Metaphysics of God

• omnisicence


  god knows all true propositions
• God's omniscience is incompatible with free will


  P1- if god is omniscient then god knows all true propositions

  P2- if god knows all true propositions then god knows what I will do

  P3- if god knows what I will do then I am unable to do anything else

  P4- if I am unable to do anything else, then I am not free

  C- therefore, if god is omniscient then I am not free
• omnipotence


  god can do all tasks/can do all logically possible tasks/all powerful
• paradox of omnipotence


  P1- either god can make a stone god cannot move or god cannot do this

  P2- if god can make such a stone then there is a task god cannot do

  P3- if god cannot make such a stone then there is a task god cannot do

  IC- therefore either way there is a task that god cannot perform

  C1- therefore, there cannot be a being that can perform all tasks

  C2- therefore an omnipotent being impossible
• omnibenevolence


  everything that God does/commands/desires is morally right/good. god is morally perfect
• God is eternal


  God is timeless
• God is everlasting


  God is within time
• Anselm's ontological argument


  P1- God is the greatest conceivable being

  P2- it is greater to exist in the understanding and in reality, than existing in the understanding alone

  C1- therefore the greatest conceivable being, God, must exist in the understanding and in reality

  C2- Therefore God exists
• Descartes' ontological argument


  P1- My idea of God is of a supremely perfect being

  P2- A supremely perfect being has all perfections

  P3- existence is a perfection

  C- therefore, God must exist
• Malcolm's ontological argument 


  P1- god is an unlimited being

  P2- god's existence is either contingent, necessary, or impossible

  P3- god's existence cannot be contingent: this would mean god would be brought into or out of existence by something else, limiting God. but god is unlimited

  P4- god's existence is not impossible: this is because the concept is not self-contradictory/incoherent

  C- therefore, god's existence is necessary- god necessarily exists
• spatial order


  patterns of order within something in space at one instant of time which allow a function to be performed

  e.g. the eye
• temporal order


  patterns of behaviour of objects over time

  e.g. gravity
• Hume's design argument from analogy


  human artefacts have spatial order

  nature itself also has spatial order

  human artefacts have these properties because they have been deliberately designed by an intelligent being

  similar properties have similar explanations

  therefore, nature has these properties because they have been designed by an intelligent being

  natural entities are much more complicated than human artefacts

  this greater complexity requires greater intelligence

  therefore this intelligent being which exists probably has much more intelligence than a human

  so god exists
• Paley's design argument


  P1- nature itself has spatial order

  P2- they can only have these properties if they have been deliberately designed by an intelligent being, therefore, an intelligent designer exists

  P3- nature is more complicated than human artefacts

  P4- this variety requires more intelligence

  C2- therefore this designer must have greater intelligence than a human

  P5- this intelligent being cannot be part of nature since nature has design properties that need explaining

  C3- therefore this greatly intelligent designer must exist outside of the natural world, therefore, God exists
• Swinburne's design argument based on temporal 


  P1- the entire natural universe contains temporal order

  P2- it is improbable that temporal order is just a 'brute fact'

  P3- temporal order either has a scientific or personal explanation

  P4- it cannot be a scientific explanation

  P5- temporal order has a personal explanation

  C2- therefore, there must be an intelligent being who intentionally caused this universe containing temporal order

  P6- because it is operating over the whole physical world, this being has to be powerful/intelligent and disembodied

  C2- therefore, god exists
• temporal causation


  the universe is not infinite- it has a beginning in time
• atemporal causation


  the universe may be infinite, so did not have a beginning in time but it needs a cause to keep it in existence
• the Kalam cosmological argument


  P1- whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning

  P2- the universe began to exist

  C1- therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning

  it must have no beginning and be uncaused as it would itself need a cause

  it must be outside time and space as it created time and space

  it must be enormously powerful, because it created everything else that exists

  it must be a personal cause, the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning

  C2- therefore God exists
• Aquinas' first way (cosmological argument)


  P1- the universe contains motion

  P2- nothing can change itself, it must be changed by something distinct from it

  P3- if there were an infinite series of changes caused by changes, there would be no first changer

  P4- if there where no first changer there could not be any change- since if you remove the cause, you cannot have the effect

  C1- therefore, given P1 there must be a first changer

  P5- god is the first changer

  C2- therefore, god exists
• Aquinas' second way (cosmological argument)


  P1- the universe contains sustaining causes and their effects which can be ordered

  P2- nothing can be the sustaining cause of itself, it must sustained by something distinct from itself

  P3- if there were an infinite series of sustaining causes there would be no first sustaining cause

  P4- if there were no first sustaining cause there could not be any other causes/effects- since if you remove the cause you cannot have the effect

  C1- therefore there must be a first sustaining cause

  P5- god is this first sustaining cause

  C2- so god exists
• Aquinas' third way (cosmological argument)


  P1- if everything were contingent then there would be a time when nothing existed

  P2- if this were so, then nothing would exist now

  P3- but things do exist now

  C- therefore not everything is contingent- there must be something that exists necessarily

  P4- every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another or not

  P5- an infinite regression of necessary causes is impossible

  C- therefore, there must be one necessary being whose necessity was not caused by another, and this is all people call god
• descartes' cosmological argument


  P1- I exist as a being with an idea of a supremely perfect being in my mind

  P2- I cannot be the cause of myself as I would then be God and I know I am not

  P3- no other beings could be the cause because they could not account for the idea of God that I have in my mind

  P4- I cannot have no cause, as a cause is needed to sustain anything finite from one moment to the next

  C- the only possible cause of my continued existence is a supremely perfect being
• Leibniz's cosmological argument from contingency


  P1- all contingent events/things need a sufficient reason for why they exist (the principle of sufficient reason)

  P2- if they exist as they do because of other contingent events/things, then this would not be a sufficient explanation because the infinite series is still itself contingent

  C1- therefore, there must be a sufficient reason for the contingent series

  C2- therefore a necessary substance/being exists- this is God
• moral evil


  harm or suffering for which human agents are responsible
• natural evil


  harm or suffering caused.by natural processes, for which human agents are not responsible
• logical problem of evil


  P1- if god exists then god is omnibenevolent and so would be opposed to evil and would eliminate evil as far as it could

  P2- if god exists, then god is omnipotent and so would be able to eliminate evil

  P3- if god exists then god is omniscient and so would know that evil exists and/or that it is about to come into existence

  C1- therefore, if god exists then evil would not exist

  P4- but evil exists

  C2- therefore, god does not exist
• evidential problem of evil


  P1- if god exists then god is omnibenevolent

  P2- if an omnibenevolent being exists, then any evil that exists must exist for a morally good reason

  P3- we do not know of any morally good reason that would justify the existence of certain evil events that exist

  P4- if we do not know of any morally good reason for many evil events, then there probably is not a morally good reason for at least some of these events

  C1- therefore, for at least some evil events, there probably isn't a morally good reason that would justify them

  C2- therefore god probably does not exist
• cognitivism about religious language


  the claim that religious language expresses propositions- statements that are true or false- meaning that it is 'truth-apt'
• non-cognitivism about religious language


  the claim that religious language does not express propositions- statements that are true or false- meaning that it is not 'truth-apt'
• Ayer's verification principle


  a sentence is literally meaningful if and only if either...

  it is true or false by definition

  or

  it is at least in principle weakly verifiable using experience
• Flew's falsification principle


  a statement is meaningful only if it is falsifiable, if there is conceivable evidence that counts against/falsifies it
• God is eternal in response to the omniscience vs free will argument


  God is outside of time and so knows what I will do without knowing this before I do it, so I am still free
• God is everlasting in response to the omniscience vs free will argument 


  God is in time, knows everything it is logically possible to know, and this does not include propositions about the future and our future actions (because the future has not happened yet)
• vs P1 response to the paradox of the stone

  omnipotence includes the logically impossible, so God can make and move the immovable stone
• Aquinas' definition of omnipotence in response to the paradox of the stone


  accept Aquinas' definition of omnipotence, God can only do the logically possible, and sat that God could make the immovable stone, but so long as God does not, God remains omnipotent
• Gaunilo's criticism of Anselm's ontological argument


  Using Anselm's form of reasoning, we can prove that the greatest conceivable island must exist. this is absurd, as these entities clearly do not exist (the universe would be overloaded with perfect things, which it is not). Therefore there must be something wrong with Anselm's reasoning
• Kant's criticism of Descartes' ontological argument


  Existence is not a property of things (it is not a true predicate), so it is not a property of God. This means that the ontological argument does not show that God must exist.
• empiricist objections to a priori arguments for existence


  existence claims are matters of fact and can only be known from experience. you can't argue for the existence of anything just by giving a definition. for example, you cannot know if any triangles exist just by knowing that a triangle is a three sided shape. similarly, even if God is defined as a being that must exist, that does not tell you anything about whether God actually exists. if there is a God, then God would have to exist, but there is no contradiction in thinking that God does not exist
• relations of ideas

  known a priori
• matters of fact

  known a posteriori