Metaphysics of God

Cognitivism

Religious claims express beliefs, are truth-apt and aim to describe the world. 

Non-cognitivism

Religious claims express non-cognitive attitudes. Religious language does not make claims about reality and is not truth-apt.

AJ Ayer’s Verification Principle

A statement is only meaningful if it is either: analytic (true by definition) or empirically verifiable (can be checked through sense experience). If it is neither, it is meaningless.

Strong verification

Anything that can be verified conclusively by observation and experience.

Weak verification

Statements that can be shown to be probable by observation and experience.

Practical verifiability

Statements which can be tested in reality.

Verifiable in principle

Statements which could be tested in theory, meaning you can say how you would verify it.

Logical Positivist response to religious language

Religious statements cannot be analytically true or empirically verified so they are meaningless.

Eschatological verification

The idea that some religious statements, such as claims about God or the afterlife, may be verified after death if an afterlife exists. They are verifiable in principle.

John Hick’s response to the verification principle

Hick argues that religious statements may still be meaningful because they could be verified in the future (afterlife), even if they cannot be verified now.

Issue with Eschatological verification

Relies on the existence of an afterlife, we can only know if an afterlife exists when we get there and if it doesn't exist then we are not conscious to verify that it doesn’t exist.

Flew on falsification

A statement is meaningful only if it is falsifiable, meaning there is some possible evidence that could show it to be false.

Flew on religious belief

Flew argues religious believers make factual claims but refuse to allow any evidence to count against them.

Flew’s conclusion

Religious language becomes unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless, as it makes no genuine claims about reality.

Mitchell’s response

Religious belief involves commitment and trust, rather than ignoring or avoiding counter-evidence.

Parable of the Partisan

A resistance fighter trusts a stranger despite mixed evidence, showing belief can persist alongside doubt.

Mitchell’s key claim

Believers recognise counter-evidence but continue to trust, so religious belief is not completely unfalsifiable.

Issue with Mitchell

Believers may always reinterpret counter-evidence, making belief effectively unfalsifiable in practice.

Hare’s response

Religious language is non-cognitive and should not be judged by falsification, as it does not aim to state facts.

Blik

An attitude to or view of the world that is not held or withdrawn on the basis of empirical experience.

Issue with Hare

If religious claims are not truth-apt, they cannot be true or false, which conflicts with religious belief.

The Problem of Evil

If God is all-powerful he can stop evil, if all-knowing he knows about it, if all-loving he would want to stop it, yet evil exists.

Evil

Pain or suffering experienced by sentient beings.

Moral evil

Evil caused by human free choices (e.g. murder, theft).

Natural evil

Evil caused by natural processes independent of human choice (e.g. earthquakes, famine).

Inconsistent triad

God is omnipotent, God is omnibenevolent, evil exists. All cannot be true simultaneously.

The logical problem of evil

If the tri-omni God exists, evil should not exist; evil exists; therefore God does not exist.

Evidential problem of evil

The scale and distribution of suffering make God unlikely.

Pointless suffering

Suffering that produces no moral or spiritual growth (e.g. infants dying).

Free Will Defence

Humans are the source of moral evil because God has created the best world he could; one where there is freedom and some evil instead of no freedom and no evil.

Theodicy

An explanation of why God allows evil.

Purpose of suffering

Develops virtues such as courage and compassion.

Epistemic distance

God remains partially hidden so humans freely develop.

Universal salvation

Everyone eventually reaches perfection.

Eschatological verification

Truth of the afterlife verified after death.

Descartes’ argument from continuing existence

P1. I do not have all perfections, so I cannot be the cause of my own existence. 

P2. My existence at one moment does not guarantee my existence at the next, so my continued existence requires a cause. 

C1. Therefore, I depend on something else to exist. 

P3. The cause of my existence must have at least as much reality as its effect and must be a thinking thing capable of causing the idea of God. 

P4. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. 

C2. Therefore, there must be a self-causing being that sustains my existence. 

P5. A self-causing, sustaining being is God. 

C3. Therefore, God exists. 

Scientific explanation

Explains an object or other event in terms of the scientific laws of nature.

Personal explanation

Explains an object or other event in terms of a person and their purposes.

Aquinas’ 1st Way

P1. Some things are in motion (undergo change from potentiality to actuality). 

P2. Nothing can move or change itself. 

P3. Everything in motion is moved by something else. 

P4. An infinite regress of movers is impossible, because without a first mover there would be no motion at all. 

C. Therefore, there must be a First Unmoved Mover which is God. 

Aquinas’ 2nd Way

P1. Every event has a cause. 

P2. Nothing can be the cause of itself. 

P3. An infinite regress of causes is impossible, because without a first cause there would be no causes or effects. 

C. Therefore, a First Uncaused Cause must exist which is God. 

Efficient cause

The cause that brings something else into existence or makes an event occur.

Aquinas’ 3rd Way

P1. Things in the universe exist contingently.

P2. If something is contingent, then there is a time when it does not exist.

P3. If everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing.

P4. If at some time there was nothing, nothing would exist now.

P5. But things do exist now (reductio ad absurdum).

C1. Therefore, not everything is contingent; at least one thing is necessary.

C2. A necessary being that depends on nothing else must exist which is God.

Al Ghazali’s Kalam argument

P1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.

P2. The universe began to exist.

C1. Therefore the universe has a cause.

William Lane Craig’s Kalam argument

P1: Everything with a beginning must have a cause.

P2: The universe has a beginning.

C1: Therefore the universe must have a cause.

C2: Moreover, this cause of the universe must be a personal cause, as scientific explanations cannot provide a causal, or mechanical, account of a first cause. This personal cause is God.

Leibniz's argument from sufficient reason

P1. Any contingent fact about the world must have an explanation.

P2. It is a contingent fact that there are contingent things.

P3. The fact that there are contingent things must have an explanation.

P4. The fact that there are contingent things can't be explained by any contingent things.

P5. The fact that there are contingent things must be explained by something whose existence is not contingent.

C1. There is a necessary being.

Principle of Sufficient Reason

Any contingent fact about the world must have an explanation.

Leibniz’s truths of reasoning

Necessary or analytic truths.

Leibniz’s truths of fact

Contingent or synthetic truths. 

The sufficient reason for truths of reasoning

It is revealed by analysis. When you analyse and understand "3 + 3 = 6" you do not need further explanation for why it is true. 

An infinite regress of causes

A chain of causes that goes back forever, with no first cause.

The causal principle

Everything that exists must have a cause.

Hume’s objection to the causal principle

It is not analytically true so denying it is not logically contradictory. Experience cannot prove it as experience only shows what usually happens, not what must happen. Some things may exist without a cause.

Fallacy of composition

Assuming that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole.

Russel’s use of the fallacy of compostion

Even if everything in the universe is contingent, the universe itself doesn’t have to be.

The impossibility of a necessary being

Whatever we can conceive as existing, we can also conceive as not existing so no being exists in a way that it is impossible for it to not exist.

Omniscient

All-knowing. God has perfect and complete knowledge of everything. 

Omnipotent

All-powerful. God has perfect and unlimited power to do anything that it is logically possible to do. 

Omnibenevolent

All-loving. God is morally perfect and always acts with complete goodness.

Eternal

Timeless (atemporal, existing out of time). What is eternal cannot have a beginning or an end.  

Everlasting

Existing throughout all time without a beginning or an end.

An eternal God

Engages with every moment in time simultaneously. 

An everlasting God

Engages with moments as they come. 

Paradox of the Stone

Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift? If he cannot create it, he is not all-powerful. If he cannot lift it, he is not all-powerful.

Mavrodes’ counter to the Paradox of the Stone

It is not logically possible for an omnipotent being to be unable to do something, and therefore a stone which an omnipotent being cannot lift does not exist.

Divine Command Theory

The ethical view that moral goodness is determined solely by God’s will or commands. Actions are morally right, wrong, obligatory, or prohibited purely because God commands or forbids them.  

Independence Problem

If morally good acts are willed by God because they are good, then morality exists independently of God’s will. If morality is external, God is not the source of all goodness. 

Arbitrariness Problem

If morally good acts are good because God wills them, then morality is based on God’s arbitrary whims. Moral rules could be irrational or meaningless.  

Emptiness Problem

Statements like “God is good” become meaningless repetitions because they just say “God’s commands follow his commands”. This strips statements of moral meaning. 

Abhorrent Commands Problem

If God commanded evil acts, they would become morally good under divine command theory. Undermines his omnibenevolence. 

The Euthyphro Dilemma

If God commands actions because they are morally good, then morality exists independently of God, which undermines his omnipotence and makes him subject to a higher moral standard. Alternatively, if actions are morally good because God commands them, then morality becomes arbitrary, based on God's whims, and God could command abhorrent acts.   

Free will

The capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.  

The problem of omniscience and free will

If God is omniscient and knows everything, humans cannot have free will. God knows what we will do before we do it. 

Option 1 for God’s omniscience

God could be uncertain about future. He knows everything about you and the lunch options so is 99% sure what you will have for lunch but you are free to change your mind.

Option 2 for God’s omniscience

God knows all possible outcomes so he knows what you will have for lunch.

Option 3 for God’s omniscience

God knows the future and it is inevitable. All future choices are therefore necessary (God cannot be wrong). 

Option 4 for God’s omniscience

God is outside time. Humans have a linear timeline however God is experiencing all points in time simultaneously. God is atemporal and is present in every single moment and knows everything always so it is not predetermined.  

Deductive arguments

Those in which the premises are supposed to guarantee the conclusion. 

Inductive arguments

Those in which the premises are supposed to support (but not guarantee) the conclusion.

Valid arguments

Applied to deductive arguments where the premises do guarantee the conclusion. 

Sound arguments

Applied to deductive arguments that are valid and have true premises.

Strong arguments

Applied to inductive arguments that are strong and have true premises.

Cogent arguments

Applied to inductive arguments that are strong and have true premises. 

Anselm's ontological argument  

• P1. God is defined as that than which nothing greater can be conceived.  

• P2. A being could exist either just in understanding or in both understanding and reality.  

• P3. It is greater to exist in understanding and in reality than in the understanding alone.  

• C1. Therefore, God must exist in reality as well as in the understanding.  

Descartes' ontological argument 

• P1. I have the clear and distinct idea of God.  

• P2. The idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being.,  

• P3. A supremely perfect being does not lack any perfection.  

• P4. Existence is a perfection.  

• C1. Therefore, God has to exist.

What Descartes’ ontological argument relies on

The theory of innate ideas and the doctrine of clear and distinct perception. 

Malcolm's ontological argument 

• P1: Either God exists or God does not exist. 

• P2: God cannot come into existence or go out of existence. 

• P3: If God exists, God cannot cease to exist. 

• C1: Therefore, if God exists, God's existence is necessary. 

• P4: If God does not exist, God cannot come into existence. 

• C2: Therefore, if God does not exist, God's existence is impossible. 

• C3: Therefore God's existence is either necessary or impossible. 

• P5: God's existence is impossible only if the concept of God is self-contradictory. 

• P6: The concept of God is not self-contradictory. 

• C4: Therefore, God's existence is not impossible. 

• C5: Therefore, God exists necessarily.

The four options of God’s existence (Malcolm)

God’s existence is necessarily false, contingently false, contingently true or necessarily true.

Gaunilo's 'perfect island' objection 

• P1. The concept of a supremely excellent island can be understood without difficulty.   

• P2. Claiming its existence based solely on its conceptual excellence is flawed.  

• P3. If it does not exist, then any real land would be more excellent, contradicting the original claim.  

• P4. Accepting such reasoning would be foolish without proof of real existence.  

• C1. One must first demonstrate that the island’s excellence is a real and indubitable fact, not merely conceptual. 

Reductio ad absurdum

Showing an argument must be false because of absurdities that result if followed. 

Why God’s existence cannot be necessary (Hume)

Because we can coherently conceive of God not existing without contradiction.

Hume’s Fork vs Ontological arguments

Hume argues that no matter of existence can be established by pure reason; all existence claims are synthetic and matters of fact.

Why existence is not a predicate

Adding “existence” to a concept does not guarantee a being exists in reality, just as defining a unicorn with existence doesn’t produce real unicorns.

Why God’s existence is not analytically necessary

We can conceive of God not existing without contradiction in it’s concept, so God’s existence cannot be analytically necessary (unlike “a triangle has three sides”). 

Hume’s design argument from analogy

• P1. In 'the fitting of means to ends', nature resembles the products of human design.  

• P2. Similar effects have similar causes.  

• P3. The cause of the products of human design such as a machine is an intelligent mind that intended the design.  

• C1. Therefore, the cause of nature is an intelligent mind that intended the design.  

• C2: Therefore an intelligent designer (God) exists. 

Scientific explanation

Explains an object or other event in terms of the scientific laws of nature. Eg. Fell over due to gravity.  

Personal explanation

Explains an object or other event in terms of a person and their purposes. Eg. He fell over because he wanted to change the lightbulb and leant too far from the ladder.  

The design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case (Hume)

• P1: Design arguments make the inference that this universe and its properties were caused by a designer. 

• P2: We can make an inference that 'X caused Y' only if we have repeatedly observed event X conjoined to event Y. 

• P3: We have observed only one universe and its properties are a unique case. 

• P4: We have never observed the origins of any universe. 

• C1. We cannot make an inference about the cause and origins of this universe and its properties. 

• C2: Design arguments are based on invalid inference. 

Paley's design argument from spatial order 

• P1: Anything that has parts organised to serve a purpose is designed.  

• P2: Nature contains things which have parts that are organised to serve a purpose.  

• C1: Therefore, nature contains things which 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. 

Swinburne's design argument from temporal order

• P1: The universe as a whole contains temporal order/regularities of succession for example the regular and universal laws of nature. 

• P2: There are two possible explanatory hypotheses: temporal order has a scientific explanation; or temporal order has a personal explanation.  

• P3: Science can only explain the existence of regularities of succession in terms of more fundamental regularities of succession. So, we cannot give a complete scientific explanation of the temporal order displayed in the fundamental laws of science (science cannot itself explain why the fundamental laws of science exist as they do). 

• P4: The second hypothesis can explain scientific regularities of succession. They are similar to regularities of succession produced by human agents and so, by analogy, are produced by rational agency. 

• P5: The agency in question would have to be of immense power and intelligence, free and disembodied. 

• C1: Therefore, an agent probably exists (God) with immense power and intelligence, who is free and disembodied. 

Problem of spatial disorder

Paley claims spatial order proves God exists as it’s a mark of design. Spatial disorder like suffering and natural disasters present a problem because suffering in the universe implies that the designer is imperfect. There is no reason for spatial order to take priority over spatial disorder to evidence a designer.