Metaphysics Of God
The Concept of God
Problems with Omniscience:
A: If he knows everything then he knows everything we are to do in the future. But this would
mean we have no free will.
R: God does not know the future. There is no future to be known, it does not exist yet.
R: We still have free choice, he just knows what we are going to choose.
Problems with Omnipotence:
A: God can do anything. (First definition of omnipotence).
R: God cannot do what is logically possible.
A: He can do anything that is logically possible. (Second definition of omnipotence).
R: The paradox of the stone.
M: He cannot create the stone as this would result in a logical inconsistency.
Problems with Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence:
A: An all-loving being could not perform evil acts, but an all-powerful being could.
R: God is omnipotent, but He cannot perform evil acts.
Problems with Omnibenevolence:
A: Euthyphro’s Dilemma: Either God CREATES morality or he CONFORMS to reality.
R: It is a false dilemma - There is a third option. It stems from his character.
Is God eternal or everlasting?
A: God is eternal. (He transcends time and space).
R: How can an eternal being be immersed in the universe, causing changes.
A: God is everlasting.
R: If he is located in the present then how can he know what will happen tomorrow? How
can he be omniscient?
M: God was eternal before creation and now he is everlasting.
,The Ontological Argument
Anselm’s Ontological Argument
1. By definition, God is something that no greater being can be conceived.
2. It is greater to exist in reality and the understanding than just in the understanding alone.
3. Therefore, God must exist in reality and in understanding.
C: Guanilo’s Island - It proves too much.
R: This argument only applies to God as He has a maximal limit whereas an island does not.
C: Hume’s empiricist objection to a priori arguments for existence.
1. If ‘God exists’ could be known a priori then it would be a necessary truth.
2. But it is not a necessary truth. (We can deny it without any contradiction).
3. The claim ‘God exists’ cannot be known a priori.
R: It does involve a contradiction when denying God’s existence.
Descartes’ Ontological Argument
1. By definition. God is a supremely perfect being.
2. A supremely perfect being contains all supreme perfections.
3. Necessary existence is a supreme perfection.
4. Therefore, God, a supremely perfect being exists.
C: Kant - Existence is not a genuine predicate.
R: Necessary existence is a genuine predicate.
C: Hume’s empiricist objection to a priori arguments for existence.
1. If ‘God exists’ could be known a priori then it would be a necessary truth.
2. But it is not a necessary truth. (We can deny it without any contradiction).
3. The claim ‘God exists’ cannot be known a priori.
R: It does involve a contradiction when denying God’s existence.
Malcolm’s Ontological Argument
1. God is by definition an unlimited being.
2. The existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible.
3. The existence of an unlimited being is not logically impossible.
4. Therefore, the existence of God is logically necessary.
C: Kant - Existence is not a genuine predicate.
R: Necessary existence is a genuine predicate.
C: Guanilo’s Island - It proves too much.
R: This argument only applies to God as He has a maximal limit whereas an island does not.
The Cosmological Arguments
, The Kalam Argument
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
This cause must be God as it can either be a personal explanation or natural and nature did not
exist before the Big Bang.
Craig’s Arguments For Premise 2:
A priori: An actual infinite cannot exist in reality. (Bookshelf).
A posteriori: The universe began with a Big Bang.
C: The possibility of an infinite series. (Simultaneous is impossible but not serial order).
R: This is still absurd - We could remove all Tuesdays and the universe would still be the same age.
C: Hume’s objection to the causal principle.
R: Just because it is conceivable does not mean it is possible in reality.
C: Russell’s Fallacy of Composition
R: It is unclear whether cosmological arguments commit the fallacy.
Aquinas’ First Way
1. Some things are in motion.
2. Whatever is moved, is moved by another.
3. This chain of movers cannot go back to infinity.
4. Therefore there must be a first unmoved mover - and this is what everyone understands to
be God.
C: Hume’s objection to the causal principle.
R: Just because it is conceivable does not mean it is possible in reality.
Aquinas’ Second Way
1. The world contains instances of efficient causation.
2. Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
3. This chain of efficient causes cannot go back to infinity.
4. So there must be a first efficient cause - And this is what everyone understands to be God.
C: Hume’s objection to the causal principle.
R: Just because it is conceivable does not mean it is possible in reality.
C: Russell’s Fallacy of Composition
R: It is unclear whether cosmological arguments commit the fallacy.
The Concept of God
Problems with Omniscience:
A: If he knows everything then he knows everything we are to do in the future. But this would
mean we have no free will.
R: God does not know the future. There is no future to be known, it does not exist yet.
R: We still have free choice, he just knows what we are going to choose.
Problems with Omnipotence:
A: God can do anything. (First definition of omnipotence).
R: God cannot do what is logically possible.
A: He can do anything that is logically possible. (Second definition of omnipotence).
R: The paradox of the stone.
M: He cannot create the stone as this would result in a logical inconsistency.
Problems with Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence:
A: An all-loving being could not perform evil acts, but an all-powerful being could.
R: God is omnipotent, but He cannot perform evil acts.
Problems with Omnibenevolence:
A: Euthyphro’s Dilemma: Either God CREATES morality or he CONFORMS to reality.
R: It is a false dilemma - There is a third option. It stems from his character.
Is God eternal or everlasting?
A: God is eternal. (He transcends time and space).
R: How can an eternal being be immersed in the universe, causing changes.
A: God is everlasting.
R: If he is located in the present then how can he know what will happen tomorrow? How
can he be omniscient?
M: God was eternal before creation and now he is everlasting.
,The Ontological Argument
Anselm’s Ontological Argument
1. By definition, God is something that no greater being can be conceived.
2. It is greater to exist in reality and the understanding than just in the understanding alone.
3. Therefore, God must exist in reality and in understanding.
C: Guanilo’s Island - It proves too much.
R: This argument only applies to God as He has a maximal limit whereas an island does not.
C: Hume’s empiricist objection to a priori arguments for existence.
1. If ‘God exists’ could be known a priori then it would be a necessary truth.
2. But it is not a necessary truth. (We can deny it without any contradiction).
3. The claim ‘God exists’ cannot be known a priori.
R: It does involve a contradiction when denying God’s existence.
Descartes’ Ontological Argument
1. By definition. God is a supremely perfect being.
2. A supremely perfect being contains all supreme perfections.
3. Necessary existence is a supreme perfection.
4. Therefore, God, a supremely perfect being exists.
C: Kant - Existence is not a genuine predicate.
R: Necessary existence is a genuine predicate.
C: Hume’s empiricist objection to a priori arguments for existence.
1. If ‘God exists’ could be known a priori then it would be a necessary truth.
2. But it is not a necessary truth. (We can deny it without any contradiction).
3. The claim ‘God exists’ cannot be known a priori.
R: It does involve a contradiction when denying God’s existence.
Malcolm’s Ontological Argument
1. God is by definition an unlimited being.
2. The existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible.
3. The existence of an unlimited being is not logically impossible.
4. Therefore, the existence of God is logically necessary.
C: Kant - Existence is not a genuine predicate.
R: Necessary existence is a genuine predicate.
C: Guanilo’s Island - It proves too much.
R: This argument only applies to God as He has a maximal limit whereas an island does not.
The Cosmological Arguments
, The Kalam Argument
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
This cause must be God as it can either be a personal explanation or natural and nature did not
exist before the Big Bang.
Craig’s Arguments For Premise 2:
A priori: An actual infinite cannot exist in reality. (Bookshelf).
A posteriori: The universe began with a Big Bang.
C: The possibility of an infinite series. (Simultaneous is impossible but not serial order).
R: This is still absurd - We could remove all Tuesdays and the universe would still be the same age.
C: Hume’s objection to the causal principle.
R: Just because it is conceivable does not mean it is possible in reality.
C: Russell’s Fallacy of Composition
R: It is unclear whether cosmological arguments commit the fallacy.
Aquinas’ First Way
1. Some things are in motion.
2. Whatever is moved, is moved by another.
3. This chain of movers cannot go back to infinity.
4. Therefore there must be a first unmoved mover - and this is what everyone understands to
be God.
C: Hume’s objection to the causal principle.
R: Just because it is conceivable does not mean it is possible in reality.
Aquinas’ Second Way
1. The world contains instances of efficient causation.
2. Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
3. This chain of efficient causes cannot go back to infinity.
4. So there must be a first efficient cause - And this is what everyone understands to be God.
C: Hume’s objection to the causal principle.
R: Just because it is conceivable does not mean it is possible in reality.
C: Russell’s Fallacy of Composition
R: It is unclear whether cosmological arguments commit the fallacy.
