The Existence of God and the Problem of Evil

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
FATE v. FREE WILL. Fatalism The idea of fatalism coincides with destiny. This means that everything in our lives is predestined by fate. In other words,
Advertisements

THE LIGHT OF REVELATION. INTRODUCTION WHAT IS LIFE? Mans existence in this world and the creation of this entire universe are not mere accidents or products.
Recent versions of the Design Argument So far we have considered the classical arguments of Aquinas and Paley. However, the design argument has attracted.
St. Augustine Quotes “Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.”  Ontology  Epistemology  Ethics.
Time: 399 BCE. Place: The porch of the King Archon's Court in Athens. Socrates: Defendant against charges of corrupting the youth and failing to worship.
The ontological argument. I had the persuasion that there was absolutely nothing in the world, that there was no sky and no earth, neither minds nor.
ROMANS Laying a solid foundation Romans 6:1- 14 Calvin Chiang A New Life, A New Beginning.
An Eternal God Philosophy of Religion 2008 Lecture 2.
Descartes’ rationalism
Foreknowledge and free will God is essentially omniscient. So assuming that there are facts about the future, then God knows them. And it’s impossible.
Introduction to Religious Experience LO: I will know about different types of Religious Experience.
Allah and the Big Bang Theory. Standard Big-Bang Cosmology  The universe, including all of time, space and matter, began to exist in a cataclysmic event.
Is Eternity Possible? Mathematical Concepts Related to Time, Space and Eternity
Introduction to Ethics Lecture 8 Moore’s Non-naturalism
Aristotle: - Cause - Cosmology - Prime or Unmoved Mover.
Faith Works: The Balancing Act Romans 14:1 –
HELP! WHAT DO I DO? James 1:5-8. Help! What Do I Do?  We are rolling through a series of sermons launched from the book of James  James is a book full.
Proving the Existence of the ‘Necessary Existent’ Part 1 – Deductive Arguments.
Today A brief general introduction to the problem of free will
Results from Meditation 2
LIGHT Robert C. Newman Abstracts of Powerpoint Talks - newmanlib.ibri.org -newmanlib.ibri.org.
During a conference with graduate students, a Professor of University of Berlin... Germany In the Beginnings of 20th Century.
Pascal’s Wager / Divine Foreknowledge. Pascal’s Wager ❏ Blaise Pascal ❏ Pascal's Wager is an argument that belief in the existence of God is in a rational.
Looking at the Roots of Philosophy
Text: Romans 8:1-14 Uncovering Religion
David Lewis Counterfactuals and Possible Worlds. David Lewis American philosopher, lived between UCLA and Princeton Modal realism.
The answer really annoys me for 3 reasons: 1.I think the statement is arrogant. It doesn’t take into account any definitions of God but solely focuses.
Welcome to a new year Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. (John 8:34 ESV)
The Attributes of God (Lesson 5 & 6)
Miss McCoy Lesson #13 Paragraph Writing, The Story of Daniel
Evil Introduction We have finished a series on spiritual beings who serve God We are about to look at spiritual beings who do not serve God  We generally.
LIGHT Robert C. Newman Overview A series of eight talks on light given to a young people’s camp at French Creek State Park in Pennsylvania, August 1979.
Philosophy 1050: Introduction to Philosophy Week 10: Descartes and the Subject: The way of Ideas.
Rota Fortunae Fr "Inconstancy is my very essence; it is the game I never cease to play as I turn my wheel in its ever changing circle, filled with joy.
EXISTENCE OF GOD. Does God Exist?  Philosophical Question: whether God exists or not (reason alone)  The answer is not self-evident, that is, not known.
OCR training programme Get Ahead - improving delivery and assessment of Units G581: Boethius Question.
The Trinity and Incarnation The Twin Mysteries of Faith.
© Michael Lacewing Hume and Kant Michael Lacewing co.uk.
Chapter 4 The God Who Reveals Religion
Arguments for God’s existence.  What are we arguing for?
© Michael Lacewing Kant on conceptual schemes Michael Lacewing osophy.co.uk.
Descates Meditations II A starting point for reconstructing the world.
PHIL/RS 335 Divine Nature Pt. 2: Divine Omniscience.
The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God August 15, 2015 George Cronk, J.D., Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy & Religion Bergen Community College.
Philosophy 1050: Introduction to Philosophy Week 8: Augustine and Self-Consciousness.
Augustine’s Philosophy of Mathematics Jim Bradley Nov. 3, 2006.
Enter Boethius LO: I will assess the view that God is ‘timeless’ and everlasting. Recap – Explain the terms.
An analysis of Kant’s argument against the Cartesian skeptic in his ‘Refutation of Idealism” Note: Audio links to youtube are found on my blog at matthewnevius.wordpress.com.
Mr. DeZilva Philosophy of Religion Year 13.  Transcendent  Covenant  Omniscient  Old Testament  Genesis  The Forms  Prime Mover  creatio ex nihilo.
Philosophy 1050: Introduction to Philosophy Week 5: Plato and arguments.
Anselm & Aquinas. Anselm of Canterbury ( AD) The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God (Text, pp )
God is Simple!.  Aquinas... Gods nature and existence are the same thing  Because we are talking about him, he exists  Anselm – Existence is a predicate.
Meditations: 3 & 4.
Chapter 1: The cosmological argument AQA Religious Studies: Philosophy of Religion AS Level © Nelson Thornes Ltd 2008 Revision.
The Nature of God Nancy Parsons. Attributes- Nature of God Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of: 1.God as eternal,
Welcome to Lighthouse. Recap. What is the Chief end of man?
Religious perspectives to understand the religious perspectives of free will and determinism lesson 15.
The Nature of God Aim To understand how people may describe God. To think about how God may be experienced.
Church Membership. Angels and Demons What does the Bible say? Sunday Evening: 6 PM.
Introduction to Philosophy
Christian rejection of TAG
Cosmological Argument
God’s omniscience To examine some of the problems with God’s omniscience.
The Problem of Evil.
Philosophy of Religion – Boethius Continued
Anselm & Aquinas December 23, 2005.
Kalam Cosmological Argument
The attributes and Nature of God (Lesson 4)
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
Three kinds of dependence
Presentation transcript:

The Existence of God and the Problem of Evil Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius and the Consolation of Philosophy

What are Boethius’ aims? To question what we mean by divine foreknowledge. To explore the meaning of eternity. To discuss two kinds of necessity- Simple and Conditional To prove that God rewards and punishes justly.

Why this is important to this course: This is a direct challenge to the argument that if our behaviour is determined or even foreseen, then God has to take some responsibility for the evil that men do.

This topic brings suffering! I always promise my classes that a couple of lessons on Boethius and this is how they are going to feel.

The Context: Since we have shown that knowledge is not based on the thing known but on the nature of the knower, let us consider the nature of the Divine Being and what sort of knowledge it has.

See who can work this out: 1 11 21 1211 111221

See who can work this out 2: 1 11 21 1211 111221 312211 13112221

Or this: You can split the world into 10, those who understand this and those who don’t.

What makes God’s understanding different: All rational creatures judge the Divine Being to be eternal, so we should start by explaining the nature of eternity, for this will reveal to us the nature of the Divine Being and the capacity of divine knowledge.

What do we mean by eternity? Eternity is the simultaneous possession of boundless life which is made clearer by comparison with temporal things.

This takes a significant time to explain: This becomes clear when we consider temporal things: whatever lives in time lives only in the present, which passes from the past into the future, and no temporal thing has such a nature that it can simultaneously embrace its entire existence, for it has not yet arrived at tomorrow and no longer exists in yesterday.

A possible addition It might be possible to add in a brief discussion of General Relativity here. Focusing on the idea that Einstein would agree that time and space are both the result of the big bang. Big Bang____________________ Big Crunch

We cannot be considered eternal: Even one’s life today exists only in each and every transient moment. Therefore, anything which exists in time… cannot properly be considered eternal, for anything in time does not embrace the infinity of life all at once, since it does not embrace the future or the past.

A contribution from Woody Allen ‘The trouble is that we are trapped in time and space and that is not where the action is!’

God can, because: Only that which understands and possesses the infinity of endless life, that lacks no future nor has lost any past, can properly be considered eternal. Such an eternal thing fully possesses itself, is always present to itself, and possesses all the infinity of changing time before itself…

Thinking of God: God should not be thought of as older than creation, but rather prior to it in terms of simplicity and unity. For the endless motion of the things in time imitate the single present of God's changeless intellect…

Returning to God’s nature: Since every intellect understands according to its own nature, and since God lives in an eternal present, with no past or future, his knowledge transcends the movement of time and exists only in a single, simple, unified present.

God’s knowledge: This knowledge encompasses all things, the endless course of the past and the future, in one single vision as if the infinity of things past and present were occurring in a single instant.

This is where their heads start to hurt! Therefore, if you consider the divine foreknowledge through which God knows all things, you will conclude that it is not a knowledge of things in the future but a knowledge of an unchanging present.

Introduction of necessity: That is why it is called Providence rather than “prevision”, because it sees everything not from their inferior perspective but from above, as it were. Why then, do you think that the things which Providence sees in its eternal present are governed by necessity whereas the things which you see in your present you don't regard as being governed by necessity?

Trying to describe God’s knowledge in human terms: If we may properly compare God’s vision to human vision, he sees all things in an eternal present just as humans see things in a non-eternal present. If you consider divine vision in this light, it follows that divine foreknowledge does not change the nature or the properties of individual things: it simply sees those things as present which we would regard as future.

Another attempt at God’s knowledge: The intellect of God is not confused or changeable: he knows all things intuitively, whether these things happen of necessity or not.

Boethian example 1: Think of it this way: you may happen to see at one and the same time a man walking down the street and the sun shining in the sky; even though you see both of these at one and the same time, you recognize that one action is a voluntary action, the man walking down the street, and the other is necessary, the shining of the sun.

Boethian Example 2: In this manner, the divine mind looks down on all things and, without intervening and changing the nature of the things it is viewing, sees things as eternally present but which, in respect to us, belong to the future.

Boethian Example 3: Therefore, when God knows that something is going to happen in the future, he may know a thing which will not happen out of necessity, but voluntarily; God’s foreknowledge does not impose necessity on things.

Tying down necessity 1: But you might answer that whatever God foresees as happening must necessarily be happening. Now, if we were to be absolutely precise about this word, “necessity”, I would have to agree with your objection.

Tying down necessity 2: But I would answer that a future event may be necessary as regards God’s knowledge or vision of it, but voluntary and undetermined in regards to its own nature.

There are two types of necessity. Tying down necessity 3: How can I say this? There are two types of necessity.

Simple Necessity: One is simple, as when we say that all humans are necessarily mortal.

Conditional necessity 1: The other is conditional, as when you see a man walking, it is necessary that he's walking, or else you wouldn't see him walking.

Conditional necessity 2: This conditional necessity, however, does not imply simple necessity, for it is not caused by the particular nature of the thing, but on some condition added to the thing.

Conditional necessity 3: No necessity forces the walking man to walk: he has voluntarily chosen to move himself forward using his feet. However, as long as he's walking, he is necessarily moving himself forward using his feet.

Conditional necessity 4: In the same manner, if Providence sees anything in its eternal present, it follows that this thing exists necessarily in the way Providence sees it, but it may not exist the way it does out of some necessity in its nature.

Free but necessary: So God sees future things that are the result of human free will; these things, then, are necessary, on the condition that they are known by God, but, considered only in themselves, they are still free in their own natures…

A summary of the difference: The difference between simple and conditional necessity is the addition of the condition.

Conclusion 1: Since all this is true, we can conclude that the freedom of human will remains completely independent of God's foreknowledge,

Conclusion 2: and the laws which prescribe rewards and punishments are just since they provide rewards and punishments for the free actions of the human will rather than reward or punish things that happen of necessity.

Conclusion 3: God sees us from above and knows all things in his eternal present and judges our future, free actions, justly distributing rewards and punishments…

If they are not too easily confused: After they understand Boethius it might be worth asking the question: where does this leave the Incarnation?????? © H N Campbell