metaphysics of god 25 mark plans

concept of god 25 marker outline

intro, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, conc

concept of god omnipotence point

paradox of the stone issue

mavrodes response that shouldnt require god to perform logical contradiction

savage response that begs the question, instead solve paradox by saying it exemplifies gods omnipotence rather than undermining it

cant really equate god to a military commander, but even if analogy fails point still stands

concept of god omniscience point

compatibility issue

open theism response that foreknowledge not required

limits god so no longer worthy of worship

but he could still have predictions about future and does represent biblical depictions

concept of god omnibenevolent point

euthyphro dilemma

ockham response that could command something we consider wrong but wouldnt

doesnt prove he is essentially morally good, instead aquinas response that will command what is good for us

however his goodness still arbitrary, however god never commanded something morally wrong, doesnt prove he is essentially morally good tho

problem of evil 25 marker outline

intro, plantinga free will defence, hick soul making, conc

problem of evil plantinga point

aims to defeat logical problem of evil

doesnt respond to natural evil issue

natural evil is satan and his cohorts

doesnt make sense how they could do this, plantinga also plays down existential effect of evil in peoples lives, even though only set out for a defence is still important to have reason as to why god would allow evil

problem of evil hick point

aims to explain why evil allowed and explains both moral and natural evil

morally abhorrent

assuemes a non-consequentalist view, but isnt god non-consequentalist? no proof of this tho

doesnt account for dysteleological suffering, but is needed to develop greater goods eg deep empathy, doesnt solve dysteleological only excessive suffering, suffering doesnt make people better

religious language 25 marker outline

intro, verification issue and hicks response, flews approach and hares response, mitchell view, conc

religious language verification point

ayer says religious language not meaningful because not verifiable, hick responds with eschatological verification

public verifiability issue

deny public verifiability needed for verification

afterlife isnt falsifiable tho

religious language flew point

flew says religious statements arent falsifiable so arent meaningful

hare response that religious lang still meaningful

wrong to say religious statements arent seen as facts, doesnt represent christian view

just because think are assertions doesnt mean they are

religious language mitchell point

says religious believers do consider what could falsify their beliefs and flew wrong

mitchell uses disanalogous situation so parable and arg doesnt work

ontological arg 25 marker outline

intro, malcolm, anselm, descartes, conc

ontological malcolm point

arg commits fallacy of equivocation

only informal fallacy still makes sense

but cant prove gods existence

ontological anselm point

arg and gaunilos objection

perfect island not a possible concept

also applies to god tho and how no intrinsic maximum of omnipotence

but is obvious omniscience can have maximum ie knowing everything, but doesnt work for omnipotence, gaunilo touches on issue about assuming something exists to prove it does

ontological descartes point

arg and hume fork objection

humes fork just an assertion, are some existential propositions whose denial would be a contradiction eg i exist now, why cant this apply to god

kant objection

not philosophically settled whether existence a predicate or not

descartes kinda begging the question, should say if god exists then x, cant prove god exists by assuming he exists

design arg 25 marker outline

intro, hume, swinburne, paley, conc

design hume point

hume arg and issue world a unique case

doesnt fit with modern scientific explanations - cosmologists draw conclusions about the origins of the universe and anthropologists about the origins of the human race even though both are unique cases, why would there be anything else god created if god created everything?

issue that analogy fails

only needs to be similar in important points ie that has feature of adjustment

god not only explanation - could be epicurean hypothesis

design swinburne point

arg (stronger analogy) and how defeats god of theism issue

god isnt the best/only explanation eg epicurean hypothesis

god best explanation since is an independent reason and simplest explanation

deny the principle of sufficient reason, whole thing fails

design paley point

arg and how doesnt face issues of world not like machine or unique case

spatial disorder

just because contains disorder doesnt mean wasnt created by god

in same way could say that just cause is order doesnt mean created by god - could be evolution

cosmo args 25 marker outline

intro, issue with causal principle, fallacy of composition, impossibility of a necessary being, possibility of an infinite series, conc

cosmo args causal principle point

hume issues with causal principle

however second point confuses logical possibility with metaphysical possibility, rest still work tho

only applies to args from causation so contingency still survives

could be applied to contingency args

cosmo args fallacy of composition point

2 commit fallacy of composition

only informal fallacy and is sometimes true so not serious objection

but is still fallacious cant ignore that

doesnt apply to kalam and fallacy only applies to properties so fails as objection

cosmo args necessary being point

no such thing as a necessary being

args mean ontologically necessary not logically necessary

more important issue is possibility of infinite regress

cosmo args regress point

is possibility of infinite sets

doesnt defeat modern versions of kalam arg