all arguments for god's existence

Question 1

what is an ontological argument

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

Explain Anselm’s ontological argument. (5 marks)

2020

Answer 2

*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

Question 3

descartes’ ontological arg

Answer 3

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

Question 4

malcolm’s

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Explain Gaunilo’s ‘perfect island’ objection to ontological arguments. (5 marks) 2020

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Explain the empiricist objection to a priori arguments for existence as an issue for ontological arguments. (5 marks)

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Explain Kant’s objection to ontological arguments based on existence not being a predicate. (5 marks)

Answer 7

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

Question 8

What is a teleological / design argument? (3 marks)

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

Explain Hume’s design argument from analogy. (5 marks)
2022

Answer 9

*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)

Question 10

Explain William Paley’s design argument from spatial order / purpose. (5 marks)

sample

Answer 10

*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

Question 11

Explain Richard Swinburne’s design argument from temporal order / regularity. (5 marks)
sample, as paper

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

Explain Hume’s objections to the design argument from analogy. (5 marks)

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Explain the problem of spatial disorder as posed by Hume and Paley. (5 marks)

Answer 13

-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

Question 14

Explain Hume’s argument that the design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case. (5 marks)

Answer 14

-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

Question 15

Explain the issue for design arguments that God is not the best or only explanation. (5 marks)

Answer 15

-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.

Question 16

What is a cosmological argument? (3 marks)

Answer 16

A cosmological argument is a normally inductive, a posteriori argument that makes an inference from facts about the universe to the existence of God.

Question 17

Explain the Kalām argument. (5 marks)

Answer 17

the Kalām argument is an a posteriori, deductive cosmological argument for the existence of God
P1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2. the universe began to exist
C1. the universe has a cause
P3. either the universe was caused naturally or by an agent
P4. science cannot explain any factors outside of the universe because science was created to understand this universe
C2. the universe was caused by an agent
P5. this agent must be transcendent, omnipotent, etc.
C3. God exists

Question 18

Explain Aquinas’ 1st way / the Argument from Motion. (5 marks)

2021

Answer 18

the Argument from Motion is an a posteriori, deductive cosmological argument for the existence of God
motion is how properties change from ‘potentially’ X to ‘actually’ X
change can only be brought about by what is actual
P1. the universe contains motion
P2. each movement is caused by something else
P3. if this other thing is moved, then it must have been moved by something else again
P4. if this goes onto infinity, there is no first mover
P5. to remove a cause is to remove its effect so if there is no first mover then there are no other movers and so no motion
C. therefore there must be a first mover that is not itself moved, understood as God

the argument from motion by Aquinas, is the a posteriori, deductive, cosmological argument that considers motion - the way that “potentials” change to “actuals”.
P1: The Universe contains motion.
P2: Motion can only be caused by a mover.
P3: If there were no first mover, then this leads to an infinite regression.
P4: This is impossible, as this implies that there is no first causer, and if there is no first causer, this removes all subsequent causes. (Reductio Ad Absurdum)
MC: Therefore, since there is motion now, there must have been a prime, unmoved mover - this is God.

Question 19

Explain Aquinas’ 2nd way / the Argument from Causation. (5 marks)

Answer 19

the Argument from Causation is an a posteriori, deductive cosmological argument for the existence of God
a sustaining cause brings about its effect continuously and the effect depends on the continued existence and operation of the cause
P1. we find in this world sustaining causes and effects
P2. nothing can be the cause of itself
P3. causes follow in logical order
P4. if there is an infinite regress of causes, there is no first cause
C1. therefore given that there are causes, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes
C2. therefore there must be a first cause that is not itself caused, understood as God

Question 20

Explain Aquinas’ 3rd way /the Argument from Contingency. (5 marks)

sample

Answer 20

the Argument from Contingency is an a posteriori, deductive cosmological argument for the existence of God
something exists contingently if it is possible for it to exist and for it not to exist
something exists necessarily if it must exist
P1. things in the universe exist contingently
P2. if it is possible for something not to exist, then at some time, it does not exist
C1. if everything exists contingently, then it is possible that at some time, there was nothing in existence
P3. if at some time, nothing was in existence, nothing could begin to exist
C2. since things do exist, there was never nothing in existence
C3. therefore, there is something that does not exist contingently, but must exist
C4. there exists a necessary being, understood as God

Question 21

Explain Descartes’ argument for God based on his continuing existence. (5 marks)

Answer 21

Descartes’ argument based on his continuing existence is an a priori, deductive cosmological argument for the existence of God, defined as a ‘supremely perfect being’
P1. if I caused my own existence, I would give myself all perfections
P2. I do not have all perfections
C1. therefore, I am not the cause of my existence
P3. a lifespan is composed of independent parts, such that my existing at one time does not entail or cause my existing later
P4. my existence is not uncaused
C2. therefore, some cause is needed to keep me in existence
P5. I do not have the power to cause my continued existence through time
C3. therefore, I depend on something else to exist, understood as God

there are three possible causes for his continued existence
can’t be me bc I would give myself all perfections
he always existed
can’t be my parents bc this would lead to an infinite regress, which is impossible
this leaves god (of whom I have the innate concept)

Question 22

Explain Leibniz’s argument from the principle of sufficient reason. (5 marks)

2020

Answer 22

Leibniz’s argument from the principle of sufficient reason is a deductive cosmological argument which focuses on the contingency of facts
the principle of sufficient reason is the principle that every true fact has an explanation that provides a sufficient reason for why things are as they are and not otherwise
P1. there are two kinds of truth: those of reasoning and those of fact
P2. truths of reasoning are necessary so the sufficient reason for these can be found by a priori analysis
P3. truths of fact are contingent and these can only be explained by other contingent truths
P4. an infinite regress of contingent explanations does not contain the sufficient reason for any contingent fact
C1. therefore, the sufficient reason for any contingent fact lies outside the sequence of contingent facts
C2. therefore, the sufficient reason for contingent facts must be a necessary substance
C3. this necessary substance is God
C4. therefore, God exists

Question 23

Explain the objection to cosmological arguments from the possibility of an infinite series. (5 marks)

Answer 23

cosmological arguments rely on the premise that an infinite series is impossible, meaning a first cause / explanation / mover, etc. is needed, i.e. God
but the claim ‘there cannot be an infinite series’ is not an analytic truth or one that can be known a posteriori
mathematicians argue that paradoxes surrounding actual infinities are the result of us applying intuitions about finite numbers to infinity
these mistaken intuitions can be identified in cosmological arguments
therefore, cosmological arguments fail

Question 24

Explain Hume’s objection to the ‘causal principle’. (5 marks)

Answer 24

this is posed as an objection to cosmological arguments which infer from facts about the universe the existence of God
cosmological arguments use the causal principle
the causal principle is the claim that everything has a cause
Hume argues that the causal principle is not analytic
logically the claim ‘some natural things exist or change uncaused’ may be true or false
therefore it cannot be known to hold universally without exception
therefore arguments that appeal to the causal principle in cases which we have no experience of (e.g. the beginning of the universe) fail to prove that God exists

Question 25

Explain Russell’s objection to the arguments from contingency that they commit the fallacy of composition. (5 marks)

2022

Answer 25

this is an objection to cosmological arguments which infer God’s existence from facts about the universe
arguments from contingency appeal to the fact that since everything in the universe is contingent and requires an explanation, the universe itself must be contingent and require an explanation, understood as God
an argument commits the fallacy of composition if it wrongly concludes that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of all parts of that whole
Russell argues that cosmological arguments commit this fallacy because they move from premises about what is true of all parts of reality to conclusions about the whole that these parts make up
e.g. in Copleston’s cosmological argument he says that if the universe contains only contingent beings, it is itself contingent and must have a cause or explanation

Question 26

Explain Hume and Russell’s objection to cosmological arguments from the impossibility of a necessary being. (5 marks)

Answer 26

this objection targets the claim made by cosmological arguments that God is a necessary being
a necessary being is one whose non-existence implies a contradiction
Hume argues:
P1. nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction
P2. whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent
C. therefore, there is no being whose non-existence implies a contradiction
Russel argues:
P1. if there were a being that exists necessarily, it would have to be self-contradictory to deny its existence
P2. it is not self-contradictory to deny the existence of something
C. therefore, the concept of a being the exists necessarily is logically impossible

Question 27

Compare and contrast the natures of moral evil and natural evil. (3 marks)

Answer 27

‘evil’ refers to bad things in the world
‘moral evil’ refers to bad things that arise as the result of the actions of free agents, e.g. murder
‘natural evil’ refers to bad things that arise as the result of natural processes, e.g. people dying in earthquakes

Question 28

Explain the evidential problem of evil. (5 marks)

sample

Answer 28

The evidential problem of evil is the a posteriori argument put forward by atheists aiming to show that the existence of God is unlikely. The argument notes the sheer amount and distribution of evil within the world, both natural and moral, e.g. the torture of innocent prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. They then claim this evidence is sufficient to make it more likely that there is no God, than that there is a being who is omnipotent (with the capacity to reduce the amount of suffering), and omnibenevolent (with the desire to do so). Such a God would want to and be able to reduce the amount of suffering to the absolute minimum.

Question 29

explain plantinga’s free will defence (5)

Answer 29

Plantinga aims to show that the existence of evil and the existence of God with all his classical attributes is not contradictory. He argues it is better to have beings who are ‘significantly free’ and have them do good actions of their own accord, than to have no free beings at all. (This makes morally good actions meaningful rather than forced.) A supremely good God will therefore make beings who are ‘significantly free’, who could do both good and evil. This picks at the premise that a God with classical attributes (omnipotence, etc) would eliminate evil—indeed, God would do no such thing, as this would make us not ‘significantly free’, and therefore remove the possibility of moral good with it.

Question 30

explain hick’s vale of soul making theodicy (5)

Answer 30

Hick argues that evil can be explained as a tool for us to develop our souls. Hick argues that humans were created imperfect and immature, and instead we have to use our free will to gain the most valuable thing possible - a close relationship with God, and also to become more good. Hick argues that this is more valuable than if we were just made perfectly in the presence of God, and made perfectly good, as perhaps part of the value of our lives is in the struggle we have. Hick, like Irenaeus, places value on the spiritual journey we have to undergo in this lifetime. Therefore, since we can only have a meaningful journey towards a closeness to God, if we can choose to be close to God, then we must have free will. This free will explains all moral evil, as this evil is caused by people misusing their free will, and fits within this theodicy, as free will is necessary for the valuable relationship. However, Hick also argues that the world was created with natural evil, as God did not create a “beautiful cage for a pet”, but rather a vale of soulmaking - a turbulent world that will develop our souls to become more generous, kind, and to be able to develop other virtues. On the flip side, if the world was created perfectly, like a nice cage for a pet, there would be no need to develop any of these virtues. Therefore, God created an imperfect world with evil and suffering in order for us to develop our souls. God also maintains an epistemic distance from us, not revealing himself, as without this distance, people would already know of his existence and would not be able to truly choose if they want to be close to God, and do morally good acts, or not.