1. Is it possible to verify statements about God? The Logical Positivists would say no – God is a metaphysical being and it is impossible to empirically verify claims made about God, both theistic and atheistic. Claims are neither analytic nor synthetic they are therefore meaningless. Hick maintains that claims are in principle verifiable and therefore satisfy the criteria of the weak verification principle. Claims made about God are meaningful due to eschatological verification. How convincing is this argument from Hick?

2. Hick – Eschatological Verification if God is beyond human comprehension, how can I be sure I will recognise God? In order to establish the truth of statements made about God after my death, I must retain my personal identity after death – I must be able to think, reason and be able to recognise the beatific vision (God/Heaven) if God is beyond human comprehension, how can I be sure I will recognise God? Statements about God can only be verified – they cannot be falsified – if I die and there is no God or Heaven, then “I” will not be around to establish the claim as false! There is no way any of the Logical Positivists would accept the idea of Hick’s Eschatological Verification. Neither would they accept Swinburne’s idea of cumulative probablity – it was dismissed by Flew as the logical equivalent of “10 leaky buckets”

3. Anthony Flew Falsification Principle – Keeping the door firmly shut on religious statements!

4. A child is utterly convinced that there is a monster hiding under the bed. The mother is trying to convince them that it is safe to get into bed and go to sleep. Imagine what their conversation might be. I can’t see anything I can’t hear anything I’ve never been attacked by a monster! I can’t see any sign of a monster

5. Flew’s rejection of Religious Claims Statements are only meaningful if they make a genuine claim about the world Statements must be falsifiable in order to be meaningful Religious statements cannot be falsifed and therefore are not meaningful – Ie, there is nothing that can count against them

6. Johnny Depp loves me But… He doesn’t return my calls His agent has asked me to stop calling him Johnny has taken out an injuction preventing me from coming within 2 miles of him He’s just playing hard to get His agent is jealous because Johnny secretly loves me Johnny doesn’t want to upset his fans that he is so deeply, secretly in love with me There is nothing that can be said or done to convince me that Johnny Depp is not in love with me. Anything Johnny does will only convince me further that he is actually in love with me. Saying that Johnny Depp loves me is then a totally meaningless statement – because there is nothing I would accept as evidence or proof of its falsity.

7. Moving the goal posts Believers constantly adjust their beliefs in light of potentially damning evidence “God loves us” Poverty? Disease? Suffering? Hardship? Death?

8. God “dies the death of a thousand qualifications” (Flew) Nothing is allowed to count against religious claims – anything is consistent. “God loves us” / Thousands die in Earthquake Claims become void of any meaning because they are immune to falsification They hide behind statements like “God moves in mysterious ways” and avoid looking at the evidence in front of them.

9. If nothing can count against claims made about God then these claims are unfalsifiable. In order for a statement to be meaningful, we need to know what state of affairs would indicate its falsity. Statements about God then are not factually significant.

10. Challenging Flew: “God guides me through life” How might Hare’s ideas about “Bliks” be used to challenge Flew’s Falsification principle? What are the points made by Swinburne & Mitchell? Explain how they challenge the falsification principle.