Philosophy Metaphysics of God

The concept and nature of 'God'

God's attributes:
God as omniscient, omnipotent, supremely good (omnibenevolent), and the meaning(s) of these
divine attributes
competing views on such a being’s relationship to time, including God being timeless (eternal) and
God being within time (everlasting).
arguments for the incoherence of the concept of God including:
the paradox of the stone
the Euthyphro dilemma
the compatibility, or otherwise, of the existence of an omniscient God and free human beings.
Arguments relating to the existence of God
For the arguments below, students should pay particular attention to nuances in the logical form of
the arguments (deductive, inductive etc), the strengths of the conclusions (God does exist, God
must exist etc) and the nature of God assumed or defended by the argument.

1. Divine Attributes:
Omniscient: God is all-knowing, possessing complete knowledge of past, present,
and future events, as well as all possible outcomes.
Omnipotent: God is all-powerful, capable of accomplishing anything that is
logically possible.
Omnibenevolent: God is supremely good and morally perfect, exhibiting qualities
such as love, compassion, and justice.
2. Competing Views on God's Relationship to Time:
Timeless (Eternal) View: God exists outside of time and is not subject to its
limitations. This view suggests that God's existence is unchanging and eternal,
with no beginning or end.
Everlasting (Within Time) View: God exists within time and experiences temporal
succession. This view allows for God to interact with the temporal world and be
affected by events within it.
3. Arguments for the Incoherence of the Concept of God:
Paradox of the Stone: Raises the question of whether an omnipotent being can
create a stone so heavy that even they cannot lift it, leading to a contradiction.
Euthyphro Dilemma: Poses a dilemma regarding the relationship between God
and morality, asking whether something is morally good because God commands
it (divine command theory) or whether God commands it because it is morally
good (objective morality independent of God).
Compatibility of Omniscience and Free Will: Raises questions about whether
human beings can possess genuine free will if God already knows all of our
future actions.
4. Arguments Relating to the Existence of God:
Cosmological Argument: Argues for the existence of God based on the existence
of the universe and the need for a first cause or necessary being to explain its
existence.
Teleological Argument: Also known as the argument from design, it posits that
the complexity and orderliness of the universe suggest the existence of an
intelligent designer (God).

Page 1 of 26
 Philosophy
Ontological Argument: A priori argument that attempts to prove the existence of
God based solely on the concept of God as the greatest conceivable being.
Considerations:
Students should analyse the logical form and structure of each argument,
including whether they are deductive or inductive.
Encourage students to critically evaluate the premises and assumptions
underlying each argument, as well as the strength of the conclusions drawn.
Discuss the implications of each argument for the nature and attributes of God
assumed or defended by the argument.
Encourage students to engage with counterarguments and alternative
perspectives to deepen their understanding of the issues involved.
By addressing each of these aspects, students can develop a comprehensive
understanding of the metaphysical aspects of God and the various philosophical
arguments related to the concept of God's existence.
 Ontological arguments
 St Anselm's ontological argument
 Descartes' ontological argument.
 Norman Malcolm's ontological argument.
1. Ontological Arguments:
Ontological arguments are a type of philosophical argument that aim to prove
the existence of God based solely on the concept or idea of God, without relying
on empirical evidence or observations of the natural world. These arguments
typically use logical reasoning and analysis of concepts to conclude that the
existence of God is necessary or self-evident.

2. St. Anselm's Ontological Argument:

St. Anselm, an 11th-century philosopher and theologian, proposed one of the
earliest ontological arguments. His argument, often referred to as the
"ontological proof," is based on the concept of God as "that than which nothing
greater can be conceived." Here's a simplified explanation:
Argument:
God is defined as the greatest conceivable being.
It is greater to exist in reality than merely in the mind.
Therefore, if God exists only in the mind, then we can conceive of something
greater (i.e., a God that exists in reality).
Since God is defined as the greatest conceivable being, God must exist in reality.
Example:
Imagine you have a concept of a perfect, all-powerful, and all-knowing being in
your mind. According to St. Anselm's argument, if this being only exists in your
mind, then you can conceive of something greater—a being that exists both in
your mind and in reality. Therefore, to truly be the greatest conceivable being,
God must exist in reality.

Page 2 of 26
 Philosophy
3. Descartes' Ontological Argument:
René Descartes, a 17th-century philosopher, formulated his own version of the
ontological argument in his work "Meditations on First Philosophy." Descartes'
argument centres on the idea of existence as a necessary attribute of perfection.
Here's a simplified explanation:
Argument:
God is defined as a perfect being, possessing all perfections.
Existence is a perfection or attribute of greatness.
Therefore, if God lacks existence, then God is not perfect.
Since God is defined as perfect, God must necessarily exist.
Example:
Think of a triangle. We can conceive of a perfect triangle with three sides and
three angles. According to Descartes, existence is like a property of a perfect
triangle—without it, the triangle would not be perfect. Similarly, for God to be
perfect, existence must be a part of God's nature.

4. Norman Malcolm's Ontological Argument:

Norman Malcolm, a 20th-century philosopher, presented a modern version of the
ontological argument in his work "Anselm's Ontological Arguments." Malcolm's
argument focuses on the logical possibility of God's existence. Here's a simplified
explanation:
Argument:
God is defined as a necessary being, existing in all possible worlds.
It is possible that a necessary being exists.
Therefore, it is possible that God exists.
If God exists in one possible world, then God exists in all possible worlds.
Therefore, God exists in the actual world.
Example:
Consider the concept of a necessary being—one that exists in all possible worlds.
According to Malcolm's argument, if it is possible for such a being to exist, then it
must exist in the actual world as well. Therefore, if God is defined as a necessary
being, then God necessarily exists in reality.
Issues that may arise for the arguments above, including:
Gaunilo's 'perfect island' objection
Empiricist objections to a priori arguments for existence
Kant's objection based on existence not being a predicate.
Teleological/design arguments
The design argument from analogy (as presented by Hume).
William Paley’s design argument: argument from spatial order/purpose.
Richard Swinburne’s design argument: argument from temporal order/regularity.

Page 3 of 26
 Philosophy
1. Gaunilo's 'Perfect Island' Objection:
Gaunilo, a medieval philosopher, offered a famous objection to St. Anselm's
ontological argument. His objection is known as the "perfect island" objection.
Here's a simplified explanation:
Objection:
Gaunilo argues that if we accept Anselm's logic, we could apply it to any
concept, not just God.
He proposes the idea of a "perfect island"—the greatest conceivable island, with
all imaginable perfections.
Gaunilo argues that if we can conceive of a perfect island, then, by Anselm's
logic, it must exist.
However, this leads to absurdity, as we know there is no such perfect island in
reality.
Example:
Imagine you conceive of the most beautiful, perfect island imaginable, with lush
forests, crystal-clear waters, and abundant wildlife. According to Gaunilo's
objection, if we accept Anselm's logic, this perfect island must exist in reality.
However, we know that such an island does not exist, demonstrating the
limitations of Anselm's argument.
2. Empiricist Objections to A Priori Arguments for Existence:
Empiricists, such as David Hume, raised objections to arguments for God's
existence based solely on a priori reasoning (reasoning independent of
experience). Here's a simplified explanation:
Objection:
Empiricists argue that we cannot prove the existence of something purely
through conceptual analysis or logical reasoning.
They claim that we must rely on empirical evidence from observation and
experience to establish the existence of anything, including God.
Therefore, arguments like the ontological argument, which rely solely on a priori
reasoning, are insufficient to establish the existence of God.
Example:
Suppose someone argues for the existence of a perfect, all-powerful being based
solely on logical reasoning, without any reference to empirical evidence. An
empiricist would object to this argument, arguing that we cannot determine the
existence of such a being without empirical evidence from the natural world.
3. Kant's Objection Based on Existence Not Being a Predicate:
Immanuel Kant, an 18th-century philosopher, objected to the ontological
argument based on the nature of existence as a predicate. Here's a simplified
explanation:
Objection:
Kant argues that existence is not a property or attribute that can be added to a
concept.
In other words, saying that something exists does not provide us with any new
information about its nature or characteristics.
Therefore, existence cannot be used as a predicate to prove the existence of
something, including God.

Page 4 of 26
Example:
Philosophy
Consider the concept of a unicorn. Saying "unicorns exist" does not change the
concept of a unicorn—it remains a mythical creature with certain characteristics,
whether it exists or not. Similarly, Kant argues that saying "God exists" does not
add anything to our understanding of the concept of God.

4. Teleological/Design Arguments:
Teleological arguments, also known as design arguments, seek to demonstrate
the existence of God based on the apparent order, purpose, and complexity
observed in the universe. Here's a simplified explanation:
Argument:
Teleological arguments observe the complexity and orderliness of the natural
world, such as the intricate design of living organisms or the fine-tuning of
physical constants.
They argue that such complexity and order cannot be explained solely by chance
or natural processes.
Therefore, they conclude that there must be an intelligent designer (i.e., God)
responsible for the design and order observed in the universe.
Example:
Consider the complexity of the human eye. It is composed of numerous intricate
structures that work together to enable sight. Teleological arguments would
point to this complexity as evidence of intelligent design, suggesting that the eye
could not have arisen through random chance or natural processes alone.
5. The Design Argument from Analogy (as Presented by Hume):
David Hume, an 18th-century philosopher, presented a sceptical critique of the
design argument based on analogy. Here's a simplified explanation:
Argument:
Hume argues that the design argument relies on an imperfect analogy between
the universe and human artifacts.
He contends that while human artifacts, such as watches or buildings, are known
to have designers, we cannot simply infer from this analogy that the universe
itself must have a designer (i.e., God).
Hume questions the validity of extrapolating from the limited knowledge of
human design to the unknown origins of the universe.
Example:
Imagine comparing a watch to the universe. While a watch clearly has a
designer, we cannot automatically conclude that the universe, with its vastly
greater complexity and scope, must also have a designer. Hume's objection
challenges the validity of drawing such an analogy.

6. William Paley’s Design Argument: Argument from Spatial

Order/Purpose:

Page 5 of 26
 Philosophy
William Paley, an 18th-century theologian, presented a design argument based
on the apparent purpose and order observed in nature. Here's a simplified
explanation:
Argument:
Paley uses the analogy of a watch found in a field: if we came across a watch
lying in a field, we would infer that it had a designer because of its intricate
design and purposeful function.
Similarly, Paley argues, the complexity and purposefulness observed in living
organisms and the natural world imply the existence of an intelligent designer
(i.e., God).
He points to examples of adaptation, functionality, and interdependence in
nature as evidence of design by a purposive intelligence.
Example:
Imagine finding a watch lying in a field. Despite not witnessing its creation, we
would infer that it had a designer due to its intricate design and purposeful
function. Similarly, Paley argues, the complex structures and functions observed
in living organisms, such as the eye.
Issues that may arise for the arguments above, including:
 Hume's objections to the design argument from analogy
 the problem of spatial disorder (as posed by Hume and Paley)
 the design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case (Hume)
 whether God is the best or only explanation.
 Cosmological arguments
 The Kalām argument (an argument from temporal causation).
 Aquinas' 1st Way (argument from motion), 2nd Way (argument from
atemporal causation) and 3rd way (an argument from contingency).
 Descartes' argument based on his continuing existence (an argument from
causation).
 Leibniz’s argument from the principle of sufficient reason (an argument
from contingency).

1. Hume's Objections to the Design Argument from Analogy:

David Hume, an 18th-century philosopher, raised several objections to the
design argument, which posits that the complexity and orderliness of the
universe suggest the existence of an intelligent designer (God). Hume's
objections include:
Analogy is Weak: Hume argued that the analogy between the universe and
human artifacts (like a watch and a watchmaker) is weak because the universe is
vastly more complex and different from anything humans create.
Limited Knowledge: Humans have limited knowledge of the universe, so it's
unjustified to infer a divine designer based on our limited understanding.

Page 6 of 26
 Philosophy
Imperfections in Nature: Hume pointed out imperfections and instances of
apparent "bad design" in nature (e.g., diseases, natural disasters), which would
not be expected if the universe were designed by a perfect and benevolent
creator.
Example:
Imagine finding a complex watch in a field and inferring that it must have been
designed by a watchmaker due to its intricate design and functionality. Hume's
objection would question the validity of this inference, suggesting that the
complexity of the universe is not necessarily evidence of a divine designer.
2. The Problem of Spatial Disorder (as Posed by Hume and Paley):
Both Hume and William Paley, another philosopher, addressed the problem of
spatial disorder as a challenge to the design argument. The problem arises from
the observation of apparent disorder or imperfection in the natural world, which
seems inconsistent with the idea of a perfectly designed universe. Hume and
Paley questioned how the existence of imperfections and disorder could be
reconciled with the notion of an intelligent designer.

Example:
Consider the presence of diseases, natural disasters, and other forms of suffering
in the world. These instances of disorder and imperfection raise questions about
how they fit into the concept of a universe designed by a benevolent and
omnipotent creator.
3. The Design Argument Fails as it is an Argument from a Unique Case
(Hume):
Hume criticized the design argument by arguing that it is an argument from a
single, unique case—the universe itself. He suggested that inferring the
existence of a designer based on a single instance (the universe) is unjustified
and invalid. Hume emphasized the importance of empirical evidence and
repeated observations in establishing causal relationships.
Example:
Imagine trying to infer the existence of a watchmaker based on finding a single
watch in a field. Hume's objection would question the validity of this inference,
arguing that a single instance is insufficient to establish the existence of a
watchmaker.
4. Whether God is the Best or Only Explanation:
This aspect of the design argument raises the question of whether invoking God
as an explanation for the complexity and orderliness of the universe is the best
or only explanation available. Critics argue that there may be alternative
explanations, such as naturalistic processes or the laws of physics, which do not
require the existence of a divine creator.

Example:
Consider the complexity of biological organisms. While some may argue that God
is the best explanation for their existence, others may propose alternative
explanations based on evolutionary theory and natural selection, which do not
invoke the existence of a divine creator.
5. Cosmological Arguments:
Cosmological arguments are a type of philosophical argument that seeks to
establish the existence of God based on the existence of the universe or cosmos.

Page 7 of 26
 Philosophy
These arguments typically focus on the existence of contingent beings (things
that could have failed to exist) and the need for a necessary being (something
that exists necessarily and does not depend on anything else for its existence) to
explain their existence.
Example:
Consider the question of why anything exists at all. A cosmological argument
might begin by noting that everything in the universe appears to be contingent—
it could have failed to exist. Therefore, there must be a necessary being (God)
that explains the existence of contingent beings.

6. The Kalām Argument (An Argument from Temporal Causation):

The Kalām cosmological argument, originating from Islamic theology, argues for
the existence of God based on the premise that the universe had a beginning in
time. The argument proceeds by tracing the chain of temporal causation
backward in time to a first cause (God) that initiated the existence of the
universe.

Example:
Imagine a series of dominoes falling backward in time. The Kalām argument
would suggest that there must be a first domino (first cause) that sets the entire
sequence in motion. Similarly, there must be a first cause (God) that initiates the
existence of the universe.
7. Aquinas' Five Ways:
St. Thomas Aquinas, a medieval philosopher and theologian, proposed five
cosmological arguments for the existence of God in his work "Summa
Theologica." These include:
1st Way (Argument from Motion): Everything in the universe is in motion,
and every motion is caused by something else. Therefore, there must be a first
mover (God) that initiates all motion.
2nd Way (Argument from Atemporal Causation): Everything in the universe
is caused by something else. Therefore, there must be a first cause (God) that is
not caused by anything else.
3rd Way (Argument from Contingency): Everything in the universe is
contingent (could have failed to exist). Therefore, there must be a necessary
being (God) that explains the existence of contingent beings.

Page 8 of 26
Example:
Philosophy
Consider the motion of a billiard ball on a pool table. According to Aquinas' first
way, the motion of the ball is caused by the cue stick, which is in turn moved by
the hand of the player. This chain of causation ultimately traces back to a first
mover (God) that initiates all motion.

8. Descartes' Argument Based on His Continuing Existence (An

Argument from Causation):
René Descartes, a 17th-century philosopher, proposed an ontological argument
for the existence of God based on his own continuing existence. Descartes
argued that the fact that he continues to exist from moment to moment requires
an explanation, and the only adequate explanation is the existence of a perfect
and infinite being (God).
Example:
Descartes reflected on the fact that he continues to exist from moment to
moment. He concluded that his existence cannot be self-explanatory and must
depend on the existence of a perfect and infinite being (God) that sustains him in
existence.
9. Leibniz's Argument from the Principle of Sufficient Reason (An
Argument from Contingency):
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a German philosopher, formulated an argument for
the existence of God based on the principle of sufficient reason. According to
Leibniz, everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in the
necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. Since contingent beings
exist, there must be a necessary being (God) that explains their existence.
Example:
Consider a book on a table. According to Leibniz's argument, the book's
existence must have an explanation—it either exists necessarily (e.g., it's a
necessary truth) or it is caused by something else (e.g., someone placed it
there). Similarly, the existence of the universe requires an explanation, which is
found in the existence of a necessary being (God).
Issues that may arise for the arguments above, including:
 the possibility of an infinite series
 Hume's objection to the 'causal principle'
 the argument commits the fallacy of composition (Russell)
 the impossibility of a necessary being (Hume and Russell).
 The Problem of Evil
 Whether God’s attributes can be reconciled with the existence of evil.

Page 9 of 26
 Philosophy
1. The Possibility of an Infinite Series:
The possibility of an infinite series refers to the question of whether it is logically
coherent for there to be an infinite chain of causes or events. Some philosophers
argue that an infinite series is possible, while others maintain that it leads to
logical paradoxes.
Explanation:
Imagine a line of dominoes falling one after another, with each domino
representing a cause or event in the series. The question is whether this chain of
causation can extend infinitely into the past or future.
Example:
Consider the concept of counting numbers. We can count numbers endlessly
without reaching an endpoint, suggesting the possibility of an infinite series.
However, some argue that an actual infinite series cannot be instantiated in
reality without running into contradictions, such as completing an infinite task or
adding to an infinite set.
2. Hume's Objection to the 'Causal Principle':
David Hume raised objections to the principle of causality, which states that
every event has a cause. He argued that our belief in causality is based on
custom and habit rather than rational necessity.
Explanation:
Hume questioned whether we can know with certainty that one event causes
another. He argued that our experience only reveals a constant conjunction
between events, not a necessary connection.
Example:
Consider the sunrise. We observe that the sun rises every morning after the
darkness of night. However, according to Hume, we cannot conclusively prove
that the rising of the sun causes the transition from night to day.
3. The Argument Commits the Fallacy of Composition (Russell):
Bertrand Russell criticized arguments that commit the fallacy of composition,
which occurs when one assumes that what is true of the parts must also be true
of the whole.
Explanation:
In the context of arguments for the existence of God, the fallacy of composition
arises when one tries to infer properties of the universe as a whole (e.g., being
caused) from properties of its individual parts (e.g., everything within the
universe having a cause).

Example:
Imagine a football team consisting of skilled players. While each player may be
skilled individually, it doesn't necessarily follow that the team as a whole will also

Page 10 of 26
 Philosophy
be skilled. Similarly, just because each part of the universe has a cause, it
doesn't necessarily follow that the universe as a whole must have a cause.
4. The Impossibility of a Necessary Being (Hume and Russell):
Both David Hume and Bertrand Russell argued against the concept of a
necessary being, which is a being that exists necessarily and does not depend on
anything else for its existence.
Explanation:
Hume and Russell questioned the coherence of the concept of a necessary
being, arguing that it leads to logical contradictions and does not align with our
empirical observations of the world.
Example:
Consider the concept of a necessary being. If such a being exists necessarily,
then it cannot fail to exist in any possible world. However, according to Hume
and Russell, this raises questions about the nature of contingency and necessity,
as well as the principle of sufficient reason.
5. The Problem of Evil:
The problem of evil is a philosophical challenge to the existence of God, which
arises from the presence of evil and suffering in the world despite the existence
of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent God.
Explanation:
The problem of evil questions how the existence of evil and suffering can be
reconciled with the attributes traditionally ascribed to God, such as being all-
powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), and all-good (omnibenevolent).
Example:
Consider natural disasters, diseases, and human suffering. The problem of evil
asks how these instances of evil and suffering can exist in a world created and
governed by a loving and all-powerful God.

6. Reconciling God's Attributes with the Existence of Evil:

Some philosophers have attempted to reconcile the existence of evil with the
attributes of God by proposing various solutions, such as the free will defence,
soul-making theodicy, and sceptical theism.
Explanation:
These solutions aim to show that the existence of evil is compatible with the
existence of a loving and all-powerful God, either by appealing to human free
will, the greater good that can result from suffering, or the limitations of human
understanding.
Example:
Consider the concept of free will. Some argue that God allows evil and suffering
to exist in the world because it is necessary for humans to have the freedom to

Page 11 of 26
 Philosophy
choose between good and evil. In this view, evil is a consequence of human
choices rather than a direct result of God's actions.
The nature of moral evil and natural evil.
The logical and evidential forms of the problem of evil.
1. The Nature of Moral Evil and Natural Evil:
Moral Evil:
Definition: Moral evil refers to actions or behaviours that are considered morally
wrong or harmful, typically resulting from the intentional choices of moral agents
(such as humans).
Examples: Murder, theft, deception, and acts of violence are examples of moral
evils. These actions involve the intentional violation of moral principles or the
harm of others.
Natural Evil:
Definition: Natural evil refers to suffering, pain, and harm caused by natural
events or phenomena, such as natural disasters, diseases, and accidents, which
are not directly caused by human actions.
Examples: Earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, wildfires, and diseases like cancer
or malaria are examples of natural evils. These events cause suffering and harm
to individuals and communities, often with devastating consequences.

2. The Logical and Evidential Forms of the Problem of Evil:

Logical Problem of Evil:
Statement: The logical problem of evil argues that the existence of evil and
suffering is logically incompatible with the existence of an all-powerful
(omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), and all-good (omnibenevolent) God.
Explanation: The presence of evil seems to conflict with the attributes
traditionally ascribed to God. If God is all-powerful, he should be able to prevent
evil. If God is all-knowing, he should be aware of evil. If God is all-good, he should
desire to eliminate evil. Yet, evil exists. Therefore, it seems logically inconsistent
to believe in the existence of such a God in the face of evil.
 Example:
If God is all-powerful, he should be able to prevent a child from being
harmed.
 If God is all-knowing, he should be aware of the child's suffering.
 If God is all-good, he should want to prevent the child's suffering.
 Yet, the child suffers. This seems logically incompatible with the existence
of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God.
Evidential Problem of Evil:
Statement: The evidential problem of evil argues that the existence of evil and

Page 12 of 26
 Philosophy
suffering provides strong evidence against the existence of an all-powerful, all-
knowing, and all-good God, even if it does not logically disprove God's existence.
Explanation: While the logical problem focuses on the logical inconsistency
between the existence of God and the existence of evil, the evidential problem
focuses on the overwhelming amount and intensity of evil and suffering in the
world, which raises serious doubts about the existence of a benevolent deity.
Example: Consider the widespread suffering caused by natural disasters,
diseases, and human cruelty throughout history. The sheer magnitude and
intensity of such suffering seem to challenge the notion of a loving and all-
powerful God who allows it to occur unchecked.
In summary, moral evil arises from the intentional actions of moral agents, while
natural evil stems from natural events or phenomena beyond human control.
The logical problem of evil challenges the coherence of believing in an all-
powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God in the presence of evil, while the
evidential problem raises doubts about God's existence based on the extent and
intensity of evil and suffering in the world.

3. The Logical and Evidential Forms of the Problem of Evil:

Logical Problem of Evil:
Explanation: The logical problem of evil posits that the existence of evil and
suffering in the world is logically incompatible with the existence of a God who is
all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.
Example: Imagine a world where an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God
exists. In such a world, this God would have the power to prevent any evil or
suffering. However, the presence of even one instance of unnecessary suffering
(such as the suffering of innocent children) would seem to contradict the notion
of an all-good and all-powerful God.
Evidential Problem of Evil:
Explanation: The evidential problem of evil argues that the amount and severity
of evil and suffering in the world provide strong evidence against the existence
of a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, even if it does not
logically disprove God's existence.
Example: Consider the widespread suffering caused by natural disasters, such as
earthquakes or tsunamis, which result in the loss of countless lives and immense
devastation. In addition, the existence of diseases like cancer or malaria, which
inflict suffering on millions of people, raises serious doubts about the existence
of a benevolent and all-powerful deity who would allow such widespread
suffering to occur.
In summary, the logical problem of evil questions the logical coherence of
believing in God in the face of evil, while the evidential problem raises doubts
about God's existence based on the amount and severity of evil and suffering in
the world. Both forms of the problem of evil challenge traditional theological
beliefs about the nature and attributes of God.
Responses to these issues and issues arising from these responses, including:
 the Free Will Defence (including Alvin Plantinga)

Page 13 of 26
 
Philosophy
soul-making (including John Hick).

1. Free Will Defence (including Alvin Plantinga):

Explanation:
The Free Will Defence is a response to the problem of evil that seeks to reconcile
the existence of God with the existence of moral evil in the world. It argues that
God, in creating beings with free will, necessarily allows the possibility of moral
evil, as moral goodness requires the genuine ability to choose between good and
evil.
Alvin Plantinga's Formulation:
Alvin Plantinga, a prominent philosopher, formulated a sophisticated version of
the Free Will Defence, known as the "Free Will Defence in the Face of Possible
Worlds." Plantinga argues that God's creation of beings with genuine free will
logically entails the possibility of those beings choosing to commit moral evil. In
other words, God could not create a world with free creatures who always choose
good, as this would violate the principle of genuine freedom.
Example:
Imagine a world where humans are created with free will but are incapable of
choosing evil. In such a world, their actions would lack genuine moral
significance because they would be predetermined to always choose good.
Therefore, for humans to have genuine moral agency and the ability to freely
choose good, they must also have the capacity to choose evil.
2. Soul-Making (including John Hick):

Explanation:
The concept of soul-making is a theodicy that addresses the problem of evil by
proposing that the purpose of life is to develop and grow spiritually through the
experience of adversity and suffering. According to this view, the presence of evil
and suffering in the world serves as a means for individuals to develop virtues
such as compassion, empathy, and resilience, thereby shaping their souls.
John Hick's Perspective:
John Hick, a philosopher of religion, is a proponent of the soul-making theodicy.
Hick argues that God created a world with an appropriate balance of good and
evil to provide opportunities for individuals to undergo moral and spiritual
growth. Adversity and suffering, although challenging, are seen as necessary
elements of the human journey toward moral and spiritual maturity.
Example:
Consider the experience of overcoming adversity, such as facing a serious illness
or coping with the loss of a loved one. Through these challenges, individuals may
develop virtues such as courage, compassion, and perseverance. From the

Page 14 of 26
 Philosophy
perspective of soul-making, these experiences contribute to the growth and
development of the individual's character and spiritual well-being.
In summary, the Free Will Defence, exemplified by Alvin Plantinga's formulation,
posits that moral evil is a consequence of God granting humans genuine free
will, while the soul-making theodicy, advocated by John Hick, suggests that
adversity and suffering serve as opportunities for moral and spiritual growth and
development. Both perspectives aim to address the problem of evil by providing
explanations for the existence of evil and suffering in the world within the
context of belief in an all-powerful and benevolent God.
Religious language
The distinction between cognitivism and non-cognitivism about religious
language.
The distinction between cognitivism and non-cognitivism about religious
language pertains to how we understand the meaning and function of religious
statements and expressions. Let's explore each perspective with simple
explanations:
1. Cognitivism:
Cognitivism holds that religious language conveys factual propositions or beliefs
about the world that can be true or false. In other words, religious statements
are seen as making truth-claims about the nature of reality or the existence of
supernatural entities.
Explanation:
In the cognitivist view, when someone says "God exists" or "Heaven is a place of
eternal happiness," they are asserting that these statements correspond to
objective truths about the existence of God and the nature of Heaven.
Cognitivism treats religious language similarly to other types of factual or
descriptive language, such as scientific or historical statements.
Example:
When someone says "God loves all his children," a cognitivist interpretation
would understand this statement as asserting a factual claim about God's
attitude towards humanity. It suggests that the speaker believes in the existence
of God and attributes the quality of love to God, which can be evaluated as true
or false.

2. non-cognitivism:
non-cognitivism, on the other hand, denies that religious language expresses
propositions or beliefs that can be true or false. Instead, it holds that religious
statements serve non-factual purposes, such as expressing emotions, attitudes,
or personal commitments.

Page 15 of 26
Explanation:
Philosophy
According to non-cognitivism, when someone makes a religious statement like
"Praise the Lord!" or "Hallelujah!", they are not making assertions about the
existence of God or the nature of divine beings. Instead, these expressions serve
to convey emotions of praise, reverence, or devotion without making truth-
claims.
Example:
When someone exclaims "Thank God for this beautiful day!", a non-cognitivist
interpretation would view this statement as an expression of gratitude or joy
rather than a claim about the existence or actions of God. It reflects the
speaker's personal attitude or feeling rather than making a statement that can
be evaluated as true or false.
Summary:
In summary, cognitivism views religious language as conveying factual
propositions about the world, while non-cognitivism sees religious language as
serving non-factual purposes, such as expressing emotions or attitudes. These
perspectives offer different ways of understanding the function and meaning of
religious statements and expressions, highlighting the complexity of religious
language and interpretation.
The empiricist/logical positivist challenges to the status of metaphysical (here,
religious) language: the verification principle and verification/falsification (Ayer).
The challenges posed by empiricism and logical positivism to the status of
metaphysical and religious language revolve around the principle of verification
and the concept of meaningfulness through verification and falsification. Let's
break down each aspect with simple explanations:

1. Verification Principle:
The verification principle, proposed by logical positivists such as the Vienna
Circle in the early 20th century, asserts that a statement is meaningful only if it
can be empirically verified or confirmed through sensory experience or logical
analysis. According to this principle, statements that cannot be empirically
verified are considered meaningless or nonsensical.
Explanation:
In the context of religious language, the verification principle challenges the
meaningfulness of religious statements or propositions that cannot be
empirically verified. Since religious claims often deal with transcendent or
supernatural entities beyond the realm of sensory experience, logical positivists
argue that such statements lack empirical content and are therefore
meaningless.
Example:
A religious statement like "God is infinite and omnipotent" poses a challenge to

Page 16 of 26
 Philosophy
the verification principle because it makes assertions about qualities of a divine
being that cannot be empirically confirmed through sensory experience.
According to logical positivists, since the existence or attributes of God cannot
be verified through observation or experimentation, such statements are
deemed meaningless.
2. Verification/Falsification (Ayer):
A.J. Ayer, a prominent logical positivist, expanded upon the verification principle
with his concept of verification and falsification criteria for meaningfulness. Ayer
argued that a statement is meaningful only if it is either empirically verifiable or
capable of being empirically refuted (falsified). Statements that cannot be
subjected to empirical verification or falsification are considered meaningless.
Explanation:
Ayer's approach emphasizes the importance of empirical evidence and testability
in determining the meaningfulness of statements. From this perspective,
religious statements that cannot be empirically verified or falsified, such as
claims about the existence or nature of God, are regarded as devoid of empirical
content and therefore meaningless.
Example:
Consider a religious claim like "Prayer can influence the outcome of events."
According to Ayer's verification/falsification criteria, this statement lacks
empirical content because it cannot be subjected to empirical testing or
verification. Since the effects of prayer cannot be reliably demonstrated or
falsified through empirical observation or experimentation, Ayer would classify
this statement as meaningless.
Summary:
The challenges posed by empiricism and logical positivism to metaphysical and
religious language centre around the principle of verification and the criteria for
meaningfulness through empirical verification and falsification. These
perspectives emphasize the importance of empirical evidence and testability in
determining the meaningfulness of statements, thereby raising doubts about the
meaningfulness of religious claims that cannot be empirically verified or falsified.
 Hick’s response to Ayer (eschatological verification) and issues arising
from that response.
 Further responses: the 'University Debate'
 Anthony Flew on falsification (Wisdom’s ‘Gardener’)
 Basil Mitchell's response to Flew (the Partisan)
 Hare's response to Flew (bliks and the lunatic)
 and issues arising from those responses.

Let's explore each of these topics, including Hick's response to Ayer

(eschatological verification), further responses such as the 'University Debate,'
Anthony Flew's argument on falsification (Wisdom's 'Gardener'), Basil Mitchell's
response (the Partisan), and Hare's response (bliks and the lunatic), along with
the issues arising from these discussions:
1. Hick's Response to Ayer (Eschatological Verification):
Explanation:
John Hick proposed the concept of eschatological verification as a response to
A.J. Ayer's verification principle. Hick argues that religious statements,

Page 17 of 26
 Philosophy
particularly those related to the existence of God or the afterlife, cannot be
empirically verified or falsified in the present life. However, they can potentially
be verified or falsified in the afterlife or in a transcendent realm beyond the
physical world.
Issues Arising:
Hick's concept of eschatological verification raises questions about the
meaningfulness and testability of religious claims. Critics may argue that the
concept relies on unverifiable assumptions about the existence of an afterlife or
transcendent realm, making it difficult to assess the validity of religious
statements.
Additionally, the notion of relying on future events for verification introduces
uncertainties and challenges in evaluating the truth or falsity of religious beliefs
in the present life.

2. Further Responses: The 'University Debate':

Explanation:
The 'University Debate' refers to a philosophical discussion initiated by Antony
Flew and Basil Mitchell, among others, regarding the nature of religious language
and the possibility of meaningful religious discourse. The debate centred on
whether religious language can be understood cognitively (as making factual
claims) or non-cognitively (as expressing emotions or attitudes).
Issues Arising:
The 'University Debate' highlights differing perspectives on the nature and
function of religious language, with proponents of cognitivism arguing for the
meaningfulness of religious statements as truth-claims about the world, while
proponents of non-cognitivism emphasize the expressive and emotive aspects of
religious language.
The debate raises questions about the criteria for assessing the meaningfulness
of religious language and the extent to which religious statements can be
subjected to empirical verification or falsification.
3. Anthony Flew on Falsification (Wisdom's 'Gardener'):
Explanation:
Anthony Flew presented the parable of the 'Gardener' to illustrate his argument
on falsification. In the parable, two individuals disagree about the existence of a
gardener tending to a plot of flowers. Despite the absence of evidence for the
gardener's existence, the believer maintains that there must be a gardener,
while the sceptic questions the validity of such a belief in the absence of
empirical evidence.
Issues Arising:
Flew's argument challenges the meaningfulness of religious beliefs that cannot
be falsified or subjected to empirical testing. He argues that if a belief is
compatible with any conceivable state of affairs, it loses its cognitive significance
and becomes unfalsifiable.
Critics may raise concerns about the applicability of Flew's argument to religious
language, particularly regarding the complexity of religious beliefs and the
different ways in which believers interpret and justify their faith.

Page 18 of 26
 Philosophy

4. Basil Mitchell's Response to Flew (the Partisan):

Explanation:
Basil Mitchell responded to Flew's argument by introducing the concept of the
'partisan,' which refers to a believer who interprets all evidence in favour of their
religious belief, regardless of its consistency or validity. Mitchell argues that the
partisan's commitment to their belief renders it immune to falsification and
undermines the possibility of rational discourse.
Issues Arising:
Mitchell's response raises questions about the role of bias and interpretation in
shaping religious beliefs and attitudes. Critics may argue that Mitchell's
characterization of believers as partisans overlooks the diversity of religious
experiences and interpretations within religious traditions.
Additionally, the concept of the partisan highlights challenges in engaging in
rational dialogue and debate when individuals are deeply committed to their
religious convictions and resistant to alternative perspectives.

5. Hare's Response to Flew (Bliks and the Lunatic):

Explanation:
R.M. Hare responded to Flew's argument by introducing the concept of 'bliks,'
which are fundamental presuppositions or perspectives that shape an
individual's interpretation of the world. Hare uses the example of the 'lunatic'
who believes that everyone is out to get him, illustrating how bliks can influence
one's perception of reality.
Issues Arising:
Hare's concept of bliks highlights the role of presuppositions and perspectives in
shaping religious beliefs and interpretations. Critics may question the extent to
which bliks can be subjected to rational scrutiny or evaluation, particularly in the
context of religious beliefs that are deeply held and central to one's identity.
The concept of bliks raises philosophical questions about the nature of belief
formation and the relationship between faith and reason, particularly regarding
the influence of personal experiences, cultural influences, and social factors on
religious beliefs.
In summary, these discussions surrounding Hick's response to Ayer, the
'University Debate,' Flew's argument on falsification, Mitchell's response, and
Hare's concept of bliks highlight the complexity of religious language and belief,
as well as the challenges in assessing the meaningfulness and rationality of
religious claims.

Teleological
1. Aquinas' 1st Way - Argument from Motion:

Page 19 of 26
 
Philosophy
This argument starts with the observation that things in the world
are in motion.
 Aquinas believed that nothing can move by itself; something else
has to cause the motion.
 Therefore, there must be a first mover, which sets everything in
motion without needing to be moved itself. This is what we call God.
Example: Think about a ball rolling. It doesn't start rolling by itself; something,
like a person kicking it, sets it in motion. Even that person's action was caused
by something else, like the decision to kick the ball. This chain of actions
ultimately leads back to a first mover, according to Aquinas, which is God.

2. Aquinas' 2nd Way - Argument from Atemporal Causation:

 Aquinas argued that everything in the world is caused by something
else.
 However, he also argued that this chain of causation couldn't go
back forever; there must be a first because that started everything.
 This first cause must be outside of time and not subject to causation
itself.
Example: Think about a line of dominoes falling. Each domino falls because the
one before it pushed it over. But if the line of dominoes goes on forever, there
would never have been a first domino to start the chain reaction. Aquinas
suggested that there must be a first cause, like someone flicking the first
domino, which is not itself caused by anything else. This first cause, according to
him, is God.

3. Aquinas' 3rd Way - Argument from Contingency:

 Aquinas observed that things in the world come into existence and
go out of existence.
 If everything were contingent, meaning it depended on something
else for its existence, then at some point, nothing would exist
because there would be nothing to bring things into existence.
 Therefore, there must be something necessary, something that
exists by its own nature and does not depend on anything else for
its existence. Aquinas identified this as God.
Example: Imagine you have a toy castle made of blocks. Each block depends on
the others to hold it up. If all the blocks were contingent, meaning they only
existed because the other blocks were holding them up, eventually, if you took

Page 20 of 26
 Philosophy
away one block, the whole castle would collapse. Aquinas suggests there must
be something like the ground the castle is built on, something necessary that
doesn't depend on anything else to exist. This necessary existence, according to
him, is God.

THE LOGICAL PROBLEM OF EVIL

“Epicurus’s old questions have still not been answered. Is he willing to prevent
evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is
malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?”
– Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part 10
J.L. MACKIE: EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE
Inconsistent triad
The simple version of Mackie’s argument is that the
following statements are logically inconsistent –
i.e., one or more of them contradict each other:
 God is omnipotent
 God is omnibenevolent
 Evil exists
Mackie’s argument is that, logically, a maximum of 2
of these 3 statements can be true but not all 3. This is sometimes referred to as
the inconsistent triad.
He argues that if God is omnibenevolent then he wants to stop evil. And if God is
omnipotent, then he’s powerful enough to prevent evil.
But evil does exist in the world. People steal, get murdered, and so on. So, either
God isn’t powerful enough to stop evil, doesn’t want to stop evil, or both.
In the concept of God, God is defined as an omnipotent and omnibenevolent
being. If such a being existed, argues Mackie, then evil would not exist. But evil
does exist. Therefore, there is no omnipotent and omnibenevolent being.
Therefore, God does not exist.

Reply 1: good couldn’t exist without evil

People often make claims like “you can’t appreciate the good times without
experiencing some bad times”.
This is basically what this reply says: without evil, good couldn’t exist.
Mackie’s response
Mackie questions whether this statement is true at all. Why can’t we have good
without evil?
Imagine if we lived in a world where everything was red. Presumably, we
wouldn’t have created a word for ‘red’, nor would we know what it meant if
someone tried to explain it to us. But it would still be the case that everything is
red, we just wouldn’t know.

Page 21 of 26
 Philosophy
It’s a similar story with good and evil.
God could have created a world in which there was no evil. Like the red example,
we wouldn’t have the concept of evil. But it would still be the case that
everything is good – we just wouldn’t be aware of it.
Reply 2: the world is better with some evil than none at all
You could develop reply 1 above to argue that some evil is necessary for certain
types of good. For example, you couldn’t be courageous (good) without having to
overcome fear of pain, death, etc. (evil).
We can define first and second order goods:
 First order good: e.g., pleasure
 Second order good: e.g., courage
The argument is that second order goods seek to maximise first order goods.
And second order goods are more valuable than first order goods. But without
first order evils, second order goods couldn’t exist.

Mackie’s response
Let’s say we accept that first order evil is necessary for second order good to
exist. How do you explain second order evil?
Second order evils seek to maximise first order evils such as pain. So, for
example, malevolence or cruelty are examples of second order evils.

But we could still have a world in which people were courageous (second order
good) in overcoming pain (first order evil) without these second order evils. So
why would an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God allow the existence of
second order evils if there is no greater good in doing so?

Reply 3: we need evil for free will

We can develop the second order evil argument above further and argue that
second order evil is necessary for free will. And free will is inherently such a good
and valuable thing that it outweighs the bad that results from people abusing
free will to do evil things.
So, while allowing free will brings some suffering, the net good of having free will
is greater than if we didn’t. Therefore, it’s logically possible that an omnipotent
and omnibenevolent God would allow evil (both first order and second order) for
the greater good of free will.
Mackie’s response
 An omnipotent God can create any logically possible world
 If it’s logically possible to freely choose to act in a way that’s good on one
occasion, then it’s logically possible to freely choose to act in a way that’s
good on every occasion

Page 22 of 26
 
Philosophy
So, an omnipotent God could create a world in which everyone freely
chooses to act in a way that’s good
In other words, there is a logically possible world with both free will and without
second order evils.
This, surely, would be the best of both worlds and maximise good most
effectively: you would have second order goods, plus the good of free will, but
without second order evils. This is a logically possible world – the logically
possible world with the most good.
So, why wouldn’t an omnipotent and omniscient God create this specific world?
Second order evils do not seem logically necessary, and yet they exist.

PROBLEMS
Alvin Plantinga: God, Freedom and Evil
Plantinga argues that we don’t need a plausible theodicy to defeat the logical
problem of evil. All we need to show is that the existence of evil is
not logically inconsistent with an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God.
So, even if the explanation of why God would allow evil doesn’t seem particularly
plausible, as long as it’s a logical possibility then we have defeated the logical
problem of evil.
Free will defence
Even Mackie himself admits that God’s existence is not logically incompatible
with some evil (first order evil). But his argument is that second order evil isn ’t
necessary.
Plantinga argues, however, that it’s logically possible (which is all we need to
show to defeat the logical problem of evil) that God would allow second order evil
for a greater good. His argument is as follows:
 A morally significant action is one that is either morally good or morally
bad
 A being that is significantly free is one that is able to do or not do morally
significant actions
 A being created by God to only do morally good actions would not be
significantly free
 So, the only way God could eliminate evil (including second order evil)
would be to eliminate significantly free beings
 But a world that contains significantly free beings is more good than a
world that does not contain significantly free beings
In short, this argument shows that it’s at least logically possible that God would
allow second order evil for the greater good of significant freedom.
Perhaps God could have created the world where everyone chose to only do
morally good actions (as Mackie describes above) – but such a world wouldn’t
be significantly free. Free will is inherently good and so significant free will could

Page 23 of 26
 Philosophy
outweigh the negative of people using that significant free will to commit second
order evils.

Natural evil as a form of moral evil

The free will defence above explains why an omnipotent and omnibenevolent
God would allow moral evil. But it doesn’t explain natural evil.
When innocent people are killed in natural disasters, it doesn’t seem this is the
result of free will. So, even if an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would
allow moral evil, why does this kind of evil exist as well?
Plantinga argues that it’s possible natural evil is the result of non-human actors
such as Satan, fallen angels, demons, etc. This would make natural evil another
form of moral evil, the existence of which would be explained by free will.
Even if this doesn’t sound very plausible, it’s at least possible. And
remember, Plantinga’s argument is that we only need to show evil is
not logically inconsistent with God’s existence to defeat the logical problem of
evil.
THE EVIDENTIAL PROBLEM OF EVIL
Unlike the logical problem of evil, the evidential problem of evil can allow that
God’s existence is possible.
However, it argues the amount and distribution of evil in the world provides good
evidence that God probably doesn’t exist.
For example:
 Innocent babies born with painful congenital diseases
 The sheer number of people currently living in slavery, extreme poverty or
fear
 The millions of innocent and anonymous people throughout history killed
for no good reason
We can reject the logical problem of evil and accept that God would
allow some evil. But would an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God allow so
much evil? And to people so undeserving of it?
The evidential problem of evil argues that if God did exist, there would be less
evil and it would be less concentrated among those undeserving of it.

PROBLEMS
Free will (again)

Page 24 of 26
 Philosophy
Sure, God could have made a world with less evil. But this would mean less free
will. And on balance, having free will creates more good than the evil it also
creates.
Possible response:
OK, maybe God would allow some evil for the greater good of free will. But it
seems possible – simple, even – that God could have created a world
with less evil than our world without sacrificing the greater good of free will.
For example, our world exactly as it is, with the same amount of free will, but
with 1% less cancer. God could have created this world, so why didn’t He?
The evidential problem of evil could insist that the amount of evil – or unfair ways
it is distributed – could easily be reduced without sacrificing some greater good,
and so it seems unlikely that God exists, in this world, given this particular
distribution of evil.
John Hick: Evil and the God of Love
Soul making
Hick argues that humans are unfinished beings. Part of our purpose in life is to
develop personally, ethically and spiritually – he calls this ‘soul making’.
As discussed, above, it would be impossible for people to display (second order)
virtues such as courage without fear of (first order) evils such as pain or death.
Similarly, we couldn’t learn virtues such as forgiveness if people never treated us
wrongly.
Of course, God could just have given us these virtues right off the bat. But, Hick
says, virtues acquired through hard work and discipline are “good in a richer and
more valuable sense”. Plus, there are some virtues, such as a genuine and
authentic love of God, that cannot simply be given (otherwise they wouldn’t be
genuine).
This explanation goes some way towards explaining why God would allow the
amount and distribution of evil we see. He then addresses some specific
examples of evils that may not seem to fit with an omnipotent and
omnibenevolent God:

Why God allows animals to suffer

The evidential problem of evil can ask Hick why God would allow animals to
suffer when there is no benefit. After all, they can’t develop spiritually like we
can.
Hick’s response is that God wanted to create epistemic distance between himself
and humanity – i.e. a world in which his existence could be doubted. If God just
proved he existed, we wouldn’t be free to develop a relationship with him.
Why God allows such terrible evils
Hick argues that it’s not possible for God to just get rid of terrible evil – e.g., baby
torture – and leave only ordinary evil. The reason for this is that terrible evils are
only terrible in contrast to ordinary evils. So, if God did get rid of terrible evils,

Page 25 of 26
 Philosophy
then the worst ordinary evils would become the new terrible evils. If God kept
getting rid of terrible evils then he would have to keep reducing free will and
thus the development of personal and spiritual virtues (soul making).

Why God allows such pointless evils

Hick argues that pointless evils – e.g. anonymously dying in vain trying to save
someone – are somewhat of a mystery. However, if every time we saw someone
suffering, we knew it was for some higher purpose (i.e., it wasn’t pointless), then
we would never be able to develop deep sympathy.
Again, this goes back to the soul making theodicy: without seemingly unfair and
pointless evil, we would never be able to develop virtues such as hope and faith
– both of which require a degree of uncertainty.

Page 26 of 26