3.3.2 Arguments relating to the existence of God: 12 markers Flashcards
Explain the Kalam argument and the issue that an infinite series is possible (12)
The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument from temporal causation.
To put it formally:
P1: Things that begin to exist, have a cause of their existence (The Causal Principle)
P2: Actual infinities cannot exist (because this produces logical contradictions)
P3: The universe cannot be infinite, so it must have a beginning
P4: If something is caused, it is either because it occurs naturally or is willed into existence by something distinct from the universe.
C1: Therefore, there must be a God that will the universe into existence
However, one could criticize the Kalam argument by attacking P2 ‘Actual infinites cannot exist (because they produce logical contradictions)’, arguing that an infinite regress is possible. The Scientific raises some questions about what exactly the Big Bang demonstrates, we have not ruled out something existing prior to the Big Bang and the possibility that the universe has existed many times over, coming into and disappearing out of existence, perhaps infinitely. Furthermore, some atheist philosophers have argued that it is perfectly conceivable for there to be an infinite series of causes. Nielson explains that the person arguing for an infinite series is not arguing for something that came from nothing, nor need be denying that every event has a cause - we need not assume there is a first cause that started everything.
Explain Aquinas’ second way and the issue of a fallacy of composition
P1: We find, in the world, causes and effects
P2: nothing can be the cause of itself (if it were, it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible).
P3: If the chain of causes were infinite and there were no first cause, there would be no effects, i.e. no world
C1: Therefore, given that there are no causes, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes
C2: Therefore, there must be a first cause, which is not itself caused.
However, Aquinas’ ‘Second way’ argues that as each thing in the universe has a cause it must therefore be true to say that the universe as a whole has a cause, but Russel argues that this commits a ‘fallacy of composition’ - where you jump from what applies to a part, and illegitimately applies to a whole. Take the example of mothers, just because each human being has a mother, does not mean that humanity as a whole has a mother, likewise, just because each individual thing in the universe has a cause, does not mean that the universe as a whole has a cause.
Explain Aquinas’ three ways
In his book Summa Theologica Aquinas offers five different proofs of Gods existence. Three of them are cosmological arguments. There are two kinds of cosmological arguments which fall between contingency and causal arguments. The contingency argument relies on the dependency of things in the universe on something else, and the causal argument, rely on their being a first cause to the universe.
Aquinas’ ‘First way - the argument from motion’ can be put formally as follows:
P1: There are some things in motion in the sense of moving from a state of potential to actual
P2: Nothing can move by itself but needs something else to actualise its potential
P3: If we imagine everything was moved by something else there would be an infinite regress of movers
P4: There cannot be an infinite regress as there would be nothing to start the chain and hence no motion
C1: Therefore, there must be an unmoved prime mover (something purely actual, without unrealised potential), which is God
Aquinas’ ‘Second way - the argument from causation’ can be put formally as follows:
P1: We find, in the world, causes and effects
P2: nothing can be the cause of itself (if it were, it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible).
P3: If the chain of causes were infinite and there were no first cause, there would be no effects, i.e. no world
C1: Therefore, given that there are no causes, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes
C2: Therefore, there must be a first cause, which is not itself caused.
Aquinas’ ‘Third way - the argument from contingency’ can be put formally as follows:
P1: Things in the universe exist contingently i.e. depend on something else to exist
P2: If everything exists contingently, then it is possible that at sometime, there was nothing in existence
P3: If at sometime nothing existed, nothing would exist now as nothing comes from nothing
P4: Things do exist
C1: Therefore, there is something that dies not exist contingently, but must exist - this necessary being is God
Explain Descartes’ ontological argument and Kant’s criticisms of this (12)
P1: God is the supremely perfect being
P2: A supremely perfect being contains all supreme perfections
P3: Existence (as well as omnipotence, omniscience, etc) is a supreme perfection
C1: Therefore God, a supremely perfect being, exists
Descartes is arguing that some predicates are necessary to their subject, just as having 3 sides is necessary to a triangle, existing is necessary to God.
However, Kant attacked P3 “Existence (as well as omnipotence, omniscience etc) arguing that existence is not a predicate. Kant uses this thought experiment; Imagine a piece of paper, then picture it in your head – What does it look like? How big is it? Where is it placed? Now add the following specific features to your mental image of this piece of paper
- It spattered with chip grease and batter
- It is coloured in lime green
- It is scrunched up, and lastly
- It exists. Now question yourself
Which of these features changed your image of the paper?
In this thought experiment, Kant is saying that to talk of something existing is not the same as talking of something being of a certain colour, covered in chip grease, or scrunched up. So “exist” cannot be a genuine predicate as it does not tell us anything about the subject.
Explain Anselms first ontological argument and Gaunilo’s criticism of the perfect island
P1: God is the greatest possible being (or Anselm puts it “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”)
P2: It is greater to exist in both the understanding and reality, than merely in the understanding
P3: The greatest possible being, if it is genuinely the greatest, must exist both in the understanding and reality
C1: Therefore, God exists in both reality and the understanding.
However, Gaunilo criticises Anslem’s argument, by attacking P2: ‘It is greater to exist in both the understanding and reality, than merely in the understanding’, to show its absurdity - ‘Reductio ad Absurdum’. If we can imagine something, such as an island, in the most perfect kind, then it follows using Anselm’s logic that the greatest possible island must exist in reality as it is not the greatest if it merely exists in the imagination.
Outline the issue with the design argument that God is not the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe
Design arguments make the assumption that because complex and purposeful artefacts have an intelligent designer then a purposeful world must also have an intelligent designer. But this does not rule out other explanations of the universe. According to Einstein matter and energy in the universe is constant, though they continually change form, the amounts remains the same. If this is the case, given that there are only a finite number of possible arrangements of matter, over infinite time, all the arrangements of matter – including those we experience as design – would occur.
