Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Metaphysics of God - Coggle Diagram
Metaphysics of God
Ontological
Anselm: god is defined as the greatest possible being, of which nothing greater can be conceived.
Anyone can coherently conceive of such a being.
It is greater to exist in reality than it is to exist in the mind alone.
God must exist.
Descartes: I have the clear and distinct idea of god as a supremely perfect being
God cannot lack any perfections.
Existence is a perfection
God must exist.
Malcolms Ontological Argument. God either exists or god does not exist.
God cannot go out of existence, so if God does exist god must do so necessarily.
Similarly, it is impossible for god to come into existence because he is a necessary being.
Therefore god must either exist necessarily or it is impossible for him to exist.
It is impossible for god to exist if the concept of god is self-contradictory.
The concept of god is not self-contradictory
Therefore god's existence is not impossible
Therefore God must exist necessarily.
Criticism 1: Gaunilo's perfect island objection. I can conceive of a perfect island of which no greater island can be conceived.
It is better for this island to exist in reality rather than in the imagination
Therefore this island must exist.
This is a problem for Anslem because is shows that just because something may be conceivable it does not mean that it actually exists. Indeed, one has no proof of this island existing and therefore by anaology cannot say that God must exist. anything could be defined into existence.
Hume: Hume states that the ontological arguments are a priori, (deduced from the mind alone), but are crucially attempting to represent something synthetic. He appeals to his fork and states that they cannot go from an analytic argument to a synthetic argument. he then says that nothing in existence could be self-contradictory to deny. if god not existing is not a contradiction then the argument fails to analytically prove the existence of god.
Kant: existence is not a predicate. Kant argues that you cannot attach 'existence' to bolster an argument; it is not a predicate and does not add anything
One would aliken it to say 'the dog is black' - it doesn't add anything to the argument to argue the dog that exists is black. it does not add to our conception of a subject or help determine it.
Cosmological
Aquinas
1st way: from motion. this is the idea that in the world we see that every effect has a cause.
we see the development between potential and actual states.
moving from a potential to an actual state depends upon a pre-existing actual state.
to remove a cause is to remove its effect
there cannot be an infinite regress of cause and effect.
There must be an unmoved mover (an actual state) which sets of the chain of cause and effect into motion.
This unmoved mover is god.
second way: from causation. in the universe we see sustaining causes and effects.
that is to say that an effect depends upon its cause.
there is a chain of sustaining causes and effects, the first sustains the second, the second sustains the third etc.
If there was no first cause then nothing would exist
this shows that an infinite regress is not possible because things do exist.
therefore there must be a first sustaining, uncaused cause.
that cause is god.
3rd way: from contingency: in the world we see contingent things (that which depend on something else)
that which is possible to not exist did not exist at some point.
therefore it is possible that at some point nothing was in existence.
it is impossible for something to come out of nothing.
Since things do exist, there must have always been something existence which is not contingent but necessary
Thus necessary being is god.
we see that everything exists contingently, that is to say that it depends upon something else and it is possible that it could not have been in existence at some point. by searching for a first cause, one only reveals more and more contingent things. in order to sufficiently explain the nature of this seemingly infinite cycle of contingency one must appeal to a necessary being. that necessary beign is god.
Descartes: a priori deductive argument arguing that god must exist as the first cause of the universe:
I cannot be the cause of myself because I would have created myself as a perfect being and I am an imperfect being.
I have the clear and distinct idea of a supremely infinintely perfect being
The causal adequancy principle states that a cause must be at least as great as its effect. and so whatever caused my idea of this being must also have this idea.
This cannot go on foreover in an infinite regress of people with this idea.
This idea must exist as something that caused its own existence. this must be god.
Criticisms:
Hume and the Causal principle: Hume says that it is not self-contradictory to deny the idea that everything has a cause. therefore he states it cannot be an analytic truth that is true by defintion. Hume's fork argues that if something is not an analytic truth it can only be counted as knowledge if it is a matter of fact, that is can be gained through a posteriori means and relates to a synthetic truth in the real world - we gain knowledge of cause and effect through our everyday experiences. Hume states that the cosmological arguments cannot claim that 'everything has a cause' is necessary because they have not experienced all experiences of cause and effect and so it could be that the universe simply doesn't have a cause and that the cosmological argument doesn't work.
Hume on the possibility of a necessary being. Hume states the concept of necessity can only be applied to something that is impssible to be self-contradictory. however, the statement that 'god does not exist' is not self-contradictory; therefore one cannot apply the condition of necessity to it as an analytic truth.
Hume on the possibility of an infinite regress. Hume would argue that it is not self-contradictory to deny the possibility of an infinite regress. He states that we can conceive of an infinite regress being possible and therefore should not take it as an analytic truth that an infinite regress isn't possible.
Russell's fallacy of composition. This is the idea that just because everything may have a cause within the universe, it does not mean that the universe has a cause itself. just like how
kalam: what ever begins to exist has a cause. the universe has a beginning the universe must have a cause. this uncaused cause is god.
Problem of Evil.
Evidential problem of evil. the level and magnitude of gratuitous evil that exists in teh world is clearly incompatible with a supremely perfect god. in response to plantinga.
there is intense suffering in the world which could have been prevented without losing some 'greater good'.
A god of the omni's would stop the amount of gratuitous, pointless evil in the world.
Logical problem of evil. Mackie. States that an omniootent being would not allow evil to exist and would have the ability to stop it existing
An omniscient being would know how to stop evil existing.
An omnibenevolent being would understand that evil causes pain and suffering and it not good and would want it to exist.
Evil exists.
Therefore the problem of evil negates the existence of a god of the omnis.
Free Will defence - Plantinga.
god of the omnis can create significantly free agents who can decide what action to pursue, but cannot force them to pursue what is morally right.
it is a greater good for there to be significiantly free beings than a world not containing significantly free biengs.
Therefore God created this world wherby significantly free beings can choose to do what is morally right or morally evil.
God of the omnis aims to create a world where significantly free agents can fully grow and develop morally and spiritually.
A world which is imperfect but allows for significantly free agents can develop spiritually and morally is a greater good than a safe pleasureable paradise.
therefore it is a greater good to create a world with pain and suffering. Defeats moral and natural evil.
RESPONSE: Gratuitous evil instead of volcanoes etc.
Concept and Nature
-
Paradox of the stone: whether god can create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift.
If so, God is not omnipotent because he cannot create something
But if not, god is not omnipotent because he cannot lift something.
There is nothing logically impossible about teither of these tasks.
Therefore the concept of omnipotence cannot be coherently ascribed to God
Euthyphro Dilemma OMNIBENEVOLENCE: Either god perfect goodness means that morally good acts are good because they are made by god, or god wills morally good acts because they are good.
if M1 there is no independent standard of morality aside from god and God's view of morality is abitrary.
If M2: there is an independent standard of morality aside from god, which means that he is not omnipotent because he did not create morality
IC1: arbitrary acts are not worthy of worship
IC2; god is not omnipotent
Teleological
Paley: watchmaker from spatial order and purpose. intelligent design. this intelligent designer is god.
Hume and his Cleanthes argument from analogy. Machine works with great accuracy and complexity in order to reach an end. It seems tha the universe similarly works in a way of complecity and towards an end.
Machines are caused by intelligent human design
By analogy we should argue that the universe is then caused by intelligent design.
this designer is god.
-
-