Metaphysics of God: The concept of God
THE CONCEPT OF GOD-2020
Metaphysics of God: The existence of God
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT-2021
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT-2023
TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT-2019
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL-2022
Metaphysics of God: Religious Language
RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE
Metaphysics of Mind: Dualism
SUBSTANCE DUALISM-2021
PROPERTY DUALISM
Metaphysics of Mind: Physicalism
BEHAVIOURISM
MBTIT
ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM-2022/2019
FUNCTIONALISM-2020
Metaphysics of God: The existence of god
Is the concept of god coherent? (25)
ESSAY 1:
A1: Omnipotence. Necessary for God to be the creator.
R1: Paradox of the Stone. Omnipotence is a logical contradiction.
C1: Both God’s power to create a heavy stone and God’s power to lift a heavy stone are
unlimited. So the Paradox of the Stone does not prove that Omnipotence is a logical
contradiction.
A2: God being eternal. Necessary to explain how God created the universe without an
infinite causal regression i.e he could do it because he exists outside of time so time doesn’t
affect him normally so he has neither a beginning nor an end so no infinite causal
regression.
R2: Eternal doesn’t work because of the contradiction between being Eternal and being
Omnibenevolent and Omniscient. If God exists outside of time and space then how could he
interact with humanity? If he can’t interact with humanity then he is not a personal God and
cannot offer salvation or help us in any meaningful way. With that being the case, how can
God be said to be omnibenevolent or omniscient?
C2: ET simultaneity.
A3: God being omnibenevolent is necessary because how could God be said to be perfect if
he lacked any goodness?
R3: Omnibenevolence is a logical contradiction because of the Euthyphro Dilemma.
C3: Natural Law Theory. God created goodness in such a way that by being good, we can
cooperate and live happy lives. So omnibenevolence is not a logical contradiction.
Conclusion: God’s omnipotence and eternal nature explain how he could be the creator and
uncaused cause without said attributes being contradictions in conceptions. All the attributes
of God do cohere with each other (as shown through ET Simultaneity which allows for
omnibenevolence and omniscience). Therefore each attribute of God is necessary and
coheres with one another.
ESSAY 2:
Intro:
The classic concept of God includes the qualities of omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient,
which mean; all powerful, all loving and all good and all knowing. Whilst problems here have been
brought up regarding the coherence of these qualities, I am to show how these problems can be
answered, and thus demonstrate that the concept of god is coherent.
,A: the problem with god’s omnipotence: paradox of the stone
Poses the question; can god create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift? If yes, then it seems that god
is not omnipotent, as he cannot lift the stone, and if the answer is no, then it seems that god is not
omnipotent as there is something that he cannot do. Thus, it appears as if god’s omnipotence is an
incoherent concept
R: Aquinas responds by demonstrating that as it is a paradox and a logical impossibility it cannot be
done, and is not a limitation therefore, of god’s omnipotence. For logically impossible things, he says,
it is better to say that they cannot be done rather than god cant do them. Essentially, Aquinas argues
that logical impossibilities such as creating a square circle or a triangle with more than three sides
cannot be done, yet do not limit gods omnipotence. The same is said for the paradox of the stone, the
fact that god can create stones of any weight and also list stones of any weight due to his
omnipotence, renders the question; can god create a stone he cannot lift? A logical impossibility. As
logical impossibilities are impossible, they cannot be done, and at the same time do not limit gods
omnipotence. Thus, Aquinas demonstrates that concept of god is logically coherent and paradox of
stone is a logical contradiction.
C: savage demonstrates flaws within paradox by positing idea of two beings. X can create stones of
any weight and y can lift stones of any weight. Therefore, to say that X cannot create a stone that Y
cannot lift is not a limitation on anyone’s power. Thus, he argues, it is the same as if X and Y were the
same being. Thus, the paradox of the stone poses no threat to god’s coherence. Overall, therefore,
paradox of stone, whilst superficially demonstrating the incoherence of god’s omnipotence, is actually
an exercise in semantics. Aquinas and savage both demonstrate convincingly how the paradox is
logically incoherent and contradictory, and concept of god and his omnipotence is still coherent. Thus,
it falls to others to demonstrate how god’s other attributes are incoherent, in order to challenge
coherence of concept of god.
A: problem of god’s omniscience and immutability is posited by kretzman
P1: God is an omniscient, perfect being
P2: a perfect being is not subject to change (immutable)
P3: if god is immutable, he knows what time it is right now
P4: but if god knows what time it is right now, he is subject to change
C1: therefore, god is not immutable
C2: therefore, god is not perfect
C3: therefore, the classical concept of god is incoherent
If god’s knowledge of things is subject to change, he is not immutable and must be imperfect. Same
thing can be said for knowledge of our minds, if god knows what we are thinking right now, his
knowledge is subjective, liable to change. Therefore, he cannot be perfect, cannot be immutable.
Kretzman challenges coherence of concept of omniscience and god’s immutability, or claim that he
cannot change as part of his nature as a perfect being.
R: weak argument, tries to make sense of omnipotent, omniscient, immutable and eternal being from
perspective of limited being. Our attempt to ‘think’ like god are destined to fail. Problem of
omniscience and immutability can be answered with statement that we cannot understand how gods
omniscience works, as we are trying to understand the workings of an unlimited being from a limited
perspective.
Another response to kretzman comes from god’s quality of being eternal, transcendent, meaning god
is atemporal, exists outside of time and the universe. So, can be argued god has unlimited and
atemporal view of knowledge whilst for humans, our knowledge is necessarily subjective to time.
Thus, it can be shown how kretzman is mistaken in his attempt to demonstrate the incoherence of
omniscience and immutability.
Overall, kretzman’s mistake is to try to understand concept of omniscience from perspective of limited
being, and thus first response to kretzman is convincing in refuting him. Second response, although
nothing god’s other characteristics, is still guilty of attempting to understand how god’s omniscience
works which is destined to fail. Concept of god is still coherent, we are unable to always question how
god works as we are attempting to do so from a limited position.
A: Euthyphro dilemma as problem for god’s omnibenevolence
Socrates poses question; ‘are things good because the gods command it or do the gods command it
because they are good?’. Either option shows incoherence of god. First horn is to accept that things
, are good because god commands it, but this seems to make morality arbitrary. E.g if god decided that
murder/rape were universal commands, would appear as if this is what is now good, which is
intrinsically wrong. Other horn claims that god orders things because they are good- but shows there
mjst be standard of morality even god is subject to, meaning god is now limited.
R: god is good, is god is the source of moral authority and objective moral values,
can god’s existence be proved using an ontological argument? (25)
Intro
Ontological arguments are deductive arguments that aim to prove God’s existence from the concept
of God and his characteristics. The ontological arguments use purely a priori reasoning. A priori
knowledge is knowledge that doesn’t require experience of the world to confirm. Descartes, St Anselm
and Normal Malcolm all have their own versions of the ontological argument. In this essay I will
consider all three variations of the ontological argument and argue that they fail to prove God exists.
A:
St Anselm's ontological argument is an argument for God’s existence. It works by analysing the
concept of God, to determine what is essential to this concept.
P1) God is defined as the greatest possible being (nothing greater can be conceived).
P2) Even an atheist can conceive of God as the greatest possible being, it's a coherent concept that
fits with our understanding.
P3) it is greater to exist in the understanding and in reality rather than in the understanding alone.
C) Therefore the greatest possible being, God, must exist in understanding and in reality.
It is not possible to conceive of God not existing.
R1:
However, the same reasoning Anselm uses to prove God exists can be used to define all sorts of
things into existence. Gaunilo of Marmoutiers demonstrates this with his argument for the perfect
island, which is as follows:
P1) The perfect island is an island greater than which cannot be conceived
P2) We can coherently conceive of such an island
P3) It is greater to exist in reality than it is to exist in the mind
C) Therefore, the perfect island exists
This same reasoning could apply to anything – the perfect pizza, the perfect car, the perfect computer
– but it doesn’t mean these things actually exist. The absurd conclusion of Gaunilo’s (and similar)
arguments demonstrates that Anselm’s argument must make a mistake somewhere.
C:
Anselm attacks Gaunilo's counter example of the island in order to defend his ontological argument.
Anselm's attack centres on the differences between God (as the greatest possible being) and other
things like islands (even the most excellent island). If we say 'we can conceive of God, the greatest
conceivable being, as not existing' then this doesn't make sense, as we aren't then really conceiving
of God, we would be conceiving of something that is not God. On the other hand, it does make sense
to say we can conceive of the most excellent of all islands, as not existing. In modern terms, we would
say that existence is a necessary predicate of God, but not of islands. Because of this, Anselm
believes Gaunilo's counter example fails to damage his ontological argument.
R2:
Kant makes objections to both Anselm’s and Gaunilo’s arguments, claiming they aren’t sound. Kant
argues that “existence” is not a real predicate of things in the same way that, for example, “redness” is
a property of ripe tomatoes. If you try to add the property of “existence” to something, the thing
doesn’t change – for example, if you imagine a unicorn and then you imagine a unicorn that exists,
you would imagine exactly the same thing. Existence alone is not a property, it does not add to our
conception of God (the subject).
P1) A genuine predicate adds to our conception of a subject and helps us determine it.
P2) ‘Existence’ does not add to our conception of a subject or help to determine it.
C) Therefore existence is not a genuine predicate.
When people say “God exists”, what they actually mean is “God exists in this world” – which is
something that has to be confirmed through empirical observation and cannot be deduced from the
concept itself. If existence is not a predicate then Anselm’s premise 3 is not true and thus Anselm’s
ontological argument does not prove God exists.
