious language is meaningful or not. If religious language holds no meaning, then it is neither true nor false. If religious language is successfully shown to not hold any truth value, then we don’t have to debate over Gods existence anymore – if the term God cannot first be shown to be a meaningful term in the first place.
what is meant by cognitivism within religious language?
Cognitivism – religious language that expresses belief. Belief can be proven either true or false – and therefore cognitive statements hold a truth value. All other theories learnt in the course, are cognitivist theories – as they treat “God exists” as a scientific, empirical statement that literally describes how the world is, and therefore can be proven true or false.
what is meant by non-cognitivism within religious language?
Non-cognitivism – statements that do not contain belief. They are simply expressions of feeling, rather than belief. This is therefore an attitude towards the world, rather than a statement about the world. For example, “ouch” is a non-cognitivist statement - > it expresses a feeling, not a belief. For example, “boo!” “Yay!”
^The debate is over which category religious language fits into. When a religious person states “God exists” it seems like they’re expressing a belief on face value, yet some philosophers argue that it is really an expression of a feeling / attitude, and therefore is non-cognitivist. Do we believe that God exists, or feel like God exists?
what is logical positivism?
Logical positivism – heavily wedded to science. They want to extend the use of science to all areas of intellectual inquiry / debate. Empirical data and experience has great explanatory power, and therefore they claim that only scientific language is meaningful as it alone can be shown through analysis of reality.
what are the two arguments within logical positivism to prove religious language is meaningless?
- verification principle
- falsification
what is the verification principle?
A statement only has meaning if it is either:
An analytic truth (e.g. “A triangle has 3 sides”)
Empirically verifiable (e.g. “grass is green” or “water boils at 100 degrees”)
^Any statement that doesn’t fit into these two categories, is therefore meaningless.
Words get there meaning by referring to things in our shared experience, that is how language is formed. If a word connects to the world, that connection should be verifiable. If someone uses language in a way that cannot be verified, then it’s unclear what this word actually means – like “God exists”. If a statement cannot be shown to be about anything, then we cannot grant it factual meaning – that can be proven true. All religious language is therefore non-cognitivist, as it expresses an attitude and feeling rather than a belief. The term “God” is a metaphysical term, it refers to something beyond the mind, yet there is no way to empirically verify it.
what is the response to the verification principle, from the eschatological verification?
Hick argues there is a way to verify God and the associated language, because when we die, we’ll either meet God or we wont - yet either way, then we will know, as it would’ve been verified.
For example: imagine the celestial city. imagine there are two men walking down a road, one of them believes the road leads to nowhere, and the other believes at the end of the road is the celestial city. When they turn the last corner of this road, both their beliefs will be verified - either one of them will be right, and the other wrong.
what is the falsification argument against cognitivism?
Only a statement about reality, the way the world is, is meaningful. For a statement to be about reality, it must be falsifiable - it must have a truth value. For example, Newton law is about reality, and therefore holds meaning, as we can say what it would take to prove newtons law wrong. We can only have belief about something in reality. This holds true for all beliefs about reality – they can be either proven true or false. Thus, we can test whether a belief is about reality by asking can it be proven true or false?
Religious people can’t say what it would take to prove their belief in God is false. Any attempt to prove God doesn’t exist (like the presence of evil) has led to further adaptations (like the soul making argument). Thus religious language cannot be about reality, as it cannot be falsified.
Throughout history many beliefs have been claimed about God which science has over time shown false. Rather than accept the falsity of the belief, Christians have edited their belief.
what is the response to this?
Yet atheism is equally not falsifiable. Whenever something happens that suggests God exists, atheists find an alternative explanation. Therefore their cognitive belief that God doesn’t exist, cannot be proven false either.
Even if blatantly obvious signs occurred that God exists, like Noah’s ark washes up or the stars align to read “Jesus is God”, atheists will still find an alternative explanation. They may explain such scenarios through: hallucinations, mental illness, etc.
what is the university debate?
During the debate on religious language, all philosophers, both positivists and cognitivists came together in oxford university to debate one on one about religious language holding any meaning or not. This is unlikely many other debates in philosophy, as most debates last for centuries and don’t take place face to face.
what is Anthony flews argument from the invisible gardener, against cognitivist religious language?
The parable of the gardener – Two people are walking in a forest, and see that it is very tidy and well kept.
^person A suggests that there is a gardener tending to it, so person B suggests that they wait in the garden to see if the gardener appears.
^After a while of waiting, person A states that the gardener therefore must be invisible. They then set up barbed wire to try and detect the gardener entering and leaving the garden.
^As the wire doesn’t detect the gardener, the believer states actually the gardener must also be a non-physical gardener.
Person A has now concluded that the gardener is invisible and non-physical.
At this point, person B gets frustrated with person A and asks, “well what remains of your original assertion?”.
The religious person claims to believe in God, yet in order to protect this belief from empirical testing, they continually add qualifications to the belief – stating it’s not this and it’s not that. Well eventually it seems, it’s going to be nothing, causing the concept of God to die a thousand qualifications. Therefore, what is the difference between a world where the gardener exists, and a world where it does not? If belief in God is compatible with any version of reality, then his existence surely mustn’t add anything to reality either.
what is Basils Mitchel’s defence of cognitivist religious language?
Mitchel first accepted that Flew is right about those religious people that just have faith. Their religious belief is blind to possible counter-examples, as they find ways around them.
Yet it appears that most religious people are not like that. People have the evidence of God in many different ways:
Their relationship with God
Experience of God / Blessings they have received
Biblical records, etc.
Yet religious people also recognise that there is also evidence against Gods existence – like the presence of evil. If the person weighs the evidence for God greater than the evidence of evil, then they will be a believer. Yet if the person believes there’s too much evidence against, then they will be an atheist. Usually, we do not know exactly what severity of evil we must go through in order for us to abandon our beliefs. Thus, Flew is flawed in assuming we should know what it would take to falsify our beliefs in advanced – because it is unclear what amount of evil / pain we would be tolerant to. Sometimes belief is rationally inferred from evidence, and yet what it would take to falsify it is not always immediately obvious.
what is the problem with this defence?
a religious person experience of God isn’t really evidence for God. Experience of God takes place in the mind, and how we process events and link them to God. Therefore, couldn’t it just be my own mind making up God exists?
what is the counter response?
if religious language was not an attempt to describe reality, then it isn’t actually making a statement at all, and thus we wouldn’t even be able to reach a stage of calling it unverifiable or unfalsifiable.
what is Hares argument against cognitivist religious language, from his argument from the blik and lunatic?
Hare argues that religious language does not attempt to describe reality.
Blik – is a person’s feelings and attitudes.
The expression of attitude is not an attempt to describe reality, and thus cannot be true or false. Yet Bliks do affect our beliefs, and therefore remain meaningful.
Hare illustrates this through his bliks and lunatic’s example:
Lunatic – the paranoid student
Blik – the feeling his professor is trying to kill him
There is a paranoid student who is convinced his professor is trying to kill him. Even when shown evidence that the professor is NOT trying to kill him, he still does not change his mind.
^This shows what seems like belief attempting to describe reality can really just be an irrational blik. If it were rational, the meaning could be changed by that description being shown to be false. Hare concluded that the students’ beliefs must be rooted in a non-cognitivist attitude (Blik).
^Religious language functions similar to this. It may appear to be a cognitivist expression of belief on the surface, but in reality it is just our blik. Hare’s argument is successful because although many religious people may indeed feel that they are making factual claims about reality, their conception of reality is really just an aspect of their Blik.
