Imported Alevel Philosophy and ethics cards

PLATO: describe his understanding of reality

PLATO: describe his understanding of reality

Rationalism= the theory that reason rather than experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge

A priori= knowing things before we experience them

Epistemology: theory of knowledge

All people have innate knowledge o E.g. Meno's slave boy

Everyone should practice philosophical thought

Plato- Two World Theory

• Our world is a secondary and inferior world to a perfect world of forms

• The soul came from/can access the world of forms o Perfect world knowledge forgotten o Rational thought can recover it o E.g. we can recognise various styles of boat because the perfect form exists, and our souls remember it

• Perfect forms cast a shadow into our lives

• Hierarchy of forms: o Good -> love + beauty -> objects o Good is the ultimate because our innate knowledge of hierarchy lets us always recognise it

PLATO: Divided Line

• Division between the forms and objects • 2:1 ratio • Through rational thought, our minds can progress up from the lower levels

Plato: Allegory of the Cave

Illustrates differences between the two worlds o Prisoners = ordinary people o Chains = our sense that makes us accept all we see and hear o Fire= a copy of the Form of Good, lets us see shadows

The prisoners are stuck seeing the imperfect forms

Philosophers can break the chains and escape to the world of forms o Will be blinded by the sun but eventually will be able to see as rational knowledge develops o The sun = the highest form/ good

Knowledge is justified true belief o E.g. The Gether Problem

Plato - strengths

Helps to understand imperfections in the world

Encourages us to thick rather than accept things at face value

Brian Davies: without forms we cannot discuss, argue etc about general world features like justice or beauty, because we wouldn't have any recognition of the forms or essence

Plato - weaknesses

Impossible to prove

Doesn't help understand our world

Not everyone will see the form of Good the same, subjective not universal

Stephen Law: The world "requires the existence of deeply unpleasant things. The 'Platonic Heaven of Forms' doesn't sound heavenly"

Mel Thompson: the cave "fails to illustrate the attractiveness of the physical world"

Some things lack forms, e.g. numbers

ARISTOTLE: Key Thoughts

Empiricism = theory that knowledge comes from only sensory experience

A posteriori = knowing after we experience it o Anything we observe exists, should be accepted as fact

ARISTOTLE: Four Causes

Knowledge comes from observation, not within o We can know the world and reality through observation

Humans: o Our soul is our formal cause o Parents are our efficient cause o God is our final cause

ARISTOTLE: Prime Mover

God is perfect, he and the word are co-eternal

He is a perfect being = pure thought, not material o Exists in his own realm, no link to material world o No point in prayer, can't see and doesn't care o Uninterested in anything he's caused o Attracts/ pull things towards it o Always moving and shifting = constant change o ULTIMATE CAUSE OF ALL MOVEMENT AND CHANGE

All living things have a soul as formal cause and God as final cause o Plants = soul with capacity for nutrition etc o Animals = capacity for appetite = feelings + desires o Humans = capacity for reason = ethics + intellect

Similar to Abrahamic God as is; understandable, eternal and immovable

When we live fulfilling, moral and good lives o All things are good if they achieve their purpose

ARISTOTLE -Strengths

Supported by other empiricists e.g. Hume

4 causes are derived on his studies of the natural world = reliable

Problem of evil eliminated as the prime mover is transcendent

ARISTOTLE - Weaknesses

Not everything has or needs a purpose for existing

His emphasis on observation can be disputed o Senses can be tricked

If god is pure thought, how can be move material things

Unmoved mover is a contradiction

Bertrand Russel: "the universe just is there, and that is all"

Fallacy of composition = a part being true doesn't make the whole true

Existentialism: things have no purpose or meaning other than what we give it

MONISM

Metaphysical + theological view that body and soul are one

Wax seal: imprint cannot be separated from the wax, soul cannot be separated from the body

Our soul is the organisational part of us, the force which activate the body

Hierarchy of souls: mind > locomotive > appetite > sensory > nutritive

The soul gives shape and provides facilities for the body but cannot survive death

MONSIM: Aristotle

Soul as the life force, the way in which the body behaviour and lives, the difference between life and death

MONISM: Aquinas

The soul exists in the body. E.g. electricity in a machine

MONSIM: Hick

Body and soul are united, both develop and change, both essential in a physical afterlife

MONSIM: Gilbert Ryle

Idea of a separate soul is a "category error" o "The ghost in the machine" o Mistake resulted in ppl talking of the mind and body as different phenomena as if the soul was something identifiably extra within a person o E.g. watching a cricket game and asking where the team spirit was

MATERIALISM

The body is all that there is

Consciousness is nothing more than brain activity

MATERIALISM: DAWKINS

DAWKINS: dualism is a bizarre superstition, no empirical evidence o Accepts the possibility of a soul being consciousness and spirituality, not traditional ideas o Believed that human beings are bytes of digital information, we're just the sum total of our genes o Feeling of individuality within each human is just because of our genes working together

Such an area is inaccessible to scientific activity that a soul could never be proven

MATERIALISM: Soft Materialism

Believe that people are wholes, not divided as in dualism.

But don't believe that all a person is, is a sum total of genes

Unlike Dawkins (a harsh materialist) they believe in life after death

MATERIALISM: Behaviourism

B.F. SKINNER All mental states are simply physical behaviour o E.g. 'happiness' is showing outward signs of being happy

Traditional view of the mind is wrong, there is no internal thought processes

Thoughts are pre-behaviours, first step in physical behaviour

MATERIALISM: The Turing Test

A human had to ask a machine questions and guess whether the thing answering was human or not

If it passes the test, then the machine has a mind

Therefore, there is such thing as a mind, its existence can be proven

MATERIALISM - strengths

The soul cannot be proven empirically

Therapies based off of it are successful

External, observable and testable

MATERIALISM - weaknesses

Daniel Dennett: "over simplifies human consciousness"

No account for free will or thought etc

No account for rational, a priori knowledge

Not all thoughts lead to visible behaviour

Some behave one way but are thinking another - deception

DUALISM - Plato

The soul is separate as it can access the world of forms

Soul has a higher ranking as it came from the world of forms

Mind + body drive the soul o The body has desires and the responsible soul controls it

DUALISM - Plato: Theory of Opposites

For each thing to exist, there must be an opposite o Opinions vs knowledge o Body vs soul

The body is concerned with pleasures, the soul is concerned with reason

3 parts of the soul; reason, spirit & appetite

DUALISM - Plato: 4 Arguments for the Existence of the Soul

1. Linguistic argument: o Fact that we use language about ourselves suggest a distinction o I, we, me all refer to an inner separate reality

2. Knowledge argument: o Within the world of flux and change we can grasp these universals which are not affected by time and space o Must be something within us that is equally unaffected by flux and change that has the ability to gasp them

3. Argument from recollection: o Because we know the universals we must've seen them before

4. Cycle of opposites: o We know things by their opposites o Death must come from life and life from death o Suggests a perpetual recycling of human souls from the realm of the living -> real of the dead and back

DUALISM- Strengths

Rational argument for existence of another reality

Emphasises reason is required to limit our desires

DUALISM- Weaknesses

Lack of convincing evidence for a soul

Underestimated the importance of the body, some desires need fulfilling e.g. food

Not everything has to have an opposite o E.g. binoculars

DUALISM: CARTESIAN DUALISM

René Descartes, French philosophers

Cognito ergo sum = I think therefore I am

Everything can be doubted apart from the fact we have a body

Body and soul are linked yet they're separate substances o Linked in to the pineal gland (disproven)

Evil demon example: o Global doubt: an evil demon could be causing everyone to believe that they have a body

DUALISM: CARTESIAN DUALISM - Strengths

Makes sense rationally

Cognito ergo sum is a solid philosophical idea

DUALISM: CARTESIAN DUALISM - Weaknesses

Gilbert Ryle: idea that the soul being "the ghost in the machine" is a category error o The soul is a verb o Anything else is due to a mistake in language

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: Info

Argument from design

Based on Aristotle's fourth cause

A posteriori/ evidence based

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: Aquinas

DESIGN QUA PURPOSE • 5th way • Nature is teleological, everything serves a purpose o The purpose comes from God

• BOW AND ARCHER ANALOGY o inanimate arrows are directed by archers o plants don't have intelligence; must be directed by something intelligent (God) o "some intelligent being exists which directs all-natural things to their ends"

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: Paley

DESIGN QUA REGULARITY • The watchmaker • Natural theology o E.g. complexity of millions of brain cells or the human eye • Wings of a bird perfectly engineered for movement • The extent of regularity points to a design, hence a creator

• THE WATCH o Even if the watch doesn't work properly, the overwhelming design points to a creator o Still true if we couldn't work out its functions or if we didn't know what a watch was

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CRITICISMS: Hume

The watch is manufactured, and the universe is natural cannot be compared

Epicurean thesis o If enough random events occurred, the earth would eventually be created

Effect & cause o The cause can't always be assumed from the effects (e.g. brick and a window)

4 PREMISES

1. "the universe is orderly" • We don't live in a harmonious universe, why would a benevolent God create this

2. "order is a design" • Cannot be proven empirically, an inductive leap

3. "design presupposes intelligence" • Might be several designers

4. "a complex universe equals a complex designer" • We have nothing to compare it to, our universe could be very basic

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CRITICISMS: Darwin

Survival depends on the ability to adapt, not design o "design" is the result of natural selection and processes ("the blind watchmaker")

Design isn't an explanation for the universe, it just describes it

INFINITE REGRESS o Big jump to assume that God is the cause for all o If God's the cause who made God etc, would go on forever

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CRITICISMS: Dawkins

Evolution and natural selection are a horrific process o Why wouldn't God design them as perfect initially or as their final stage

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CRITICISMS: Mill

Flawed universe suggests a flawed creator

Only a morally flawed God would allow all the evil in this world o Nature makes humans + animals suffer o "If the maker of the universe can do all he wills, then he wills misery"

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CRITICISMS: Russell

Just because you can claim something about the parts of an entity, doesn't mean that the same conclusions can be applied to the whole o Fallacy of composition o E.g. a sauce pan and a raw egg are both inedible but together they aren't

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CRITICISMS: Other

Somethings show no significant purpose

Not all purposes are good ones o E.g. stinging nettles

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT SUPPORTERS: Swinburne

OCKHAM'S RAZOR o Argument from simplicity o God is the easiest and simplest answer

Science often 'postulates unobservables' o E.g. quantum physics is not as reliable as it seems

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT SUPPORTERS: Tennant

ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE o Our solar system is perfectly set up for human life = must be due to a design

Human self-awareness in the universe

Humans morality o Evil could just be soul forming

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT SUPPORTERS: Lebeniz

SUFFICIENT REASON o Everything should/ does have an explanation

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: Info

Argument from contingency

A posteriori

God's existence can be proven by the fact that the universe exists and that fact that it has common themes o E.g. motion and causation

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: Aquinas

FIRST WAY: the argument from motion o There is an unmoved mover (Aristotle's prime mover)

1. Nothing can move itself

2. If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover

3. Movement cannot go on for infinity

4. The first mover is the unmoved mover/ God

SECOND WAY: causation of existence o Common sense observation tells us nothing created itself

1. Things that exist are created/ caused by other things

2. Nothing can be the cause of itself

3. Cannot be an endless string of this

4. Must be an uncaused first cause/ God

THIRD WAY: contingent & necessary objects

1. Contingent beings are caused

2. Not every being can be contingent

3. There must exist a being which is necessary to be cause contingent

4. The necessary being is God

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT SUPPORTERS: Lebeniz

SUFFICIENT REASON: If God's, the explanation then everything makes sense

The universe is a harmonious whole o Must be a creator or explanation o "God is the ground of being" - Tillich

For every event, truth or existence there must be a significant explanation

God is the only sufficient answer for all

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CRITICISMS: Hume

Infinite regress is possible o The chance of it being possible and impossible are equal

Just because there's a visible cause, doesn't mean that there's an effect. And vice versa o At what point does a cause become an effect

CORRELATION ≠ CAUSATION o We can't prove events are linked

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CRITICISMS: Russell

Can a being really be necessary? o An inductive leap

The universe just is = just as likely as a necessary God

FALLACY OF COMPISITION o The whole doesn't necessarily have the same explanation as it's parts

• E.g. all people have parents ≠ mankind has a parent

Cannot explain the extent of the universe because we can't get out of it to see the evidence

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CRITICISMS: Kant

Our knowledge of cause and effect is limited to our physical + contingent world o We don't have any knowledge of outside tine

• space (where God is)

It doesn't make sense to talk about a chain of causes stretching beyond the empirical world

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CRITICISMS: Voltaire

THE PRESENCE OF EVIL o If God is the explanation for an earthquake, famine etc then he cannot be all loving

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: Info

Argument from reason

A priori

Seeks to make God's existence analytical

'onto'= Greek for 'being'

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: St Anselm

"Credo ut intelligam" = I believe in order to understand In order to understand God, you must believe in him • Wrote proslogian

CHAPTER 2 - first premise o God is a being "that which nothing greater can be conceived" o God existing in minds and reality > god which only exists in minds Therefore, he must exist, him not existing would be a logical contradiction

CHAPTER 3 -second premise o "God cannot be thought not to be" o A necessary being is greater than a contingent one o God must be necessary as nothing is greater than him o It is impossible for a necessary being not to exist Therefore, God must exist

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: Descartes

God is perfect and therefore must contain all perfect properties o Including perfect existence

Existence is a defining predicate o (a description that is necessary to a concept) o If he didn't exist, it wouldn't be God

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CRITICISMS: Gaunilo

THE PERFECT ISLAND o You can imagine perfect island o According to Anselm, to be truly perfect it must also exist in reality o Only a fool would believe that the island must now exist o Imagined perfection ≠ existence

Gossip o The fool could imagine all sorts of things that don't exist in reality but now argue that they do

Defining things into existence o Cannot demonstrate the existence of something just by having an idea about it o Cannot define the idea into existence

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CRITICISMS: Responses to Gaunilo

ANSELM • Islands are contingent, God is necessary • Only a fool would say that God doesn't exist because they don't understand that God is perfect

PLANTINGA • Islands have no 'intrinsic maximum' • No matter how great our concept of an island is, it can always be bettered • Islands and God cannot be compared

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CRITICISMS: Aquinas

AQUINAS • Rejects Anselms claim that the statement "God exists" is analytic (can be proven a priori) • God's existence isn't self-evident • We're not in a position to 'know God's existence analytically

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CRITICISMS: Kant

Suggests the theory is a logical fallacy (an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid)

Not impossible to reject a statement and all its predicates o You can say "I don't believe in God" and "I don't believe that he exists" Both predicates are rejected, and his existence isn't proven a priori

Existence isn't a defining predicate o E.g. if you asked one man to describe 100 Thales in front of him and another man to imagine it; both descriptions would be the same o Therefore, existence isn't a defining predicate

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CRITICISMS: Responses to Kant

Professor of philosophy at Notre Dame uni

Argued Kant's objection doesn't conflict with Anselm's theory o Anselm doesn't contingently add existence as a property of God/ define him into existence

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE: William James

Pragmatist: believes that a theory can be treated as true if it works satisfactorily in practice

4 main criteria for religious experiences:

1. Ineffable= indescribable

2. Noetic= gaining divine knowledge

3. Transient = short lived

4. Passive = out of the persons controls

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE: Rudolf Otto

The idea of holy o Numinous:

• Has to transverse the everyday/ be extraordinary

• "wholly other", completely different to what we normally experience o Mystery:

• Terrifying

• Fascinating

God is not a being in the way we understand; he is extremely different from anything we know

Experiences are entirely unlike earthly experiences, no appropriate language for it

• "mysteriam tremendium et fascinas"

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE: N. Smart

Has to have its own logic and language, cannot be reduced to everyday language

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE: Swinburne

Personal testimonies should be accepted

Principle of credibility: if someone believed that it happened, then it's most likely to be true

Ockham's razor • Principle of testimony: generally, we believe others

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE CRITICISMS: Hume

People are drawn to fantastical things, they exaggerate and are willing to believe it's true

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE CRITICISMS: Russel

Mind altering substances may have psychological effects

Mood sleep etc. can make you think that you're seeing the world differently

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE CRITICISMS: Cottingham

Numinous experiences ≠ religious experiences

Can be caused by music, art, love etc.

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE CRITICISMS: Satre

Event vs interpretation

1. People may have misinterpreted events

2. Some people may be ignorant and put their experience down to religion as they don't know any better

3. Others do it for attention

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE - Personal Experiences: Mystical

Mystical experience: experiencing a greater power

DAVEY FALCUS • BACKGROUND: o Used to be a gang member, addicted to cocaine and lot of other drugs • WHAT HAPPENED: o A bright light streamed into his room when he was praying o Jesus appeared before him and said "son, your sins are forgiven, and you will sin no more"

JAMES' IDEAS: ✘ Wasn't ineffable or noetic OTTO'S IDEAS: ✔ Transcended the everyday and was mystical

HOW CONVINCING: ✔ Biblical language was used, wasn't on drugs at the time either ✘ Previous drug abuse and he was desperate at the time, could've been hearing what he wanted to hear

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE - Personal Experiences: Conversion

Conversion experience: being compelled to gain or lose faith

ST PAUL • BACKGROUND: o Born in Rome and wrote 13 books of the Bible • WHAT HAPPENED: o Was travelling to Damascus o A bright light surrounded them and knocked him off of his horse o "they heard a voice from heaven that said "Saul, Saul why do you persecute me?" "I am Jesus... but rise and enter the city; you will be told what to do" o He had no sight, food or sleep for 3 days

JAMES' IDEAS: ✔ Was noetic, transient and passive OTTO'S IDEAS: ✔ Was numinous and mystical

HOW CONVINCING ✔ Converted him and inspired him to write books of the Bible ✔ Other's witnessed it ✘ Travelling for days, could've been hallucinations

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE - Personal Experiences: Strengths

A process by which "inferior and unhappy becomes... unified and consciously superior and happy "- JAMES (conversion exps)

Often strong enough to make people convert religion

The divine knowledge gained can't be explained

Less likely to be conducted or orchestrated like corporate

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE - Personal Experiences: Weaknesses

Impossible to prove, we can never experience what they did

Characteristics of religious experiences have a lot in common with hallucinations

Honesty/personal testimony isn't enough o People may be truthful but be ignorant or naïve of what really happened

Various factors can lead to mind altering effects e.g. poppy seeds

Some people lie for attention

Have to completely rely on the interpretation of the experiences

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE - Corporate Experiences

An experience shared by a group, e.g. The Toronto Blessing

TORONTO VINEYARD • WHAT HAPPENED: o Pastor Clark gave a testimony saying that he would get drunk in the spirit and laughed uncontrollably o The whole congregation erupted into pandemonium

• Laughing

• Growling

• Dancing

• Barking like dogs

• Even struck in paralysis

JAMES' IDEAS: ✔ Passive only OTTO'S IDEAS: ✔ Numinous

HOW CONVINCING: ✔ Lots of people experienced it = more reliable, also happened repeatedly ✘ Near a jet field, could be jet fumes ✘ No evidence of anything similar in the bible, more closely resembles demonic possession

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE - Corporate Experiences: Strengths

Less likely to be ineffable due to more people experiencing it, can give more accounts of what happened

Increased validity of experience

Lots of people experiencing the exact same thing, cannot be coincidence

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE - Corporate Experiences: Weaknesses

People may be "following the crowd" o Convincing themselves that they experienced something because others did

Why would god cause people to humiliate themselves?

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: Responses to Inconsistent Triad

4 main responses to the inconsistent triad: o Evil might be an illusion (doesn't work) o Evil allows appreciation (doesn't work) o Soul making o Soul deciding

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: Theodicy Definition

THEODICY: an attempt to show that the existence of God in the light of evil and suffering. Theo = god, dicy = justify

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: Moral Evil Definition

MORAL EVIL: caused by people

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: Natural Evil Definition

NATURAL EVIL: caused by nature

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: Soul Deciding - Augustine

Theory based on genesis 3 (the fall) and romans 5:12-20

The universe is created by God to be good o The fall of man and the original sin created evil when they disobeyed God, the sin 'broke' the goodness of the world o Natural evil is a disharmony caused by the "penal consequences of sin"

Evil is a "privation of good" o Not an entity itself, just like blindness is a privation of sight

We as humans are born sinners apart from God o "seminally present in the loins of Adam" o Born with original sin

We can work out way back to goodness via obedience

Free will to redeem ourselves and show true love to God, our souls are decided on this o Evil is the price to pay as some chose not to o A human purpose is to use their free will to choose God o On judgement day we will be punished, and the world will be perfect again

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: Soul Deciding - Criticisms

F.D.E SCHLEKERMACHER o In his book "the Christian faith" he said that the theodicy was flawed o Logical contradiction to say that a perfectly created world had gone wrong o This would mean that evil created itself "ex nihlis" (out of nothing), which is impossible o Either the world was created imperfect or God allowed it to go wrong

How can we be punished for evil we didn't know that we're committing?

We have no way of telling whether we are committing the right amount in God's eyes

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: Soul Making - Irenaeus

First great theologian

Believed that there were 2 stages to creation

• Created as immature being that had yet to grow and develop

• Period of change were man would respond to evil in life and eventually become a "child of God"

We were created imperfect, so we could freely choose to become good and turn to God

• We are an epistemic distance from God, there is a gap in our knowledge

Moral evil is the fault of humans for having this freedom

• Natural evil is so that everyone has a chance to experience evil and grow from it

• Eventually everyone's souls will become perfect through suffering and they can go to heaven

Free will is needed for us to truly love God

• To become in the likeness of God, we have to develop, mature and reach our potential

• Done through using our God-given free will

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: Soul Making - Hick

There must be suffering in the world or we'd be "incredibly dull" creatures

The world is instrumentally good o Instrumental good occurs when something is good for something o Isn't perfect but is good enough to teach us to be good

Recognises the problem of dysteleological evil (evil which serves no purpose)

God cannot interfere with evil all of the time o No harm = no regularity = no knowledge = no growth o Can't learn if things are constantly changing

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: Soul Making - Swinburne

Didactic evil: evil that is meant to teach

Natural evil created moral evil

It is the first evil we experienced, and we learnt how to be evil from that

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: Soul Making - Criticisms

D.Z PHILLIPS o Suggested that the argument and those who follow it "show the sign of a corrupt mind" o The theodicy is morally unacceptable, horrors like the holocaust cannot be justified o We can't make ethical and moral assumptions based on the idea that evil will teach us o Outlined 6 morally unacceptable justifications for evil

1. Character development

2. Logical necessity

3. Teaches us lessons

4. Not as bad as it seems

5. It's bearable

6. It will all be redeemed in heaven

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD: Divine Impeccability

DIVINE IMPRECCABILITY: it's impossible for God to sin as it is against his nature

Catholic Church sees god as immutable/unchanging

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD: Omnipotence - Bible Quotes

Luke 1:37 "for nothing is impossible with God"

Matthew 19:26 "for mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible"

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD: Omnipotence - Descartes

ABSOLUTE OMNIPOTENCE

• God's existence is prior to the laws of logic, naturally not bound by these laws

• No limitation on his capability, divine perfection ✔ God remains fully omnipotent ✖ If god can defy logic, how can we possibly hope to understand him. God traditionally thought of as rational e.g. God as just + can't sin or lie

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD: Omnipotence - Plantinga

ONLY CAN DO LOGICALLY POSSIBLE THINGS

• Omnipotence = not necessary

• May choose to limit powers in circumstances to preserve free will + beliefs in god don't require logical justification.

• Could be limited and still omnipotent

AQUINAS- no sense to accuse god of being less than omnipotent because he cannot do the logically impossible ✔ Solves philosophical paradoxes of ultimate power ✖ JC conflict, can god tell a lie, can he cause suffering for fun? Both logically possible but conflict w/ his other qualities ✖ Limits his omnipotence

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD: Omnipotence - Augustine

CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS TO DO

Can do anything he wishes, depending on his will ✔ Lift a rock or make it unliftable ✖ Cannot have the power to preform both parts of paradox at once so not true omnipotence?

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD: Omnipotence - Kenny

IS MOST POWERFUL BEING. BUT NOT ALL POWERFUL

Omnipotence explains human's relationship to god, not an absolute quality

✔Consistent with scripture, overcomes paradox of omnipotence, explains lack of performative power ✖Blasphemous/anthropomorphic - god no longer possessing the divine attribute

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD: Omniscience - Bible Quotes

Genesis 3 "You will be like God, knowing good and evil"

1 Samuel 2:3 "The lord is a God of knowledge"

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD: Omniscience - Knowledge & Our Senses

KNOWLEDGE AND OUR SENSES o We gain knowledge through senses; how can God have knowledge of tastes etc. w/o a body? o If you separate knowledge from sensation - he has knowledge but not the accompanying sensation

MIDDLE KNOWLEDGE o Consists of knowledge of what would happen if certain choices were made o Does 'exist' in quantum physics + multiverse

FUTURE KNOWLEDGE o Bible makes it clear God has knowledge of the future 'All the as ordained for me were written your book before one them came to be' - Psalm o Can it be knowledge if it hasn't happened yet? - God's knowledge may be different to ours o FLEW - given God could have foreseen consequences of creation ought to have been possible to create free creatures who always do the right thing (epistemic distance, omnipotence & POE)

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD: Omniscience - Dummett

GOD KNOWS ALL TRUE PROPOSITIONS

God has no perspective, exists outside of time, all around time and space (eternal)

Therefore, knows all things that can be true if they are true because he's timeless

Same way that we know that ww2 started and ended in ___, God knows all facts like that that will ever be and ever were

No perspective, looking at all facts at the same time

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD: Omniscience - Dummett Weaknesses

Only looking at a very limited view of knowledge

Indexical sentences: conditional to be true, can god know absolutely everything that's happening at the same time

Not just know that, but does he know how and know what it is like o Theoretical knowledge vs practical

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD: Omniscience - Scleiermacher

GOD CAN ACCURATELY PREDICT ALL OUTCOMES

God's knowledge is akin to a parent's knowledge of their child

He can accurately predict how people will act, but this doesn't make his knowledge causal

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD: Omniscience - Boethius

Tries to overcome the omniscience - free will problems

Argues that God has to be able to see everything at once, "as though from a lofty peak"

Our past, present and future come together to form one "eternal present" to God

To God there is no future, only a simultaneous present of all time

We are still free as we move into our future

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD: (omni)Benevolence - Bible Quotes

Psalm 63 "because your steadfast love is better than life"

Psalm 118 "Gracious is the lord, and righteous, our lord is merciful"

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD: (omni)Benevolence - Swinburne

GOD ALWAYS DOES GOOD

God preforms good actions, anything he does it good

Hell is needed, like a parent God must punish/reward us to help us

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD: (omni)Benevolence - Davies

GOD CANNOT CONTRADICT HIS GOOD NATURE

God preforms good actions, anything he does is good

Hell isn't a place of torture, it would be a logical contradiction if so

God is b nature good, so anything he do must be good

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD: (omni)Benevolence - Aquinas

COMMUTABLE VS DISTRABUTIVE JUSTICE

God does good as he "lacks no excellence", he acts and wishes us well, takes an active role is distributive justice

Part of gods goodness to create good out of evil, hell exists for this reason. Not a place of torture but separation from god

God will always choose good because he's perfect, has the power to do bad but will never.

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD: (omni)Benevolence - Calvin

HUMAN UNDERSTANDING OF SALVATION

Preforms good actions and wishes us well, any good that comes to us is from god

Hell is a place of torture because we deserve it. Fact that we have any chance of being in heaven with god shows his loving nature

Whatever he does is good, something bad by human terms has a good reason if goes choses to do it.