Metaphysics-Religion

God of classical theism (held by many major Western religious traditions—especially Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) portrays God as

a perfect, eternal, and necessary being.

The God of classical theism is typically described as:

• Omnipotent: All-powerful

• Omniscient: All-knowing

• Omnibenevolent: All-good

• Eternal: Exists outside of time

• Immutable: Unchanging

• Necessary: Must exist and cannot not exist

• Transcendent and immanent: Both beyond the world and active within it

Polytheism – Belief in many gods

Examples: Ancient Greek and Roman religions, Hinduism (in some interpretations), Norse mythology
Impact on philosophy:

• Rather than asking “Does God exist?”, the question becomes “Which gods exist?” or “What roles do different gods play?”

• Gods may be limited in power, knowledge, or morality. They might fight, lie, or make mistakes—unlike the perfect God of classical theism.

• Morality may not come from gods but from other sources like duty (dharma in Hinduism) or social order.

Pantheism – God is identical with the universe or nature

Examples: Some strands of Hindu philosophy (e.g. Advaita Vedanta), Stoicism, some New Age beliefs
Impact on philosophy:

• The question of whether God exists becomes a question of how we understand reality itself.

• God is not a personal being who makes choices or answers prayers.

Evil and suffering are not opposed to God but part of the divine whole

Panentheism

God is in the universe but also beyond it

Examples: Sikhism, some forms of Process Theology, Kabbalistic Judaism
Impact on philosophy:

• God is affected by the world but not limited by it.

• God may evolve, respond to change, or suffer with creation.

• Raises questions about divine compassion and participation, rather than omnipotence alone.

Deism – God created the universe but does not intervene

Examples: Enlightenment thinkers (e.g. Voltaire), some modern secular spirituality
Impact on philosophy:

• Arguments focus on the origin of the universe, not miracles or divine intervention.

• Prayer, revelation, and scriptures are usually rejected as sources of knowledge about God.

• The Problem of Evil is avoided because God is not involved in human affairs.

Atheism and Agnosticism

Atheism: No gods exist

• Agnosticism: We cannot know whether any gods exist
  Impact on philosophy:

• Atheists often argue that the concept of God is incoherent, contradictory, or unnecessary to explain the universe.

• Agnostics may focus on the limits of human knowledge and evidence.

Celestial teapot thought experiment

Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) was a British philosopher and atheist. He famously challenged the assumption that belief in God should be accepted unless disproven. In an essay, he gave the example of a celestial teapot to make a point about burden of proof:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving around the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion... But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable that human reason should refuse to believe in it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.”

This argument suggests that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim—not with others to disprove it

The Ontological Argument

Existence of a perfect being is implied by the very concept/ of that being.

The very concept of God implies existence. In simpler terms, if we can conceive of a perfect and supreme being, then it must necessarily exist. This argument hinges on the idea that existence is a necessary attribute of perfection.

Their argument: if one can conceive of a being that possesses all conceivable perfections, then existence must be one of those perfections. Therefore, denying God's existence would entail conceiving of a being greater than God, which is logically incoherent.

The Cosmological Argument:

Every event has a cause; the existence of the universe requires a first cause, which is God. It seeks to establish the existence of God based on the existence of the cosmos or universe. It posits that every event or entity in the universe has a cause, and this chain of causation must ultimately trace back to a first cause, which is God.

What proponents of the cosmological argument say

Cosmological Argument find support in scientific discoveries such as the Big Bang theory, which suggests a finite beginning to the universe. They argue that the existence of a first cause, which transcends the natural world, provides a coherent explanation for the universe's existence.

·      The Big Bang theory proposes that the universe originated from a singular point of infinite density and temperature, expanding and evolving over billions of years.

·      Proponents of the Cosmological Argument view the Big Bang as evidence of a temporal beginning to the universe, necessitating a transcendent cause.

·      The concept of a first cause is often equated with the idea of God as the ultimate source of all existence.

What do critics of the cosmological argument say

However, critics challenge the inference from a first cause to the existence of a personal deity, raising significant objections to the Cosmological Argument. They propose alternative explanations, such as the multiverse hypothesis, which posits the existence of multiple universes with varying properties.

·      The multiverse hypothesis suggests that our universe is just one of many within a vast ensemble of parallel universes, each with its own set of physical laws and constants.

·      Critics argue that the multiverse hypothesis provides a naturalistic alternative to the need for a transcendent creator.

·      Furthermore, they question whether the concept of causality, as we understand it within the universe, can be applied to the origin of the universe itself, given the absence of a temporal framework prior to the Big Bang.

Aquinas’ Argument of the existence of God

1) arguments from motion-

2) argument from causation

3) argument from contingency

4) argument from degrees

5) teleological argument

Teleological argument (aka Argument from Design)

The complexity and order in the universe suggest an intelligent designer.

The intricate order and complexity observed in the universe suggest the existence of an intelligent designer, namely God. This argument finds expression in the watchmaker analogy, popularized by William Paley, which likens the universe to a watch: just as a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker, the universe implies the existence of a cosmic designer.

The Teleological Argument invites reflection on the apparent design and purposefulness evident in the natural world, sparking contemplation about the underlying order and complexity of existence. From the intricate structure of biological organisms to the finely-tuned constants of the universe, we are prompted to consider whether such complexity could arise by chance or necessitates an intelligent creator.

·       The Teleological Argument, also known as the Argument from Design, has roots in ancient philosophical thought, with notable proponents including Plato and Aristotle.

·       It draws parallels between the intricate designs found in human-made objects and the seemingly purposeful arrangements observed in nature.

Supporters of the teleological argument say

Irreducible complexity, asserting that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved gradually through natural selection alone. They cite examples such as the human eye or bacterial flagellum as compelling evidence of design, suggesting that such intricate structures could not have arisen through random chance.

·       Irreducible complexity posits that certain biological structures are composed of multiple components, all of which are necessary for the system to function.

·       Proponents argue that the simultaneous emergence of these components through evolutionary processes is statistically improbable, indicating the presence of intelligent design.

·       The concept of irreducible complexity has been central to debates surrounding evolution and creationism, particularly in educational contexts.

Critics of the teleological argument suggest

Caution against attributing design to natural phenomena without empirical evidence, advocating for a rigorous scientific approach to understanding the complexities of the universe. Critics highlight alternative explanations, such as evolutionary processes, which can account for the apparent design without invoking a supernatural creator.

·       Critics argue that the apparent design in nature can be explained through mechanisms such as natural selection, genetic mutation, and environmental adaptation.

·       They emphasise the importance of empirical observation and testable hypotheses in scientific inquiry, cautioning against the reliance on metaphysical assumptions.

·       The presence of imperfections and instances of apparent "bad design" in the natural world, such as vestigial organs or genetic disorders, raises questions about the benevolence and omniscience of the purported designer, challenging traditional theological interpretations.

Aquinas’s cosmological argument for motion

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

P1)Our senses show that things in the world are in motion or changing.

P2) Everything that is moved or changed is moved by another thing.

P3) This chain of movers cannot go back infinitely, or there would be no first mover.

P4) Therefore, there must be a First Unmoved Mover.

P5) This First Unmoved Mover is what we call God.

Aquinas’s cosmological argument for efficient causes

It is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

P1) We observe a series of efficient causes (causes that bring things into existence) in the world.

P2) Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself, as it would have to exist prior to itself to cause itself.

P3) The chain of causes cannot go back infinitely; otherwise, there would be no first cause, and thus no subsequent causes.

P4) Therefore, there must be a First Efficient Cause.

C: This First Cause is what we call God.

Aquinas’s cosmological argument for possibility and necessity,

We cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

P1) We observe that objects in the world come into existence and pass out of existence (they are contingent).

P2) If every object were contingent, there would be a time when nothing existed.

P3) If there were once nothing, nothing could exist now, which is false.

P4) Therefore, not all beings are contingent; there must be at least one Necessary Being (a being that must exist and cannot not exist).

C: This Necessary Being is what we call God.

Aquinas’s cosmological argument for the Argument from Degree (Gradation)

There must be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

P1) We observe that things in the world vary in degrees of perfection (e.g., varying degrees of goodness, truth, and nobility).

P2) Degrees are measured against an ultimate maximum or perfect standard.

P3) Therefore, there must exist a being which is the ultimate maximum of goodness, truth, and perfection.

C: This ultimate standard is what we call God.

Aquinas’s teleological argument for the Argument from Design (Teleology)

Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

P1) We observe that non-intelligent entities in nature act toward predictable ends and operate with consistent, regular order (like the sun rising or an acorn growing into an oak tree).

P2) Entities lacking intelligence cannot act toward a specific goal unless directed by an intelligent being.

P3) Therefore, there must be some intelligent being that directs all natural things to their end.

C: This intelligent director is what we call God.

Objections to St Thomas Aquinas’s ‘The Five Ways’ argument, and the objections to those objections.

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist. (because it would have to be completely good, and there is evil in the world).

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

The Moral Argument

Brief Definition: Challenges existence of God by questioning if moral values are objective or subjective, undermining the need for a divine source.

The Moral Argument challenges the idea of a divine moral authority as evidence for the existence of God. It posits that moral values and duties are either objective or subjective. If they are objective, they exist independently of human perception and are grounded in a transcendent source, often presumed to be God. However, if moral values and duties are subjective, they are merely human constructs, lacking any objective foundation.

The Moral Argument prompts critical reflection on the nature of morality and its relationship to religious belief, inviting us to explore fundamental questions about ethics and the divine. It raises questions such as: Are moral values and duties inherent in the fabric of the universe, or are they contingent upon human interpretation and social context? Can we derive moral guidance from divine commands, or do moral principles emerge from human reason and empathy?

·       The Moral Argument is rooted in the intersection of metaphysics, ethics, and theology, inviting us to delve into the complexities of moral philosophy.

·       It challenges us to examine our own ethical frameworks and consider the role of religion in shaping moral beliefs and behaviours.

·       By exploring the relationship between morality and religious belief, we confront profound questions about the nature of goodness, obligation, and human flourishing.

Critics of the Moral Argument for God point to

The diversity of moral systems across cultures and history as evidence against the existence of objective moral values, highlighting the cultural relativity of ethical norms. They argue that the variability of moral norms suggests that morality is a product of human cultural evolution rather than a reflection of divine decree.

·       Cultural relativism posits that moral values and practices are shaped by social and historical contexts, challenging the notion of universal moral truths.

·       Critics question whether a single, transcendent source of morality exists or if moral principles are contingent upon human societies and their values.

·       The plurality of moral beliefs underscores the complexity of ethical inquiry and raises doubts about the existence of a universal moral law derived from a divine source.

The problem of evil

Challenges existence of a benevolent, omnipotent God in light of the presence of suffering and moral evil in the world.

The Problem of Evil presents a formidable challenge to traditional conceptions of God as omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. It questions how the existence of evil and suffering in the world can be reconciled with the existence of an all-powerful and loving deity. If God is truly omnipotent, why does evil persist? If God is omnibenevolent, why does suffering afflict the innocent?

Grappling with the Problem of Evil forces a confrontation with the harsh realities of human suffering and existential angst, prompting students to wrestle with profound questions about the nature of existence. It raises profound questions about the nature of divine providence, human freedom, and theodicy—the attempt to justify God's ways in the face of evil.

·       The Problem of Evil challenges students to confront the stark contrast between the concept of a benevolent, all-powerful deity and the existence of suffering in the world.

·       It prompts inquiry into the relationship between suffering, morality, and the nature of God, inviting students to explore the philosophical implications of human experiences of pain and injustice.

Critics of traditional theism (people who argue for the problem of evil) argue that

The existence of gratuitous suffering, such as natural disasters, childhood diseases, and human atrocities, undermines the notion of a loving and all-powerful God. They contend that if God were truly benevolent, he would intervene to prevent such suffering, or at least provide a compelling justification for its existence.

·       Problem of gratuitous suffering challenges the theological concept of divine omnipotence, suggesting limitations to God's power or benevolence.

·       Critics question why a loving God would allow innocent beings, such as children, to suffer, leading to doubts about the coherence of traditional theistic beliefs.

·       The sheer magnitude and apparent randomness of suffering in the world raise profound existential and moral questions about the nature of divine justice and human agency.

Moreover, the sheer scale and randomness of suffering in the world suggest that it is not part of a divine plan but rather a product of natural processes and human actions. Critics argue that attributing suffering to divine purposes or mysterious ways fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for the existence of evil and injustice.

·       The problem of natural evil, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, and diseases, raises questions about the compatibility of divine benevolence with the suffering caused by natural phenomena.

·       Critics challenge the idea that suffering serves a greater purpose in a divine plan, suggesting that it is more plausibly explained as a consequence of natural processes and human behaviour.

Science

Scientific discoveries offer naturalistic explanations for phenomena, challenging traditional religious beliefs about the origin and nature of the universe.

Science offers insights into the natural world through empirical observation, experimentation, and rational inquiry. While not explicitly aimed at disproving the existence of God, scientific discoveries and theories often challenge traditional religious beliefs by offering naturalistic explanations for phenomena previously attributed to divine intervention.

The intersection of science and religion raises questions about the compatibility of faith and reason, inviting students to explore the boundaries of human knowledge and the nature of reality. It prompts inquiry into whether scientific discoveries pose a threat to religious belief or offer alternative perspectives on the universe.

·       The dialogue between science and religion has been ongoing for centuries, shaping both intellectual discourse and societal attitudes toward faith and scientific inquiry.

Moreover, the success of the scientific method in uncovering the workings of the universe suggests that naturalistic explanations are sufficient to understand the world without recourse to supernatural entities. Scientific inquiry provides a systematic framework for investigating natural phenomena, yielding testable hypotheses and empirical evidence.

·       The scientific method relies on observation, experimentation, and peer review to develop and refine our understanding of the natural world, emphasizing the importance of empirical evidence and rational inquiry.

·       The predictive power of scientific theories, such as quantum mechanics and relativity, demonstrates the effectiveness of naturalistic explanations in describing and predicting natural phenomena.

Critics of religious faith argue that

Scientific explanations provide more plausible accounts of natural phenomena than supernatural hypotheses. They point to phenomena such as evolution, cosmology, and neuroscience as examples where scientific inquiry has supplanted religious explanations.

·       Evolutionary theory challenges creationist accounts of the origin of species, highlighting the role of natural selection and genetic variation in shaping biological diversity.

·       Cosmological theories, such as the Big Bang model, offer naturalistic explanations for the origin and evolution of the universe, displacing creation myths from religious traditions.

·      Neuroscience research explores the biological basis of consciousness and cognition, challenging traditional notions of the soul and the mind-body relationship.

Moreover, the success of the scientific method in uncovering the workings of the universe suggests that naturalistic explanations are sufficient to understand the world without recourse to supernatural entities. Scientific inquiry provides a systematic framework for investigating natural phenomena, yielding testable hypotheses and empirical evidence.

·       The scientific method relies on observation, experimentation, and peer review to develop and refine our understanding of the natural world, emphasizing the importance of empirical evidence and rational inquiry.

·       The predictive power of scientific theories, such as quantum mechanics and relativity, demonstrates the effectiveness of naturalistic explanations in describing and predicting natural phenomena.

·       Critics argue that the explanatory scope of science extends beyond the physical realm, encompassing phenomena traditionally attributed to divine intervention, such as the origin of life and the diversity of species.

1st Counter argument against the Problem of evil (Free will defence)

There is evil in the world, yet there is greater reason for why he needs to create evil, as we (humans) have free will given to us.

2nd Soul making Theodicy

Evil is necessary for us to develop our character.

3rd ‘Contrast Theodicy of good and evil’

Evil and goodness exists necessarily in contrast. We wouldn’t know good without knowing bad, and we woudn’t know sickness without knowing health. If we know one, we must know the other.

4th ‘Greater good argument’ for the Problem of Evil

Evil exists as part of God’s plan, but we won’t know because we’re human and can’t find out about it, we simply have to trust his plan.

What is the problem with the 1st Counter argument against the Problem of evil (Free will defence)

It accounts for moral evil but not natural evil.

Theodicy

the attempt to justify God's ways in the face of evil.

Necessity (from the ontological view)

Existence is a necessary attribute of perfection.

Burden of proof argument by Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell challenged the assumption that belief in God should be accepted unless disproven. E.g. celestial teapot to make a point about burden of proof:

Suggests that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim—not with others to disprove it.

Empirical skepticism

This stance is rooted in empiricism, which argues that all knowledge is derived from experience. When applied to metaphysics, this skeptical framework scrutinizes unobservable claims and traditionally seeks to dismantle them using rigorous observations or logical tests.

Moral evil vs natural evil.

Moral evil- suffering & harm intentionally caused by the deliberate actions & negligence of human agents. In contrast, natural evil refers to catastrophic events, diseases, and pain resulting from the operation of the physical laws of nature, for which no human agent is responsible.

God of the gaps fallacy (people who argue against Science)

The criticism that God is only used to explain what science is yet to explain. Thus, God has been shrinking throughout history as science has been progressing and explaining more and more. 

Naturalism

The view that reality is made only of natural laws and physical forces best understood through the scientific approach. 

Epistemic

Relating to knowledge and the conditions for acquiring it. 

Science as an argument against God

Scientific discoveries offer naturalistic explanations for phenomena, challenging traditional religious beliefs about the origin and nature of the universe.

Scientific explanations of the universe get rid of the need for God as an explanation for the universe and life. That is, science as an argument against God is not always the claim that “science shows that God definitely does not exist”, rather, it usually refers to the argument that “science has made God explanatorily unnecessary”. It does not entirely disprove God’s existence, but rather asks the question, “how helpful is this concept in understanding universe and life?”. Because God is a supernatural construct, it is of no use in the scientific approach. As such, ‘science as an argument against God’ does not entirely disprove God’s existence, because instead, it wants to show that God is explanatorily unnecessary and thus, incredibly unlikely to exist. 

In the past, God has been used as a concept to explain many phenomena found within the natural world that were not always able to be understood – diseases, lightning, natural disasters, etc. Yet as science has progressed, we have increasingly understood these phenomena in scientific terms. This has meant that God is no longer needed to help us explain and understand the natural world. 

Cultural Relativism

Moral values and practices are not universal truths, rather they are shaped by social and historical contexts. 

Equally, many believers in God use the moral argument inversely. Meaning, they argue that, clearly, there is objective morality – e.g. saving a person’s life. Thus, God must exist as the transcendental (necessary conditions for the) foundation of morality. Meaning, they argue that God is the only possible explanation for the existence of objective moral value. 

Omnibenevolent

The quality of being perfectly good,

Omnipotent

The quality of being all-powerful.

Theodicy

Philosophy that attempts to defend God’s goodness and omnipotence against the problem of evil.

Key counter-arguments for the Ontological argument (a priori [uses reason alone])

(key thinker=Anselm of Canterbury)

Key counter arguments: 
-    Gaunilo’s Greatest Island: Imagine the greatest island. It has unicorns, endless treasure and perfect weather all year around. According to Anselm, existing in reality is greater than only existing in the mind. Thus, this greatest island must really exist. But clearly, this greatest island does not actually exist. Gaunilo’s thought experiment highlights that you cannot just define something into existence because it would be greater if it existed.
-    Kant’s Counterargument: Existence is not a property that adds anything onto to a concept. Imagine Santa Claus – he is red, has a white beard and is a large person. Now, imagine him in reality standing next to you. He has no new properties, attributes and doesn’t look any different. It’s the same Santa Claus. Hence, saying he exists hasn’t made him greater because existence doesn’t add anything new to the concept of Santa Claus. So, something is not greater just because it exists. This highlights that you cannot just define something into existence by saying it would be greater if it existed. 
-    Both Gaunilo and Kant’s counterarguments highlight that Anselm smuggles existence into his definition of “greatest” as a hidden premise. As such, Anselm’s ontological argument uses circular reasoning and fails to prove God’s existence.

Key counter-arguments against the Cosmological argument (Key thinker= Aquinas)

Key Counterarguments:
-    Why God? Aquinas seems to arrive at the conclusion of an unmoved mover, an uncaused causer or a necessary thing, then leaps to labelling this God. These concepts are still vague and thus, to leap into calling them God is unjustified. Maybe science will be able to explain the necessary thing at some stage in the future. Furthermore, it is not clear which God Aquinas is referring to. 
-    Infinite Regress. Aquinas’ arguments all rely on the premise that infinite regress is a logical paradox – meaning that infinite regress is impossible. Aquinas seems to take this for granted. We should ask why? Why can’t infinite regress be possible? Perhaps claiming that it is not possible requires proof – something Aquinas does not provide. Modern physics is increasingly open to the idea that the universe may not have a first cause and be infinite in some sense. E.g. the cyclic model of the universe or the multiverse hypothesis (many words theory). While none of these theories are proven or widely accepted in science, the important point is that infinite regress could be possible.  
-    Causation Paradox. “Cause” normally implies that something exists before something else, then brings about a new thing (the cause-and-effect process). So, it seems Aquinas’ claim is that God existed before the universe then caused it to exist. But if time began with the universe, it is unclear how God could have existed before – because there was no “before”. Rather, there was no time at all – there was nothing. How can there be a “before” if time didn’t even exist? 
-    Causation Paradox – Drawing Analogy

Key counter arguments against teleological argument

-Evolution by Natural Selection

-Hume argued that the watchmaker designed is flawed in that a watch is vastly different to a human body

-The Problem of Evil and Poor Design (why would an omnipotent, omnibenevolent intelligent designer (God) create poorly designed body parts that are prone to diseases or create evil.