all arguments for god's existence Flashcards
what is an ontological argument
Ontological arguments are a priori, deductive arguments for the existence of God. They argue from (a) some property in the concept of God to (b) the existence of God.
Explain Anselm’s ontological argument. (5 marks)
2020
*anselm’s a priori deductive argument functions as a reductio ad absurdum of atheism, aiming to establish god has necessary existence
*atheism is the position that god does not exist
*in order to deny god’s existence, the fool must have the concept of god, “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”, in his mind (n.b. here anselm implies the premise that the concept of god is coherent)
*it is a necessary falsehood that god exists only in the fool’s mind, as this is less great than existing in the mind and reality
*therefore, a being greater than which nothing can be conceived must necessarily exist
descartes’ ontological arg
Descartes’ ontological argument is an a priori, deductive argument for the existence of God, defined as ‘a supremely perfect being’
sometimes Descartes treats this as a self-evident rational intuition, starting with an innate idea
P1. I have the (innate) idea of God
P2. the idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being
P3. a supremely perfect being does not lack any perfection
P4. existence is a perfection
C. therefore, God exists
God’s existence is entailed by other perfections of God, e.g. a supremely perfect being is omnipotent and an omnipotent being cannot lack the power to cause its own existence so God must exist
malcolm’s
Malcolm’s ontological argument is an a priori deductive argument for the necessary existence of God, defined as an ‘absolutely unlimited being’ (that is, a necessary being)
he claims that either God exists or God does not exist
if God exists -> his existence does not depend on any other entity, and nothing can cause him to cease to exist (these would be limits contra his definition) - > if God exists he cannot cease to exist
therefore, if God exists, God’s existence is necessary
if God does not exist, God cannot come into existence
therefore, if God does not exist, God’s existence is impossible
therefore, God’s existence is either necessary or logically impossible
the concept of God is not self-contradictory, therefore God’s existence is not logically impossible
therefore, God exists necessarily
this is a restatement of Anselm’s ontological argument
agrees with kant that existence is not a real predicate, but differs in arguing that necessary existence is a real predicate
Explain Gaunilo’s ‘perfect island’ objection to ontological arguments. (5 marks) 2020
Gaunilo objects to the way in which ontological arguments attempt to prove the existence of God from the concept of God as perfect
Gaunilo identifies that the ontological argument, if valid, could be applied equally well to anything
he parodies the argument: I can conceive of an island that is greater than which is inconceivable and so such an island must exist because it would be less great if it did not
however, this conclusion is clearly false (I cannot conceive something into existence) so the reasoning of ontological arguments must be flawed
Explain the empiricist objection to a priori arguments for existence as an issue for ontological arguments. (5 marks)
empiricists object to the fact that ontological arguments attempt to use a priori reasoning to prove the existence of God
empiricism is the thesis that there can be no a priori knowledge of synthetic propositions about the world
P1. a claim is analytic if its negation implies a contradiction
P2. nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction
P3. whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent
C1. therefore, there is no being whose non-existence implies a contradiction
C2. therefore, ‘God exists’ is a synthetic proposition
the empiricist would argue, therefore, that we cannot have a priori knowledge that ‘God exists’ so ontological arguments fail
Explain Kant’s objection to ontological arguments based on existence not being a predicate. (5 marks)
Kant objects to the implicit claim made by ontological arguments that God’s existence is part of the concept of God (i.e. a predicate)
a predicate adds a meaningful descriptive property to its subject
kant holds that existence is not a real predicate: ’x exists’ just means that something in the world corresponds to x so x is an object of possible experience, it does not add anything to the concept of x
e.g. there is no difference between the concept of 100 real thalers and the concept of 100 possible thalers, both would be musty old and gold
thus the concept of God cannot entail the existence of God; ontological arguments cannot prove that God exists
standard form of the last bulletpoint:
P1. if ‘God does not exist’ is a contradiction, then ‘God exists’ is an analytic truth
P2. if ‘God exists’ is an analytic truth, then EXISTENCE is part of the concept GOD
P3. existence is not a predicate
C1. therefore EXISTENCE is not part of the concept GOD
C2. therefore, ‘God exists’ is not an analytic truth
C3. therefore ‘God does not exist’ is not a contradiction
C4. therefore, we cannot deduce the existence of God from the concept of God
C5. therefore, ontological arguments cannot prove that God exists
What is a teleological / design argument? (3 marks)
Teleological arguments are a posteriori arguments which infer from the order and regularity observed in the universe, the existence of a God that designed the universe.
Explain Hume’s design argument from analogy. (5 marks)
2022
*hume presents a design argument from analogy, aiming to show why these kinds of arguments fail
*design arguments = a posteriori teleological inductive arguments
*p1. human made entities have ‘spatial order’, e.g. a watch has parts spatially organised to serve a purpose of telling the time
*p2. they have these properties of spatial order bc they were designed by an intelligent being
*p3. natural entities have similar spatial order, e.g. plant’s leaves have intricate stomata organised to serve a purpose of gas exchange
*p4. similar effects have similar causes
*c1. so these similar effects (spatial organisation to serve a grand purpose) must have similar causes (an intelligent designer) (natural entities are much more complicated and require a more intelligent designer, i.e. god)
Explain William Paley’s design argument from spatial order / purpose. (5 marks)
sample
*paley’s watchmaker argument is currently read as a deductive argument aiming to prove the existence of god
*paley gives the example of features of spatial order in a watch, e.g. its cogs are spatially organised to serve the purpose of telling the time
*he then argues these features can only come to exist from an intelligent designer
*paley notes that the exact same features of spatial order are found in the universe, e.g. the stomata on plants’ leaves show spatial organisation to serve the purpose of gas exchange
*thus, we conclude that there must be an intelligent designer of the universe
Explain Richard Swinburne’s design argument from temporal order / regularity. (5 marks)
sample, as paper
P1: The universe as a whole contains temporal order (fundamental physical laws)
P2: There are two possible explanatory hypotheses: (H1) temporal order has a scientific explanation; or (H2) temporal order has a personal explanation (eg explaining the singing of a song over time in terms of the singer’s intentions).
P3. (H1) fails: there is no scientific explanation of the operation of the most fundamental physical
scientific explanations of physical laws presuppose more fundamental physical laws
P4: (H2) can explain (fundamental) physical laws. They are similar to regularities of succession produced by human agents (the singing of the song), and so, by analogy, are produced by rational agency
P5: The agency in question would have to be of immense power and intelligence, free and disembodied.
C1: Therefore, an agent probably exists (God) with immense power and intelligence, who is free and disembodied.
Explain Hume’s objections to the design argument from analogy. (5 marks)
design arguments are a posteriori, inductive arguments that infer from the order and regularity of design in the universe the existence of God
Hume offers the following objections:
the analogy is not very strong: the products of human design are not much like nature or the universe
the world is more like a carrot (organic) than a machine (mechanical)
there is ‘great disproportion’ between a part of the universe and the whole universe which undermines the inference that something similar to human intelligence caused the universe
so we cannot reasonably infer that the cause of nature is anything like a human mind
there is no good reason to choose design by an intelligent mind as the explanation of the whole universe
thought moves the bodies of animals which is ‘a tiny, weak, limited cause’ compared to the original cause of the entire universe
Explain the problem of spatial disorder as posed by Hume and Paley. (5 marks)
-this is an objection to the claim made by design arguments that evidence of order and regularity in the universe implies the existence of a God who designed it
-there is evidence of spatial disorder in the universe, e.g. the vast areas of space in which there is no organisation of parts and no purpose
-there is no reason to privilege order over disorder in considering evidence for god
-thus, the designer (if any) cannot be perfect and so cannot be the God of classical theism
Explain Hume’s argument that the design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case. (5 marks)
-Hume objects to the claim made by design arguments that evidence of order and regularity in the universe implies the existence of a designer
-any inference from effects to causes must be based on repeated observations (Hume – ‘constant conjunctions’) between two events
-However, in the case of the universe, we only have experience of one universe and therefore cannot legitimately make any inference to a purposeful cause (unlike human creations, which we have so much experience of). We can never tell, from a single instance of an event, what the cause is, let alone that it is an intelligent, purposeful agency
-to make an inference about the production of universes we would need to have experience of many universes, which we lack, and we don’t have this, so design args fail
Explain the issue for design arguments that God is not the best or only explanation. (5 marks)
-this is an objection to the inference made by design arguments from evidence of order and regularity in the universe to the existence of God
-in order to infer that there is a designer of nature, we have to rule out other possible explanations of the organisation of parts for a purpose, and these other possible explanations may be no less (or more) plausible/probable; for example:
* if we assume that matter is finite and time infinite then, over enough time all possible combinations of matter would occur by chance (epicurean hypothesis);
* the theory of evolution by natural selection has the benefit of being a simple explanation as it does not ‘multiply entities beyond necessity’ (Ockham’s Razor), working as it does with
natural processes alone
* the existence of the universe (including instances of both spatial and temporal order) is a brute fact that requires no further explanation.