PoR Essay plans

Problem of evil:

Evidence of evil and suffering in the world provides a greater

challenge to the existence of God that the logical problem of evil.’
Discuss

Thesis: The evidential problem of evil poses more of a challenge to the

existence of God than the logical problem.

Para 1: Moral evil is adequately justified by God giving us free will in Hick’s
theodicy. We need free will to develop from spiritual immaturity in stage
one to a state of likeness with God in stage 2.

BUT : JL Mackie: We have free will but not commit moral evil. This creation
is not impossible for an omni… God. But we don’t, so epicurean problem
persists.

C-P: Plantinga, a world in which we have ‘free will’ but choose to never
commit evil is not genuine free will. To have genuine free will, which God
gives us we MUST be willing to accept moral evil. Therefore logical
problem of evil is not too detrimental.

Para 2: Evidential problem of evil still pertains. Must the world be so evil to
teach us what we need to know.
David Hume-Irenaeus
-Sceptic/atheist
-Evidential problem of evil is so strong
-"could not our world be little more hospitable and still teach us what we
need to know?" Does the suffering have to be so extreme
-There is no limit on what God can do, so why does evil still exist

BUT: Epistemic distance – natural evil must exist otherwise our free will
would be limited as we would know God exists. Then cannot improve our
soul when acting out of fear from punishment for God as ungenuine
improvement.

C-P: DZ Phillips
-No 'real' God
-The quantity of evil that exists is overpowering and causes a vicious
cycle, evil makes more and worse evil not 'soul making' and good.
-PoE has not been solved

The amount of evil God allows in his epistemic distance seems cruel

BUT: ALL IS RELATIVE- WHAT IS A CRUEL AMOUNT OF EVIL MAY

NOT BE AWFUL AS WE ONLY HAVE ONE WORLD OF EXPERIENCE.
Cannot claim God allows so much evil when we have no
comparison.

C-P: Doesn’t matter the amount of evil that is evident in our world is
already too great for a omni…God to exist We can only comment on what
we know and experience. We can't just make no ideas for God's existence
merely because we live in one universe. Dostoyevsky-Irenaeus
-The Brothers of Karamazov, protest atheist

-“I think if the devil doesn’t exist, but man has created him, he has
created him in his own image and likeness.”
-SO MUCH evil, unnecessary evil why children?
-He does not want to associate with a God who made the world he
experienced

Arguments for the existence of God:

To what extent does Aquinas’ cosmological argument successfully

reach the conclusion that there is a transcendent creator?

Thesis: Aquinas’ cosmological argument does not successfully reach the

conclusion that there is a God.

Para 1: The motion and cause argument rely on infinite regress being
impossible, however this may not be the case. Aristotle claims “nothing
can come from nothing” as justification for his prime mover, later used by
Aquinas is his first way. But we logically can grasp and use infinity in
maths e.g. Hilbert’s Hotel. Tus, infinite regress does not have to be
impossible, and a God/prime mover cannot be concluded.

BUT: Aquinas’ attempts to use an a posteriori method to point to a

transcendental creator, and he cannot experience infinity. The need for a
cosmological argument is furthered by Leibniz. Gottfried Leibniz
advancement on Aquinas' 3rd way.

"In virtue of which we hold no fact could ever be true of or existent, nor
statement correct, unless there were a sufficient reason why it was thus
and not otherwise"

 The universe cannot be a brute fact – otherwise the start of its

existence would be a brute fact – that doesn’t make logical
sense

You should be able to give a complete explanation for why things exist
including how it came to exist. Nothing occurs without sufficient reason for
why it is, and not otherwise. A sufficient reason to explain the universe's
existence would thus explain how and why the universe exists. This
explanation of contingent beings must be greater than contingent beings.
This must be a necessary sufficient explanation for the universe. Assumes
this is God.

BUT: The fallacy of composition

Just because every human being has a mother doesn't mean that humans
has such a 'mother'- Bertrand Russell. What is true within a system
doesn’t mean it is true for the system. If you have limited experience, we
can make incorrect conclusions.

Para 2: The development of quantum mechanics suggests not all events

require a cause. Some are purely random on the quantum level.

Mind-Body Problem

‘Evaluate the view the thinking mind is separate from the body’

Thesis: Thinking mind is the same as the body due to the weakness of
substance dualism and the scientific evidence of physicalism

P1: The interaction problem – Physical objects can only be moved by other physical forces. The
body is a physical object. The mind is non-physical, therefore how can the mind interact with the
physical body? It cannot. Would create new energy in a closed energy system we exist within.
(evidential) – Elizabeth of bohemia

BUT: Introspection - No matter how much we know about the neurological basis of pain, some
conscious experience of suffering pain seems too complex for scientific explanation. E.g. we can
observe someone's pain in theory through an MRI but not 'feel' it. Mind seems more personal than
the brain.

C-P: Masked man fallacy – like Bruce Wayne and Batman seeming like two different people but being
the same, what is conceivable is not always possible or true.

P2: Dependence of mind on the brain – example of Phineas gage mind is dependent on the brain.
Physical changes in your brain (pole through the skull) directly affects your non-physical
personality/mind Neuroscientific evidence.

BUT: Irreducibility of intentionality – I can conceive it is possible that Arsenal win the Champion’s
league in 2026, yet this does not exist. How could a purely physical mind conceive of non-physical
things?

C-P: Resembelance – the brain is merely connecting and manipulating physical things it knows to be
true and combining them. Arsenal are in the Champion’s league, someone will win the Champion’s
league so it is possible for a physical only brain to conceive of these things which do not physically
exist.

P3: Qualia - Mary's room:

Perhaps a girl Mary knew EVERYTHING about colours but lives in a black and white room. In theory
she shouldn’t be able to learn any more about colours when she sees it for the first time. However it
seems possible she will learn something when she sees colours. This qualia gained in non-physical

BUT: She’s not gaining qualia rather she's just gaining the ability to see colours. She becomes
acquainted with colours rather than gaining experiences about colours.
Religious Language p2:
Is religious language cognitive? Discuss.
Thesis – Non – cognitive

Para 1: Meaningless as unfalsifiable.

Karl Popper:

Falsification principle: A statement is only meaningful if it can be falsified. If it cannot be falsified

then the claim is meaningful. This is what 'demarcates' scientific statements from other kinds of
statements. Must be realistically able to falsify the statement.

Antony Flew:

Any claim about God cannot be falsified, thus religious language is meaningless.

Parable of the Explorers in the Jungle:

Two explorers in the jungle see a well kept patch of land. One assumes there must be a maintainer,
the other doesn't. They both wait for him to appear he doesn't. The believer says the maintainer is
invisible, so they set up sniffer dogs and thermal goggles. The maintainer doesn't appear. The
believer says the maintainer is intangible and invisible and unsmellable. The non-believer says what's
the difference between all those qualities and a maintainer who doesn't exists. We cannot falsify the
maintainers existence so they claim he exists is meaningless. APPLY TO GOD.

The concept of God dies a 'death by a thousand qualifications.' - religious believers will not allow
anything to falsify their belief

BUT:

Hare say that the lunatic has a blik. A world view logically prior to facts. It affects the way he
interprets facts and what facts he accepts and dismisses. Thus the view is not falsifiable as no matter
how many tests you present to the lunatic he cannot accept them.

The lunatic represents a religious believer, claiming their view on God is unfalsifiable as well and
thus according to Hare is meaningless. This is s religious believers have a blik causing them to
interpret arguments about God's existence in a way which fits their view and challenges are
dismissible.

o Hare could be supporting the validity and meaning of religious language even though you
cannot falsify the claim, as it is meaningful to the religious believer.

BUT:
 using and emphasising the PoE as evidence seems to be contradictory to the Christian's belief
in God. So cannot have a meaningful claim and consistent Christian God at the same time.

Para 2: Language only meaningful in its context so non – cognitive – Wittgenstein

For Wittgenstein, meaning is use. Words have no objective reference points; they simply
reflect systems of behaviour. For religious language, he thought that function might be more
important than meaning.

Therefore non – cognitive as no objective meaning

BUT: religious arguments such as Aquinas Ontological makes religious language. If God can be
proved by reason we can falsify him making claims about religion meaningful.

o BUT: HARE OR because religious language cannot be falsified, ultimately it is meaningless

because it is entirely irrational and without basis.

The Nature of God:

Assess the belief that because God knows everything, we cannot have free will

Thesis: Because God knows everything, we cannot have free will

Para 1: Calvin – Divine foreknowledge – As God is omniscient he knows the past present and future
in their entirety. This divine foreknowledge however means that our actions are predetermined as
God already knows them so they are already a fact in time for someone.

BUT: Biblical passages such as the book of Job best make sense in terms of God not knowing our
actions. Why would God test Job if he knew he would fail them in the end. It seems that God cannot
have divine foreknowledge to ensure the Bible and its accounts of God still make sense. Therefore,
we may be able to have free will as it is the most logical option that agrees with biblical passages.

C-P: Swinburne’s view of the everlasting God does provide a satisfactory account that upholds all the
attributes of God and ensures human free will. If God were everlasting, as described in Laplace’s
demon, he would be able to know the future and thus we would lose free will as God would be able
to gain divine foreknowledge.

Para 2: Boethius divine simultaneity argument. God is eternal and external to time. He sees all of
time in one glance. Thus whilst God have omniscience as he sees all of time, it one ‘present’ for him
so he does not have divine foreknowledge. Therefore, we still have free will as our actions are not
predetermined and God does not know they already happened.

BUT: Anthony Flew, how can God be just and give judgement if he has divine simultaneity? For
example, how can I avenge a murder that has not happened yet, you cannot. Thus it seems illogical
for God to be able to judge and choose the elect whilst experiencing all our actions at once.
Therefore, Boethius’ account for God’s omniscience and our free will is unsuccessful.

C-P: Anselm’s 4th dimensionalist approach. God interacts with slices of time as he is beyond the 4 th
dimension, time making him timeless. Whilst humans are presentist and live alongside time (the past
is unchangeable and the future is unknowable). This solves Kenny's criticisms as he can interact with
any point in time all at once if he wishes, therefore he can make judges. Anselm's difference in
theory to Boethius Is key, God doesn't see everything in one glance, rather he can interact with all
slices of time at once if he wishes to. Upholds our free will.

"that which in eternity cannot be changed, is changeable by free will at some time before they exist"

BUT: Anselm’s argument is still vulnerable as it relies on divine self-imposed limitations. God can
interact with every slice of time at once as he is omnipotent, so he could have complete divine
foreknowledge by interacting with all of time. This leaves Anslem’s arguments vulnerable to the
previous critique’s and human free will still compromised by God’s omniscience.

Religious language p1:

Religious language is most successful when it is speaking symbolically of God:

THESIS FOR:

Introduction: To speak of God meaningfully is a challenge due to the infinite nature of God and our
limited knowledge. Thus, we seem to either say too little about God via the via negativia or may
anthropomorphise God via the via positiva. Therefore, symbolic language is the most successful way
to speak of God, due to the subjective interpretation provoked of God by a symbol and active
participation the symbol plays in which it points towards. This allows symbols to be meaningful
without confining God to human language and facts

Transcendence of literalism - Literal language can be restrictive about God and may not capture the
fullness of the divine mystery. Symbols can convey depth and breadth of religious experience

They open up dimensions of the soul which correspond to those aspects of reality
Symbol of the Cross

In Christianity, the Cross is a key symbol, representing the crucifixion of Jesus. It represents salvation
as it was Jesus' crucifixion that allowed us to be saved. It shows our reunification with God in our
post-lapsarian state after his sacrifice of the crucifixion. God has to punish sin but punishes his son
rather than us.

Crucifixion - method of torture and execution -> extremely of sin/sacrifice. Shows humanity of God
and emphasises his incarnate state as he dies in a human method.

It originally acted as a symbol of rebellion, so Christians could rebelliously show their faith, but has
become a global symbol.

Therefore, Christians will engage and reflect on sacrifice made

BUT
Restrictive - only those in community can understand e.g. Lamb of God - only makes sense if you
know the story of Passover.

BUT

Feature of his view not restrictive. RL is like a religious experience, so able for other to experience
the same. Kierkegaard recognised the close relationship between faith and subjective response
Symbols are not static they can grow and change in meaning over time, like a faith can

BUT

TWE are symbols helpful if they change in their meaning is original intended truth lost.

BUT

Subjectivity - the role of interpretation is too large. E.g. Star of David could mean very different thing
to an Israeli and a Palestinian.

BUT

perhaps religious language is non-cognitive, so you should not expect it to have the same effect on
different individuals

‘The only way in which meaningful statements can be made about God is the via negativa.’

Thesis: No, meaningful statements can be made about in ways other than the via negativa

Para 1: The via negative cannot make meaningful statements as it says nothing at all. [Link] –
statements of negation does not bring anyone closer to gaining an understanding. Especially for a
being infinite in nature, how can finite negations be at all useful. Also cannot say God is not
something without some preconceptual idea that God IS something. Via negative cannot make
meaningful statements about God as they do not greaten the understanding the object of which
they are trying to. Moises Maimonides – ‘guide for the perplexed’ ship example

BUT: The via negative is meaningful it just prevents against anthropomorphism about God. Meister
Eckhart: Started the mysticism idea. Divine is ineffable and beyond names.
Describing God would impose limits on him, he is not good because he is above goodness.
Cannot be grasped by human intellect or language. In recognising limitations of language, the
highest form of knowledge is acknowledging its own limitation. God is nothing - God is beyond
concepts including being itself.

C-P: The Bible – the word of God – speaks of God positively not in negation “The Lord is a warrior”.
To ensure the words of the Bible are meaningful it must be possible to make statements of God by
the via positive as well.

Para 2: It is possible to make meaningful statements about God symbolically. Paul Tillich highlighted
how symbols Transcend literalism - Literal language can be restrictive about God and may not
capture the fullness of the divine mystery. Symbols can convey depth and breadth of religious
experience.

They open up dimensions of the soul which correspond to those aspects of reality
Symbol of the Cross

In Christianity, the Cross is a key symbol, representing the crucifixion of Jesus. It represents salvation
as it was Jesus' crucifixion that allowed us to be saved. It shows our reunification with God in our
post-lapsarian state after his sacrifice of the crucifixion. God has to punish sin but punishes his son
rather than us.

BUT: Subjectivity - the role of interpretation is too large. E.g. Star of David could mean very different
thing to an Israeli and a Palestinian. Can’t make meaningful objective statements about God
through symbolic language.
C-P: perhaps religious language is non-cognitive, so you should not expect it to have the same effect
on different individuals

Moreover: The via negative may be paradoxical. By stating negations about Gof you may end up
making assertions about God. e.g. God is not evil…so he must be good. If you do not accept this flaw
than the via negative may lead to agnosticism as we are unable to make meaningful statements
about God as his existence.