Arguments for god Flashcards
What does a priory mean
True by definition and logical
What type of argument is the design argument
A posteriori, inductive
State Paleys argument from analogy
P1 - watch is a machine designed for telling the time (effect)
P2 - features of the watch suggest an intelligent designer (cause)
P3 - the universe shows features of design
C - universe must have an intelligent designer
General evaluation of ontological argument
+ a priori so if you accept premises then its must be true
- fallacious leap
- never seen a necessary being (no empirical evidence)
+ don’t need to only need logic
How could you criticise the design argument using Darwin
Evolution suggests that order and regularity can come about by chance.
What is something that is contingent
Something that depends of something else for its survival
Quote from Coppleston in favour of the cosmological argument
“No object contains within itself the reason for existence”
What is a necessary being
Something that cannot not exist
Who put forward the ontological argument
Anslem
Who put forward the cosmological argument
Aquinas
What was Humes criticism of Aquinas’ argument
Statements about existence are synthetic (senses) and so can never be analytically true (logical). We have no experience of God.
- aquinas doesn’t claim God is logically necessary, he’s metaphysically necessary = the very qualities of God means it’s his essence to be necessary.
What type of argument is the ontological argument
A priori and deductive
How does Norman Malcom argue against Kant
God has necessary existence and a necessary being cannot not exist. God already exists necessarily
State paleys formalised argument
P1 - objects in the world show evidence they were designed due to complexity and regularity
P2 - the complexity and regularity allows us to infer they were made this way for a reason
P3 - the universe exhibits complexity and regularity, suggesting it was made for a purpose
C - universe has an intelligent designer
General evaluation of Cosmological argument
- process theology = the universe exists necessarily
+ there is still room for God here - could be a loop of creation and destruction the universe is in
- inductive so not proof
- no proof of a Judeo- Christian god
What is an inductive argument
The truth of the premises doesn’t guarantee the conclusion - it is the most probable
What does a posteriori mean
Knowledge dependent on sense experience
What are the factors Paley says that means the world must’ve been designed just like a watch
Design qua purpose
- everything in world has a purpose
- eg. Human eye has the purpose of sight
Design qua regularity
- the universe has an order
- eg. The way planets move or gravity
What were Humes 5 criticisms of Paleys argument
- Natural things do not have a maker in the same way a machine has a maker
- Epicurean thesis = infinite time but finite particles so eventually this creation could happen without an intelligent designer
- Evidence doesn’t suggest a Judeo-Christian God, could be a lesser being or multiple gods or a dead creator.
- Problem of evil
- Cannot compare God to human designers as we have no experience of universe-making
State the formalised cosmological argument
P1 - everything we see in the world is contingent
P2 - all contingent things have a finite lifespan and so there must once have been nothing
P3 - if there was once nothing, nothing could’ve come from this.
C1 - therefore there must have actually have been something that existed necessarily
P4 - everything necessary must either be caused or uncaused
P5 - a series of necessary beings cannot be infinite as there has to be an ultimate necessary being to start the process
C2 - therefore there must be an uncaused being
C3 - this is God
How does Paley relate the watch analogy to our real world
Even if the watch didn’t work perfectly, there is enough design to enable us to deduce a watchmaker.
In the same way our assumption would be the same if there were parts we couldn’t figure out.
State the formalised ontological argument
P1 - god is a being which nothing greater can be conceived
P2 - this is a definition even a fool can is mind, if not in reality
P3 - there is a difference between an idea in the mind and one in reality
P4 - eg a painter has an idea of what to paint and then does it
P5 - it is greater to exist in both the mind and reality than only mind
P6 - if god only existed in the mind I could think of something greater (a god in reality)
C1 - in order to be the greatest conceivable being, god must exist in both mind and reality
P1 - god is the greatest conceivable being
P2 - it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind
C2 - god must exist in reality
What is a deductive argument
If the premises are true then the conclusion must be true
How did Gaunilo criticise and how did anselm respond
Gaunilo: reductio ad absurdum
- it is possible to conceive the most perfect lost island
- it is greater to exist in reality
- therefore this island must exist in reality
- using anslems way, you can prove anything into existence
Anslem: god is a necessary being
- an island where no greater can conceived would have to be necessary
- islands are not necessary
Therefore you cannot apply logic of contingent beings to God
General evaluation of Paleys argument
- proof can only be brought by religious experience
+ could say nature (numinous) is a natural experience - inductive so probably true not definitely
+ doesn’t mean it isnt
+ evolution can be a feature of gods design
What is the subject and the predicate
Subject = what the statement is about Predicate = something giving information about the subject
What type of argument is the cosmological argument
A posteriori and inductive
What are Kants criticisms of the ontological argument
- The necessary existence of God and ‘IF’
- we cannot move from a definition of something to claim it exists = fallacious leap
- we do have an a priori idea of things
- IF these things exists they must have the qualities ascribed to them (triangle must have 3 sides or it isn’t a triangle)
- similarly we have an a priori idea of God as the greatest conceivable being, so IF he exists, he has these qualities = begging the question
“To posit a triangle and reject its three angels is contradictory; but there is no contradiction in rejecting the angles together with the triangle”
- Existence is not a predicate
- ‘existence’ does not add anything more to our understanding of something
- eg 100 pound coins in imagination is no different from in reality
- the statement is synthetic not analytic
Who put forward the design argument
William paley
What is infinite regress
A never ending line of contingent beings
What is something that is empirical
Obtained from the world around us
What were Russell’s two criticisms of the cosmological argument
- The simplest explanation is that the universe has no explanation, it is just a brute fact
- (science works on the fact brute facts don’t exist however) - It commits the fallacy of composition - inferring that something that is true of the parts is true of the whole (contingency) - eg. hydrogen isn’t wet, oxygen isn’t wet and so water isn’t wet
- this can be seen tho eg a wall of bricks
