Gregory E. Ganssle: Thinking about God Summary

By Jim Douglass 2007

Revised and Edited by Brendan Moar

Chapter 3

The fact that arguments cannot be produced that definitively prove (i.e., with

'unquestionable certainty') God's existence is unsurprising and doesn't

weaken the case for God's existence.

Some arguments may not seem reasonable enough to convince someone of

God, but may be reasonable enough to convince them that your belief is

reasonable.

Chapter 4

It is important to think about God. The 'answers to many important questions

are tied up in what is true about God'. Thinking about God also allows us to

engage with 'cultural challenges to our beliefs.'

Thinking about God is different to belief in God. You can think about God with

or without believing and believe with or without thinking about God.

You can also believe in God without believing (trusting) him.

Faith on the basis of authority (faith knowledge) rather than reason

(understanding knowledge) is not inferior knowledge.

Thinking abut God is turning faith knowledge into understanding knowledge.

Chapter 5

A believer approaching the question of God cannot be neutral but can be

open minded. It is difficult for anyone to be neutral because human beings

are not neutral regarding God.

Everyone has a philosophy of life which makes exclusive truth claims.

Something can (legitimately) be relatively true if it is personal or preferential

(favourite ice cream flavour, name of spouse).

Conversely, some things are true for everyone whether they believe it or not.

(E.g. in the case of a disagreement with distinctly opposite positions, say A

and not-A, at least one of the views comes from a mistaken belief(s). If A is

true [let's assume it is], then not-A cannot be true. To believe that not-A is true

is a mistaken belief. A is true even if someone does not believe it. )

Open-mindedness entails identifying one's assumptions and opinions and

subjecting them to critical enquiry.

Part 2 – reasons to believe in God

Chapter 7

An example of a Cosmological Argument

When something happens, we call it an event.

Events can: 1) bring things into existence; 2) change existing things, or; 3)

take things out of existence.

Events can be caused by other events—in fact they usually are.

Whatever comes into existence is caused by something else. There cannot be

infinite past causes. Therefore there exists a cause which was not itself

caused.

A valid deductive argument is one in which the premises lead to the

conclusion. A valid argument with true premises is a sound argument.

Argument for God's existence

1. Whatever exists is caused to exist by something else

2. If the series of past causes is not infinite, then the series of past causes

came into existence

3. There cannot be an infinite series of past causes

4. Therefore, the series of past causes came into existence

5. Therefore, there exists a cause for the series of past causes which did

not itself come into existence.

Argues premise 3 is reasonable because it is impossible to complete an

infinite series by successive addition, yet eternal life still works because it

does not rely on an infinite series having already occurred.

Two examples of scientific evidence that there cannot be an infinite series of

past causes are:

1) 2nd law of thermodynamics (amount of usable energy in any closed system

always decreases). You can't decrease a finite amount of usable energy

(closed system=no new energy coming in, therefore finite usable energy) by

an infinite amount.

2) Theories such as big bang.

Yet an eternal being is possible if that being is either outside of time, or time

before created time was different.

Chapter 8

Uses some probabilist thinking—weighting the rule over the exception—to defend premise 1 of his cosmological argument. He throws argument by analogy in at certain points too. Can something come into being without any cause (contra premise 1)? Could

the universe itself be an exception to this expectation?

Physicists describe quantum events: uncaused changes in the state of a

particle. This is when sub-atomic particles change quantum levels.

Three possible causes of the universe

1. It has always existed (refuted in previous chapter)

2. It came into existence without a cause

3. It was caused by something outside it.

Argues against premise 2 as quantum mechanics describe sub-atomic

particles rather than supra-atomic particles.

Also difficult to claim the universe was uncaused unless you have a reason to

think it.

Chapter 9

Aquinas unfairly charged with assuming God is the first cause in his five

proofs – spends hundreds of pages working the argument.

The first cause must not be spatially part of the caused universe.

The first cause cannot be temporal (assuming time is created with the

universe), but existed in unmeasurable metaphysical time.

The first cause cannot be physical (assumes all physical things are in this

universe)

The first cause must be powerful to kick off the universe

The first cause must have been a personal agent to explain why the universe

came into existence at the time it did – if all the conditions were ready at any

time, creation required a willing to create, and therefore some type of

personhood.

Chapter 10

Teleological Argument

Design argument – (e.g. Paley) the argument that something appears to be

designed suggests a designer (more of a hunch than an argument)

Old Man in the mountain (rock formation) is a counter-example to the premise

that anything which appears to be designed must have a designer.

Ganssle plays the probability card—weighting the rule over the exception—to

argue that it is reasonable to assume that the appearance of design suggests

that design (and a designer) is probable.

Chapter 11

Darwin's theory all but killed off the design argument by postulating an

alternative to an intelligent designer.

Describes a mechanism (natural selection) which accounts for something

having the appearance of design, while in reality being entirely accidental.

Darwin's theory posits an argument that counters intelligent design in living

things only.

Chapter 12

The universe itself bears the marks of design. It is a non-living thing that

seems designed.

There are evidences from physics that there were a large number of specific

constants required at the time of the Big Bang for our particular universe to

come into existence. The statistics involved render its coming into existence

by chance as improbable. It is more plausible that a designer brought the

conditions together.

Chapter 13

There is nothing unreasonable about thinking that extremely unlikely events

happen by chance. If our universe is one of billions attempted, then it could

be the 'lucky' one that had all the right variables. (many worlds conjecture)

Yet the many world conjecture is itself non-natural – replacing the

supernatural (God) for another non-natural explanation (outside our universe,

and the possibility of scientific observation).

Design seems a better argument than (evidence-less) many worlds

conjecture.

Chapter 14

Moral facts are 1) unobservable (like mathematical and logical facts) and 2)

true.

They describe how something ought to be, and carry and obligation to that

"ought" (normativity).

Error theory – the claim that there is no moral wrongness.

Individual relativism – morality depends on the individual. There are moral

facts but they depend on the individual who holds them. (Schoolyard bully

objection)

Cultural relativism – the view that culture determines morality. There are

moral facts framed within a culture. (Cultural bully objection) Hero objection –

Martin Luther King is a hero because he criticised society and changed its

morality – an immoral act if cultural relativism is true.

Evolutionary theory of morality – morality developed out of groups seeking

human survival. Argues this reduces moral facts to moral feelings – fails to

explain morality.

Chapter 15

Engages in a form of teleological argument.

Hypothetical imperatives or conditional commands are those rules which must

be commanded if we want to fulfil a condition (e.g. doing homework to

succeed at school)

Morality consists of unconditional demands (also called categorical

imperatives) made upon us whether we opt in or not.

Morality is purposive, therefore there is purpose for humanity.

He is not arguing that a particular moral rule is unconditional, rather that the

obligation to follow the moral imperatives is unconditional.

Moral facts involve unconditional imperatives which in turn require

unconditional purposes, which points to the existence of God.

Chapter 16

Cumulative case commonly used to provide evidence.

• Existence of universe best explained by powerful being outside time

and space.

• Nature of universe best explained by intelligent designer creating a

universe suitable for life.

• Moral facts indicating a purpose of human life from outside humanity.

However the cumulative evidence not to believe in God must also be

considered.

Part 3 – God and Evil

Chapter 17

Evil – bad things that happen, things that we have a hunch ought not to

happen.

Objections to God on the basis of evil can be theoretical or existential (or

both)

Sometimes these objections come from disillusionment rather than intellectual

issues. Sometimes people need comfort rather than more philosophical

answers.

Mackie's problem of evil:

1. God exists and is wholly good and all powerful

2. Evil exists

3. There are no limits to what an all powerful being can do

4. A good being always prevents evil as far as it can

Therefore God cannot exist because 1 & 2 are contradictory. (square circle

objection)

Chapter 18

Mackie's problem of evil is a valid argument.

Premise 1 is opposed by:

• Deists (created the world but lets it go on);

• Process theologians (God not all powerful).

Premise 3 fails the contradiction test (God can't make a rock so big he can't

move it), so ought to say there are no non-logical limits …

Premise 4 fails because a good being sometimes allows evil where there is a

good reason to allow evil (e.g. allow sadness so a lesson is learnt.)

Therefore there is no evil unless it is logically necessary or God has a good

reason to allow it. Hence we show that the existence of God and evil are

logically possible.

Chapter 19

Free will is the will to decide whether or not to perform an act, irrespective of

capability (libertarian freedom or incompatibilist freedom)

More important is moral freedom – freedom to make decisions of moral

import, not just trivial decisions (which flavoured doughnut)

The creation of creatures with significant moral freedom allows the possibility

of evil.

Without freedom we have no moral responsibility.

Freedom is valuable because we value those things we choose

Relationships are valuable because they are freely chosen.

God may allow evil to ensure human freedom

Regarding natural evil (e.g. earthquakes) our actions are only meaningful if

they impact the world.

The regularity of causal laws may be the reason God allows some natural evil.

Chapter 20

Determinism – every event in the universe is determined to happen.

Argues that determinism necessarily means our actions aren't free.

However majority argue that an act can be both determined and free because

it meets two requirements:

• I do the action in accordance with my will

• If I didn't want to perform the action I wouldn't have

Ganssle insists a third element of freedom is required:

• Whether or not I perform the action is up to me

Chapter 21

Evidential problem of evil (Rowe) – is it likely that God has sufficient reason to

allow the amount or kinds of evil we see?

• If there is unjustified evil (evil for which there is insufficient reason for

God to allow it), God does not exist.

• Probably, there is unjustified evil

• Therefore, probably God doesn't exist.

Chapter 22

Argues against premise 2 (above) arguing that the move from 'it seems that'

to 'therefore there probably' isn't a good inference (e.g. it seems there aren't

any carbon atoms in the room – how could you know?

Suggests awareness of the reasons God may have for allowing evil is the

same – how could you know?

There are many things about God if he exists which we could not be expected

to know.

Part 4 – What is God like?

Chapter 23

Traditional understanding:

• God is a non-human person with thoughts, intentions and actions

• God does good because he is good (morally perfect)

• God is a person with a lot of power

Chapter 24

Laws of logic and mathematics hold irrespective of physical universe.

God can alter physical laws (miracles) but laws of logic define who God is, so

he doesn't tamper with those.

Therefore God can do everything that is possible to do (he cannot draw a

round square, i.e., make a contradiction true)

Chapter 25

Knowledge is constituted by belief, truth and justification (for that belief)

If there are true things which God doesn't know then he isn't omniscient

If God is not in time or space is it possible for God to know that I am now

sitting here.

God can know where I sit in relation to space without occupying that space

If God is outside of time he experiences time all at once and therefore it is

argued doesn't know as we know.

Some philosophers argue that God must be 'in time' to know what is

happening now.

Other philosophers argue that time functions similarly to space and therefore

God can be out of time and still aware of what is happening at any moment.

Either way, it can still be held that God knows every truth.

Chapter 26

Solutions to argument that if God knows ahead of time what you will do then

your choice isn't free:

• Undetermined foreknowledge

• God knows because he is atemporal

• God knows all true things but future events are not yet true and

therefore unknowable.

Chapter 27

Two ways of knowing anything about God:

• Inferring about God from our world – approach of this book but it

results in disagreement about how to interpret results

• Special revelation

If God exists, is morally good and has a purpose for us we ought to expect

that he would reveal it to us.

God made us language users – it is our primary means of communication so it

makes sense that God would communicate through language.