Supreme Goodness 

Explain- God is fully involved in the good of the universe because he is a good God. If he is a perfect being he must therefore be perfectly good, his kindness makes him benign.

However, God is not good in the way we as humans believe or perceive him to be, which means suffering is actually an example of his goodness and justice, even if we personally do not understand it.

Illustrate- Augustine said “he is absolutely good, but we can also say that he is not good, for he is not good in the way we are”.

Hume’s ‘dialogues concerning natural religion’ - by looking at nature we see God’s love (Cleanthes), ‘we feel God’s benevolent presence through the wretchedness of our own existence‘.

Coherence- God’s supreme goodness does not coincide with both natural and man-made evil in the world. Doesn't this show that God doesn't care, meaning he cannot be supremely good? If he however is unable to stop this even then supreme goodness is mutually incompatible with Omnipotence as he cannot be all powerful. If he doesn't know of this evil then he is not omniscient, all knowing.

 Doesn't make sense for God to be supremely good as he doesn't make anybody happy through such a ‘terrible world’, even his moral attributes cannot be accounted for by the evidence of volcanoes etc.

Omnipotence 

Explain- God possesses infinite power. “He expends no energy that needs to be replenished”, his power is not diminished by creating those with power, such as his creation, he has no need to rest. God claimed in the old testament to the Israelites that he was only one God among many and could use his power/omnipotence to erase evidence of his past work, seen in the lack of archaeological evidence in the cities mentioned in the Bible.

Illustrate- He has been depicted with an omnipotent power throughout art and many cultures, William Blake gave him an all seeing eye. 6th Century BC- “he shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble”, he has the power to shake the very foundations of existence. His powers are knowable.

Coherence- God’s omnipotent power allows him infinite power, however he is still unable to stop suffering in the world, how can he be so powerful? The discovery of science and a clockwork universe means that the world runs for ever, God is meant to be all powerful but this shows that God’s power is not needed or there anymore.

Omniscience 

Explain- God knows everything. He has infinite knowledge, even of the future (as if he is eternal he must have knowledge of past, presence and future). He knows what we are doing and what we have yet to do. One of the central divine attributes, it only makes sense for a perfect God to therefore have perfect knowledge.

 Illustrate- Job 12:13 “With God are wisdom and strength, he has counsel and understanding”. Job knew God’s wisdom and knowledge, even when he appeared to have none after treating him so badly. 

Coherence- If God knows everything, even the future, then how is it possible for us to have free will like Adam and Eve were meant to have, he already knows what we are going to do. Mutually Incoherent- If God knows everything then he must know of suffering. However, if he knows of suffering yet chooses to do nothing about it, how can he be supremely good? Although, Theists may argue against this by saying how suffering is merely God’s plan and evidence of his justice, we are simply ignorant and do not understand. God cannot know everything as certain knowledge and facts can only be learnt via experience. Knowledge of what it is like to sin can only be learnt through sinning. God cannot sin as he is supremely good so how can he have knowledge of this?

 Transcendence 

 Explain- God rises above his creation. He is the only independent being, allowing him to be unknowable and the unknown despite creating the world, the heavens and all of mankind. He is not capable of sin and we cannot possibly understand him because he is untouchable, metaphysical and far above us.

 Illustrate- Philosopher Kiekergaard rejected Immanence, he believed that God and his creation are “two qualities separated by an infinite qualitative difference”. Isaiah 53: 8-9 “for my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, said the Lord”. God is telling Isaiah that God and his creation are entirely separate. We are not perfect enough to ever meet, see or be like him.

Coherance- Mutually incoherent with immanence. How can he be metaphysical yet involved in the world? Isn’t he also meant to intervene the world via miracles and prayers? If he’s transcendent then this seems impossible. It is a restriction on what God can do and therefore cashes with omnipotence.

Immanent 

Explain- God is involved in all creation and we depend on him. There is no place where God is not, he is present in all of space and time. The written word of the bible testifies God’s divine interest, he is therefore an abstract deity. God exists within us, within the universe and we interact/learn with him via miracles, prayers etc. God provides for his creation.

Illustrate- God is involved with all creation, Genesis explains how Adam and Eve “heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day”. Here God is a physical being, able for interaction and communication. God’s immanence is supported by the Bible as a whole, for instance Jesus’ incarnation is an example of God’s role in the world. God is “sustaining all things by his powerful word” Hebrews 1:3. 

Coherence- Immanence directly conflicts with transcendence. How can God be directly involved with all of creation on a personal level (such as fighting alongside the Israelites against the Philistines) if he is a metaphysical being, above and beyond all knowing and interaction? If God is supposed to have created space and time then he must therefore exist outside of it, however Immanence speaks of a God who is very much everlasting, this doesn’t make sense.

Eternal/Everlasting 

 Explain- If God is eternal he is outside time which means he is unable to modify the present, yet he is still able to observe past, present and future. He cannot be involved directly in the world/his creation. If God is everlasting he is inside time, dwelling in eternity. He can interact with the world and knows of both past and present.

 Illustrate- Thomas Aquinas’s analogy “he who goes along the road does not see those who come after him; whereas he who sees the whole road from a height sees at once all those travelling along it”. He was saying how a timeless God is thought to observe the entire course of history at once, just as a person may observe the entire road all at once. Job “he moves on, but I do not perceive him”. This sounds as if Job was aware of God everlastingly, feeling his movement, yet this may mean an eternal God if he is unable to see him. 

Coherence- An everlasting God is able to interact and intervene with the world, including our present. If God can affect this, then do we still have free will? Both eternal and everlasting attributes do not coincide, how can God be both inside, and outside time at the same time? If God is inside time he must therefore be changing, just like everything does. However, if God is perfect and he changes, surely he will become imperfect? That doesn’t make sense.

Omnipotence 

Explain- God possesses infinite power. “He expends no energy that needs to be replenished”, his power is not diminished by creating those with power, such as his creation, he has no need to rest. God claimed in the old testament to the Israelites that he was only one God among many and could use his power/omnipotence to erase evidence of his past work, seen in the lack of archaeological evidence in the cities mentioned in the Bible.

Illustrate- He has been depicted with an omnipotent power throughout art and many cultures, William Blake gave him an all seeing eye. 6th Century BC- “he shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble”, he has the power to shake the very foundations of existence. His powers are knowable.

Coherence- God’s omnipotent power allows him infinite power, however he is still unable to stop suffering in the world, how can he be so powerful? The discovery of science and a clockwork universe means that the world runs for ever, God is meant to be all powerful but this shows that God’s power is not needed or there anymore.

Name	Explain	Illustrate	Coherence
Supreme goodness	God is good and just in everything he does, as his standards of morality are not necessarily the same as ours.	St Augustine: “He is absolutely good; but we can also say that he is not good, for he is not good in the way that we are.”	God’s goodness is not reflected in the horrors of the world seen every day, and the consignment of millions to the flames. Later theologians found it “impossible to reconcile justice and goodness” because of this.
Omnipotent	God is all-powerful; he is the founder, creator and sole owner of the universe.	Job wrote: “He shakes the world out of its place, and its pillars tremble; [he] commands the sun and it does not rise”	God’s power is not always obvious: originally God was less elusive and Genesis tells they “heard the sound” of Him walking in the Garden of Eden, but now Job says “he passes by me, and I see him not”. If God is all-powerful consistently, why does he seem to become more powerful as his followers get weaker? He commands “thou shalt have no other gods before him” suggests other omniscient beings exist.
Omniscient	God is all knowing, thus always does the right thing	The book of Joshua: “when Israel had finished slaughtering all the inhabitants of Ai” which included God’s ‘ very active partisanship’	An omniscient God becomes very hard to know as if he knows the bloodshed of eg. war, why does he allow it to happen? “Both sides in the First World War claimed His support but after all the carnage neither winners not losers found it easy to forgive him”
Transcendent	God exists outside of time and is independent of the universe – he cannot be approached or seen	Job claims: “Lo, he passes by me, and I see him not; he moves on, but I do not perceive him.”	Previously, in Genesis, God is described as being very present in time: “they heard the sound of Lord God walking in the garden”. Also, God is involved in the genocide in Israel. It seems to contradict the idea of imminence.
Imminent	An imminent God is one which exists within us, within the universe and is actively a part of our existence	Genesis: “and they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden”	Imminence directly contradicts the idea of a transcendent God: either he exists outside of time, or in it, both qualities cannot exist simultaneously
Eternal/everlasting	If God is eternal, he is above and separated from time. As everlasting, he has no beginning or end but exists throughout time.	God appears separate from time when he is described by Job; “he passes by me, and I see him not”. He appears present in time when described by Genesis: “and they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden”.	This attribute lacks coherence within itself because eternal and everlasting contradict each other.

Job is a wealthy man living in a land called Uz with his large family and extensive flocks. He is “blameless” and “upright,” always careful to avoid doing evil (1:1). One day, Satan (“the Adversary”) appears before God in heaven. God boasts to Satan about Job’s goodness, but Satan argues that Job is only good because God has blessed him abundantly. Satan challenges God that, if given permission to punish the man, Job will turn and curse God. God allows Satan to torment Job to test this bold claim, but he forbids Satan to take Job’s life in the process.

In the course of one day, Job receives four messages, each bearing separate news that his livestock, servants, and ten children have all died due to marauding invaders or natural catastrophes. Job tears his clothes and shaves his head in mourning, but he still blesses God in his prayers. Satan appears in heaven again, and God grants him another chance to test Job. This time, Job is afflicted with horrible skin sores. His wife encourages him to curse God and to give up and die, but Job refuses, struggling to accept his circumstances.

Three of Job’s friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, come to visit him, sitting with Job in silence for seven days out of respect for his mourning. On the seventh day, Job speaks, beginning a conversation in which each of the four men shares his thoughts on Job’s afflictions in long, poetic statements.

Job curses the day he was born, comparing life and death to light and darkness. He wishes that his birth had been shrouded in darkness and longs to have never been born, feeling that light, or life, only intensifies his misery. Eliphaz responds that Job, who has comforted other people, now shows that he never really understood their pain. Eliphaz believes that Job’s agony must be due to some sin Job has committed, and he urges Job to seek God’s favor. Bildad and Zophar agree that Job must have committed evil to offend God’s justice and argue that he should strive to exhibit more blameless behavior. Bildad surmises that Job’s children brought their deaths upon themselves. Even worse, Zophar implies that whatever wrong Job has done probably deserves greater punishment than what he has received.

Job responds to each of these remarks, growing so irritated that he calls his friends “worthless physicians” who “whitewash [their advice] with lies” (13:4). After making pains to assert his blameless character, Job ponders man’s relationship to God. He wonders why God judges people by their actions if God can just as easily alter or forgive their behavior. It is also unclear to Job how a human can appease or court God’s justice. God is unseen, and his ways are inscrutable and beyond human understanding. Moreover, humans cannot possibly persuade God with their words. God cannot be deceived, and Job admits that he does not even understand himself well enough to effectively plead his case to God. Job wishes for someone who can mediate between himself and God, or for God to send him to Sheol, the deep place of the dead.

Job’s friends are offended that he scorns their wisdom. They think his questions are crafty and lack an appropriate fear of God, and they use many analogies and metaphors to stress their ongoing point that nothing good comes of wickedness. Job sustains his confidence in spite of these criticisms, responding that even if he has done evil, it is his own personal problem. Furthermore, he believes that there is a “witness” or a “Redeemer” in heaven who will vouch for his innocence (16:19, 19:25). After a while, the upbraiding proves too much for Job, and he grows sarcastic, impatient, and afraid. He laments the injustice that God lets wicked people prosper while he and countless other innocent people suffer. Job wants to confront God and complain, but he cannot physically find God to do it. He feels that wisdom is hidden from human minds, but he resolves to persist in pursuing wisdom by fearing God and avoiding evil.

Without provocation, another friend, Elihu, suddenly enters the conversation. The young Elihu believes that Job has spent too much energy vindicating himself rather than God. Elihu explains to Job that God communicates with humans by two ways—visions and physical pain. He says that physical suffering provides the sufferer with an opportunity to realize God’s love and forgiveness when he is well again, understanding that God has “ransomed” him from an impending death (33:24). Elihu also assumes that Job must be wicked to be suffering as he is, and he thinks that Job’s excessive talking is an act of rebellion against God.

God finally interrupts, calling from a whirlwind and demanding Job to be brave and respond to his questions. God’s questions are rhetorical, intending to show how little Job knows about creation and how much power God alone has. God describes many detailed aspects of his creation, praising especially his creation of two large beasts, the Behemoth and Leviathan. Overwhelmed by the encounter, Job acknowledges God’s unlimited power and admits the limitations of his human knowledge. This response pleases God, but he is upset with Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar for spouting poor and theologically unsound advice. Job intercedes on their behalf, and God forgives them. God returns Job’s health, providing him with twice as much property as before, new children, and an extremely long life.

(link)

Please ruminate upon the following:

1) What do you think about the depiction of God here? Is he exhibiting all of the attributes that we have discussed in class?

2) What conclusion (if any) does Job reach regarding the problem of evil?

3) Is there a message here about how we should approach or think about evil?

4) What is the meaning of the section concerning Job's friends? What are we meant to learn from this section?

5) What is the role of Satan in this story? Does he behave as you would expect him to?

EXPLAIN THE VIEW THAT THE MIND IS A TABULA RASA (15 marks)

(four good attempts)

‘Tabula rasa’ meaning blank slate, is the thought that the human mind has no innate knowledge...
It is an empirical epistemological view
Tabula rasa shows that memories and truths are established ‘a posteriori’, or through experience.
The physical world writes upon the blank slate of the mind, establishing faint memories of the ‘bright and vivid’ real thing.
This view was first put forward by Locke in his book ‘An Essay Concerning The Human Mind’
Another concept of this thought is that imaginary images are established through comparing things already written upon your mind . Hume used the example of a golden mountain. Although no-one has ever seen a golden mountain, most people have seen mountains and gold. Therefore, these images are combined to create the image of a golden mountain.
This implies that you cannot imagine what you cannot create from your own memories, reinforcing the ‘Tabula rasa’ view, as you can only create through experience .

___________________________________________________________

The view that the mind is born a tabula rasa is the idea that it is born a blank slate with no knowledge at all. This view dates back as far as Aristotle who described the mind as an ‘unscribed tablet’ over two thousand years ago. A more recent philosopher, Locke, also believed in this theory. He believed that our experiences of the physical world write upon the blank slate and this is how we obtain knowledge. ’A posteriori’ is a truth gained through experience and the idea of empiricism suggests that these experiences are through our senses.
However, it was suggested that knowledge cannot only be obtained through our sensory experiences as we have knowledge of things that we can’t possibly have experienced. A philosopher who responded to this was Hume . He believed that our experiences of the physical world were ‘vivid and forceful’ and our ideas of that world are ‘faint and obscure’ He suggested that our knowledge is made up of our ideas of the physical world which we have through experience, OR our mind combines two of our ideas which makes an idea of something we haven’t necessarily experienced.
Hume used the idea of a ‘golden mountain’. It is clear that none of us have physically experienced a Golden Mountain , yet we can imagine it. This is because we have experienced gold and a mountain separately and our mind is simply merging them together.
All these theories are examples of empiricism, which is the suggestion that knowledge is gained through experiences of the physical world. (I wish this sentence specifically linked back to the ‘tabula rasa’ issue raised in the question )

______________________________________________________

The view that the mind was a tabula rasa was first mentioned by Aristotle over 2 thousand years ago when he described the new born mind as a blank slate. This view was later adopted by the two british empiricists Locke and Hume. Locke wrote a book on the subject and Hume followed by saying that ideas in the mind are formed by impressions of the real world or by the combination of impressions eg gold and mountain – gold mountain.
The main argument about tabula rasa is that your behaviour and knowledge is not formed by nature (you are not born with it) but that it is instead nurtured and learned )(how you are brought up) . The main theory is that when you are born you know nothing.’ Tabula rasa’ is part of an empirical approach to epistemology where ideas are viewed as ‘a posteriori’.
Tabula Rasa is a completely contradictory idea to the rationalist movement, who believe that we are given certain, basic knowledge when we are born.

___________________________________________________________

Tabula rasa or blank slate is how empiricists, such as Hume and Locke, describe the human mind from birth. The world then writes itself upon this slate. Empiricists reject the view that we have innate ideas. The epistemological approach is empiricism and it says all of our knowledge is gained through our experiences and physical sensations of the world, in other words ‘a posteriori’ knowledge.
Aristotle was the first to compare the mind to an ‘unscribed tablet’ over two thousand years ago. Hume came up with the ‘golden mountain ‘ analogy. He said that we have sensed gold and a mountain, so they are in our knowledge. We can then cross-reference these two ideas to imagine what a golden mountain would be like, by reflecting upon previous experience.
Another such experiment would be that of a feral child such as in the book by Ibn Tufail, and whether this child had ideas of things like God without being exposed to or experiencing them. The tabula rasa approach is similar to that of the nurture argument – that our morals come from experience rather than instincts or nature.

strengths of the notion that the idea of God is innate

Name: Ontological Argument
Explain: Descartes and Anselm set out two arguments that proved God must exist
Illustrate: Descartes arguments premise is that god is a supremely perfect being, he then says that existence is a necessary quality of perfection, so comes to the conclusion that god must exist. Anselm’s version of the argument starts with the premise that God is the greatest conceivable being, and to be the greatest conceivable being must exist so therefore god must exist as otherwise he would not be as perfect as something that did.
Link: This is a strength of the notion that the idea of god is innate because we cannot experience the idea of god, but it must exist so is therefore innate.

Name: The trademark argument
Explain: This argument shows that god left some ideas in us, so the idea of god must be innate
Illustrate: The argument is as follows: Premise: i have an idea-----it didn't come to me through my senses------- I didn't make it up--------- i must have been born with it----- Something must have caused it to be there when i was born-------- That which causes something must have the attributes of that which it causes------Therefore the idea is perfect and thus the cause of the idea must be perfect------- Perfection = God
Link: This view proves that the idea of god is innate

or

One of the main arguments for idea of God being innate is the ‘trademark argument’ (Descartes)

It is argued that we have the knowledge of God that wasn’t experienced through senses and wasn’t made up. We cannot make God up because he is prefect by definition thus he cannot be imagined and we could not add or subtract to this idea of God. Therefore the only other solution of my knowledge of god is that I must have been born with it. God must be innate because we haven’t sensually experienced God and it is also impossible to have made him up.

problems with intelligent design

Name: Evolution
Explain: The world was not designed for us, we simply evolved to fit it
Illustrate: Evolution is the theory that we have evolved to fit into our environments by genetic mutations, and that the beneficial mutations were passed on and that where the mutated creatures survived more they reproduced and survived more so eventually the whole species had the favourable mutation.
Link: If this is the case then it shows that intelligent design is not true and that we simply adapted to the world. So it seems that it was designed for us as we are adapted to it and it was in fact not designed for us.

Name: Chance
Explain: There is a chance that the world is only suited to sustain our life because of chance
Illustrate: For example there is a huge amount of possible universes which could support life so ours could be one of these and we do not know it, so we are only able to survive because by chance our planet fits our needs. Lots of species also evolved before humans and then died out which shows that our species has only survived because by chance we are able to adapt to our environments when previous species for example dinosaurs could not.
Link: This is a problem for intelligent design because it is probable that the world only suits us by chance, so weakens the intelligent design argument.

or

N – A problem with intelligent design is the argument against it which is evolution.
E – Evolution is a scientific theory and the most credible belief of how we come to be so fitting for the world. This is a naturalistic explanation of how we over time have adopted and kept the most favourable mutations that are more likely to help us survive and reproduce.
I – For instance food was on trees and the species of animals could not reach it to eat, so to survive over generations they adapted by genetic mutation. They grew long necks, in order to live in their environment.
L – A problem with intelligent design is there is more of a credible and naturalistic argument to how we survive in this world.

N – Another problem with intelligent design is it lacks evidence.
E – There is no real scientific testing done and it does not follow scientific methodology, there isn’t testing and any definite predictions based on this theory. Also there is no real consistency to who the designer is, a design that has been made must have a designer.
I – Most people believe that the God of classical theism is the designer, but there could really there is no real way of discovering what or who and if there is a designer of this world.
L – Intelligent Design lacks support because there is no real evidence supporting this theory

problems with analogy

N – A problem with analogy argument is that we as human beings have no experience of world making.
E – We cannot reasonably claim that our world has been made because we have nothing of a similar making to compare it; we have not experience worlds being made. We can however do this with most objects because we can compare them to other manufactured objects. But e cannot use these objects to justify the creation and design of the earth.
I – From understanding and observing the growth of a hair, can we learn anything about the creation of man/woman?
L – Analogy isn’t coherent because, just because there is objects that have been designed (like a watch), they cannot justify the design of the world because we have no other experience of a designed universe.

N – It can also be argued that the arguments for analogy are weak.
E – The argument for analogy is that the world is designed just like a machine. Hume however argues that this is not a correct comparison because the world is far greater and more complex than a machine.
I – it is more sensible to compare the world to an animal or a plant, in the sense that a plant just grows and has not been designed. This example is still flawed though as to make comparisons they have to be alike in all relevant ways.
L – There are flaws with analogy because we cannot compare the complex world which we do not totally understand with something that isn’t a relevant comparison

or

Explains: Arguments from analogies are only reliable when the things being compared are similar.
Illustrate: Paley’s watch analogy is weak. Because a watch does not have many similarities to the universe. Hume argued that a better analogy would in fact be a vegetable because the earth is organic, like a vegetable and not mechanical like a watch. It would also be a better analogy because vegetables just grow and are not designed and we have no reason to suppose the universe is designed so this would be a better analogy. Hume said that the vegetable analogy was equally flawed but that we cannot infer on the basis of an analogy with a machine that the universe was designed.
Link: This is a problem because there are no good analogies to fit the universe so all arguments using analogies in this area will be weak.