I. The Attributes of God
He argues
Time and Eternity
1. Stephen T. Davis: Temporal Eternity
- Davis explores the concept of God existing within
time, arguing for a view known as "temporal eternity."
He suggests that God experiences time in a way similar
to humans, progressing from moment to moment. This
view aims to reconcile the idea of an eternal God with
the dynamic and temporal nature of creation, allowing
for a God who can interact with the world in a
meaningful way, responding to events and actions as
they occur.
2. Hugh J. McCann: The God Beyond Time
- McCann defends the classical theistic view that God
exists outside of time. According to this perspective,
God is timeless and does not experience temporal
succession. McCann argues that God’s eternal nature
allows for a perfect and unchanging existence, free
from the limitations and changes inherent in temporal
existence. This timelessness supports the idea of God's
immutability and omniscience, as God perceives all of
time simultaneously.
God's Omnipotence and Human Freedom
1. St. Augustine: Divine Foreknowledge and Human
Free Will
- Augustine addresses the apparent conflict between
God's omniscience (specifically, foreknowledge of
future events) and human free will. He argues that
divine foreknowledge does not impose necessity on
human actions. God’s knowledge of future free actions
does not cause them to happen, thus preserving
human freedom while maintaining God's omniscience.
2. Nelson Pike: God's Foreknowledge and Human Free
Will are Incompatible
- Pike challenges the compatibility of divine
foreknowledge and human free will. He argues that if
God knows in advance what a person will do, then that
action is predetermined and the person cannot act
otherwise, thus negating free will. This incompatibilist
view suggests a tension between God's omniscience
and the concept of human autonomy.
3. Alvin Plantinga: God's Foreknowledge and Human
Free Will are Compatible
- Plantinga defends the compatibility of divine
foreknowledge and human free will by introducing the
concept of "middle knowledge" (Molinism).
that God knows all possible worlds and the free actions
individuals would take in any given situation. This
allows for free will while maintaining God’s
omniscience, as God's foreknowledge includes knowing
what free creatures will choose without causing those
choices.
God's Omnipotence
1. Harry G. Frankfurt: The Logic of Omnipotence
- Frankfurt examines the logical coherence of the
concept of omnipotence. He explores potential
paradoxes, such as the question of whether an
omnipotent being can create a task that it cannot
accomplish. Frankfurt argues for a nuanced
understanding of omnipotence, suggesting that it
should be defined in terms of the ability to do all that
is logically possible, avoiding contradictions.
2. St. Thomas Aquinas: Is God's Power Limited?
- Aquinas addresses the nature of God’s
omnipotence, asserting that God can do all things that
are possible and that do not involve logical
contradictions. He argues that God’s power is not
limited in any meaningful sense because impossible
actions (like creating a square circle) are not genuine
actions and thus do not fall under the scope of
omnipotence. This maintains the coherence of God's
omnipotence without falling into logical paradoxes.
II. The Problem of Evil
1. David Hume: The Argument from Evil
- Hume presents the classic problem of evil,
questioning how an all-powerful, all-knowing, and
all-good God can allow the existence of evil. He argues
that the presence of extensive suffering and moral evil
in the world challenges the traditional attributes of
God, suggesting that either God is not omnipotent, not
omnibenevolent, or does not exist.
2. John Hick: Evil and Soul-making
- Hick offers a theodicy known as the "soul-making"
defense. He argues that the existence of evil and
suffering is necessary for the development of moral
and spiritual virtues. According to Hick, a world
without challenges and suffering would not allow for
the growth and maturation of human souls, ultimately
leading to a higher good.
3. Edward H. Madden and Peter H. Hare: A Critique of
Hick's Theodicy
- Madden and Hare critique Hick’s soul-making
theodicy, questioning whether the amount and
intensity of suffering in the world are truly necessary
for soul development. They argue that if God is
omnipotent, He could have created a world where
soul-making occurs with less suffering, thus
challenging the adequacy of Hick’s defense.
4. J.L. Mackie: Evil and Omnipotence
- Mackie argues that the coexistence of evil with an
omnipotent and omnibenevolent God is logically
inconsistent. He contends that traditional theistic
responses fail to resolve this problem, leading to the
conclusion that belief in such a God is irrational in the
face of the observable evil in the world.
5. Alvin Plantinga: Free Will Defense
- Plantinga offers the Free Will Defense, arguing that
God allows evil to exist because it is a necessary
consequence of granting humans free will. According
to Plantinga, the value of free will is so significant that
it justifies the existence of moral evil, as a world with
free agents is better than one with no free will at all.
6. Paul Draper: Evolution and the Problem of Evil
- Draper examines the problem of evil in the context
of evolutionary biology. He argues that the process of
evolution, with its inherent pain and suffering, poses a
significant challenge to theistic beliefs. Draper suggests
that the extensive and apparently unnecessary
suffering in the natural world is more consistent with a
naturalistic view than with the existence of an all-good,
omnipotent God.
III. Death and Mortality
1. Plato: The Immortality of the Soul
- Plato, through dialogues like "Phaedo," argues for
the immortality of the soul, suggesting that the soul
preexists birth and survives death. He presents
philosophical arguments based on the nature of the
soul, its capacity for knowledge, and its affinity with
the eternal and unchanging realm of Forms,
contrasting with the transient physical body.
2. Bertrand Russell: The Finality of Death
- Russell, an atheist and materialist, argues that death
is the end of individual existence. He contends that
there is no empirical evidence for an afterlife and that
belief in immortality is wishful thinking. Russell
emphasizes the importance of facing the reality of
death and finding meaning within the finite human
lifespan.
3. Jeffrey Olen: Personal Identity and Life after Death
- Olen explores the concept of personal identity in
relation to life after death. He examines various
theories of personal identity (such as psychological
continuity and bodily continuity) and their implications
for the possibility of an afterlife. Olen critically
analyzes whether personal identity can be preserved
after death, considering philosophical and
metaphysical challenges.
IV. Miracles and Revelation
1. David Hume: Against Miracles
- Hume argues against the credibility of miracles,
defining them as violations of natural laws. He asserts
that evidence for miracles is typically based on
unreliable testimony and that natural explanations are
always more probable. Hume concludes that rational
people should proportion their belief to the evidence,
which overwhelmingly favors the consistency of
natural laws over miraculous events.
2. Peter Van Inwagen: Of 'Of Miracles'
- Van Inwagen engages with Hume's critique of
miracles, offering a rebuttal. He argues that Hume’s
standards for evidence are too stringent and that
miracles can be credible if they are well-attested and fit
within a broader theological framework. Van Inwagen
suggests that dismissing all miracle claims outright is
unreasonable and that some reports deserve serious
consideration.
3. J.L. Mackie: Miracles and Testimony
- Mackie critically examines the role of testimony in
justifying belief in miracles. He argues that even if
testimony is sincere and well-intentioned, it is often
unreliable and subject to error. Mackie concludes that
the balance of probability generally disfavors
miraculous claims, reinforcing a skeptical stance similar
to Hume’s.