Metaphysics of God

God as omniscient

-Means all-knowing.

-Philosophically understood as God knows everything which can be known. If p(true proposition) is true, then S(Omniscient) knows p

-Some philosophers take omniscience to entail infallibility (impossible to be mistaken)

-Aquinas: God's knowledge is a direct awareness of everything- 'knowledge of vision', not perception. God knows propositions and concepts only because he knows the content and powers of human minds. So therefore knows every possible thought, concept or proposition

-Not a result of making deductive or inductive inferences- doesn't need to reason through argument to reach conclusion

God as omnipotent

-Means all-powerful

-Most Christian theologians agree with Aquinas' account of omniscience: power to bring about any logically possible state of affairs. God's power is founded on God's infinite divine nature as supremely perfect, therefore can only bring about things consistent with the perfection of 'being'.

-The logically impossible implies being and non-being at the same time

-such contradiction is not consistent with the perfection of 'being'

-therefore God's omnipotence does not include the logically impossible

Omnibenevolent

Part of the triadic three perfections. Can be understood in three ways:

-Metaphysical goodness: goodness is a perfection; God is supremely perfect; God's omnibenevolence is part of his supreme perfection.

-Personal goodness: he is a loving and personal God who wishes to reduce suffering/evil

-Moral goodness: he is the source of moral goodness and ethics

God as timeless (eternal)

-outside of time- atemporal

Anselm: God can't be confined to existing in time - requirement for perfect being- can't change

-Boethius: God has no beginning or end or any of these constructs- omnipresent- experiences all time simultaneously

Stump and Kretzmann: T-simultaneity: (within time, eg humans) can perceive two things happen simultaneously only in the present moment.

E-simultaneity: (outside of time, eg God) can perceive multiple things happening simultaneously at all times. Past, present, and future from an eternal present.

God as within time (everlasting)

-within time- temporal-

-Sees time unfold moment by moment, like us.

-Swinburne: knows every possible choice, but not which one will be chosen.

-future is unknowable- humans have freewill

-explains God responding to prayers and involvement with the world

The paradox of the stone

The Euthyphro dilemma

The problem of compatibility of an omniscient God and free will

St Anslem's ontological argument

St Anselm, a theist who pre-supposes God's existence, uses a priori deductive reasoning to define God's nature as existing in reality, (not trying to prove his existence).

P1. God is the greatest possible being

P2. Even a 'fool' can understand that God is the greatest possible being

P3. The fool says there is no God in reality

P4. The fool is convinced that God exists only in his understanding on not in reality

P5. But the greatest possible being must exist in both understanding and reality

C.2 Therefore God exists in both understanding and reality.

Descartes' ontological argument

Norman Malcom's ontological argument

Response to ontological arguments: Gaunilo's 'perfect island' objection

Gaunilo is a monk and therefore also presupposes God's existence, but rejects Anselm's argument on ontological grounds.

parallel reductio ad absurdum:

P1. The perfect island is, by definition, an island greater than which cannot be conceived.

P2. We can coherently conceive of such an island i.e the concept is coherent

P3. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind

P4. Therefore, this island must exist

The premises and the conclusion do not correspond; existing as 'the greatest possible thing' in understanding does not necessarily predicate existing in reality.

Therefore- invalid and unsound. Can be applied to anything, and therefore is absurd.

Response to ontological arguments: Kant: existence is not a predicate

Assumption that a proposition can be divided into two parts: a subject and a predicate.

P1. A genuine predicate adds to our conception of a subject and helps to determine it.

e.g- a triangle (subject) has three sides (predicate)

God (subject) is omnipotent (predicate)

P2. 'Existence' does not add to our conception of a subject nor help determine it.

C. Therefore existence is not a genuine predicate

Undermines Anselm's and Descartes' ontological arguments, which posit that 'existence is a perfect property of a perfect being'. If existence is not a property, then the arguments have a false premise, meaning they are unsound.

Russell: 'exists' means 'corresponds to something in the real world'. 'God exists' means 'there exists a being in the world which the word 'God' refers to'. 'God exists' means 'There is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being in the world'. - but needs empirical verification.

Response to ontological arguments: Empiricist objections to a priori arguments for existence

Hume's fork:

P1. Nothing that can be distinctly conceived entails a contradiction

P2. For any being that we can conceive of as existent, we can also distinctly conceive of that being as non-existent

C1. Therefore there isn't any being whose non-existence entails a contradiction.

Any a priori argument for God's existence will fail; there is no being whose existence can be proved. Proving something only applies to relations of ideas, but claiming something exists is a matter of fact. God's existence must be proved empirically.

Hume's design argument from analogy

William Paley's design argument

-inductive- premise based on probability

-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 be or 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.

DIRECT COUNTER:

-Darwin's evolution

Richard Swinburne's design argument

-from temporal order

-empirical, deductive

-inference to the best explanation (unlike Paley, no other scientific explanation)

-science can explain what the laws are but not why

-human temporal order (eg brushing teeth in the morning)

P1. The universe exhibits temporal order and regularity.

P2. There are two possible explanations for this order: a scientific explanation, and a personal explanation.

P3. Science can't give an explanation for the operation of the fundamental laws of nature.

P4. However, a personal explanation can account for scientific regularities, through analogy. Scientific regularities are similar to regularities produced by human agents.

C1. Therefore, the regularities relating to the operations of the laws of nature are produced by a person.

C2. Such a person, who can act on the entire universe, exists.

C3. God, as the only being that could have the power to act on the entire universe, exists.

Response to the design argument: Hume's objections to analogy

-the universe may be similar to the products of human design- but that does not mean that their cause is similar

-Things that are alike can have very different causes. eg- dry ice and fire both produce smoke

-cannot claim an analogy between the universe and man-made things- mechanical/organic.

Response to the design argument: problem of spatial disorder

Paley: there are vast areas of space where that are no parts organised to perform a purpose.

Hume: we have only experiences a small percentage of the universe- there could be vast disorder and chaos.

-We lack the evidence to judge whether the universe is orderly or disorderly

Response to the design argument: unique case

Hume:

-We do not experience causation, only constant conjunction (one event following another)

-It is only when we experience two events constantly conjoined that we can justifiably infer causation. Eg, we know watches are caused by designers, because we have seen/heard of multiple cases of this.

-The creation of the universe is only one event- that we did not even experience. We do not have enough data to justifiably infer what the cause was. If we had other examples it might work- but we don't. So we cannot know the causation.

Response to the design argument: is God the best explanation

Kalam cosmological argument

Rests upon William Lane Craig's version of the causal principle, which relies on the metaphysical intuition that everything that that begins must have a cause for a beginning.

P1. Everything that has a beginning must have a cause.

P2. The universe has a beginning

P3. Therefore the universe must have a cause

Aquinas' 3 ways

Descartes cosmological argument

Rests on causal principle. I am a thinking thing- who caused me?

1- Me? But I am not perfect

2- I have always existed? But I have no memory of that, and I cannot sustain myself

3- Parents/lesser being? Infinite regress of parents, and parents cannot sustain my life.

4- God.

Leibniz- principle of sufficient reason

2 types of truth- reasoning and fact

Reason= necessary, analytic, can be analysed and understood

Fact= contingent, synthetic, infinite regress of reasons

The universe is made up of contingent substances

Step outside the sequence-- necessary substance

Necessary substance= God

Problem for cosmology: possibility of infinite series

Mathematically possible: George Cantor- set theory - transfinite numbers

Scientifically possible: infinite universe theory

Logically possible: Aquinas says infinite regress is not possible because it have a starting point. But he had only observed finite chains. Infinity doesn't have a start, so doesn't need a cause.

Problem for cosmology: Hume objection to the 'causal principle'

the statement 'everything has a cause' is not

Relations of ideas: you can conceive of something without a cause

Matters of fact: we never experience causation, only conjunction

Problem for cosmology: fallacy of composition

Russell:

-cannot apply the same logic to the whole as to a part.

-'The universe is just there'

Problem for cosmology: The impossibility of a necessary being (Hume and Russell)

What is evil- nature of moral and natural evil

The evidential problem of evil

The logical problem of evil

Free Will Defence (Alvin Plantiga)

Augustine theodicy

Irenean theodicy

Soul-making- John Hick

Distinction between cognitivism and non-cognitivism about religious language

Empiricist/logical positivist challenges to the status of metaphysical language

verificatoin/falsification

Hick's response to Ayer

eschatological verification and issues

University Debate

Anthony Flew - falsification principle

Basil Mitchell's response to the Flew

(the partisan)

Hare's response to Flew

(bliks and the lunatic)