Definition of 'God' & a couple of arguments for the existence/non-existence of God.
Quote:
Historically in Western Culture the concept of God is derived from the Judaic-Christian tradition. As this concept has been philosophically studied and debated there are number of attributes that have come to be more or less settled as the orthodox concept of God in Western Culture. The following listing of attributes is common, although there have always been variations in the wat that adherents have understood the idea. As an initial statement for our study the following list of twelve attributes is offered.
God is One
God is a Person (personal)
God is Eternal
God is Omnipotent (all powerful)
God is Omniscient (all knowing)
God is Omni-benevolent (all good)
God is Immaterial (without size, weight, or shape)
God is Immutable (unchangeable)
God is Simple
God is Impassible
God is Self-Caused (uncaused)
God is the Creator of the World
ex nihilo (out of nothing)
Of course, there are issues with many of these attributes.
Quote:
How can God as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost be one being and not three? Is this conception genuinely monotheistic?
Is God necessarily
eternal in the sense that God could not choose to stop existing? Or is God simply an everlasting being because God will not ever choose not to be?
The notion omnipotence gives rise to what is called the paradox of onmipotence?
The paradox of omnipotence is: Could God make a stone so heavy that he could not move it? If he could make it that heavy, then he is not all powerful because he has not the strength to lift it. However, if one says he could not make it that heavy, then he is not all powerful because he does not have the power to create such a thing.
Thomas Aquinas offers an answer to this paradox: That is like asking can God make a round square? A triangle with 4 sides? Give someone back their virginity? He cannot violate logic.
This is when I state (as Devil's Advocate), if he cannot violate logic (which he created), then he is still not all powerful.
Quote:
The notions of
omnipotence and
omnibenevolence together give rise to what is called the problem of evil?
The problem of evil is: Why is there evil and suffering in the world? Since God is all powerful, he should be able to wipe away all the suffering and evil, but he does not, is that not an evil act? If one had the ability to take away a child's pain, and one chose not to, would that person not be evil? On the other hand, if God had NOT the power to take away the evil and suffering, he would not be all powerful.
There is also an issue of omniscience. Does God know what we will do next Saturday? If he does, then do we really have free will?
God is Simple. This is the notion that God is Immaterial as well. He has no body (such as we do, we are compound, with a body and a soul), he only has a soul.
God is Immutable, for if he did change, he would not have been perfect to begin with.
God is Immpassible, for something to be better than God, he would not be perfect.
The issue of being the creator
ex nihilo is the cosmological argument of causal relationships.
Quote:
Every event must have a cause, and that cause, in turn, must have a cause, and so on. If there were no end to this backward progression of causes and effects, then their succession would be infinite. But an infinite series of causes and effects is
unintelligible. Hence, there must be a first cause which is itself uncaused. Such a being we call God. Therefore, God exists.
I am going to break this down into premises.
P1 Every event must have a cause
P2 Every cause must have a cause
P3 An infinite series of causes and effects is unintelligible
P4 Hence, there must be a first cause
P5 The first cause is the creator
ex nihilo called God.
If P1 and P2 are true, then how can P4 be true?
Is P3 true? Are we denying a 'link' in the chain, so to speak? If we deny a link in a chain, then the rest of the chain after that link would never exist.
Is the first cause necessarily only ONE, or that it is perfect and good?
Saint Anselm, Arch Bishopof Canterbury came up with an Ontological argument. It is set out in premises:
P1 Greatest conceivable being (gcb)=God
P2 This gcb can have nothing conceived that is greater.
P3 This being possesses all conceivable perfections
P4 If this being did not exist outside of our minds, it would not be all perfect. It MUST exist in real life to be perfect.
P5 We call this gcb 'God'
P6 Therefore, God exists.
Gaunilo takes a stance here. OK...think of the greatest conceivable island. EVERYTHING is perfect. Perfect weather, plants, water, fish, etc. Does that island exist in real life? According to Saint Anselm it does.
McGinn decides to take a stance here as well (ok..those of you who are Christian and believe that God exists, and then, too, Satan exists...get ready!). Saint Anselm's theory here, can PROVE that Satan does NOT exist! According to Anselm, the gcb is perfect, which in our attributes discussed above, includes omnibenevolence. Satan can obviously not exist since he is in no way benevolent in the least! McGinn states:
Quote:
We should note that the argument can be deployed in the opposite direction to prove the non-existence of the most
imperfect being. Call that being 'Satan': then Satan cannot exist because he is the most imperfect conceivable being, and existence is one of the perfections. To exist and to be imperfect is to be less imperfect than maximally imperfect.
The other issue that we have with Saint Anselm's view of perfection and the theory that to exist is an attribute of perfection is that 'existence' merely functions as a quantifier. To say that a dog has floppy ears and barks, you are giving terms to identify the dog. But to say that "dog exists", one is merely stating that one or more are present. 'Existence' is not a property of God, just a quantifier of God. Existence is not the same as all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, etc. For example:
Quote:
The proper reading of "The oldest lion in the Zoo exists." is to say: The property of the oldest lion in the Zoo has an instance. Similarily, to say that. "God exists" is to say that the property of being eternal, all powerful, all knowing etc, has an instance. On this analysis, "existence" is not a property of individuals, including God. hence, the ontological argument cannot be successful.
The argument of Design also comes up. E. K. Daniel states
Quote:
The universe exhibits orderliness and, more importantly,
purpose...[It] could not have come about by accident or chance. [It] must be a result of some greater plan. Just as the existence of, say, a watch indicates that a designer/creator (an intelligent mind) must have planned it and brought it into being, so the existence of the universe...indicate that an even greater designer/creator (an intelligent Mind) must have planned it and brought it into being. Such a being is what we mean by God. Therefore, God exists.
The universe does not need an explanation because it exists, or even because it is orderly. It needs an explanation because it has purpose. Everything that has purpose seems to have been created/designed by an intelligent mind as Daniel stated.
This issue here though is, if God is all perfect, why did he not make a perfect world?
We then come to Daniel's Moral argument in which he states
Quote:
Many people have a sense of moral obligation. They feel this claim of obedience to a moral law as coming form outside of themselves. No naturalistic account of this sense of obligation in terms of human needs or behavior can explain it. It can be explained only by the existence of a moral lawgiver outside of the natural universe. Hence, such a lawgiver must exist. Such a being we call God. Therefore, God exists.
Ok, it should first be noted that humans need not exist in order for the first-cause and design arguments to be valid. But now why is it that only humans feel this moral obligation? Also, if God was all perfect, why would he have need to create moral law? We would inherently already be good since our all benevolent God would only create good. Humans also get this feeling in other religions, even those which do not acknowledge a God, and they still are able to fulfill this obligation. Also, it is rather presumptious to assume that all humans feel the moral obligation coming from something outside of them. This can also go hand in hand with whether or not we truly have free will. If we feel a moral obligation to do what God wants, then things are predetermined for us. Sure we can choose the opposite, but we will be morally punished for going against our governor. This also coincides with the Natural Law argument that Daniel gives. Where there is a natural law, there must be a lawgiver. This again would infer that every naturally occurring phenomena is perfect and good. (and I will go here...including homosexuality, sorry, but its true...there are animals who practice homosexuality in nature...but that is an all together different discussion).
I recently have discussed a majority of this in one of my courses, so all of this was fresh in my mind and notes. I hope you all have found this to be equally intriguing.
Daniel, E. K. "A Defense of Theism."
Philosophy: Contemporary Perspectives on Perennial Issues. Eds. E. D. Klemke, A. David Kline, and Robert Hollinger. Boston: St. Martin's Press, Inc, 1994. 260.
Mussard, Richard R. "Lecture Outline: Part II Three Metaphysical Questions". University of Southern Indiana. Spring 2006 (pp. 1-5)
My lecture notes from Intro to Philosophy
Reply
