metaphysics of god 5 markers aqa

Explain the difference between the claims "God is eternal" and "God is everlasting".

Being perfect, God is self-sufficient, dependent on nothing else for existence. If something brought God into existence, God would be dependent on that thing to exist. If there were something that could end God's existence, then God is equally dependent on that thing (not exercising its power) to continue to exist. If God depends on nothing else, then nothing can bring God into existence nor end God's existence. And so (if God exists) God's existence has no beginning or end. There are two ways in which this can be expressed. If God exists in time, then God's existence is everlasting - God exists throughout all time. If God exists outside time, then God's existence is eternal - God is timeless. In this case, God has no beginning or end because the ideas of beginning and end only make sense in time - something can only start or stop existing in time. God is not in time, so God cannot start or stop existing.

Outline God and his omnipotence

Omnipotence literally translates as all powerful.
God is imagined to be perfectly powerful - it's not possible for there to exist a being with more power than God.
But this doesn't mean God can do literally anything. For example, God can't make "triangles have 4 sides" true, because it is a logical contradiction.
Omnipotence is thus best understood as the claim that God can do anything that's logically possible.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that this isn't a real limitation on God's power. For something to be logically impossible is for it to contain a contradiction

Outline the paradox of the stone

If God is omnipotent (all powerful), can God create a stone so heavy He can't lift it?
If He can't then he's not powerful enough to create this stone
But if He can then he's not powerful enough to lift the stone
Either way, there is something God cannot do - which means He's not omnipotent.

Outline God's omniscince

Omniscience literally translates as all knowing.
This is to say God has perfect knowledge. He knows everything - or, at least, everything it is possible to know.
For example, it is argued that God doesn't know what we humans are going to do in the future - because we have free will. The claim is still that God knows everything it's possible to know - but that it is not possible to know the future.

Outline the problem of free will vs omniscience

As an omniscient being, God knows everything.
If God knows everything, then He must know what I'm going to do before I do it - for example, drink beer
If God already knows that I'm going to drink the beer before I do it, then it must be true that I drink the beer
If it's true that I drink the beer, then it can't be false that I drink the beer.
In other words, I don't have a choice. And if I don't have a choice to either drink or not drink the beer, then I don't have free will.
So, either:
God is omniscient but we don't have free will
We have free will but God is not omniscient

Outline God and omnibenevolence

Omnibenevolence is the idea that God is perfectly good.
One sense of this is metaphysical, that goodness = perfection.
So, to say God is omnibenevolent is to say that God is supremely perfect.
Perfect goodness also has a moral sense of the term. In this sense, perfectly good means that the will is always in alignment with what is morally good.
Plato & Augustine (Christian philosopher) connect these two senses of goodness - God is metaphysically perfect and God's will is always in alignment with what is morally good.
So to say God is all-good is to say that good is a perfectly good being whose will is always aligned with what is morally good.

Outline the euthyphro dilemma

In Philosophy, a Dilemma is when there are two ways something could be, each way leading to a problem. The two options are called horns.
The Euthyphro dilemma in its modern form asks: is what God commands good because it is good (1st horn), or is it good because God commands it? (2nd horn).
God's Omnibenevolence is the idea that God is perfectly good. However, the Euthyphro dilemma shows that there are two ways we could understand God being perfectly good.
The first horn Is it that what God commands is intrinsically good independently of God. This suggests that God is perfectly good because he perfectly follows an intrinsically good moral standard that is separate from God. The problem this leads to is an apparent conflict with omnipotence, since this external moral standard is beyond God's power to control.
The second horn is that it is God's act of commanding something that makes it good. This suggests that God is perfectly good because God is the ultimate arbiter and authority which determines which actions are good and which are bad. This leads to the arbitrariness problem, that God could change his mind about what is good.
If the dilemma is valid and neither of the problems it leads to cannot be solved, then the concept of omnibenevolence is incoherent. To defeat the Euthyphro dilemma, at least one of the options must be successfully defending from its issues.

Explain Anselms' version of the ontological argument

P1. By definition, God is a being greater than which cannot be conceived
P2. We can coherently conceive of such a being
P3. It's greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind
C1. Therefore God must exist
The inference from p1 to p3 is that either God exists in the mind only or in the mind and reality. If God exists only in the mind then there could be a greater God, one that exists in the mind and really. This would contradict p1. Therefore God must exist in the mind and reality.

Explain Gaulino's perfect island objection

Gaunilo's 'perfect island' object to Anselm's ontological arguments because it says that this argument is too powerful. The argument goes as follows:
P1.It is possible to conceive of the most tropical island
P2. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind
C1. Therefore the most perfect tropical island exist in reality
Gaulino's pointing out that this argument is too powerful and can make anything exist just by putting the word 'perfect' in front of it. This 'perfect island' argument can be replace with any words e.g. chocolate, sandwich husband. Simply by making this argument, does not cause things to come into existence. Therefore the ontological argument fails to prove that God exists without making it so that anything 'perfect' exists, which is ridiculous

Explain Descartes ontological argument

P1. I have an 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 perfections
P4. Existence is a perfection
C1. Therefore God exists
Descartes supports the idea of God being a supremely perfect being because all of his perfections imply each other, for example because God is omnipotent, he must be omnibenevolent, etc. Descartes says that if you fail to understand that then you simply have misunderstood God, in the same way as believing that a triangle could have 4 side.

Explain Hume's Objection to a priori arguments for God's existence

Hume believes that the idea of a necessary being makes no sense because no being's non-existence can be logically proven
P1. If something can be proven in logic then its negation must imply a contraction. E.g. A bachelor is a married man
P2. If something can be distinctly conceived, then it does to imply a contradiction
P3. If we can conceive that something exists, then we can conceive that it does not exist
C1. No being's non- existence implies a contradiction
C2. No beings existence can be logically proven
C3. Therefore you cannot produce an a priori Argument for God's existence.

Outline Kant's objection to the ontological argument that existence is not a predicate

Kant's objection to the ontological argument that existence is not a predicate disproves the ontological argument because that the concept of existence is not a predicate, it does not show anything. For example you can say things out ice cream. Some ice cream is sweet. Some ice cream comes in a cone. Some ice cream exists. The property of existing appears at first as a normal predicate but this is not actually the case as there cannot be other ice cream which doesn't exist, that makes no logical sense. This objects to Descartes P4 'Existence is a perfection' in his ontological argument.saying that god is omnibenevolent etc are predicates as they are saying something about God but just saying that he exists doesn't mean anything so it cannot be a perfection as existence s not a predicate. It can also deny Anselm's premise that it is greater to exist in the mind and reality than only the mind. This is false as existence is not predicate so they are re identical, extending in the mind is the same as existing in the mind as reality, mind and reality is not the better one

Explain Kant's objection that necessary existence is not real existence

Kant objects to the ontological argument as he states that necessary existence is not real existence. E.g. A necessary property of a unicorn is that they have horns. It follows that if unicorns exits they have horns, but that doesn't mean that they actually exist. If God exists then he will ha the property of existing but it doesn't follow that he actually exists, only that if he did exist then he would have the property of existing.

Explain Hume's Fork as an objection to the ontological argument

All knowledge can be divided into 2 types; relations of ideas (analytic, how terms relate to one another) and matter of facts (describe the nature of the world. 'God exists' is not a matter of fact as we don't know God exists from out experience of the world. 'God exists' is not a relation of idea as its negation does not imply a contradiction and its not demonstrable and therefore not a logical argument.

Outline Malcolm's ontological argument

Malcom's ontological argument begins by giving two possible options. Either God exists or he doesn't exist. If God does exist, then due to the concept of God being everlasting, If he exists then he cannot go out of existence at any time. Meaning that if God does exist then his existence is necessary. If God does not exist however, then God would not be able to come into existence as that would go against our concept of God as he would become dependent on something else to put him in existence. Thereby, if God does not exist then his existence is impossible. This means that God existence is either necessary or impossible. God's existence cannot be impossible because it would be only be impossible if our concept of God is contradictory, which it is not. Therefore God's existence is not impossible and God must exist necessarily.

Explain the objections to Malcolm's ontological argument

Malcolm's otological argument can be objected to against the premise that God's existence is impossible. There are two types of impossibility; logical impossibility and the impossibility based on who God is. These two impossibilities are not the same but they are being treated as though they are.
It can also be objected to, as it can be argued that the concept of God is self contradictory. The paradox of the stone proves that God's omnipotence is contradictory. The Euthyphro dilemma shows that God being all loving is contradictory.

Outline Aquinas' first way

- some things are in actual motion
- to move from potential action requires a mover as nothing can move itself and things only have potential motion in relation to a mover
- this leads to an infinite regression of movers as everything in motion must have a mover, and that mover a mover
- if there was an infinite regress of motion then there would be no things in motion
- this is self evidently not true as there is motion
- therefore there must be a first mover that is an unmoved mover
- this unmoved mover is God

Outline Aquinas' second way

Aquinas argues that we observe sustaining causes.This is because he believes that nothing can cause itself.He further argues that there is a logical order to sustaining causes: the first cause, then intermediate causes, then an ultimate effect. For example If A is the efficient cause of B, then if A doesn't exist neither does B. Therefore there must be a first sustaining cause, otherwise the beliefs that we observe sustaining cause would be false as there would be no further sustaining causes or effects.Therefore because there is a first cause, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes.The first cause must itself be uncaused. That thing we call God.

Outline Aquinas' third way

P1. Things in the universe exist contingently.
P2. If it is possible for something not to exist, then at some time, it does not exist.
C1. If everything exists contingently, then it is possible that at some time, there was nothing in existence.
P3. If at some time, nothing was in existence, nothing could begin to exist.
C2. Since things do exist, there was never nothing in existence.
C3. Therefore, there is something that does not exist contingently, but must exist.
P4. Every necessary being is caused or uncaused
P5. An infinite regress of necessary beings is impossible
C4. This uncaused necessary being is God

Outline the Kalam cosmological argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a different approach, proposed by Muslim philosophers in the Middle Ages, more specifically Al Ghazali. The Kalam argument is about time and can also be referred to as the argument from temporal causation. In its simplest form the Kalam argument argues that everything with a beginning must have a cause, therefore the universe has a beginning. Therefore the universe must have a cause. Al Ghazali argument relies on a mathematical paradox which shows that the universe must have a beginning and cannot be an infinite regress. He uses the Saturn and Jupiter orbiting the earth to show this. He argues that if it takes 12 years for Jupiter to orbit the Earth, while it takes Saturn 30 years to complete its orbit, then if he were to argue that past time is infinite then Jupiter and Saturn must have orbited the Earth the same number of times, however this is impossible because Jupiter must have orbited the Earth at least twice as many times. Therefore, Al-Ghazali concludes from this paradox that 'infinity' is not a coherent concept, and the universe cannot have existed for an infinite past. In which case the universe must have a beginning and therefore it must have a cause, as everything with a beginning has a cause.

descartes cosmological argument

. From this he goes on to establish that those ideas that he conceives of clearly and distinctly are a good guide to truth (as opposed to those that may be confused or easily mistaken) and he has a clear and distinct idea of God as a necessary and perfect being. Descartes then looks to explain two things: the fact that he has an idea of a perfect being - God - in his mind; and secondly, that he exists continuously as a conscious thinking being. What power causes these things? In line with all cosmological arguments, Descartes then attempts to show that a perfect God is the true cause. He enquires whether he himself could be the cause of these things and says that he could not, as he is imperfect so could not cause the idea of God, which is perfect; and secondly if he were the creator of his own consciousness he would be aware of having that power to bring himself into existence, but he is not aware of having the power to create and sustain his own consciousness. This means that he must be created by something else. This is not simply the question of his biological existence, which is obviously from his parents, but of his conscious existence as a thinking thing, yet it is not clear that his parents create and sustain him as a conscious thinking thing so it must be something else. Now, it could have been something that has another cause, or it could be something that is its own cause. As the sequence of causes in the universe cannot be infinite, the ultimate cause of my idea of God and my conscious mind must be God, who must therefore exist.

explain Leibniz's cosmological argument from the principle of sufficient reason.

Leibniz improves on Aquinas' 3rd way by removing unnecessary reasoning about nothing once existing.
Leibniz' argument is a priori, it doesn't require inference from experience. The downside of a posteriori arguments is that they are defeasible, meaning in principle future experiences could always prove them false. A priori arguments based on logic are stronger.
Leibniz bases his argument on the principle of sufficient reason, which does both the job of a causal principle and an argument against the infinite regress. It shows that there must be not just any causal explanation, but a causal explanation which provides an ultimately sufficient reason for everything that exists. This strengthens the argument by making it dependent on only one claim.
Leibniz claims that the principle of sufficient reason (P1) can be known as a necessary truth. Even if we can't know or even find out what the reason is, there must be one. 'From nothing, nothing comes' because nothing is not sufficient to create something. Only a necessary being is sufficient to explain the universe because otherwise there would be an infinite chain of contingent beings, but an infinite regress alone can have no sufficient explanation.
If things have always existed going back forever then nothing would have a sufficient reason for its existence. Everything's reason for existence would consist something for which its reason for existence consists in something else. There would simply be an infinite deferring of the reason for existence and thus there would not actually be a reason for existence. So, a necessary being must have begun the chain of contingent beings and is the sufficient explanation of the universe.

Outline Hume's objection to the causal principle

for Hume, the only things that can 100% certain and necessary are analytic statements - what he calls "relations of ideas" like "bachelors are unmarried" and "triangles have three sides". If you deny these, you get a contradiction - they can't be conceived of any other way. However, to say "everything that has a beginning has a cause" is a matter of fact - it makes sense to say some things do not have a cause. He believes it is perfectly sensible to imagine something occurring without a cause. It is in principle at least conceivable to think of a table one moment, say, then a table with a rabbit on. I can therefore imagine a beginning of existence without a cause, so it follows therefore, that it is at least possible that the universe could be uncaused. Therefore, we could reject the premise in the cosmological arguments that all things that begin have causes.

Outline Rusell's objection (fallacy of composition)

Bertrand Russell attacked the cosmological argument, saying that it seems arbitrary (without good reason). In answer to the question of why the universe exists Russell said "I should say that the universe is just there and that's all". He meant that it is meaningless to ask for a final explanation of the universe and should resist the intuition that we could answer such a question. As Wittgenstein pointed out "explanations come to an end somewhere". * A further criticism is made by Russell which is that the argument commits a fallacy of composition. Aquinas argues that as each thing in the universe has a cause it must therefore be true that the universe as a whole has a cause. Russell argues that this is committing the "fallacy of composition" where one mistakenly applies what is true of the parts of something to the whole. Russell explains with the example of mothers - just because each human being has a mother, this does not mean that humanity as a whole has a mother. Likewise, just because each individual thing in the universe has a cause, this does not mean that the universe as a whole has a cause.

Outline the criticism that is the first cause god???????

Aquinas' first and second ways and the Kalam argument only show that there is a first cause. But they don't show that this first cause is God.
So, even if we accept that there was a first cause, it doesn't necessarily follow that God exists - much less the specific being described in the concept of God.
So, even if the cosmological argument is sound, it doesn't necessarily follow that God exists.

Outline criticism arguing is the first cause necessary

Most of the cosmological arguments assume something along the lines of 'there can't be an infinite chain of causes' (except the cosmological arguments from contingency). For example, they say stuff like there must have been a first cause or a prime mover.
But we can respond by rejecting this claim. Why must there be a first cause? Perhaps there is just be an infinite chain of causes stretching back forever.

Outline Hume's argument against the third cause

Hume's criticism of the third way is that there is no such thing as "necessary existence". For Hume, all important knowledge is based on and justified by experience (as we saw with his Fork). For Hume, we can talk about a necessary statement, but not of a necessary being. This is because any claim about what exists in the world could be imagined otherwise i.e. to claim that "God exists" is to make a statement about a matter of fact and it makes perfect sense to also claim "God does not exist" until experience proves one or the other to be true. The claim "God exists" is not, for Hume, like the claim "Bachelors are unmarried" where to imagine otherwise is to contradict yourself. Therefore God cannot be a necessary being

Outline Hume's Design Argument

Argument from analogy
In his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, Hume expresses the argument like this: "The intricate fitting of means to ends throughout all nature is just like (though more wonderful than) the fitting of means to ends in things that have been produced by us - products of human designs, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer by all the rules of analogy that the causes are also alike, and that the author of nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though he has much larger faculties to go with the grandeur of the work he has carried out." By 'the fitting of means to ends', Hume is talking about the intricate coordination of parts to achieve some purpose like the parts of the eye fitting together so we can see. As Hume says, we can draw an analogy with human design, in other words it is like when we design a chair ad think about the most functional and comfortable thing to sit on and make it to suit that purpose. So Hume's version of the argument is an argument from analogy.

Outline Paley's Design argument

William Paley (1743-1805) was Archdeacon of Carlisle and puts forward a famous version of the argument from design in his "Natural Theology". He imagines himself walking across a heath and coming across a stone, which he strikes with his foot, then finding a watch on the ground. He asks the same question of both objects - "How did this come to be here?" For the stone, it could quite easily have been there forever according to Paley, whereas the watch is different. At first, Paley says the differences are that the watch: Has several parts; The parts are framed and work together for a purpose; The parts have been made with a specific material, appropriate for their action; Together the parts produce a regulated motion; If the parts had been different in any way such motion would not be produced.

P1. A watch has certain complex features of spatial order and purpose
P2. Anything which exhibits these features of spatial order and purpose must have been designed
P3. From P1 and P2, therefore the watch has been designed by a designer
P4. The universe possesses features of spatial order and purpose, except on a more wondrous scale
P5. FromP4 and P3, therefore the universe has been designed, except the designer of the universe must have been a wondrous designer
C1. Therefore God exists

Outline Swineburn's design argument

Swinburne talks about "regularities of succession", meaning roughly that things in nature come after each other in a very predictable and law-like way. He puts his case as follows: "Regularities of succession are all pervasive. For simple laws govern almost all successions of events. In books of physics, chemistry, and biology we can learn how almost everything in the world behaves. The laws of their behaviour can be set out by relatively simple formulae which men can understand and by means of which they can successfully predict the future. The orderliness of nature to which I draw attention here is its conformity to simple, formulable, scientific laws. The orderliness of the universe in this respect is a very striking fact about it. The universe might so naturally have been chaotic, but it is not - it is very orderly." - The Existence of God For Swinburne there are only two possible explanations of this orderliness: scientific explanation (in terms of scientific laws) or personal explanation (the free and conscious choice of an intelligent being). But science explains things on the basis of prior evidence but it can't explain why there is order overall as this is the principle it presupposes to do any explaining. It is therefore likely that God, a personal and intelligent being created the universe with orderly features. We could point to things such as the existence of beauty depending on orderliness to back this up, Swinburne argues, as it is good that there is beauty and God is not only intelligent, but supremely good so would create a world which contained beauty.

Outline the weak analogy

Good analogies will enhance our understanding by showing how two things are similar in relevant respects and shed light on the object we are looking at by comparing it to something that is familiar to us. Weak analogies stretch this too far by trying to compare something that isn't really similar in the relevant way to something familiar to us. Hume points out that the analogy between designed objects like watches and the universe is weak. One way the comparison between a watch and a universe designed by a single God breaks down is that complex machines are often the product of many years of trial and error with each model improving on the last. If this is the case with the universe then ours might be one of many "botched and bungled" (Philo) attempts. It could very well be that our universe is "only the first rude effort of some infant Diety, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance." - Philo again. Further ways that the analogy is weak would include: If we assume the universe is finite we cannot infer an infinite cause

Criticism of spatial disorder

Hume develops this objection by pointing to several features of the universe that seem not to have a clear order or purpose. For instance, large areas of the universe appear to be empty, lacking any clear purpose or design, so perhaps the apparently ordered part which we can observe is a fluke, and not some the product of divine intelligence. Also, animals of all kinds have bodies that can suffer, feel pain and which fail to survive as well as they might. This links into the case put forward by Hume, and later John Stuart Mill of the problem of evil as a criticism of the argument from design. After all, if the designer created the universe purposefully, why did they also create a world with senseless suffering caused by earthquakes and tsunamis as well as the kind of evil associated with evil acts like murders, rapes and genocides?

Outline the criticism that the design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case

Firstly, Hume is an empiricist and so looks to experience to confirm the arguments offered for religious belief. He looks at the kind of argument which says we can infer the universe has a designer because we know other complex things, such as watches, have designers. However, Hume argues we have experience of watches being designed, and if we had no such experience of watchmakers we could not say for sure that they had been created in this way. He goes on to point out that we have no experience of world-making so we cannot reasonably suppose that they must have been designed.
we are unjustifiably comparing a unique entity - the universe, with its component parts (e.g. eyes) when there is no reason to suppose that the same generalisations apply. The only experiences we have are of the parts of the universe and the parts cannot in themselves tell us anything about the origin of the whole. As Philo puts it "from observing the growth of a hair, can we learn anything concerning the growth of a man?" In this way the argument commits the fallacy of composition.

Whether God is the best or only explanation

Hume argues that it is possible that the universe originated by chance. We can accept that the world is ordered, but this could have arisen from design or chance. From what we now know from Einstein the stock of matter and energy in the universe is constant, though they continually change form, the overall amount remains the same. If this is the case then an infinite number of combinations will come to pass and out of this infinite number it is entirely reasonable that our universe with all the features that appear to show design, has arisen as simply one instance of these combinations. * Darwin's theory can be used to support this view by pointing out that if a species in nature did not adapt then it would not survive. Millions of alterations in the traits of living creatures randomly take place. Most disappear without a trace. But some trait that coincidentally helps a creature to survive and reproduce slowly spreads. That creature and its descendants reproduce more than others without the trait, so more and more creatures end up with it. It's not that the feature is 'selected' in order for the creature to live better and so reproduce more. Instead, the feature simply enables the creature to reproduce more, so its descendants also have that feature and they reproduce more and so on.

Whether God is the best or only explanation - Design does not show God exists

Finally, Hume attacks the assumption made by design arguments that because complex and purposeful artefacts have an intelligent designer then a complex and apparently purposeful world must also have an intelligent designer. * Firstly, complex machines are often the result of a team effort, not an individual designer, so there could just as easily be a team of Gods rather than just a single one. Following from this, we could say that designers should be more like humans than the traditional conception of God if the analogy is to hold - they could well be foolish and morally weak, like people often are. Furthermore they could be of both sexes and reproduce, just as we do. Finally, designers make mistakes, and surely looking at the universe as we know it we could argue that the amount of needless suffering and evil could be a mistake by a God that lacked the power or skill to avoid this. Philo argues the most reasonable conclusion of the design argument is that the creator is "entirely indifferent... and has no more regard to good above ill than to heat above cold or drought above moisture."

Explain the logical problem of evil

P1. If god is omnibenevolent, then he has the desire to stope evilP2. If god is omnipotent, then he has the power t stop evilP3. If god is omniscient, then he has the knowledge of how to stop evilC1. Therefore an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God would stop evilP4. Evil existsC2. Therefore an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God doesn't exist.

Explain the evidential problem

P1. If God exists there will be no unjustified evils in the worldP2. There are unjustified evils in the wold. E.g. a deer burnt in a forest fire that was caused by lighteningC1. Therefore God doesn't exist.

Explain the difference between moral and natural evil

Moral evil is the morally wrong actions of human beings. E.g. murder, abuse. Whereas Natural evil is suffering caused by natural events and processes. E.g. earthquakes,tsunamis.

Explain the inconsistent triad

Mackie's inconsistent triad is that the following statements are logically inconsistent. 1. God is omnipotent. 2. God is omnibenevolent. 3. Evil exists. Logically only a maximum of 2 of these statements can be true.

Explain the theory that good couldn't exist without evil + Mackie's response

This theory states that without good, evil couldn't exist. However Mackie questions this statement. Why can't we have good without evil. If we had a world where everything was red, we wouldn't have created a word fr 'red' and we wouldn't know what it was if someone tried explaining it to us. Everything would still be red, we simply wouldn't know it. God could have created a world in which there was no evil. Like the red example, we wouldn't have the concept of evil. But it would still be the case that everything is good - we just wouldn't be aware of it.

Explain the theory that the world s better with some evil than none

This theory is based on first and second order goods /evils. First order goods are any individuals positive experience, e.g. eating cake. Second order evils are any individual negative experience e.g. stubbing their toe. second order goods are then the emotional attitude trait where we try to increase first order goods and decrease first order evils. But it is not possible to have second order goods without first order evils.

Explain the Free will defence against the logical problem of evil

Second order evil is necessary for free will. And free will is inherently such a good and valuable thing that it outweighs the bad that results from people abusing free will to do evil things.So, while allowing free will brings some suffering, the net good of having free will is greater than if we didn't. Therefore, it's logically possible that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would allow evil (both first order and second order) for the greater good of free will.

Explain Mackie's objection to the Free Will Defence

An omnipotent God can create any logically possible world. If it's logically possible to freely choose to act in a way that's good on one occasion, then it's logically possible to freely choose to act in a way that's good on every occasion.So, an omnipotent God could create a world in which everyone freely chooses to act in a way that's good

Explain Plantinga's objection to Mackie's 'best of both worlds' theory

Plantinga objects to the idea that it is possible for God to have made people that have free will but freely choose to act good in every situation. He says that if we choose to do good in every situation its because we are being manipulated by god to do so and as such we don't have free will

Explain the Free Will defence agains the evidential problem of evil

A morally significant action is one that is either morally good or morally bad A being that is significantly free is one that is able to do or not do morally significant actions A being created by God to only do morally good actions would not be significantly free So, the only way God could eliminate evil (including second order evil) would be to eliminate significantly free beings* But a world that contains significantly free beings is more good than a world that does not contain significantly free beings

Explain natural evil as moral evil

The free will defence fails to show why God would allow natural evil. E.g. deer. Plantinga argues that it's possible natural evil is the result of non-human actors such as Satan, fallen angels, demons, etc. This would make natural evil another form of moral evil, the existence of which would be explained by free will.

Explain the soul making defence against the evidential problem of evil

Hick argues that humans are unfinished beings. Part of our purpose in life is to develop personally, ethically and spiritually - he calls this 'soul making'. It would be impossible for people to display (second order) virtues such as courage without fear of (first order) evils such as pain or death. Similarly, we couldn't learn virtues such as forgiveness if people never treated us wrongly. Of course, God could just have given us these virtues right off the bat. But, Hick says, virtues acquired through hard work and discipline are "good in a richer and more valuable sense". Plus, there are some virtues, such as a genuine and authentic love of God, that cannot simply be given (otherwise they wouldn't be genuine). This explanation goes some way towards explaining why God would allow the amount and distribution of evil we see

Explain Hick's response to evidential evils

Hick's response to why God allows animals to suffer is that God wanted to create a world in which his existence could be doubted. If God just proved he existed, we wouldn't be free to develop a relationship with him.Hick argues that it's not possible for God to just get rid of terrible evil - e.g. baby torture - and leave only ordinary evil. The reason for this is that terrible evils are only terrible in contrast to ordinary evils. So, if God did get rid of terrible evils, then the worst ordinary evils would become the new terrible evils. If God kept getting rid of terrible evils then he would have to keep reducing free will and thus the development of personal and spiritual virtuesHick argues that pointless evils - e.g. anonymously dying in vain trying to save someone - are somewhat of a mystery. However, if every time we saw someone suffering we knew it was for some higher purpose (i.e. it wasn't pointless), then we would never be able to develop deep sympathy.

Outline in 5 premises, the verification principle's stance on religious language. (5)

(1) The verification principle states that all meaningful and cognitive claims are either analytic, mathematical or empirically verifiable. (2) Statements like, "God exists", are not analytic as existence is not in God's definition. (3) They are also not empirically verifiable as God is a metaphysical being and so as physical beings in a physical domain, we cannot experience Him. (4) They are also not a calculation as the statement is not a sentence involving numbers. (5) Therefore since statements like "God exists" are not analytic, mathematical or empirically verifiable, they are meaningless and non-cognifitve.

Explain the 5 premise difference between cognitivism and non-cognitivism about religious language. (5)

(1) By asking if religious claims aim at truth in the same way as non-religious claims about the world, this questions different philosophical positions on the nature of religious language. (2) A cognitivist account would typically argue that religious claims do aim to describe how the world is and they express beliefs that such-and-such is the case. (3) For example, the sentence "God exists" expresses the belief that God exists, which is true or false depending on whether it describes or mis-describes reality. (4) A non-cognitivist account of religious language would typically argue that religious claims do not aim at truth in the same way as non-religious claims about the world and instead, they express non-belief-like attitudes towards the world, such as emotions, desires, faiths. or guiding principles. (5) For example, the sentence "God exists" expresses a commitment to a certain way of interpreting the world.

Outline in 5 premises, the difference between strong and weak verification

(1) Strong verificationism claims that only analytic, synthetic and mathematical statements are meaningful. (2) Therefore statements "like a bachelor is a married man" are verifiable and meaningful but statements like "Putin likes Pacman" are not analytic, mathematical or empirically verifiable by you or I and so are not meaningful. (3) Weak verificationism was developed by A.J. Ayer and it argues that claims must at least be verifiable in principle - we must be able to show how they could one day be verified in some way. (4) Therefore statements "like a bachelor is a married man" are verifiable and meaningful but so too are statements like "Putin likes Pacman", since we could prove it is true by putting Putin in front of a Pacman machine and seeing what he does. (5) Therefore what weak verificationism allows for which strong verificationism does not, is for statements about the past, other people's emotions or scientific predictions, to be meaningful.

Outline the 6 premise cognitivist account of religious language. (5)

(1) Statements are meaningful if they are statements about how the world is. (2) Expressions of belief about the world is are true or false and can be verified or falsified. (3) For example I can verify "bachelors are unmarried men" by looking up their definition. (4) "God exists" is the claim that there is a God that exists independently in the world, and reasons can be given to support this claim. (5) For example, we can verify it with Hicks eschatological verification. (6) Therefore "God exists" is meaningful in the same way that "bachelors are unmarried men" is.