Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Philosophy A Level > Metaphysics of God > Flashcards

Metaphysics of God Flashcards

1
Q

God is omniscient

A
  • All knowing
  • God has perfect knowledge
  • He knows everything that is possible to know
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Issue: the compatibility of omniscience and free human beings

A
  • God must know what I’m going to do before I do it so there are no free choices

Either:
- God is omniscient but we don’t have free will
OR
- We have free will but God is not omniscient

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

God is omnipotent

A
  • All powerful
  • God is imagined to be perfectly powerful -> it is not possible for there to exist a being with more power than God.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Issue: The paradox of the stone

A

Can God create a stone so heavy he can’t lift it if he’s all powerful?

Yes = He is not powerful enough to lift the stone

No = He’s not powerful enough to create the stone

Either way there’s something he can’t do!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

God is omnibenevolent

A
  • All loving
  • supremely good
  • God is perfectly good, he always does what is morally good, nothing bad or evil.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Issue: the euthyphro dilemma

A

Two horns
1. Are right actions good because God commands them? - GOOD CREATED BY GOD BUT GOOD AND BAD ARBITRARY - all loving? God could say murder is right and change his mind
2. Are right actions commanded by God because they are good? - GOOD IS INDEPENDENT OF GOD -> limited power
Either omnipotence or omnibenevolence denied

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

God as eternal or everlasting

A

ETERNAL = exists outside of time, he has no beginning or end
- his life is atemporal

EVERLASTING = exists within time
- he was there at the beginning of time and will continue to exist forever

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Issue: the compatibility of eternality and free will

A
  • If Gods knows everything and is eternal, our actions are predetermined
  • If actions are predetermined we don’t have real free will
    BUT God’s knowledge doesn’t eliminate our free will, his knowledge is based on his timeless perspective, not controlling our choices.
  • So God’s knowledge and our free will can co-exist
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Mackie’s logical problem of evil

A
  • God is omnibenevolent
  • God is omnipotent
  • Evil exists
    Only a maximum of 2/3 can be true

Adds two extra premises to strengthen it:
4. A good being eliminates evil as far as it can.
5. There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

The evidential problem of evil

A
  • small amounts of evil can be tolerated to distinguish between right and wrong.
  • Not clear why God permits large amounts of suffering in some situations.
  • The evidence of unnecessary evil suggested God does not exist.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Satre’s atheist response to the problem of evil

A
  • Atheists claim there is no God.
  • evil comes from human choices (free will to choose between good and evil) not God.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Midgeley’s atheist response to the problem of evil.

A
  • Atheists claim there is no God.
  • BUT the existence of evil doesn’t necessarily contradict the non-existence of God as evil is a result of natural processes and human actions.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Theists response to the problem of evil

A
  • They argue that evil exists because of free will.
    HOWEVER…..
    some question this argument by pointing out if God is all-powerful and omnibenevolent then why would he allow such evil to exist.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Hicks afterlife defence as a response to the problem of evil

A
  • Hick claims that evil is balanced with the opportunity for soul-making and spiritual growth.
    HOWEVER…
    Some may argue why an all-powerful and all-loving God would require such suffering for individuals to develop spiritually.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

The free will defence

A
  • St.Augustine and Platinga argue that God and evil can exist together because evil is the result of free will, so we can’t shift the blame onto God.
    HOWEVER….
    If God is all-knowing he would know in advance the choice humans would make and the resulting evil. Why would an all-loving and all-powerful God create a world where evil is inevitable?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

The soul-making theodicy

A
  • St Irenaeus and Hick claim that evil serves a purpose in the development and growth of human souls. Facing suffering can develop virtues, empathy etc.
    HOWEVER….
    Why would an all-powerful and all-loving God allow for such intense suffering in order to achieve soul development?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Features of ontological arguments

A
  • ‘Ontology’ means a branch of philosophy that explores the nature of existence and reality.
  • A priori, so they rely on logic and reasoning.
  • They are deductive so begin with a factual premise so the conclusion reached must be true.
  • BUT the conclusions are limited because they depend on the acceptance of certain premises.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Anselm’s ontological argument

A

P1 - God is the greatest possible being.
P2 - It is greater to exist in understanding and reality, rather than in understanding alone.
C - Therefore, the greatest possible being, God, must exist in understanding and reality.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Descartes’ ontological argument

A

P1 - I have an idea of God, that is to say the idea of a perfect being.
P2 - A perfect being must have all perfections.
P3 - Existence is a perfection.
C - (from 2&3) Therefore, God exists.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Leibniz’s ontological argument

A

P1 - God is defined as the greatest possible being.
P2 - The greatest possible being must exist in all possible worlds.
P3 - If God doesn’t exist in a particular world, then there is a greater being that does exist.
C - Therefore, God must exist in all possible worlds, including our world.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Malcolm’s ontological argument

A
  1. Either God exists or does not exist.
  2. God cannot come into existence or out of existence.
  3. If God exists, God cannot cease to exist.
  4. Therefore, if God exists, God’s existence is necessary.
  5. Therefore, if God does not exist, God’s existence is impossible.
  6. Therefore, God’s existence is either necessary or impossible.
  7. God’s existence is impossible only is the concept of God is self-contradictory.
  8. The concept of God is not self-contradictory.
  9. Therefore, God’s existence is not impossible.
  10. Therefore, God exists necessarily.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Plantinga’s ontological argument

A

P1 - It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
P2 - If it is possible that a maximally great being exists then a maximally great being exists in some possible worlds.
P3 - If a maximally great being exists in some possible then it exists in every possible world.
P4 - If a maximally great being exist in some possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
C - Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Issue with the ontological arguments: Gaunilo’s perfect island objection

A

P1 - We can imagine an island which is the most excellent island.
P2 - It is greater to exist in understanding and reality, rather than in understanding alone.
C - Therefore, the best possible island must exists in understanding and reality.

  • Using Anselm’s method we can define anything into existence.
  • Questionable conclusion = there may be no such island.
  • Must demonstrate as a ‘real and indubitable fact’ the excellence of this island.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Issue with the ontological arguments: kant’s objection based on existence not being a predicate

A
  • existence is not a property that a thing can and can’t have so can’t be a property of God.
  • Existence doesn’t describe the thing discussed or add a descriptive property to it like a genuine predicate.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Issue with the ontological arguments: Hume’s empiricist objections

A
  • Descartes’ makes a mistake when relying on a priori premises to reach an a posteriori conclusion.
  • matters of fact can only be settled a posteriori.
  • only establish God exists by reference to our experience.
25
Q

Features of teleological arguments

A
  • ‘Teleology’ means the belief that things in the natural world have a purpose or goal.
  • They are posteriori so based on observation and experience.
  • They can be inductive, abductive and deductive because they utilise different forms of reasoning to support their claims -> the existence of an intelligent designer in the natural world.
26
Q

Paley’s argument from spatial order and purpose

A

Spatial order = design qua regularity says that everything in the world works together to reach a purpose
E.g., now the eye is perfectly adapted to see things.

Purpose = design qua purpose says that the combination of complexity and purpose which we observe in natural objects/beings is best explained by a designer.
E.g., if you didn’t find the watch on the heath, there wouldn’t be a purpose.

27
Q

Swinburne’s argument from temporal order/regularity

A

Temporal order = the order of the laws of nature
- this cannot be explained by evolution like spatial order.
E.g., the force of gravity keeps the planet in orbit.

  • laws of nature have not evolved in the same way fish eyes have, they just are.
  • If gravity had the opposite effect, it repelled objects, planets can’t form and life can’t form.
  • This can’t be a coincidence, the laws of nature are too perfectly suited to sustain life they can’t be explained without a designer.
28
Q

Aquinas’ fifth way

A
  • An argument from analogy.
  • It says that order and purpose, e.g., the regularity of the seasons, point to the existence of an intelligent designer, who he identified as God.
29
Q

Hume’s design argument

A

The world is a complex machine, machines are designed, so the world must be designed.
BUT it is only the world of some inferior deity.

30
Q

Issue with the teleological arguments: Hume’s objections to design arguments from analogy

A
  • ‘a similar effect must have a had a similar cause’ is a false claim.
  • The effect of the universe and the effect of a watch have complexity and purpose doesn’t mean that they have similar causes such as a designer.
  • The universe is way more complex than a watch.
31
Q

Issue with the teleological argument: Hume and Paley’s problem of spatial disorder

A
  • If God really did design the world there wouldn’t be such disorder.
    E.g., Some parts of the world such as volcanoes go wrong and cause chaos.
  • Hume argues if the world is designed then the designer isn’t very good.
32
Q

Issue with the teleological argument: Hume’s argument whether God is the best or only explanation

A
  • Just because things have purpose + design does not mean there is a divine being behind it all.
  • We can’t jump to the conclusion that God is the best or only explanation for the order we see in the universe.
  • We should rely on evidence and observation rather than assuming a specific cause.
33
Q

Issue with the teleological argument: kant’s suggestion that design may be explained by a ‘wordly architect’ not God

A
  • Human artefacts (e.g., the watch) do have properties to show they were designed and there is a designer.
  • BUT watchmakers use materials available to them, they do NOT make the materials.
  • No justification to give ‘wordly architect’ the perfections normally given to God. (omnipotence, omnibenevolence etc.)
34
Q

Features of cosmological arguments

A
  • ‘Cosmological’ means the philosophical exploration of the nature and existence of God.
  • A posteriori so they are based on empirical evidence and observations.
  • Deductive arguments so they aim to provide a logical proof for the existence of God.
35
Q

Aquinas’ first way

A
  • There is a unmoved mover.
  • Everything in the world is in motion.
  • Everything in motion is changing from potential to actual.
  • State of motion caused by something else, nothing can cause itself.
  • Imagine everything is a secondary mover, there would be an infinite regress of movers.
  • If true then there is no prime mover and no subsequent movers so this is false.
  • There must be an unmoved prime mover, God.
36
Q

Aquinas’ second way

A
  • There is an uncaused causer.
  • There is an order of efficient causes.
  • Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
  • Imagine this order of efficient causes goes on infinitely, they would be no first cause among efficient causes.
  • If this is true then there would be no subsequent efficient causes but this is false.
  • Therefore, there must be a first efficient cause and this we call God.
37
Q

Aquinas’ third way

A
  • There are contingent things.
  • Contingent things can cause other contingent things can cause other contingent things, there can’t only be contingent things.
  • That would mean there is an infinite regress of contingency and a possibility that nothing might have existed.
  • Infinite regress is impossible.
  • So there must be at least one necessary thing that is God.
38
Q

The kalam argument

A

P1 - Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2 - The universe began to exist.
C - Therefore, the universe has a cause.

  • It is an argument from temporal causation - it looks back in time.
  • The argument was posed by Al-Ghazali and later built on by Craig.
39
Q

Descartes’ cosmological argument

A

He doesn’t cause himself, neither does his parents and he hasn’t always existed.
- He depends on something else to exist.
- This someone else must also be a thinking thing that has an idea of God, because I am a thinking thing and I have the idea of God.
- Whatever caused me to exist must either be the cause of its own existence or caused by something else.
- There cannot be an infinite chain of causes.
- So there must be something that caused its own existence.
- Whatever causes its own existence is God.

40
Q

Issue with the cosmological argument: The possibility of an infinite series

A
  • Infinite regress means God could not be responsible for the origin of causation or the universe if it had no origin.
  • Infinite regress does not seem self-contradictory so not impossible.
  • Cosmological argument rests on the assumption that the infinite regress is false when it could possibly be true.
41
Q

Issue with the cosmological argument: Hume’s objection to the causal principle

A
  • Causal principle is not analytic.
  • The idea of an event doesn’t seem contradicted by the idea of no cause.
  • Can only be justified on a posteriori grounds - a synthetic truth.
  • All we can justifiably claim is that every event we have observed has a cause.
42
Q

Issue with the cosmological argument: The fallacy of composition

A
  • Invalid inference that because parts of something have a certain property the entire thing must also have this property.
    E.g., just because a sheet of paper is thin, it doesn’t mean things that are made from sheets of paper are thins such as books (they can be thick)
43
Q

Issue with the cosmological argument: Russell and the impossibility of an infinite being

A
  • Violates the principle of sufficient reason:
    ‘Everything must have a reason/explanation for existence’
  • So cosmological arguments are incoherent as they imply that there exists a necessary being without any cause or explanation.
44
Q

Plato’s cosmological argument

A

Everything in the world depends on something else for its existence. There must be a necessary being that doesn’t depend on anything, God.

45
Q

Aristotle’s cosmological argument

A

Everything in the world has a cause and there must be a first cause that started everything. We call this first cause God!

46
Q

Leibniz’s cosmological argument

A

Everything that exists has a reason or explanation for its existence. So if everything has a reason, there must be a sufficient reason for the existence of the entire universe, God!

47
Q

Cognitivism in religious language

A

Religious language is meaningful and it can express truths about the world.

48
Q

Non-cognitivism in religious language

A

Denies religious language is meaningful and instead views it as a way to express emotions or attitudes.

49
Q

The verification principle

A

There are two types of statement:
- Analytic = 2+2=4
- Synthetic = it is snowing in Scotland
If a statement does not fit into either it is not verifiable and therefore, meaningless
- There is strong and weak verification.
- The verification principle has serious implications for religious language because religious claims often involve beliefs that can’t be directly observed or tested by the verification principle’s standards it wouldn’t be analytic or synthetic so meaningless.

50
Q

Strong verification

A

The statement is meaningful if we can directly verify it.

51
Q

Weak verification

A

The statement is meaningful if there are some observations relevant to determining the truth/falsification of a statement.
E.g., we know how to verify it and this would likely prove it true or false. (Hick says when we die we can verify religious claims that there is life after death)

52
Q

Issue with the verification principle: Hick’s eschatological verification

A
  • A statement is verifiable after death or at the end of time.
  • Parable of the celestial city
  • ‘God exists’ is not necessarily meaningless because it can be eschatologically verifiable.
53
Q

Issue with the verification principle: It is far too strong!

A
  • It excludes many meaningful statements that are not directly verifiable
    E.g., moral claims or statements about emotions.
  • May be seen as too restrictive in determining what can be considered meaningful.
54
Q

Issue with the verification principle: It is self-refuting

A
  • Ayer claims that ‘A statement is only meaningful if it is analytically or empirically verifiable’ is it self neither an analytic truth or empirically verifiable.
  • According to its own criteria it is meaningless.
55
Q

Flew’s falsification

A
  • Religious language is unfalsifiable because it can’t be tested or verified with empirical evidence.
  • Therefore, they are not meaningful statements and should be rejected as meaningless.
  • Uses The Parable of the Gardener.
56
Q

The Parable of the Gardener

A
  • One says there is a gardener, the other says there is not.
  • They set traps but the gardener never appears.
  • The skeptical one says there is no gardener and the other’s belief is unfounded.
  • Flew argues that like the belief about the gardener, religious claims cannot be improved empirically.
57
Q

Mitchell’s response to Flew

A
  • Flew’s falsification is too restrictive and fails to account for the complexity of religious language.
  • Religious language is not always intended to be taken literally + can be used in many ways e.g., poetically, symbolically.
  • Not always appropriate to apply the same criteria of verification or falsification to religious language as one would to scientific or empirical claims.
  • Uses The Parable of the Partisan to show religious language can be used to express a belief in a certain world view.
58
Q

Hare’s response to Flew

A
  • Religious language is a form of moral language and should be evaluated on its ability to inspire ethical action.
  • Not always appropriate to apply the same criteria of verification or falsification to religious language as one would to scientific or empirical claims.
  • The Parable of the Lunatic:
    Student believes someone is out to get him and can’t imagine being wrong but instead of this being meaningless (Flew’s view) it is an expression of the student’s view of the world and underpins his other beliefs.
  • He uses bliks as well in his response.
59
Q

Definition of a blik

A

An unfalsifiable belief that is held in the face of conflicting evidence, but that is nevertheless meaningful.

Philosophy A Level (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions