The Verification Principle

Wittgenstein was a strong influence on the Vienna Circle, a group of philosophers that challenged the way many philosophers used language to convey meaning. They belonged to the Logical Positivist movement which holds that the only thing that is meaningful is that which can be verified empirically. Consequently, Logical Positivists came to the conclusion that God-talk is meaningless as it says nothing about reality and cannot be empirically verified.

Taking up the ideas of Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle, A. J. Ayer argued the Verification Principle.  The Verification Principle states that a sentence is only meaningful if it is either analytic or synthetic.

1.  Analytic – true by definition (tautology) and cannot be false, the wording of the statement verifies its truth. (E.g. frozen water is ice).
2. Synthetic – can be verified through empirical evidence and is meaningful because it can hold verifiable truths. (E.g. the Big Bang Theory).

Ayer concludes that if a statement is neither analytic nor empirically verifiable, it says nothing about reality and is therefore meaningless. This is similar to Hume’s viewpoint that if a statement does not contain any abstract reasoning or any experimental reasoning, then it says nothing about reality. John Hick gives the examples, “the universe doubled in size last night” and “there is an invisible, intangible...rabbit in this room” to demonstrate how a statement can appear to be making claims about the world, but on a closer look it is apparent that they do not in fact reveal anything about the world. According to the Verification Principle, this would make them meaningless.

Indeed, claims such as “God created the world” or “God loves me” would be meaningless according to the Verification Principle as they cannot be shown to be either true or false empirically.

Plantinga's Ontological Argument

Alvin Plantinga wrote his Ontological Argument from a background of logic and mathematics and wrote it in the form of a modal argument. Modality refers to the statement’s necessity, possibility or impossibility. For example, is the statement “God exists” necessary, possible or impossible? Plantinga’s argument outlines the concept of possible worlds. A possible world is a complete way that things can be, meaning there is an infinite number of possible worlds for every possible difference in these worlds. For example, a necessary truth is one that is true in every possible world, and a contingent truth is true in some worlds but not others and an impossible truth is one that is untrue in every possible world. Plantinga criticizes Malcolm for unsuccessfully demonstrating God’s existence in all the possible worlds, saying he merely demonstrated the potential of God’s existence in some possible worlds.

Plantinga’s argument goes as follows:

1. There is a possible world W in which there exists a being of maximal greatness.
2. A being of maximal greatness would possess this quality in all possible worlds.
3. A being of maximal greatness is omniscient, omnipotent and has moral perfection in every possible world.
4. In world W there exists a being which is omniscient, omnipotent and has moral perfection.
5. In world W, the proposition “there is no omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect being” is impossible.
6. What is impossible in one world is impossible in every possible world.
7. This means the proposition “there is no omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect being” is impossible in the actual world.
8. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect being exists in every possible world, including the actual world.

Norman Malcolm - Ontological Argument

Norman Malcolm was a 20^th Century philosopher, and his ontological argument focused on the premise of Anselm’s second argument that God exists necessarily.

Malcolm’s argument goes as follows:

1. If  God does not exist, his existence is impossible
2. If God does exist, his existence is necessary
3. God’s existence is either impossible or necessary
4. God’s existence is not impossible
5. Therefore, God exists necessarily

Malcolm implicitly defines God as immutable (possible point of criticism as he is making an assumption), meaning he is unchangeable. In terms of the argument, this means that God would not change from non-existence to existence as it is impossible, so God’s existence is either necessarily true or necessarily false (see below).

Malcolm outlines four possibilities about God’s existence:

1. Necessarily false - God can’t exist
2. Contingently false – God could but doesn’t exist
3. Contingently true – God could and does exist
4. Necessarily false – God has to exist

Malcolm argues that the existence of an unlimited being is only logically impossible if the concept of an unlimited being is contradictory. “The square is round” for example, is logically absurd and contradictory, whereas the statement “God exists” is not impossible in the same way, so is not a contradiction. Therefore, it is not valid to say that God’s existence is impossible, so he must exist necessarily.

Descartes' Ontological Argument

Descartes writes his argument from a sceptical stance, and it is similar to Anselm’s in that it begins with a definition of God, in this case as ‘the supremely perfect being’ (SPB). He goes on to describe the SPB as having all the perfections. He continues to say that existence is perfection, so God must therefore exist in order to fulfil his definition as the SPB. Descartes ends his argument by saying that God exists necessarily, or in other words, he possesses the perfect quality of existence.

Descartes uses the example of a triangle to illustrate his point. A triangle will always have three sides and its angles will always equal 180 degrees. Whether or not we have ever experienced a triangle, these facts will always be true of it. In the same way that a triangle and three sides are interlinked, God and existence also are linked as the nature of these two is immutable.

By describing existence as a predicate of the SPB, Descartes encounters the issue of the differentiation between possessing the quality of existence and actually existing in reality. 

Anselm's Ontological Argument and Gaunilo's Response

In this argument, Anselm starts by defining God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived (TTWNGCBC). He then goes on to say that everyone has an idea of God as TTWNGCBC as by using the word ‘God’ it demonstrates an understanding and recognition of the principle of God. This means that even the fool that "says in his heart, ‘there is no God'" (psalms 14:1 and 53:1) is contradicting himself as he is showing that he holds a concept of what God is. Anselm uses the example of the painter to further explain this point as the painter has an idea of a painting, which after he paints it exists not only in his mind but also reality. Anselm states that it is greater to exist in reality than in concept. In order for God to fulfil his definition as TTWNGCBC, he must exist in reality rather than just in concept. Therefore, God exists. 

However, Gaunilo responded to Anselm in his argument ‘on behalf of the fool’ which is a reduction ad abusrdem argument. Gaunilo used the concept of a perfect island ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ to show how a word alone cannot explain its existence if we have not experienced it. He argued that just because you can conceive of something, does not mean it exists in reality.

Anselm developed his argument in order to overcome Gaunilo’s criticisms. He argues that comparing God to an island is an unfair comparison as an island is contingent (can be thought of to not exist) whereas God’s existence is necessary (cannot be thought of as not existing). Nothing on this Earth can be compared to God due to the contingent nature of it. A God who cannot be thought of as not existing is greater than a God who can be thought of as not existing; therefore, Anselm proves that God exists necessarily. 

Evil and the God of Love - John Hick

(Useful for the evil and suffering topic).

One of Hicks's arguments is that evil and suffering are created by God as a scheme of "soul-making", in order for humans to better themselves to be accepted into heaven. He states that development of the human soul has to occur in a world of distress as we cannot grow in a world where everything is already perfect.

There are a number of problems with John Hick's "soul-making" theodicy. Primarily, not all suffering and evil have benefits for the growth of human morality as the negative responses may outweigh the positive. For example, a young child dying may develop feelings of empathy and compassion, however the consequent sorrow and pain may prevent an individual in moral development and putting their trust in God.