Metaphysics of God Flashcards
(25 cards)
Explain the paradox of the stone
Either God can make a stone he cannot lift or he cannot do this
If he can make such a stone, he is not omnipotent because he cannot lift it
If he can’t make such a stone, he is not omnipotent because he cannot make it
Either way, there is a task that God cannot perform
Therefore God cannot be omnipotent
What is the Euthythro dilemma
If God is supremely good, then either something is good because God decides it is, or something is independently good which is why God commands it. In other words, either God control morality or morality is independent of God
If morality is independent then God cannot be omnipotent as he cannot change it
If morality is commanded by God then this leads to unacceptable consequences
So if God is supremely good, he is either non omnipotent or this leads to unacceptable consequences
Assuming God is omnipotent and we wish to avoid unacceptable consequences, God cannot be supremely good/omnibenevolent.
What is the omniscience vs free will argument
If God is omniscient then God knows all true propositions
If God knows all propositions then God knows what I will do
If God knows what I will do then I am unable to do anything else
If I am unable to do anything else then I am not free
Therefore if God is omniscient then I am not free
What is the main response to the paradox of the stone?
Descartes argues that omnipotence includes the logically impossible, so just because we cannot conceive of such a task being possible does not mean that God cannot complete it.
What is the main response to the Euthythro dilemma
The consequences of God commanding morality are not unacceptable. There is no issue with morality being arbitrary because once a command has been made by God, we have no need to question it.
What is the main response to the omniscience vs free will argument
God is everlasting within time which means that he knows everything it is logically possible to know. This does not include propositions about the future because that would be logically impossible.
What is the logical problem of evil
If God exists, he is omnibenevolent, and therefore would want to eliminate evil
If God exists, he is omnipotent, and therefore would be able to eliminate evil
If God exists, he is omniscient, and therefore would know if evil exists
Therefore if God exists then evil would not exist
But evil does exist
Therefore God does not exist
This is a deductive argument that proves with certainty that God does not exist
What is the free will defence (in response to the logical problem of evil)
Evil is a result of the freewill of human beings. Freewill is morally valuable and so is worth preserving regardless of how much evil it might lead to. So God has done the morally right thing in giving us free will, and we ourselves are to blame for evil - not God. Therefore it is possible for God to be omnibenevolent while evil exists.
What is the evidential problem of evil
If God exists, then God is omnibenevolent.
If an omnibenevolent being exists, any evil that exists must exist for a morally good reason
Certainly kinds of evil are pointless evils so we do not know of any morally good reason that might justify it
If there are many events that we do not know any morally good reason for, there probably isn’t a morally good reason for at least some of them
So for at least some of these events there probably isn’t a morally good reason that would justify them
Therefore God probably doesn’t exist
This argument is non-deductive and aim to show that i is highly probably that God doesn’t exist
What is the soul-making theodicy (in response to the evidential problem of evil)
Evil is required for the moral and spiritual development of creatures. For example, you cannot be courageous if there is nothing to fear. God creates evil because this development is so morally valuable that it is worth the existence of evil. Therefore God has done the morally right thing in allowing evil and so can be omnibenevolent even though evil exists.
Explain the design argument from analogy as presented by Hume
Human artefacts have spatial order, which is a teleological property that means the parts are arranged in space with such high complexity such that they work towards a purpose
Nature also has spatial order
Human artefacts have spatial order because they were designed by an intelligent being
Similar effects have similar explanations
Therefore, nature has spatial order because it has been designed by an intelligent being
Nature is much more complex than human artefacts
This greater complexity requires greater intelligence
This intelligent being probably has much greater intelligence than a human
So God exists
Explain Hume’s objection to the design argument from analogy
Hume challenges this argument by showing a failure with the analogy. An analogy is only as strong as its similarities, and Hume claims that there are too many differences between human artefacts and natural entities to be able to draw an analogy between them. For example, natural entities are living and self-sustaining whereas human artefacts are not. And while human artefacts seems to all have a clear purpose, nature as a whole has no clear purpose. Therefore the analogy doesn’t stand and so the argument is false.
Explain Paley’s design argument from spatial order
Nature has spatial order, which is a teleological property whereby its parts are arranged in space with such high complexity that they work towards a purpose, such as an eye.
Nature can only have spatial order if it was designed by an intelligent being
Therefore an intelligent being exists
Nature is of great complexity
This greater complexity requires great intelligence
So this intelligent being is very intelligent
This intelligent being cannot be a part of nature since nature as a whole has design properties that need explaining
Therefore this intelligent being must exist outside of the natural world
So, God exists
Explain Swinburne’s design argument from temporal order
The universe as a whole contains temporal order (which means the fundamental laws of nature such as gravity)
There are two possible explanations of this: Temporal order has a scientific explanation, or temporal order has a personal explanation.
The idea that temporal order has a scientific explanation fails because science can only explain the existence of temporal order. Science cannot explain why these fundamental laws exist - only that they do.
Human temporal order (like singing a song) has a personal explanation so it is likely that natural temporal order also has a personal explanation.
The whole physical world contains temporal order, so the intelligent being in question would have to have designed the whole world. They must be immensely powerful, intelligent and disembodied.
Therefore God exists
Outline the Kalam argument
Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its beginning
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe had a cause to its beginning
This cause must be uncaused, hugely powerful and outside of time and space
This cause was God
Outline Leibniz’ argument from the principle of sufficient reason/contingency
All contingent things need a sufficient reason for why they exist
If they exist as they do because of other contingent things (in an infinite series), then this would not be a sufficient reason because infinite series are still contingent
So there must be a sufficient and non-contingent explanation
Therefore a non-contingent being exists
This being is God
Explain the possibility of an infinite series as a response to the Kalam argument
Some argue that the premise of the Kalam argument that says that the universe began to exist might be false. We seem to be able to conceive of an infinite series so so it must at least be possible. Therefore the universe as a whole has possibly always existed with no first cause and so God is not the cause.
Explain Aquinas’ first way - the argument from motion
The universe contains motion
Nothing can change itself because it would require that thing to be X and potentially X at the same time
If there was an infinite series of changes caused by changes then there would be no first changer
If there was no first changer then there would not be any change
So, given that the universe does contain motion, there must be a first changer
God is this first changer
Explain Aquinas’ second way - the argument from sustaining causation
The universe contains sustaining causation which can be ordered
Nothing can be the sustaining cause of itself
If there was an infinite series of sustaining causes, there would be no first sustaining cause
If there is no first sustaining cause, then there could not be any other sustaining causation
So, given that the universe does contain sustaining causation, there must be a first sustaining cause
God is this first sustaining cause
Explain Aquinas’ third way - the argument from contingency
If everything was contingent, then there could be a time when nothing existed
If this is true, nothing could exist now
But things do exist now
Therefore not everything is contingent. There must be something that exists necessarily
An infinite regression of necessary beings caused by other necessary beings is impossible
So there must be one first necessary being.
This being is God
Explain Descartes’ cosmological argument for the existence of God
I exist as a being from one moment to the next and this requires a cause
This cause must be either me, some other finite being like my parents, or God
I cannot be the cause of my continued existence because I don’t have that power
No other finite being would be the cause of my continued existence because they cannot keep me in existence from moment to moment, and furthermore would only bring my physical body into existence and not me as a thinking thing
My continued existence must be caused by one being because my idea of God including the doctrine of divine simplicity says God is without parts
So the only possible cause of my continued existence is a supremely perfect being
So God must exist
Outline Descartes’ ontological argument for the existence of God
I have an idea of God as a supremely perfect being
A supremely perfect being has all perfections
Existence is a perfection
Therefore God must exist
Outline Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God
God is a being greater than which cannot be conceived
It is greater to exist in reality than in the mind
Therefore God exists
Explain how Ayer applies the verification principle to religious language
The verification principle says that a statement is only meaningful if it is either analytic or empirically verifiable. Something is analytic if it is true in virtue of meaning. Something is empirically verifiable it it can be proven true or false through experience/the senses.
Ayer applies this principle to religious language by showing that religious statements are not analytic because they are intended to show or explain something significant, rather than just give a definition of the concept. Furthermore, the opposite of a religious statement such as ‘God exists’ is not a contradiction (‘God doesn’t exist’ is a feasible opinion). Religious statements are not empirically viable because there is no way for them to be proven either true or false through experience or the use of our senses. Therefore applying cognitivism to religious language is wrong, as it cannot be verified and so is meaningless.
