phil of religion

• Philosophy of religion

  Philosophical questions concerning religion
• Philosophical questions in philosophy of religion

  • Does God exist?
  • How should God's nature be understood?
  • Is there life after death?
  • What is the relationship between science and religion?
• The primary focus will be on the metaphysical question of whether God exists
• Epistemological questions


  Questions concerning the nature of knowledge and rational belief
• Epistemological questions in philosophy of religion

  • Whether religious beliefs can be rational or can constitute knowledge
  • Whether faith can be rational or justified
• Metaphysical questions


  Questions about which things exist and what their natures are
• Metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion concern the existence of God or souls or about the nature of God
• Omni-God


  A perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being
• The focus is on whether there is good reason to think that God exists and if this belief is rational
• 3 classical arguments for the existence of God

  • Cosmological argument
  • Ontological argument
  • Teleological argument
• Cosmological argument


  1. Clarkes argument

  2. Kalam argument
• Principle of sufficient reason (PSR)


  There is an explanation for every state of affair
• Necessary being


  A being that can explain its own existence
• Contingent being


  A being that depends on something else for its existence
• Clarkes argument is based on the PSR and the need for a necessary being to explain the existence of contingent beings
• Kalam argument


  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

  2. The universe began to exist

  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
• The Kalam argument is valid and the premises are supported by philosophical and scientific considerations
• The Kalam argument does not rely on the PSR or the existence of a necessary being, so it avoids objections to those concepts
• To object to the Kalam argument, one must either argue that things can begin to exist without a cause, argue that the universe is eternal, or argue that the argument does not establish the existence of God
• Ontological argument


  An a priori argument that aims to prove the existence of God without relying on any empirical premises
• Ontological argument


  God is the greatest conceivable being

  2. If God does not exist, then God is not the greatest conceivable being

  3. Therefore, God exists
• The ontological argument is valid, but the key issue is whether there are good reasons to accept the premises
• Gaunilo's objection


  A parody of the ontological argument that shows it can be applied to other concepts, suggesting the argument is flawed
• Kant's objection


  Existence is not a predicate that can be part of a concept
• The teleological argument argues from the appearance of order or design in nature to the existence of God
• Paley's analogical argument


  Biological systems exhibit the same functional organization as designed artifacts, so they must also be designed by a designer (God)
• Darwin's theory of evolution provides an alternative explanation for the functional organization of biological systems that does not appeal to a designer
• Argument from order


  The universe exhibits a high degree of order and regularity, which is more likely given the existence of God than without it
• The fine-tuning argument claims that scientific discoveries indicate the universe is 'fine-tuned' for the development of life, which provides evidence for the existence of God
• Arguments against the existence of God include the incoherence of the divine attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence)
• Omnipotence paradox


  The question of whether God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, which seems to lead to a contradiction
• One response to the omnipotence paradox is to clarify the concept of omnipotence to mean the ability to do anything that is logically possible
• Another argument against the existence of God is that the divine attributes (omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience) are inconsistent with each other
• G V ¬G


  Logical truth
• G→ ¬O


  Follows from the definition of omnipotence
• ¬G → ¬O


  Follows from the definition of omnipotence
• The most radical response is to hold that God can both create the rock and destroy it
• Making this move would allow you to reject 2 because God creating the rock does not mean God cannot destroy it but comes at the cost of accepting true contradictions
• This move has a significant cost and threatens to undermine our ability to think clearly about God
• Omnipotence (clarified)


  God is omnipotent in the sense that he can do anything that is logically possible