philosophers p1 por

gods omnipotence means his sovereignty. aquinas failed to consider how gods omniscience could be reconciled with man’s freedom

god can’t sin. god’s knowledge cannot be conditioned by time as ours is.

god cannot have made a better world because he acts out of necessity

god has no limits to what is logically possible

there is no limitation to god, and he acts out of freedom and rationality. god limits his knowledge of the future so is weaker in his omniscience. he chooses to exist outside of time but allows time to take its course in relation to mans freedom

god can make people be damned and still be righteous

god exists and is eternal as it is part of his nature → ontological argument

you cannot link god and man as man has been defaced by sin

god is the ground of our being → we depend on his eternal, necessary existence

rejected using human reasoning when grasping the reality of god

god is transcendent, but we form superficial relationships with him

we only know ourselves after we have experienced god as personal

since non-rational beings can work towards a goal, there must be something directing them to do so which is god

watchmaker analogy → satisfied the human explanation for the world around us and answers the problem of evil, as just because something goes wrong, doesn’t mean that there is a fault in the designer

the fact that human life exists at all with the current physical conditions is proof that the world must have come about by god

provided evidence that humans did not come about through an intelligent designer, but through evolution and survival of the fittest

just because things in the world have a designer, does not mean the world itself has a designer → to know how something has been brought about we have to have experience of it being made → also complex objects are not usually the product of a single designer but rather multiple designers → arguments from analogy are weak overall

the order and complexity could be a result of human perception and we could be imposing it on the world

all changes in the universe come from some ultimate source - god is supremely perfect and there is a prime mover

motion, cause and contingency → there is an unmoved mover and everything that moves must have a mover, there is an infinite regress of movers = there must be an uncaused god → everything in the universe must exist contingently → there must be something which cannot exist which is god

even if the universe has always existed, there is no evidence of what first caused it to exist → there is sufficient reason to believe in a cause outside the universe which must be god

train analogy → it is not sensible to assume that there is an engine i.e. a mover/causer

there is not a problem with infinite regress → how can the universe not be infinite but god can?

the idea that every event has a first cause only applies to sense experiences → supported by hume

the greatest concept is god, and he must exist, or he could not be the greatest concept → his existence is necessary → to think of a greater being means that the greater being is god

god is supremely perfect → this idea must come from outside the individual → god must possess all possible perfections, including existence → triangle example

we have understandings of many things, but this does not mean they do not exist → there is no common understanding of the concept of god → perfect island analogy = just because there is a perfect island does not mean it exists

EXISTENCE IS NOT A PREDICATE → even if existence is a necessary property, it does not mean god does exist → it is impossible to accept a definition as true → it is one thing to talk about concepts and another to talk about existence

mystical experiences have 4 characteristics: ineffable, noetic, transient, passive → it is a psychological phenomenon including 3 principles: empiricism, pluralism, pragmatism

there are public and private experiences

god is a human projection

if you believe in god and he isn’t real then there is no consequences, but if you do not and he is real then you will suffer in hell

angst = we understand we have many decisions to make but have no idea how to exercise our choice → the nature of god is that it can only be based in faith

god is dead, and we killed him → society doesn't need god anymore because he was a filler for gaps in science

religions have made it so that it is impossible to disagree with them → religion is an industry and should be treated as such

god cannot be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving whilst evil exists in the universe → if god was omnipotent, he could have the best of both worlds i.e., genuine freedom and minimisation of pain → he had the choice to create beings who act both freely and morally

if god does not have the will to eradicate evil, then he cannot be a god at all

infinite goodness is an essential part of god’s nature, and any proof against this is proof that god does not exist → but god’s goodness is not the same as human goodness

the sheer amount of evil in the world weighs against there being a god who is omnipotent

god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent and creates a perfect world → evil was introduced into the world because some of his creatures turned away from god → evil is not a concrete thing, it is failure to flourish or fulfil natural purpose

a.n. whitehead → god is not omnipotent but bound by natural law → he is the great companion, the fellow sufferer who understands, so he is not separate from his creation but part of it → god influences events but does not determine them

hick → humans must use their freewill to work towards achieving perfection in the next life → the world is a “vale of soul making” in which our souls are strengthened and matured by the struggle of life

is god justified in creating a world that contains so much evil in order to attain certain goals?

if some evils are too much, where do we draw the line of what is too much suffering? our understanding of suffering is only relative to our own experiences

verification principle → the truth of a statement lies in its method of verification → spin off emotivism - ethical statements are statements of emotion not fact

falsification principle → a statement must be open to challenge to be meaningful, and religious people deny challenges to statements of gods existence, making them meaningless

analogy → rejected univocal and equivocal language, claimed that analogical language could be used meaningfully to refer to god → three types of analogy: attribution, proper proportion, improper proportion

eschatological verification → the truth of statements of god will be revealed at the end of time or in the afterlife

language as a symbol → religious language points to a spiritual reality and opens up new levels of understanding

religious language as moral assertion → it has meaning and can be verified because it results in a change in behaviour and a moral commitment

meaning only comes from context → problems in philosophy come from misunderstanding and are not inherent in the words themselves → there may be conventional or unconventional ways to talk about god

religion is a language game → it cannot be either grounded or criticised in reason as it is a system all of its own → the reality of god does not lie in the abstract issue of whether god exists, but rather in the words and practice of religion