Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Philosophy God - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Issues
        
        Paradox of the stone
        "Could God create a stone so heavy he could not lift it?"
        If he can't then he is not powerful enough to make it
        If he can then he is not powerful enough to lift it
        Mavrodes Response - A stone an omnipotent being can't lift is not a possible thing, it's a contradiction which goes against the definition
        
        The Euthyphro dilemma
        Looks at whether morality is created by, or independent of, God.
        Applied to the moral judgement ‘torturing babies is wrong’, we can ask:
        Is torturing babies wrong because God says it’s wrong
        Or, does God say ‘don’t torture babies’ because it is wrong?
        The second is a challenge to God's omnipotence The reason for this is that God’s power would be limited by morality. God is not powerful enough to make ‘torturing babies is good’ true.
        But if the first option is true – and so God created morality – then it means that what is good and bad is arbitrary. In other words, God could say ‘torturing babies is good’, or whatever He wanted, and it would be true. Why, then, does He say some things are bad and not others?
        
        Omniscience vs Freewill
        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 OR We have free will but God is not omniscient
- - - - Gaunilo's Island
        The perfect island is, by definition, an island greater than which cannot be conceived
        We can coherently conceive of such an island i.e. the concept is coherent
        It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind
        Therefore, this island must exist
        Gaunilo argues that if Anselm’s argument were valid, then we could define anything into existence
      - Hume : God does not exist is NOT a contradiction
        The ontological argument reasons from the definition of God that God must exist. This would make ‘God exists’ an analytic truth
        The denial of an analytic truth leads to a contradiction
        But Hume argues against this claim. Anything we can conceive of as existent, he says, we can also conceive of as non-existent.
        A contradiction cannot be coherently conceived
        ‘God does not exist’ can be coherently conceived
        Therefore, ‘God does not exist’ is not a contradiction
      - Kant : Existence is not a predicate
        Kant argues that existence is not a property (predicate) of things in the same way, say, green is a property of grass.
        When someone says “God exists”, they don’t mean “there is a God and he has the property of existence”. If they did, then when someone says “God does not exist”, they’d mean, “there is a God and he has the property of non existence” – which doesn’t make sense!
        Instead, what people mean when they say “God exists” is that “God exists in the world”.
        This cannot be argued from the definition of God and thus the ontological argument fails to prove God’s (actual) existence.