Metaphysics of God

Question 1

What does it mean to claim that God is everlasting

2015 3 mark

Answer 1

God exists throughout all time, without beginning or end

Question 2

Outline the paradox of the stone

5 marker 2015

Answer 2

Intends to show that an omnipotent being is impossible
P1-Either God can make a stone to heavy for God to lift or God cannot do this
P2-If God can do this, then he isn’t omnipotent (As the stone can’t be lifted)
P3-If he can’t do this, He isn’t omnipotent (as he cannot do it)
P4- There isn’t anything logically impossible about these tasks
C-Therefore God isn’t omnipotent

Question 3

What is the logical problem of evil?

how Free will defence responds to prob of evil (12)

Answer 3

Argues against the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God
Claims the existence of one is incompatible with the existence of evil

P1-God is omnipotent, supremely good, omniscient
P2-An omnipotent God can eliminate evil completely
P3-Supremely good wishes to get rid of all evil
P4-Omniscient being knows evil exists
C1. Therefore if God exists, he will get rid of it completely
P5- Evil exists
C2- Therefore God with these attributes doesn’t exist

Question 4

What is the free will defence?

how Free will defence responds to prob of evil (12)

Answer 4

addresses issues of logical problem by arguing that the gift of free will is worth the risk of moral evil that may result from it
P1-World containing significantly free creatures is better than one without such creatures
C1-Therefore if God creates a world, it must have significantly free creatures
P2-If a world contains significantly free creatures, then moral evil is possible
C2-Therefore if God creates world, it must be one in which moral evil is possible
C3- Therefore the existence of moral evil is compatible with God’s existence

Question 5

What is the verification principle

(12) Outline verif and explain hick claim: verifiable eschatologically

Answer 5

Criteria that determines whether a propersition is meaningful or not
A propersition is only meaningful if and only if
1)Its a tautology (true by definition)
2)Its probable truth can be verified empirically/shown to be true or false

Question 6

What is Hick’s claim that religious statements are verifiable eschatologically?

(12) Outline verif and explain hick claim: verifiable eschatologically

Answer 6

-Accepts verification principle, but claims there are possible experiences that we can have which could verify claims such as “God exists” after death (eschatologically) as long as rational doubt about God’s existence can be removed

Eg. Parable of Celestial city
P1- Two people travel on a road
P2-Person A believes it leads to Heaven, Person B believes it leads nowhere
P3-They both expereince moments of refreshment, delight, hardship and danger, which person A percieves as encouragement, and tests
P4-Person B believes that they have no choice so they enjoy the good/endure the bad
C1-When they turn the last corner, it will prove who is right
C2- If A is correct, his belief will be verified by reaching the city and meeting God, If B is correct, the journey is meaningless

-If God exists is true, its verifiable eschatologically, if it isn’t its unfalsifiable

Question 7

What is the Kalam argument?

(25) Are cosmological arguments convincing?

Answer 7

posteriori deductive argument that aims to prove the existence of a God by looking back in time, whilst simultaneously using causation to deduce the cause of the universe.

P1- The universe is composed of temporal phenomena (things that occur and exist in time, that are preceded by other temporal phenomena in ordered in time)
P2- An infinite regress of temporal phenomena is impossible
C1- Therefore, the universe must have a beginning
P3- Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence (Causal principle)
C2- Therefore there is a cause of the existence of the universe

Question 8

What is Hume’s rejection of causal principle?

(25) Are cosmological arguments convincing? (Counter 2 Kalam)

Answer 8

Disagrees with P3. Claims we can deny the claim that everything has a cause without contradicting ourselves.

Without contradiction we can assert “something can come out of nothing,” which is either true or false. means the claim is not analytic, and we can only verify it through experience

Since experience cannot establish that a claim holds universally, we cannot know that everything begins to exist has a cause

Question 9

Kalam response to Hume

(25) Are cosmological arguments convincing? (Counter to counter)

Answer 9

One response to Hume’s objection is to accept that it shows the kalam argument does not prove God exists. Hume accepts that we have good reason to think everything has a cause

Question 10

What is Aquinas 3rd way

(25) Are cosmological arguments convincing?

Answer 10

Aims to prove God’s existence via contingency
Appeals to idea of possibility, contingency, and nessessary existences

P1- Things in universe exist contingently
P2- If it’s possible for something not to exist, then at some time it did not
C1- If everything exists contingently, then it’s possible at some time that it didn’t exist
P3- If at some time nothing was in existence, then nothing could begin to exist
C2- Since things do exist, there was never nothing in existence
C3- Therefore there is something that does not exist contingently, but must exist
P4-this necessary being is God
C4- God exists

Question 11

What is Humes argument on impossibility of a necessary being

(25) Are cosmological arguments convincing? (Counter to Aquinas)

Answer 11

Takes aim at conclusion of the world being dependent on something else for existence, and aims to show that the concept of necessity cant be applied to things that exist, meaning a necessary being isn’t possible

P1-Nothing that is dinstinctly concievable entails a contradiciton
P2-For any being we can concieve as existent, can also be concieved as non existent
C-Therefore there isn’t a being whos non existence entails a contradiction

-For hume, I can say God doesn’t exist, without contradiction, meaning God exists isn’t a necessary truth

Question 12

Hick response to Hume

(25) Are cosmological arguments convincing? counter counter to hume

Answer 12

Cosmological argument only interested in factual necessity, not logical necessity, when applied to God, has a clear meaning of self existence. So Hick argues that hume hasn’t shown the impossibility of a necessary being

Question 13

What does it mean to claim God is eternal?

Answer 13

God exists independently of time (exists as an atemporal being)

Question 14

Descartes version of the Ontological argument

Answer 14

He believed God is supremely perfect and existence is an absolute perfection, and that it isn’t in his power to concieve of God as not existing
Existence is part of the concept of God

P1- I have an idea of God (Supremely perfect being)
P2- A supremely perfect being must have all perfections
P3- Existence is a perfection
C- Therefore God exists

Question 15

Mitchell’s view on RL and the Partisan story

Answer 15

Mitchell accepts the view that for a claim to be meaningful it must be falsifiable (capable of being proven false)
He argues that a religious claim can still be meaningful
Partisan argument illustrates this view by showing how a claim isn’t meaningless despite it being falsifiable

P1-Partisan meets stranger, who claims he is a member of resistance
P2-Partisan is convinced and decides to trust stranger
P3-Stranger acts in ways that help the resistance and help the enemy
P4-Partisan accepts that some behaviours count against his claim, but he continues to assert that the stranger is on his side and argues he has good reasons
C1-This means the partisans claims are falsifiable
C2-When pressed, the partisan doesnt suggest how much evidence is needed for him to forsake the claim

Question 16

Swinburne’s design argument

Answer 16

Aims to prove the existence of a designer making the claim that the universe contains regularities of temporal order (An orderliness in the way one thing follows another eg. how if you let go of something it falls back to earth).

Regularities of succession: things that come about because someone intentionally brings them about

P1-Universe as a whole contains temporal order/regularities of succesion
P2-Two possible hypotheses: Temporal order has scientific explanation, or temporal order has persona explanation
P3-H1 fails as science can only explain the existence of regularities of succession in terms of more fundamental regularities of succession, so a scientific explanation cannot be given
P4-H2 can explain fundamental scientific regularities of succession as they are similar to regularities of succession produced by agents, meaning they are produced by rational agency
P5-The agency in question would have to be of immense power, which would be God
C1-Therefore God exists

Question 17

Problem of evil

(25): Can problem of evil show there is no God

Answer 17

Moral evil: Evil and suffering which results from intentional actions by humans
Eg. Neglect, murder, crime done

Natural evil: Evil and suffering that isn’t caused by the action of humans, but natural processes
Eg. Earthquakes, tsumanis, animal suffering

Question 18

Mackie’s response to Free will defence

(25) Can the problem of evil show there is no God

Answer 18

P1-Logically possible for omnipotent God to create a universe in which we have free will but always choose to do Good
P2-Alternative universe would be better than the current (due to evil and suffering)
P3-This doesn’t exist
C-Therefore God isn’t omnipotent/supremely good

Question 19

Evidential problem of evil

(25) Can the problem of evil show there is no God

Answer 19

Aims to show that the belief in God (all attributes) is unreasonable given our experience of evil
Argues the large amount, distribution, and kind of evil is good evidence for thinking that God doesn’t exist
Eg. Wars, ethnic cleansing, death of innocents natural distasters, animal sufferings are all examples of evil that a God will all attributes would eliminate

Question 20

Soul making theodicy

Answer 20

Argues the existence of evil is necessary for us to grow morally and spiritually as humans
Such virtuous development is impossible without evil to respond to/ correct (eg no courage without danger, no forgiveness without wrongdoing)
Through these sufferings we develop. The world can be understood as a place of soul making

God seeks our development of virtues which requires suffering. The virtues we achieve through development are greater than the qualities of someone simply created good

Question 21

Evidental response to soul making

Answer 21

Although evidental problem accepts that without evil, we wont have free will or virtues, it questions whether all of these evils are necessary for free will and virtue
Argues that there is too much pointless evil (death of children/animal cruelty) which could be removed by God and humans can still mature

Question 22

What does Hare mean by blik

Answer 22

Blik’s are attitudes about reality that aren’t sensitive to empirical evidence
-Although they are unfalsifiable, they still mean something to people
Eg. religious language “God exists” may be unfalisifiable to some, but to others they may have this blik because they go to church and pray
-Student is convinced that uni lecturer will kill him, even with evidence he believes, making the blik unfalsifiable

Question 23

Briefly define omniscience and then explain the argument that human freedom is impossible if God is omniscient

Answer 23

Omniscience: Knowing everything that is possible to know
P1-God is omniscient if God knows all true propersitions
P2-There are true propersitions about the future
P3-God knows all true future propersitions if its impossible for me to do what God already knows
P4-Its impossible for me to do otherwise than what God knows if im not free
C-Therefore God is omniscient if im not free

Question 24

Anselm ontological argument

25 does ontological prove existence of God

Answer 24

P1- God is defined as the greatest possible being that could be conceived
P2-Even the fool (Atheist) can conceive of God as the greatest possible being (It’s a coherent concept that is in our understanding)
P3- Its greater to exist in both understanding and reality rather than understanding itself
C- Therefore the greatest possible being God must exist in understanding and reality (Because he is the greatest conceivable being that we understand)

Question 25

Guanilo perfect island

25 does ontological prove existence of God

Answer 25

Disagrees with Anselm’s entire argument, (Mainly C1 AND P3) questions the claim that we can prove God’s existence through conceptual understanding alone. Claims its not enough to understand to understand nature of God as greatest concievable being to prove his existence

P1- there is a lost island that is the most excellent of all islands
P2- Nobody has difficulty conceiving of this lost island as the most excellent
P3- it is greater to exist in understanding and reality rather than understanding alone
C- Therefore the lost island which is most excellent must exist

Question 26

Anselm reply to Guanilo

25 does ontological prove existence of God

Answer 26

Argues his counter doesn’t disprove God, the ontological structure only works for God
-there is something incoherent in thinking “the greatest concievable being doesn’t exist” but “greatest concievable island doesn’t exist” is coherent

Question 27

Descarte ontological

25 does ontological prove existence of God

Answer 27

He believed God is supremely perfect and existence is an absolute perfection, and that it isn’t in his power to concieve of God as not existing
Existence is part of the concept of God
P1- I have an idea of God (Supremely perfect being)
P2- A supremely perfect being must have all perfections
P3- Existence is a perfection
C- Therefore God exists

Question 28

Kant: existence isn’t a predicate

25 does ontological prove existence of God

Answer 28

Kant critiqued all ontological arguments, claiming that the assumption of existence being a property of God is false
aims to prove existence isn’t a predicate

P1- A genuine predicate adds to our conception of a subject and helps determine it
P2- Existence does not add to our conception of a subject or help to determine it
C- Existence isn’t a genuine predicate
Conclusion undermine anselm’s and descartes ontological argument, which argue on basis that existence is a property of God
If existence isn’t a property of anything then the ontological arguments contain a false premise

Question 29

Aquinas second way

Answer 29

Deductive argument to prove existence of God via efficient causality
P1-We know through experience that the world contains efficent causes
P2- Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself
P3-if the series of efficient causes was infinite there wouldn’t be a first cause
P4-If there wasn’t a first cause there wouldnt subsequent causes
C-Therefore there is a first cause, and we call this God

Question 30

Euthyphro Dilemma

Answer 30

Questions the relationship between God and morality, omnipotence and omnibenevolence
1) Is morality Independent of what God wills?
2) Morality is whatever God wills it- Anything we consider to be morally right is right because God says so

If 1 is true: We put a constraint on God ( He wouldn’t be omnipotent as he can’t turn what is wrong into right)
If 2: God can turn wrong into right by an act of will (eg murdering babies is right)

Question 31

Paley Design argument

Answer 31

Aims to prove existence of God through the comparing the properties of a watch and nature
Eg. If we saw a watch on the ground, we wouldn’t be satisfied by concluding it had always been there, unlike a stone
This is cause watch has parts organised for a purpose, (part of design)
we can then conclude its been designed by a designer

He argues that works of nature has same properties as watch (parts organised for a purpose) which infers them also being designed by designer

P1- Anything with parts organised for purpose is designed
P2- Nature contains things which have parts organised for purpose
C1- Therefore nature contains things that are designed
P3- Design can only be explained in terms of a designer
P4- A designer must have a mind and be distinct from what is designed
C2- Therefore, nature was designed by a mind that is distinct from nature
C3-Therefore such a mind, “God” exists

Question 32

Difference between moral and natural evil

Answer 32

Moral:Evil and suffering which results from intentional actions by humans
Eg. Neglect, murder, crime done

Natural: Evil and suffering that isn’t caused by the action of humans, but natural processes
Eg. Earthquakes, tsumanis, animal suffering

Question 33

Difference between cognitivisim and non cognitivism

Answer 33

Cognitivism: Religious claims aim to describe the world/reality, and express beliefs via truth claims
Eg. God exists expresses the belief that he exists, which is either true or false
Non cogntivism: Religious claims do not aim to describe the world, and are not truth claims. They express non belief like attitudes (emotions, desires)
Eg. God exists expresses a commitment to a certain lifestyle

Question 34

Response to Paley (Spatial order)

Answer 34

Argument questions why Paley takes the order to be more striking than the vast disorder when considering cause of the universe

Acknowledges that Paley’s argument appeals to regularities of spatial disorder eg. parts of an eye, organised to serve a purpose, exist in an orderly way
However, what is meant to be explained is the whole universe, which contains a lot of spatial disorder eg. vast areas of space that have no organisation of parts/purpose. What reasons are there to suggest the order outweighs the disorder

Question 35

Paley response to spatial order

Answer 35

-The inference of parts for purpose still stands even if the parts dont contribute to its purpose
The balance of spatial order/disorder isnt crucial, we shouldnt need to weigh one against the other to tell the organisation of parts for purpose must be explained in terms of designer

Question 36

Hume objection to design from unique case (ag. swinburne)

Answer 36

-To make an inference of cause of universe, we need to experience the origin of many worlds
Since we don’t have this, we can’t know what caused the universe

-We can only know the cause of an effect when we have repeated experience of effect following the cause
In case of products of human design, we have repeated experience of designer arranging parts for purpose, but we dont have this for nature

We don’t know that its a designer that brings about this effect in natural things, and the arrangements of parts for a purpose show that the cause is a designer

So we can’t infer the cause of order in nature is a designer

Question 37

Swinburne response to hume

Answer 37

Misrepresents explanation
Eg. Scientists introduce entities such as subatomic particle in order to explain stuff like explosions in nuclear accelerator
Scientists dont know how to explain them, and this is completely normal and this happens throughout scientific history
So we can still say designer is good explanation for laws of scientfic nature even if we cant explain it

Question 38

Mavrode response to paradox of stone

Answer 38

Argues paradox of stone reveals incoherence of taskrather than incoherence of omnipotence.
For instance, assuming God isn;t omnipotent would mean its true that he cannot do certain things. Assuming God is omnipotent, suggests that the question should be rephased as a self contradictory task, meaning the paradox is invalid as God cannot do things that are logically impossible, nor self contradicting

Question 39

Leibniz cosmological argument from sufficient reason

Answer 39

Deductive argument that focuses on contingency of facts
P1- Principle:Every fact has an explanation that provides a sufficient reason for why things are the way it is/otherwise
P2-Two kinds truth: reasoning and facts

Reasoning-Necessary, their opposites are impossible, and the sufficent reason of this is found by apriori analysis
Fact: Contingent, opposite is possible, the sufficent reason of fact cannot be found in other contingent truths, as they require a reason

C1-Therefore to provide a sufficient reason for contingent fact, we must look outside the sequence of them
C2-Therefore the sufficent reason of a contingent fact must be a necessary substance
C3-This necessary substance is God
C4-Therefore he exists

Question 40

Difference between inductive and deductive arguments for existence of God

Answer 40

Inductive: argument is intended to be strong, provides reasons at best to believe conclusion is strong, and is strong if premises are true, conclusion is probable (eg. swinburne design arg)
Deductive: argumenmt is intended by proponent to be valid, is valid if premises are true, conclusion is true, and provides reasons to believe conclusion is true (eg. anselm ontological argument)

Question 41

Aquinas 1st way

Answer 41

Posteriori deductive argument to prove Gods existence through motion (Potentially x to actually x)
P1-Universe contains motion
P2-Nothing can move change itself (nothing can actualise its own potential) and must be changed by something distinct
P3- If there was an infinite series of changers there wouldn’t be a first changer
P4-If there wasn’t a first changer there wouldn’t be any motion (If you remove the cause, you cannot have an effect)
C1-Therefore given P1 there must be a first changer
P5-God is this first changer
C2-Therefore God exists