Philosophical
Arguments for and against the Existence of God
Quiz
Instructions:
Answer each question in 2-3 sentences.
1. What is the distinction between 'having
faith in' and 'having faith that' in the context of religious belief?
2. Briefly explain the three types of
skepticism discussed regarding the existence of God.
3. What does the text suggest as a provisional
definition of 'God', and why is it considered a useful starting point?
4. Explain how the concept of a
"maximally great" being is central to Anselm's ontological argument.
5. What is the core criticism of the
ontological argument concerning the concept of existence?
6. What is the key difference between the
logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil?
7. Explain the concept of first and
second-order goods and evils in the context of the problem of evil.
8. How does the text define the concept of
omnipotence, and what is a major limitation discussed?
9. Contrast the temporal and timeless
conceptions of eternity as they relate to God's existence.
10. Explain why indexicals present a challenge
to the idea that God is omniscient.
Answer Key
1. 'Having faith in' something is similar to
trusting or revering it and implies the belief in its existence. Conversely,
'having faith that' something is the case is a proposition to be believed and
does not necessarily relate to trust. Religious belief primarily centers on the
latter, i.e. belief that a supreme being exists.
2. The three types of skepticism are: that
there are no relevant reasons for or against the existence of God
(anti-rationalism); that, although reasons exist, they are inconclusive and do
not lead to a definitive answer; and finally, an approach that does not
necessarily seek a clear answer.
3. The text suggests that God is the creator
and preserver of everything, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, conscious or
minded, eternal, omnipresent, without bodily parts, and an appropriate object
of worship. This definition captures key attributes of God that are widely
agreed upon within theistic traditions.
4. Anselm argues that God is
“that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought," and because existence in
reality is greater than existence in the mind, God must necessarily exist in
reality to be truly the greatest conceivable being.
5. The text argues that existence is not a
predicate, or property, that can be used to define something. Therefore, simply
asserting the concept of God as existing does not demonstrate that God actually
does exist.
6. The logical problem of evil claims that the
existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good God. In contrast, the evidential
problem of evil argues that the amount and types of evil in the world make it
improbable that such a God exists.
7. First-order goods and evils are those that
do not presuppose other goods or evils, such as pleasure and pain. Second-order
goods, like charity and sympathy, require the existence of some first-order
evil; for example, a person needs to have suffered to be the recipient of charity.
8. The initial definition given for
omnipotence is the ability to do everything. However, a key limitation
discussed is that this ability cannot extend to the logically impossible; an
omnipotent being could not make a square circle.
9. The temporal conception of eternity views
God as existing at every moment of time, with an infinite past and future,
while the timeless conception sees God as outside of time, with no past,
present, or future relative to him.
10. Indexicals, such as 'here,' 'now,' and 'I,'
depend on the user's perspective for their meaning. Since God, under a timeless
or non-spatial model, cannot have a perspective, it’s suggested that He cannot
understand these indexical sentences and may not possess the quality of
omniscience.
Essay Questions
Instructions:
Answer the following questions in essay format.
1. Analyze the role and limitations of reason
in religious belief, referring to specific examples in the source text, such as
Luther's views on reason and the use of reason in determining the truth of revelation.
2. Critically evaluate the success of the
ontological argument, paying special attention to both Anselm's original
formulation and the criticisms, like Kant's, concerning existence as a
predicate.
3. Discuss the various responses to the
problem of evil, considering whether they successfully reconcile the existence
of evil with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect
God. Focus on concepts like first and second-order goods and evils and the
"best possible world" debate.
4. Explore the different ways in which the
concept of omnipotence is defined, and discuss the various challenges posed to
these definitions by considerations such as logical contradictions (e.g., the
superheavy stone) and the idea of God limiting his own power.
5. Compare and contrast the different
interpretations of eternity (temporal and timeless) and omnipresence (spatial
and non-spatial), analyzing how each of these attributes affects the coherence
of the concept of God. Consider in what ways, if any, these concepts might
undermine God's other attributes, such as omniscience.
Glossary of Key Terms
·
Agnosticism:
The view that the existence or non-existence of God is unknown or unknowable.
·
Atheism:
The belief that there is no God or gods.
·
Cosmological
Argument: An argument for the existence of God based
on the existence of the universe and its origins.
·
Epistemic
Justification: The justification of a belief based on
evidence, reasoning, or arguments that support its truth.
·
Euthyphro
Dilemma: The dilemma that asks whether things are
good because God loves them or whether God loves them because they are good.
·
Evidential
Problem of Evil: The argument that the existence and amount
of evil in the world makes it improbable that an all-powerful, all-knowing and
perfectly good God exists.
·
Indexicals:
Words whose meaning is dependent on the context of their use (e.g., 'I',
'here', 'now').
·
Logical Problem
of Evil: The argument that the existence of evil is
logically incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and
perfectly good God.
·
Miracle:
An event that is a violation of a law of nature and attributed to divine
intervention.
·
Omnipotence:
The state of having unlimited power.
·
Omnipresence:
The quality of being present everywhere.
·
Omniscience:
The quality of having unlimited knowledge.
·
Ontological
Argument: An argument for the existence of God based
on the definition of God as a perfect being.
·
Properly Basic
Belief: A belief that is justified without
requiring evidence from other beliefs.
·
Prudential
Justification: The justification of a belief based on its
practical benefits, rather than on its truth.
·
Reformed
Epistemology: A school of thought which holds that
belief in God can be warranted without the need for argumentation.
·
Temporal Eternity:
The view that God exists throughout all time, with an infinite past and future.
·
Timeless
Eternity: The view that God exists outside of time,
with no past, present, or future.
·
Warrant:
A property of beliefs that is necessary for them to qualify as knowledge.
God,
Reason, and Belief: Philosophical Inquiries
Frequently Asked Questions on the Existence
and Nature of God
1. What is meant by the term "God"
in philosophical discussions, and is it a name or a description?
In philosophical
contexts, the term "God" is typically used as a shorthand for a
description, not as a proper name. This description generally encompasses the
idea of a supreme being who is the creator and preserver of everything, is
omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), perfect, eternal,
omnipresent, and without bodily parts. Furthermore, this being is considered a
conscious or minded entity, being the subject of psychological predicates like
knowing, caring, and having wishes. The consensus among theists throughout
history supports these attributes as being essential to God's nature, though
disagreement exists regarding the specific interpretations of some of these
properties, such as eternity.
2. What is "Reformed Epistemology"
and what is its stance on the role of reason in religious belief?
Reformed
Epistemology (RE) is a philosophical approach that challenges the traditional
view that all justified beliefs must be based on reason or evidence. It argues
that some beliefs, including the belief in God, can be "properly
basic" – that is, justified without the need for supporting reasons. RE
distinguishes between "reasons" and "warrant," suggesting
that while a believer may not need reasons for their central religious beliefs,
they do require "warrant," which is a different kind of justification
not dependent on evidence. This perspective often draws connections to
Reformation theologians like Calvin, who emphasized faith over reason.
3. How do different types of skepticism
challenge the possibility of knowing whether God exists?
There are three
main types of skepticism that challenge the possibility of knowing whether God
exists. The first claims that no relevant reasons exist to decide the question,
viewing religious belief as essentially a non-rational "leap of faith."
The second type acknowledges the existence of arguments but argues they are
inconclusive, unable to definitively prove or disprove God's existence. The
third is concerned with whether individuals have adequate reasons, noting that
while people may believe for inadequate reasons, it does not show whether good
reasons exist.
4. What is the ontological argument for the
existence of God, and what are its key flaws?
The ontological
argument, famously formulated by Anselm, attempts to prove God's existence
through the very concept of God as
"that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought." The argument claims
that such a being must exist not only in the mind but also in reality, as
existence in reality is considered a greater state. Key flaws include the
confusion about what it means to exist "in the understanding," as
something that exists only in the mind doesn’t actually exist, as well as the
assertion that existence is a predicate that can be attributed to something,
rather than a statement that something is actual. Additionally, the argument's
reliance on the idea that existence is a necessary attribute for a maximally
great being, and that non-existence is a defect, is problematic.
5. How do the concepts of eternity and
omnipresence pose challenges to the traditional understanding of God?
Eternity and
omnipresence, traditionally considered attributes of God, create significant
philosophical challenges. Eternity is understood in two primary ways: temporal
(God existing at every moment of time) and timeless (God existing outside of
time). A temporal God might not be the cause of time itself. Additionally, if
the Big Bang theory is correct, then this God would have come into existence
roughly 15 billion years ago and will go out of existence when a "Big
Crunch" occurs, which seems to be inconsistent with the classical
understanding of God's permanence. A timeless God faces issues of causality and
is incapable of being a creator, while simultaneously also having issues
related to having knowledge of our world. Omnipresence is similarly
problematic. If God is everywhere, it implies spatial parts, while if God is
nowhere in space, it seems to contradict the idea of a personal being who has a
specific relationship to the world. Further, if God's omnipresence is simply a manifestation
of his omnipotence or omniscience, it fails to capture the distinct theological
meaning many theists believe is essential.
6. What is the problem of evil, and how do
theodicies attempt to address it?
The problem of
evil raises the question of how the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing,
and perfectly good God can be reconciled with the existence of evil in the
world. The logical problem of evil argues that the two are logically
inconsistent, while the evidential problem suggests the existence of evil makes
God's existence very unlikely. Theodicies attempt to address this issue by
arguing that evils are either necessary for greater goods (like the development
of sympathy) or serve other divine purposes that are not readily apparent to
humans. However, such explanations are often met with counter arguments that
some evils are not logically or causally necessary and do not justify their
occurrence, as it is only "second order" goods like sympathy which
logically depend on "first order" evils.
7. What is the significance of indexicals in
debates about divine omniscience?
Indexical
expressions (like "I," "here," and "now") pose a
significant problem for the traditional concept of divine omniscience,
especially for a God conceived as timeless and/or non-spatial. Because their
meaning and truth-value depend on the speaker's or thinker's perspective and
location, it becomes difficult to see how a timeless or non-spatial being could
have knowledge of these truths. It's argued that God, without being in time or
space, can't know truths which are dependent on being in time and space.
Although God might know the non-indexical correlates of these claims (e.g.,
that "Everitt is hot"), he cannot know the indexical claim itself
(e.g. "I am hot") because this requires that God have a specific
personal location or perspective in time and space. This seems to limit God's
knowledge, contradicting the notion of divine omniscience. Furthermore, it’s
argued that even non-indexical correlates may depend on indexicals, further
limiting God's knowledge.
1. What are "prudential arguments"
for belief in God, and how do they differ from epistemic arguments?
Prudential
arguments for belief in God focus on the practical benefits of believing,
rather than the truth of the belief. Unlike epistemic arguments, which seek to
establish whether or not there are good reasons to believe a proposition, they
are focused on whether the belief itself is helpful for the believer. Pascal's
Wager and William James’s "Will to Believe" are typical examples. The
former suggests it is rationally advantageous to believe in God due to the
potential rewards of eternal life and the risks of eternal damnation. The
latter argues that when faced with an intellectual dilemma where one cannot
decide based on evidence, it is permissible to choose the belief that is better
for us, particularly if the decision is "living, forced, and
momentous." These arguments suggest that belief can be justified even when
it is not supported by traditional notions of evidence or reason.