Arguements For And Against God’s Existence Flashcards
What is Douglas Adams puddle analogy
Just as the water has conformed to the shape of the hole, instead of the hole being designed specifically for it, life has adapted to fit the universe and its conditions not vice versa
Indicating that complexity does not require intelligent design as the appearance of order could have been naturally emerged through chance and evolution
E.g.humans evolving to digest lactose after mass production of milk
How would Paley criticise douglas’ puddle analogy
While water filling a hole is simple, and requires no designer, the complexity of nature like ecosystems and the human eye are far too complicated to arise out of chance and ‘accidentally’ fit in
How does the anthropomorphism arguement criticise paleys teleological/design arguement
Undermines gods omnipotent and transcendent nature by projecting human qualities onto Him.
By comparing god to a human watch maker, we are limiting him and his power which not only indicates that we cannot assume that the universe requires a designer simply because human objects do, but also suggests that there is no reason to worship a supreme deity if it is similar to a regular human designer anyways
How would Paley refute the Anthropomorphism argument
That recognising design does not require full knowledge of the designer as someone who finds a watch on the ground would still conclude that it was intelligently made, despite not knowing who or how it was made.
How could the anthropomorphism argument refute paleys criticism
Humes could refute this further by saying that the argument does not explain the designers motives or why the world contains imperfections like evil
The Evil and Imperfection Objection
Epicurus’ Inconsistent Triad dictates that if there is evil and suffering in the world, God cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent as if the premises of he DA were true, it would suggest that god purposely designed evil into the world
What is paleys design arguement’s features
Posteriori= based on sense experience, resonates with people because they align with human experiences of the natural world
Inductive- infer general principles from specific experience ad observations BUT it doesn’t give a completely accurate answer
Kant’s argument of the Ontological argument
Existence is not a predicate (gives info about the subject), as t doesn’t add anything to the concept of the thing itself
Existence does not function as a property that can be added to a being to make it greater or more perfect
Therefore, dismantling the very logic of anselm
How does Anselm’s very own quote ‘ I believe in order to understand’ refute his own argument
Limits and alienates the very audience the argument is trying to prove/persuade
Faith in god is a prerequisite (starting point) for understanding God’s existence
Gaulino’s response to Anselm
Parody argument to Anselm’s tautology
Suffered from refuctio absurdum as this logic can be used to prove anything
By the same definition, a perfect Island must exist in reality as one that exists in both the mind and reality is greater than 1 that exists in the mind
How could Anselm retort to Gaulino’s argument
Islands are contingent, subject to chance, whereas god’s definition is a necessary truth as all believers believe that by definition, He is the ‘greatest conceivable being’, he cannot lack existence if His existence is possible/necessary
How does Russel’s brute fact criticise the Cosmological Argument
Universe is just there without requiring any further explanation or cause: ‘ I should say that the universe is just there,and that’s all’
Rejects principle of sufficient reasoning, emphasising that we cannot declare that everything needs an external cause
How does Copleston refute Russel’s brute fact
Uses the CA which argues that the arguement for contingency begins with an empirical premise
‘The world is the real or imagined totality or aggregate of individual objects’
Hinges on the idea that the totality/makeup of the universe requires a explanation just as individual objects within the universe requires a cause
If we reject this ad tent to infinity, there wont be an explanation for existence at all
Therefore we must come to a being that contains within itself and is outside the material realm to cause the existence of everything
Russels fallacy of composition refute CA
Just cuz every human being has a mother, it doesn’t mean that the entire human race has a mother
Just cuz individual things require causation,it doesn’t mean that the universe itself needs a cause
Reflects his agnostic approach to religion
How does Humes existence is a synthetic proposition criticise CA
Existence is synthetic (sense experience), therefore we cannot deduce existence based on its definition as it can be true or false based from people’s experiences
How can aquinas refute Humes existence is a synthetic proposition
God is a metaphysical necessity derives from the nature or essence of things synonymous with aquinas’ 3rd way that god use exist as a necessary entity without being contingent on anything else to account for the existence of everything else
Strong= concept of MN provides a premise for existence itself
How does H.H Price’s dichotomy between ‘belief in’ and ‘belief that’ support a self’s quote of I believe in order to understand the Ontological Argument?
Highlights that religious faith encourages a fuller understanding of god which requires both dimensions especially belief in to accept gods existence
