Philosophy: The Existence of God

Theism/Monotheism

There exists an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity, who is providentially active in the world.

Polytheism

The belief in many gods (that may or may not be involved in the world)

Pantheism

The belief that everything is God (the world is infused with god/spirit).

Limited Theism

God is extremely powerful, but not omnipotent or omniscient.

Deism

An ingenious being created the world/reality and left it on its own.

Agnosticism

We cannot know whether there is a God.

Atheism

There is no God at all

God refers to a being that is…

Omnipotent (All-powerful), Omniscient (All-knowing), Omnibenevolent (Completely morally good)

Ontological Argument

A priori, deductive argument: the very concept of God
guarantees its existence.

Attempts to demonstrate that God’s necessary existence can be derived from the analysis of the concept/definition of God.

Cosmological Argument

A posteriori, deductive argument. The universe exists.
Something outside of the universe caused/explains its existence (God).

Teleological Argument (Design Argument

A posteriori inductive argument. Complexity exists in the
natural world. Complexity is evidence of intelligent design. Therefore, an intelligent designer probably created the complexity we observe in the natural world.

The Problem of Evil

A posteriori, deductive version, and an inductive version. The
existence of evil in the world conflicts with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God.

Theodicy

Refers to arguments that attempt to reconcile God’s attributes
with the presence of evil in the world (and thus refute the problem of evil +argument)

Ontology

Introduction:

The branch of metaphysics that addresses questions of being/existence. How do we make sense of “being”?

Modes of Existence:

Certain things that exist in reality; having being in the reality {could not have existed in reality} (e.x., “I”, UGA, Tree, Mars (planet), and Mount Everest) (ignoring the dream reality), and certain things that don’t exist in reality {but could have} (e.x., Fountain of Youth, Chewbacca [if the Star Wars world turned out to be real world, it would exist in reality], Mars Colony [doesn’t exist now, but it could], Dodo Bird [did exist, but not anymore])

Things that exist in reality have a certain mode of existence. They do exist in reality contingently (it does exist in reality, but it could not exist in reality [past or present]. Things that do not exist in reality also exist contingently.

Contingency is existence that is dependent on something else. (I am contingent on my parents for my existence.)

In determining the existence of something, we use sense experience empirically. Contingent existence or non-existence is determined a posteriori.

However, some things that do not exist in reality are not contingent. For example, a square-triangle or a married bachelor. They necessarily do not exist. Their manner of non-existence is out of necessity. They don’t exist in any reality. Cannot exist in the understanding, and they are impossible things. There is no concept of these things. Logically impossible nonsense. Our language cannot handle these things. (A priori)

God exists in reality necessarily —> St. Anselm wants to prove this; point of the Ontological Argument

St. Anselm says that if Mars (contingently exists) were to explode, its existence would be less now since it does not exist anymore. (Reality —> just a concept of the mind now)

A system that defines what exists and the methods/modes of classification and relationships between the entities within it.

Ontological Argument (Text) / St. Anslem’s Concept/Definition of God

Fool Argument: A contradiction; “If that than which nothing greater can be conceieved…. which a greater can be concieved”. The idea of the greatest possible thing exists in the understanding; if it exists only in the understanding, you can imagine it existing in reality, and then it’s much greater. It’s adding something. If it exists in reality, it’s greater than existing in the understanding.

• A being than which nothing greater can be conceived” and “That, than which,
nothing greater can be conceived.”
• Conceived- can form a coherent thought of. Alternatively- can be imagined. (There are some things we are almost limited in conceiving, like a thousand side figures.)j
• In more modern language- There is nothing greater than God than can be thought
of/imagined.
• We can also say: God is the greatest possible being
• “Possible” here means that something could be actual but is silent as to whether or
not it is in fact actual. In this context, it is also equivalent to conceivable.

The Argument of the Ontological View (St. Anselm)

Premise 1: God exists in the understanding; you don’t have to fully encapsulate God. The idea of God is a coherent idea.

Premise 2: God could exist in reality (God is a possible being); the idea of God is coherent, therefore is a possible being.

**A being is something that is/could (exists or not exist) be.

Premise 3: If a being exists only in the understanding and could exist in reality, then it could be greater than it is.

Premise 4: Assumption: Suppose God only exists in the understanding.

**Ideas vs. Reality; Something that exists in reality is greater than something that does not exist. Things that exist in reality can influence those that don’t exist in reality.

Premise 5: God could be greater than it is.

Premise 6: God is a being than which a greater is possible.

Premise 7: The being than which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible. This impossible. To fix this, we have to reject the assumption that generates this impossibility.

*A formal contradiction. We made an assumption that created an impossibility. In the Law of Contradiction, we go back to the assumption.

Premise 8: It is false that God exists only in the understanding

Conclusion: God exists in reality as well in the understanding

A sound valid argument —> according to Dr. Costa

One of the premises is false…

“Being”

Laws of Thought

Law of Noncontradiction: For all propositions (sentences) p, it is impossible for both p and not p to be true, symbolically ~(p x ~p). There is a cat in the hat. There is not a cat in the hat.

Law of Excluded Middle (or third): either p or ~p must be true, there being no third or middle true proposition between them, or symbolically p V ~p. Either proposition is either true or false, no matter how absurd it is. I am a badger, or I am not a badger —> necessarily true, binary

Law of Identity: If you have a sentence function (attaching a property to something), then it is true that I have black hair (attaching a predicate to me), then I have black hair. Everything is identical with itself. X=X. Some things we do not know they are the same like Clark Kent and Superman

Criticism of the Ontological Argument

Gaunilo’s Criticism

The Lost Island: The Greatest Island that One Can Conceive = The Island than which no greater island is possible

(The Island would still be limited compared to God, which we would see as infinite)

Lost Island Argument

1.) The Lost Island exists in the understanding

2.) The Lost Island could exist in reality

3.) If a thing exists only in the understanding and could exist in reality, then it could be greater than it is

Existence in reality makes something greater than it is

4.) Assumption: Suppose the Lost Island exists only in the understanding

5.) The Lost Island could be greater than it is

6.) The Lost Island is a thing than which a greater is possible

7.) The island than which no greater island is possible is a thing than which a greater is possible

Is not impossible. The greater possible island is not the greatest possible being. So, no contradiction is generated, and we do not have to reject the assumption.

Example:

Existence in reality is a property (predicate) of things

Jon Osoff is a Democrat,

Is true if

Jon Osoff “exists” —> existence in reality

Jon Osoff satisfies the description “is a Democrat”

If Jon Osoff is a democrat is true, then it’s not true that Jon Osoff is not a democrat (a necessity; by the law of contradiction)

S is P

Any statement of this form is true if

1. S exists

2. 2. S satisfies the description is P

Jon Osoff is not a republican

Is true if

Jon Osoff “exists” —> existence in reality

Jon Osoff satisfies the description “is not a republican”

S is not P

Any statement of this form is true if

1. S exists

2. 2. S satisfies the description “ is not P”

If we are using consistent terms for S and P

If “S is P” is true, then “S is not P “ is necessairly false (and vice versa)

Law of Contradiction

God exists

God is existent

Is true if…

A. God exists

B. God satisfies the description “is existent”

Circulatory…

God does not exist

God is not existent

Is true if

A. God exists

B. God satisfies the description

“is not existent”

Contradictory —> FALSE

God exists becomes necessarily true

You can substitute this with Peter Pan, The Lost Island, and etc.. can use this…

I think the point Dr. Costa is trying to make here is that the reason why the Ontological Argument does not work is that all arguments need to have some sense of existence to be correct

“There is no x in the universe that corresponds to something in the possible world”

Could we even concieve of God existing in this world just by the defintiion of God? God is infinite —- this world is finite —> our world won’t be able to hold of it unless God were to make himself known in a finite way, to full grasp the existence of God would be impossible to us

Cosmological Argument (Aquinas/Samuel Clarke)

The study of the origin and structure of the universe

Cosmos: The universe/reality, especially as conceived as ordered and law-governed, whether by destiny, fate, justice, divine command, or rational necessity

The universe exists → This is an a posteriori claim

Discovered through experience. The universe has continuegent/dependent existence. Anything contingent/dependent requires something else for its existence

Something outside of the universe is required to explain the existence of the universe

Something that exists outside of the universe that has always existed

The entitiy repsonse fo the existence of th eunieverse cannot have contingent existence