Philosophy of Religion

The free will defense (Plantinga) - premises

1. A world with significantly free creatures (SFC's) is more valuable than a world containing no SFC's. 2. God can create SFC's, but he cannot cause them to do what is morally right without removing their freedom. 3. So God created a world with SFC's capable of doing both what is morally right and what is morally evil. 4. Humans are the source of moral evil.

Leibniz's ontological argument

1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3. The universe is an existing thing. 4. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

The Kalam argument

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence 2. The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore; 3. The universe has a cause of its existence 4. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is god 5. Therefore god exists.

The logical problem of evil (Mackie)

1. God is omnipotent. 2. God is wholly good. 3. Evil exists. Mackie adds two propositions which highlight the contradiction; 4. A good being eliminates evil as far as it can. 5. There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. Plantinga amends the fourth premise to 4a) Every good thing always eliminates every evil that it knows about and can eliminate. Mackie shows how believers believe in a God that is all good, all powerful, all knowing creator of the universe yet evil exits in the universe. Not all this beliefs can be true at once.

Omniscience and immutability

1. God isn't subject to change. 2. God knows everything. 3. A being that knows everything, also knows everything in time. 4. A being that knows things in time is subject to change. 5. Therefore God is either not all-knowing or he is subject to change.

Malcom's ontological argument

1. God's existence is necessarily false - it is logically impossible for any being that has God's properties to exist. 2. God's existence is contingently false - it is possible that a being with the properties of God could exist, but it just so happens that there isn't such a being. 3. God's existence is contingently true- it is possible that a being with the properties of God could exist, and it just so happens that there is such a being. 4. God's existence is necessarily true - it is logically necessary that any being with the properties of God exists. Possibilities 2 & 3 aren't coherent with the concept of God as the greatest possible being must be unlimited, independent and eternal. Therefore, God must exist.

The Irenaean theodicy

1. Humans are created in the image of god- this does not mean a physical image since god is not physical. But rather means that humans share certain characteristics with god. Namely that there are personal beings with intelligence, consciousness and a sense of moral nature. 2. Human beings begin at birth a process of growing and developing into the likeness of god. Human beings are not created perfect, but rather are created with the potential to become perfect through a development of moral nature. Humans need to exercise their free-will in pursuit of moral development and live in a world where pain and suffering exists.

The problem of evil (argument against the existence of God) - Premises

1. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate evil. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. 2. Evil exists. 3. So either God does not have the power to eliminate all evil 4. Or God does not know when evil exists. 5. Or God does not have the desire to eliminate all evil. 6. Or God does not exist.

Aquinas second way

1. There is an order of efficient causes - every even has a cause. 2. Nothing can be the cause of itself. 3. If this order of causes goes back infinitely - then there would be no first cause. 4. If 3 were true then there would be no subsequent causes, but this is false. 5. There must be a First Cause - the source of all causes - and this we call God.

The paradox of the stone

Can God create a stone that he can't lift? If no, then God cannot create the stone. If yes, then God cannot lift the stone. Both ways show something that God cannot do. If God cannot do something, he cannot be omnipotent.

Objections to the Euthyphro dilemma

First horn - assumes that God is the source and standard of all moral goodness so whatever he commands will automatically be good. Second horn - states goodness exists independently of God's will. What makes God good, is conformed to some moral authority.

Flew's criticisms of the free-will defense

Freely chosen actions are ones that have their causes within the persons rather than externally. God could've created a possible world in which humans had a nature that was good, and yet in which they were free in Flews' sense. In this world, humans would always freely choose to do the right thing - however this world would essentially make humans puppets or robots. God gave humans free will to choose to worship or turn away from him but in Flews' world he would've manipulated that choice.

Concept of God

God as an omniscient, omnipotent, supremely good, eternal and everlasting being and what this means.

Eternal

God as existing outside time and space, and having no beginning or end to his existence, and having nothing depend on his existence.

Everlasting

God as existing within time, but forever.

The free will defense (Plantinga)

God created humans with the intention that they would be able to discover him. Humans must be genuinely free to choose how they respond to God and therefore humans must have free will. A consequence of this must be a world that includes both good and evil. God cannot intervene, as this would put limits on our freedom.

Omniscience

God is an all-knowing being.

Omnipotence

God is an all-powerful being.

The Augustinian theodicy

God is perfect and created the world, to which God has created a perfect world. The Garden of Eden - a world without moral and natural evil. So considering God cannot create evil, evil does not exist, but can be defined as an absence of good. God gave humans and angels free will, to which they disobeyed and created the absence of good. This lead to the doctrine of the fall of man - original sin means that all humans share a responsibility for evil and suffering since all are guilty of such.

Mackie's criticism of the free will defense - logical problem of evil

If it is logically possible for a person to choose to do good on every occasion then it is logically possible for God to create such a world where everyone does the logically possible - this leads to conclusion that either God is not omnipotent or he isn't wholly good.

Supremely good

Omnibenevolent; an all-loving nature or God's love for humans. A show of his love by giving us free-will.

Religious statements are verifiable eschatologically (Hick)

(Celestial city) - They both have separate belief systems and live life accordingly, but logically one is right and the other is not. If the theist is right, he will be proven so when he arrives in the afterlife. However, if the atheist is right, they will simply both be dead and nothing will be verified. Religious claims may, in the end, be verifiable if true. The two men experience the journey differently. The believer accepts the good and the bad calmly and pursues the path in hope of salvation. Belief makes a difference.

Mitchell and the Partisan

(Partisan example) - The Partisan is not rationally required to simply relinquish his view. His trust sustains his belief in the stranger, and we cannot say, in the abstract, just how much evidence against his belief is needed before his belief becomes irrational. Religious language makes assertions, but these claims are not simply provisional hypotheses, to be discarded in the face of contrary experiences. A claim can be meaningful without us being able to say what experiences would lead us to relinquish it, as long as we recognize that experiences can count against it.

Flew and Wisdom Gods

(The work of a gardener story) - For a claim to be meaningful, for it to be asserting something there must be something that it is denying. In other words, there must be some way of establishing that is false, something that leads us to withdraw the claim. If we know what the claim rules out, we can understand what the claim means. But if there is nothing it rules out, then the claim is not a genuine attempt to say something true. If God exists is a real claim, then there should be some possible experience that would lead us to accept that it is false. Something should be able to count against it. E.g. the existence of evil - saying God exists states nothing at all. Flew objects that many religious believers refuse to accept that anything could show that god doesn't exist. Instead they keep qualifying what it means to think that god exists. E.g. they might argue that the existence of evil only shows that we don't understand Gods plans.

Aquinas third way

1. Things in the world are contingent - they come in and out of existence. 2. If everything was contingent there would be a time where everything came out of existence and there was nothing, this is false. 3. Therefore not everything can be contingent. 4. There must be a necessary cause whose cause of necessity is inside itself to prevent infinite regress. 5. This being is the cause of all other necessary beings and contingent beings who we call God.

Aquinas first way

1. Things in the world are in motion. 2. Whatever is moved is moved by another thing. 3. Movement is a reduction from potentiality to actuality. 4. Nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality except by something, already in actuality. 5. The same thing cannot be both potentially and actually something. 6. Therefore a thing cannot move itself. 7. Therefore what is moved must be moved by another. 8. There cannot be infinite regress. 9. Therefore there must be an unmoved mover, which is God.

Hume's objection to design

1. We have no experience of world-making. To know what has brought something about, we need to experience it. We cannot compare the experience of our universe to that which has been designed. Therefore, there are no grounds to conclude that God or anyone else has designed it. 2. Arguments from analogy are weak - they are only reliable when both things have a lot of relevant similarities. The irregularities in the universe suggest that the designer must be not a perfect one; just as there are many prototypes for the makings of a machine or watch; our universe may be superseded by a line of 'prototype universes'. 3. The universe is more organic than mechanical - it's more probable to say that the universe grew rather than be made.

Paley's own issues and response

1. We may have never seen a watchmaker at work, or even be able to make a watch ourselves. Therefore the same can be applied to God; we have never seen him or relate to him as omnipotent and so we cannot draw conclusions from the basis of the universe to how the universe came about. 2. It is also possible to notice irregularities in the functioning of a watch - the problem of evil undermines his argument (some things are designed evil therefore, no God). 3. Some parts may have no purpose - to have a purpose is essential for design otherwise it is pointless to exist.

Falsification principle (Ayer)

A statement is falsifiable if it is logically incompatible with some set of empirical observation. We can suggest then, that a claim is meaningful only if it rules out some possible experiences. E.g. there is a fork that is incompatible with the experience of reaching out and grasping nothing but thin air where we see the fork.

Logical positivism - Verification principle (Ayer)

A statement is only meaningful if it is either analytic or empirically verifiable. A statement is empirically verifiable if empirical evidence would go towards establishing that the statement is true or false. E.g. If I say the moon is made of green cheese, then this can be checked to see if it is true by scientific investigation.

Hare's Bliks

Bliks can be true or false, which suggests that they are cognitive. On the other hand, because Bliks can't be falsified. Hare claims that they work more like attitudes or commitments than beliefs, this would suggest that they are non-cognitive. Hares belief that religious belief is a Blik is very unorthodox and fails to make sense of what religious believers actually say. If religious claims aren't assertions, the a claim such as 'you ought to do it because it is God's will' becomes 'you ought to do it since it is Gods will' is not an assertion, but the expression of a Blik.

Cognitivist/non-cognitivist accounts of religious language

Cognitivists argue that religious claims aim to describe how the world is, and so can be true or false. Non-Cognitivist argue that religious claims do not try to describe the world and cannot be true or false, at least in the sense of stating facts. They express an attitude toward the world, a way of understanding or relating to the world, rather than a belief that is true or false.

Kant's objection to ontology

Even if existence is a necessary predicate of God, that doesn't entail that God actually exists. If objects are true by their definition, then we cannot separate the subject from its predicate. So it would be better to deny the idea of a subject and predicate altogether. If we can deny the concept of God to exist, then he can't exist. Existence cannot be a property of God or anything else because it adds nothing to the definition of God; a predicate should describe it properties to refine the concept of it. Existence is not a property that a thing can either have or not have.

Omniscience and free will

If God knows what action I will perform before I choose to perform it, then I cannot have chosen to do otherwise. But if we cannot choose otherwise, then the actions we appear to choose are not really freely chosen at all. If God always knew what I were to choose to do, then it would appear that my choice was predetermined. Transcendent principle (Aquinas) - to allow for free will as for God's future and past coexist on a continuum laid out before his gaze, so our actions are not predetermined and we freely choose to act as we do. But at the same time, God is able to see what actions we do happen to choose.

Gaunilo's objection to Anselm

It is possible to construct the same argument, but replace God with the most perfect island, X that is conceivable. The island must exist in reality, because no thing greater than the most perfect island could exist. 1. X is that than which no greater island can be conceived. 2. X exists in the mind, but not in reality. 3. Existence in reality is greater than existence in understanding alone. 4. It is conceivable that X exists in reality. 5. It is conceivable that there is Y greater than X.

Hume

It would be better to stop our search for explanation with the universe: either accept it has no explanation, or find an explanation for the universe that lies within the universe. Even if you can come up with a cause for each series in the event, you have no reason to question the whole series as it becomes a 'Fallacy of Composition'. It is fallacious in thinking that because there is some property common to each part of a group, this property must apply to the group as a whole.

Descartes' cosmological argument

My idea of God cannot be either adventitious or factitious since I could neither experience God directly nor discover the concept of perfection in myself. It must be innately provided by God. Therefore, God exists. 'Cogito ergo sum' also applies to this argument.

Physical vs Moral evil

Physical/natural evil - the pain and suffering of sentient beings that occurs independently of human actions, e.g. a Tsunami. Moral evil - the acts of cruelty, viciousness and injustice carried out by humans toward other humans, e.g. Hitler and the holocaust.

Plantinga's possible worlds

Possible worlds are ways that the world might have been. 1. If God exists then he has necessary existence. 2. Either God has necessary existence, or he doesn't . 3. If God doesn't have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn't. Therefore; 4. Either god has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't. 5. If God necessarily doesn't have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn't exist. 6. Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't exist. 7. It is not the case that god necessarily doesn't exist. Therefore; 8. God has a necessary existence 9. If God has necessary existence, then God exists.

Russell

Since we derive the concept of cause from our observation of particular things, we cannot ask about the cause of something like the universe that we cannot experience. The universe is just there and that's all. But we don't need to experience every possible contingent thing to be able to conclude about a contingent thing that needs a cause. The move from the contingency of the components of the universe to the contingency of the universe commits the Fallacy of Composition (see above).

Hick's Soul-making theodicy

Soul-making is the process of moral growth. God could intervene to prevent evil and suffering, but that would go against free-will and leave a world without consistent laws of nature. God deliberately makes his existence uncertain as we would have behaved out of fear, and not virtue if we knew of his existence. God allows suffering in order to lead to a higher goal of moral development/growth. In order for suffering to be morally justified, everyone must attain perfection - this doesn't apply to everyone, so it continues in the afterlife.

Anselm's ontological argument

The concept of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived. Existence is possible and it is greater to exist than to not exist; therefore, God must exist. If god didn't exist, then there is no greater being to be conceived of, and so is self-defeating. You can't have something greater than which no greater can be conceived, therefore God must exist.

Kant's objection to design

The conclusion is not enough to prove that God exists. The watchmaker may have designed and made the watch, but not the materials to which it is made from. The design argument can only demonstrate the existence of a designer but not a creator the universe. The argument also applies a human understanding for design and scales it to that of the universe's creation.

Descartes' ontological argument

The definition of God is as a supremely perfect being. Once this definition is accepted, the existence of God cannot be doubted. A predicate for perfection includes existence itself. A predicate is a necessary quality which something must possess so if we accept that God is perfect, then according to Descartes, logically we must accept that he exists. When we think of a triangle, even if we have never seen one, we know that it must possess three sides and three angles that add up to 180 degrees. I either of these properties are removed, then it is no longer a triangle. The same can be said for God with his predicate for perfection.

The problem of evil (argument against the existence of God)

The existence of evil and suffering such as pain, distress and death are incompatible with the existence of the classic theist God, who is meant to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

Hume's objection to ontology

The ontological argument tries to demonstrate God's existence as a matter of fact using a priori knowledge. Anselm uses analytical statements to tell us about the world. Hume's fork uses synthetic truths without contradictions. Descartes believes God is distinctly conceivable, but there is no being whose existence can be demonstrated. We have no bearing on what exists - This means no ontological argument can succeed and no beings existence can be established analytically. The argument may be able to tell us about the definitions of words but nothing about the world.

Response to Mavrodes by Savage

The paradox is trying to show that the concept of a God as being omnipotent is self-contradictory. If the concept is self-contradictory, then it doesn't work and so that omnipotent being cannot exist.

Objection to the paradox of the stone (Mavrodes)

The paradox makes a faulty assumption. The claim that X can make something that X cannot lift is self-contradictory and logically impossible. When X is an omnipotent being, a stone that X cannot lift is an impossible thing. There is no limit to X's power, and therefore no limit to the weight X can lift or weight of the stone. Therefore, it is not an objection to God being omnipotent.

Swinburne's design argument

Uniformity of the universe - over time and the fundamental particles of the universe belong to relatively few kinds of objects (electrons etc.), are perfectly uniform with respect to physical states. Regularities of succession - occur as a result of natural phenomena and (human action - can be explained in relation to a intelligent, powerful free rational agent) A rational agent can only bring about the regularities of succession, as natural laws cannot explain other natural laws. The universe and its natural laws can only be explained with the existence of an intelligent, powerful and free rational agent needed to bring about order in the universe.

The Euthyphro dilemma

When a man goes to court to report a father for killing a slave because he believes its the good thing to do, Socrates questions him on the definition of good, to which the man responds that 'to be good, is to please the gods.' However, gods are divided about what pleases them - so the action may be considered good and loving at the same time. The question remains; is goodness separated from God (limits omnipotence) or is goodness defined by God (counter-intuitive)? This argument forms 2 horns: 1. Every action that God commands us to do is good. 2. Every action God commands us to do is good because it accords with some other moral authority.

Paley's argument from design (watchmaker)

You are walking on a deserted island and find a watch on the ground; 1. The watch could not have come about by accident. 2. The existence of the watch is proof of a watchmaker. 3. The universe is intricate and complex in its design, just like the inner-workings of the watch. 4. The universe could not come about by accident. 5. The universe itself is proof of an intelligent designer.