arguments for existence of god Flashcards
a posteriori summary
inductive
- reach conclusions which are statements of probablity
- aposteriori, drew from experiences
- romans 1:19-20
teleological argument
aquinas
- wanted faith and reason to work alongside each other
- 5th way, guiding hand e.g. analogy of archer. regularity of succession
(+ socrates, signs of forethought)
paley
- design qua purpose: watch, purpose e.g. eye and bird wings
(+Aristotlee, telos; anthropic principle; socrates, adaption is not chance)
-design qua regularity: reg and order in universe e.g. gravity. evidence of design, must be a designer
(+cicero, astrology. +swinburne, regularity in universe)
criticisms of teleological and Xian resposne
- hume, no other world to compare to. cannot draw analogy between watch and god.
- mill, evil and suffering. ockhams razor suggests no god
- Dawkins, blind watchmaker, god of gaps
- Darwin, evolution
- stephen fry, evil.
xian response
- gravity = incredible. Big Bang also. odds are too small for it to be chance
- Arthur brown, ozone layer
- f.r. Tennant, anthropic (evolution) and aesthetic principle (beauty, not necc for survival).
- ockhams razor, more likely that there is a designer
cosmo argument
2nd way - atemporal argument, uncaused causer
- god is efficient cause
- god is a necessary being
- infinite regress is impossible, uncaused causer
1st way - unmoved mover
- potential to actuality
- state of motion started with something, infinite regress is impossible
- unmoved mover (+ari, PM)
3rd way contingency
- contingency in world
- world must be created by necessary being, pattern of contingency cannot go on infinitely
criticisms of Cosmo
- hume, fallacy of composition (can’t jump from general cause to cause of whole universe) AND fallacy of affirmation of consequent (cannot empirically prove god is necessary. cannot assume everything has a cause)
- russell, fallacy of composition. e.g. mothers. only analytic statements are necessary, cannot have a necessary being, we need proof of existence.
- russell, whats wrong with infinite regress?
- Russell, if everything requires explanation, how do we explain god?
- stephen hawking, Big Bang
- mackie, particles
positives of cosmo
Leibniz, sufficient reason
- everything must have reason for existence.
- develops version of a temporal Cosmo argue. if infinite regress is possible, why does infinite chain exist?
copleston
- argument from contingency
- must be a self explanatory being
- god = necessary
lane craig
- no such thing as infinity. beginning must have cause. personal being that chose to create world
ontological general
deductive, already known premise
relies on god as necessary being
god exists = analytic
reductio ad absurdum (denial implies contradiction)
anselm
11th century philosopher
Norman invasion, appeal to reason
pros 2
- can conceive of greatest possible being
- existence in reality is better
- no greater being than greatest possible as that would reductio ad absurdum
- greatest possible being exists in reality
pros 3
- god is g8st poss being
- better to be necessary than contingent
- if god = contingent, not gr8tst and would be contradction
- god is necessary and exist in reality (as he cannot not exist)
descartes and malcolm
descartes
- innate knwoweldge e.g. god
- god is supreme perfect, must contain supreme perfection of existence
- thus must exist
e. g. triangle
malcolm
- agrees with kant
- god cannot come into existence. if existence is impossible, doesn’t eixts
- if he does exist, it is necessary
- necessary or logical impossible
- not logical contradiction to say he could exist so he must necessarily exist
Malcolm criticisms
- Malcolm use of word impossible differs: conc is that he is necc i.e opposite of impossible, but his conclusion is that he is logically necessary
however…
hick overcomes criticism: difference between ontologicaly necessary and logically necessary. god is logically necessary or logically impossible
-plantinga. modal logic.
maximally great if exists in all possible worlds. either impossible or necessary in all worlds. being is not inconceivable and so god exists in all possible worlds
(however… Davies, maximal excellence being possible does not mean anything is maximally excellent)
(however… lost island). gaunilo responds that god and islands are not the same
Anselm criticisms
aquinas, can conceive that god does not exist. however.. master argument
hume… god does not exist a priori, opposite of god existing does not imply contradiction
gasking, disability
southern, pen. doesn’t mean it exists outside mind
descartes criicisms
kant
- can reject subject and predicate alike. no contradiction in rejecting triangle all together. same with necessary being
- need a posteriori evidence to confirm a prior argument
- existence is not a predicate. cannot pose god into actuality
(+ davies, brian davies snores is different to Brian Davies exists)
(+frege, statement of existence are just statements of number)
+russell, can know existence propositions without knowing any individual that makes them true e.g. timbuktu
3 paras for comparing a posteriori and a priori
rationalism vs. empiricism - empriicsm romans 1:19-20 aquinas 5th way, teleological. archer - rationalism pros 3 rely on a priori analytic statement that god exists
inductive vs. deductive
a posteriori - statements of probability, not conclusive proofs like in a priori
e.g. aquinas cosmo argument
- a priori - reason deduces answer on already known premises. relies on belief in god as necessary. reductio ad absurdum
e.g. Malcolm
examples
- Descartes vs. paley teleological
