Philosophy YR1 Progression Flashcards

One may say that God’s omniscience and human freedom are incompatible because of the definiton of God’s omniscience. If God’s omniscience means he knows everything than that means he knows our future actions and what we will eventually do. Because of this we cannot say for certain that our actions are done on our own accord as God knows what we are going to do, so is it really human freedom to do as we wish.

God’s omniscience means that he is all knowing. By definition this means God knows everything that has happened and what will happen. This has been debated againts because of the existence of human freedom and how if God knows all like what a human could do, how could their actions truly be from their own intentions? One argument againts the incompatibility of God’s omniscience and human freedom is his omniscience itself. As said before, God’s omniscience means that he is all knowing, this knowledge is above human understanding. As God is all knowing and is all powerful (omnipotent) it is easy to infer that God’s omniscience and human freedom are infact compatible but only in a way that God understands it. This is because God has all knowledge and power in a way which humans don’t understand. Another way which God’s omniscience and human freedom could be compatible is that because of God’s all-knowing nature, he is simply more knowledgable on what is good for humankind and letting humans have free will and doing bad things will eventually be better for existence overall.

Omnipotence comes from the latin words ‘omni’ and ‘potent’ meaning all power- all powerful. This definiton can be taken two ways. The first is the logical definiton. This means that God has total or all power regarding what is logically possible by human understanding. This means he cannot create a square with three sides as it is logically incompatible. The other definition is that has all power for anything and he can do everything including outside human logic. This means he can create such logical incompatibilities like a square cirlce.

The paradox of the stone argument is an argument used to argue againts the existence of God. This argument/ parable has two ‘horns’ as to why God does not exist. The parable of the stone is essentially asking is that, can God create the heaviest stone which no-one can carry. The first horn of this dilemma is that God successfully creates this stone which no-one can lift including himself. This would limit God’s omnipotence as he is unable to do something. God’s omnipotence being his unlimited and great power. Because this is limited one could say that the concept of God is flawed, therefore should hold no value. The second horn of this dilemma is that God creates the stone, but he can still carry it. This also limits God’s omnipotence as there is still a thing that God cannot do- create a stone which he cannot carry. This would also limit the reliability in God as a concept as one can argue that the fact he cannot do something counteracts one of his definitions (that he is omnipotent). A response to this argument is that God’s power is limited by logic. Because of this he cannot perform logical absurdities like making a square circle. This logic can be transfered to the horns as God still is omnipotent, he is just omnipotent within a human logic.

The Euphyphro dilemma is a dilemma that was formed by Plato about God’s morality. This dilemma is a horned dilemma and has two horns which the answer must be one or the other, however doesn’t match with the definitions of God. Because God creates morality and it can be whatever he wants it to be, whatever is morally wrong could become right. Like if God wishes, he could make serious crimes like murder morally right because he wills it to be. This is undoubtedly not a good God or within his definition but he still has the power to do so, therefore he cannot be omnibelevolent (all-loving). The argument then goes on to stating the opposite that if God could not create morality and is independent from him. This would make serious crimes like murder bad but God would not be omnipotent (all-powerful). If one of these horns is true, the definition of God will be incomplete and invalid.

One response to the Euthyphro dilemma is that about God’s character and nature. God’s nature is that he is a loving and kind God. Because of this it is out of his nature to make serious crimes like murder good. Even though God has the power to create these things as morally right, he chooses not to as he is omnibelevolent (all-loving). It is the same as a person having the power to choose what to wear in the morning. One has the power to choose any colour shirt but may choose to wear a blue shirt. It doesn’t diminish the power to choose another colour, you just like the colour blue.

Eternal and everlasting are the ways which people choose to describe God’s existance. To put it the simplest, if God being everlasting means he exists within time and God being eternal means he exists outside of time. If God is everlasting it means that he was there at the beginning of time and will exists forever. If God is outside of time he has no beginnng or end and just exists simultaniously.

God is seen to be both eternal and everlasting. God being eternal means he essentially lives outsid of time as an observer. This means he lives in a realm with no past, present or future. Because of this an issue arises as if God is eternal and not in time, how can he alter things within time? In the Bible and when God answers prayers he is interacting with time when he is meant to be out of it. Issues arise with God being everlasting also. God being everlasting means that he exists within time but exists with no beginning or end, so he has been there for the past, present and future. Issues arise with this notion as the definiton implies that as God is present in time, how is he to know what will happen in the future? Unlike God being eternal he lives within time so how will he know what will happen tomorrow.

Theological cognitivism and theological non-cognitivsm is used to describe how people view and think of religous language. Theological cognitivism is usually the religous believers view that religous language is meaningful. This would mean religious sentences like ‘God exists’ is valid and holds meaningful value of either being truths or falsities. Whereas non-theists, non-religous believers, hold the view that religious language holds no value at all. This would mean that sentences like' ‘God exists’ holds no value to them as the sentence is neither true or false, therefore holding no meaningful value.

A logical positivist and empiricists only believe that valid data or views can only be gained through independant and direct observation. Because of this they would reject that religous language holds any meaning. This is because they cannot visibly observe religous statements like ‘God exists’, they wouldn’t believe it. This would be further justified by AJ Ayery’s Verification principle. Ayer was a logical positivist involved and a member of the vienna circle, all logical positivists. His VP depicted that one could only have knowledge if they followed a set of criteria. He stated that a proposition can only be verifiable if it is either an analytic truth or empirically verifiable. An analytic truth is something true by definiton like how a triangle is a shape with 3 sides. The second preposition is if something is empirically verifiable like water boiling at 100 degres Celsius. Religous sentences like ‘God exists’ do not follow this set of criteria. This is because God cannot be proved to exists by empiricist ways because he cannot be viewed.

Hick forms his ‘Celestial City’ response to Verification Principle (VP). Hick states that the second part of the VP is invalid because we can prove that God exists when we die and join him in heaven or the celestial city. Hick depicts this by stating that a theist and non-theist are both climbing the same set of stairs both arguing about this concept. The theist (religous believer) believes in the Celestial city but the non-theist (non-religious believer) does not. According to Hick they will only find out when they turn the ‘final corner’ and reach the Celestial city. This goes along with the verification principle as God by definiton exists and we will empitically see him when we die and join God in heaven.

Flew’s falsification principle was taken from Ayers Verification principle on how a sentence can be meaningful. Flew aims to improve the verification principle by making it broader. Flew states that the following prepositions are all required for knowledge to have meaning. That it is an analytic proposition or an analytic tautology, it is verifiable in principle by reference to experience, or it is empirically falsifiable in principle.

Mitchell responded to Flew's falsification principle by introducing the idea of language games. Flew’s falsification principle dictated how to define if a sentence has meaning, specifically religious language. Mitchell’s language games state that religious language operates under its own rules. Mitchell argues that religious statements aren't meant to be empirically verified (verified by experience) or falsified like scientific claims. Instead, they have meaning within the context of religious practices and beliefs. So, Flew's parable, which tries to apply empirical standards to religious claims, misses the point according to Mitchell. He says religious language plays by its own rules, outside of empirical verification.

Hare responded to Flew's falsification principle with the concept of ‘bliks’ and a parable called ‘The Parable of the Lunatic’. In the parable, a student believes his professor wants to kill them despite evidence to the contrary or no evidence at all. Hare uses this to show how fundamental attitudes, or bliks, shape our understanding of the world. He suggests that religious beliefs, like bliks, aren't easily swayed by empirical evidence. Like the student in the parable they won’t be swayed by other evidence that their professor won’t kill them. Instead of swaying their opinion, they deeply influence how religious believers interpret the world.

Wittgenstein's non-cognitivist view of religious language says that religious statements aren't about stating facts but serve other purposes, like expressing emotions or reinforcing beliefs. Non-cognitivsm is the concept that religious language is not truth-apt but still holds meaning. Wittgenstein argues that religious language operates within its own framework, similar to a game with its own rules. So, saying the sentence ‘God exists’ isn't about making a factual claim but could be expressing a commitment or belief within the context of religious practice and community. The non-cognitivist approach means that the meaning of the religous sentences are personal for each believer so holds meaning in that way instead of being factual.

Wittgenstein’s non cognitive approach of religious language dictates that religious statemtns are not necessarily truth-apt but hold a personal meaning for a believer. One criticism of Wittgenstein is that he dismisses the role of evidence in religion. A big part of many religions is the evidential proof that it exists. By dismissing this part completely through making it non-cognitive it can be offensive and untrue to religious believers. Another criticism of Wittgenstein’s non cognitivism is that it generallt dismisses views of religious believers themself. Most religious believers believe that religous sentences actually refer to fact. For example, generally religious believers would refer to terms like ‘God’ and ‘the Holy Spirit’ as genuine beings. Religious believers don’t think of this to be an expression but just as fact. This is also offensive and dismissive of religous believers which can be problematic.

Natural evil is evil that occurs in the natural world outside of a mora agents control. This includes natural disasters like tsunamis and earthquakes and birth defects. These count as natural evil as they can inflict evil upon someone like an earthquake could destroy someone’s home. Moral evil is evil which is intentionally caused by a moral agent like a human. This evil includes rape, murder, theft etc. Essentially any act which is done by a moral agent which causes harm onto others can be considered moral evil.

The logical and evidential form of the problem of evil are both forms of the argument relating to God’s existence. Both argue the existence of a God in the world if there is evil in the world. The logical form of the problem of evil aims to answer the problem of evil in a manner that makes sense logically and with reason. An example of this is Plantinga’s free will defence as he adds in another preposition to make reason of and find a valid solution to the problem of evil. Wheras the evidential problem of evil doesn’t intend to find a solution for the reason of evil in the world because of God, but how evil can live in the world despite God. These types of arguments include Hick’s soul-making theodicy as it doesn’t try to find an exact answer for evil, but how God can exist in the world despite it.

A theodicy and a defence respond to two types of the problem of evil. A theodicy responds to the evidential problem of evil. This type of problem focuses on justifying evil in the world despite God’s existence. An example of a theodicy would be Hick’s soul making theodicy as it responds to the evidential problem. A defence responds to the other type of provlem of evil- the logical problem. The defence tries to find a reasonable or logical answer to the problem of evil. An example of this would be plantingas free will defence because he adds on another preposition to logically respond to the problem of evil.

Plantinga’s free will defence is an attempt to disprove the logical problem of evil. It tries to provide sufficient evidence that all three prepositions can be true: God is omnipotent, God is wholly good and evil exists in the universe. Plantinga attenots to disprove it by adding another preposition to the list. By adding another preposition that it was not within God's power to create a world containing moral good but no moral evil Plantinga believes he has disproved the logical problem of evil. By adding this, it disproves the logical problem of evil and doesnt administer the blame for evil in the world onto God. This is because it is not logically possible for God to dictate for someone with morally significant freedom to do what is right.

One response to Plantinga’s free will defence questions evil. Plantingas free will defence adds another preposition to the original logical problem of evil that it was not within God's power to create a world containing moral good but no moral evil. This would apply to moral agents like as God created them to have free will where they could choose good or evil. However it is unessecary to have so much excess evil in the world. Why, when God can dictate it, is there so much natural evil in the world (evil not caused by humans and by nature) like tsunamis, huricanes and other natural disasters. Surely this only leads to more excess evil and suffering which is unessescary and questions the reality of a God which enables such unessescary suffering to happen.

A theodicy is an attempt to justify evil in the world. This was attempted by John Hick by his ‘Soul making theodicy’. Hick suggests in his theodicy that evil exists in the world for humans to develop their souls. By experiencing evil on a daily basis human spirits can undergo growth which is essential to master againts evils like temptations and bad actions. From this eventually a person’s spirit will be developed enough to have communion with God and join him in heaven. This then will justify evil as it is essential to reach communion with God in heaven and develop one’s soul.

Hick’s soul-making theodicy is his attempt to justify evil in the world. He suggested that evil was in the world to challenge humans to develop their sould meaning they will reach communion with God in heaven. This aimed to justify evil however there are some issues with Hick’s theodicy. One argument is the question of why didn’t God make us perfect originally. One of God’s features is that he is omnipotent. This means he is all-powerful and has the power to do anything that he chooses. There is no need for suffering if humans were all created perfect. This would prevent many lives lost in unnecessary suffering and generally unpleasent situations. Another argument againts the soul-making theodicy is that there is an excess of unnecessary suffering in the world. Suffering still happens in the world without anyone knowing about it. There is no reason for this suffering to happen as it is not benefitting humans as they don’t know about it to develop their souls. For example how is many animals dying in an unknown forest fire going to help someone to develop their souls as they won’t ever know about it.