Arguments For God From Observation

Question 1

What is the teleological argument?

Answer 1

A posteriori. The teleological argument is the view that purpose can be observed in the world, therefore the world must have been designed, with a purpose in mind, by a designer. Teleological arguments are also known as design arguments.

Question 2

What do supporters of the teleological argument say?

Answer 2

Supporters of the teleological argument claim that from the world around us we can draw inferences about God (in the same way we might deduce something about the painter from an anonymous painting). They particularly point to the:

• order in the world (everything in the world works properly
• beauty of nature
• purpose (everything seems to have an ultimate purpose)
• complexity (diversity, adaptability)

Proponents claim that is extremely unlikely all these features would occur by chance - therefore they produce strong evidence for the existence of God.

Question 3

What did Paul say in the Bible?

Answer 3

“What may be known about God is plain because God has made it plain… God’s power and divinity is clear from what has been made’ - Romans 1:19 - for Paul it was obvious that we can draw conclusions about God from the beauty of the world we see around us.

Question 4

What did Aquinas say about ontological arguments?

Answer 4

Aquinas didn’t like the ontological argument; he believed that the only way humans can know God (albeit in a very limited way) is through the world he created.

Question 5

What is Aquinas’ argument?

Answer 5

He puts forward his teleolical argument in his vast masterpiece Summa Theologica in which he attempts a complete understanding of God. This work is considered to be the definitive Christian understanding of God. Aquinas lived at a time when the works of Aristotle had been rediscovered by Europeans. Aquinas wanted to know where Aristotelian thought and Christian thought could be compatible - how reason and faith can work together. So Aquinas takes over Aristotle’s four causes theory, in particular the final cause - purpose - to develop the idea that everything in the universe has a purpose.

Question 6

What are Aquinas’ Five Ways?

Answer 6

In Summa Theologica, Aquinas wrote five succinct arguments that demonstrate the existence of God through observation of the world. These are called the five ways. The first ‘four ways’ are the cosmological argument. His ‘fifth way’ is his teleological argument.

Question 7

What was Aquinas’ method for gaining knowledge of God?

Answer 7

Aquinas was convinced that the existence of God could be demonstrated in two ways:

1. Natural theology - by looking at the natural world (teleological argument).
2. Revelation - using what God has shown to humans through the Bible (Jesus, St Paul’s letters) and direct revelations.

For Aquinas, and in Christian teaching, these two are complementary and equally important.

Question 8

What is Aquinas’ teleological argument - The Fifth Way?

Answer 8

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence, it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it is directed by some being endowed with knowledge an intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore, some intelligence being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Question 9

Explaining the fifth way’s terms

Answer 9

• Governance of the world - The fifth way is based on how God shapes the world and pushes people to their outcome.
• Things which lack intelligence - People/everyone on earth who cannot reach their own goals without God pushing them that way.
• Act for an end - everyone acts teleologically
• Not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end - People achieve their ends on purpose, human nature by default to achieve our ends. It is designed like that.
• Unless it be directed by some being - As humans, by ourselves we cannot go towards an outcome because we lack intelligence. We have to be directed by a being like God in order to move towards an end.
• As the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer - A being/God shots us towards our goals. The trajectory may be strange but wherever God has shot us is where we’ll end up.
• Intelligent being exists - Intelligent beings exist so that all natural things are directed to their end. They have to exist otherwise we wouldn’t reach our goals.
• This being we call God - God is the archer and we are the arrows.

Question 10

Examples of non-thinking beings….

Answer 10

Squirrel - Constantly busy but the squirrel doesn’t think. She is programmed to do what she does.

Bee - A bee, pollinating a plant and making honey.

Heart - The heart, constantly pumping blood around the body.

Tree, water, air etc - All parts of nature seem to work together to achieve an interdependent, ordered system.

Question 11

Evaluation of Aquinas’ Fifth Way

Answer 11

• It raises the question of whether we are pre-determined to go to hell or heaven or if we have free will and if our actions can change our destination.
• Not everyone and everything has a purpose. Aquinas makes the assumption that everyone has a purpose and that our purpose is pre-determined by God. Purpose may in fact just be a human construct. Not everyone has a final cause or fits a certain purpose. Desert locusts for example do nothing. Plants for example have a natural purpose to photosynthesise so they allow us to breathe.
• Aquinas is making a logical fallacy because we cannot ever know the characteristics of God. To say God has complete control and the final say over our lives contradicts with the idea of free will. Also, if God shoots the arrow, what does that mean when people commit crime and refuse to be better or repent, is that God’s fault? Does God purposefully make bad people? Is their purpose just to commit crimes? Does God have that responsibility?

Question 12

What is Paley’s argument?

Answer 12

Paley imagines himself walking across a heath and coming across a stone lying in the ground which he strikes with his foot. The stone being there would be natural and unsurprising. However, if he came upon a watch on the ground, this would demand further explanation as it is not natural but complex. The watch has several intricate, moving, independent parts; it is framed, has beautifully made cogs, levers, springs etc.., all of which work together for a purpose - to tell the time.

The watch has all the evidence of ‘contrivance’ (design) - and where there is design there must be a designer. The watch must have had a maker, rather than just happening to be there by chance. Independent parts that work together to tell the time. There must be a designer.

Question 13

What is Paley’s example of purpose?

Answer 13

Paley argues that all the indicators of design observed in the watch can also be observed in nature. He gives numerous examples….

The complexity of the human eye - with the purpose of sight.

The wings of a bird and the fins of a fish are perfectly designed to allow movement.

The lacteal system in mammals provides enough milk for offspring.

The swan’s neck - perfectly designed to reach the algae at the bottom of ponds, and it’s feet are perfectly webbed for the purpose of swimming.

Question 14

What are Paley’s conclusions?

Answer 14

This led Paley to conclude that the universe is like the watch - both possess complex features and parts, each of which has a function, and all the parts work for a purpose. This shows that the universe has been intentionally designed by a designer, with the purpose of sustaining life. However, he points out that the world surpasses any human design and is even more impressive than a watch in its workings. Even on the smallest scale there is evidence of craft and skill. If God cared enough about each insect to design it with such attention to detail then people can be confident that God will care for them too.

Question 15

What does Paley extend his argument to?

Answer 15

Paley extended his arguments to include astronomy, inferring a designer due to the consistent order and pattern in the natural world. For example:

• The rotation of the planets
• The regularity and predictability of gravity
• The seasons

This regularity and predictability are further indications of God’s design.

Question 16

Criticisms of Paley’s argument

Answer 16

Paley anticipated and discussed criticisms of his watch analogy. For example:

1. We may be ignorant of how watches are made. We don’t have to see how watches are made to realise there must have been a maker - a watch is so obviously different from the stone that it must have had a different origin.
2. Watches sometimes go wrong. But a watch doesn’t have to work perfectly for us to realise it has been designed. The overwhelmed evidence enables us to deduce a watchmaker (this can be used to counter the argument that natural disasters indicate poor/no design.
3. Some parts of watches may appear to have no purpose. The purpose of some parts may not yet have been discovered, or we do not yet understand their purpose. Our inference is still correct.
4. The watch might have come together by chance. Everything is designed with an infinite degree of care.

Question 17

Are Paley’s responses to the criticisms effective?

Answer 17

1: Yes because we know when looking at something man-made we know that there is a designer. We may be ignorant to the design but not to the existence of the designer.
2: No because, yes there is a designer, but if something goes wrong then it is down to a fallible God and there is no such thing.
3: No because there are some things that have absolutely no purpose like desert locusts. A watch will always be made of parts that serve a function.
4: No because the world could have come into existence through nature. Why should we assume a creator?

Question 18

What are the 3 main problems with Paley’s argument?

Answer 18

Hume brings out some potential absurdities in using analogies to compare the universe with machines.

1. Fallacy of analogy
2. Fallacy of inference
3. Assumption of God

Question 19

What does Hume mean by saying that Paley has made a fallacy of analogy?

Answer 19

The strength of an argument from analogy depends upon two things that are being compared having lots of relevant similarities. However, Hume argues that the universe is nothing like a machine; it is more organic, like an animal or vegetable. If we were to study a natural object like a cabbage, we would not conclude there is a cabbage-maker but that it has developed through a blind natural process. Therefore, we have no reason to suppose that the universe is designed. Perhaps it simply grew.

It may seem absurd to compare the universe to a giant vegetable, but this is partly Hume’s point - it is only as absurd as comparing the universe to a machine. Both analogies are equally flawed because the two things need to be alike in all the relevant ways. Machines do have makers - by choosing a machine as their analogy, thinkers like Paley have already determined the result they want.

Question 20

What does Hume mean by saying Paley has made a fallacy of inference?

Answer 20

Hume criticises the use of observation arguing that the conclusion that there is a designer can only ever be probable since a posteriori arguments work in general evidence that we have now and do not take into account possible future evidence.

Furthermore, even if we observe order and purpose in the natural world, we cannot assume that this is true of the whole world (the fallacy of composition). In order to know what has brought something about we have to experience it’s being brought about - so unless we have had some experience of other universes being made, we have no grounds to conclude that God has designed this universe nor for knowing how it was made. We have experience of houses being designed and built, but the universe is unique.

Hume gives an example of a set of balancing scales with one pan hidden - we can only guess what is causing the weight on the hidden side. Much like observing the world, we cannot see nor assume there is a designing mind or God behind it. The most we can say is that there appears to be some order in the universe. However, we do not have other worlds to compare with this one; perhaps there are other worlds, more ordered than this one, which, if we knew about them, would lead us to the conclusion that there is very little order in our own world.

Furthermore, says Hume, order is a necessary part of the world’s existence; if everything were random and nothing suited its purpose, the world would not be here anymore. A world has to fit together in order to continue. It will look designed because if it were chaotic it would not survive.

Question 21

What does Hume mean by saying Paley assumes God?

Answer 21

Hume arrives at possible causes of the universe that are nothing like a perfect, unique God. His thinking goes like this:

Complex machines are not usually the product of a single, brilliant designer. Ships and houses have teams of people involved with their design and construction - so perhaps the universe was designed and created by many gods, a whole committee of gods, not by a single deity. Why should we assume only one God?

The designers and constructors of complex machines are often foolish and morally weak people. A shipbuilder may make a perfect ship but he might turn out to be a ‘stupid mechanic’ or a bad person. So perhaps the gods who built the universe are foolish and morally weak. Furthermore, humans involved in manufacture are male and female, and they reproduce, so perhaps deities are gendered and engage in reproduction (like the gods of Ancient Greece and Rome).

Complex machines are usually the product of many years of trial and error, with each one being an improvement on its predecessor. Perhaps ‘many worlds have been botched and bungled’ before this one was created; perhaps this universe is one in a long line of ‘draft’ universes, which may be superseded by a better one in future.

Even if there is a designer of the world we do not know anything about the nature of the designer; we cannot assume an infinite, perfect God is behind creation. Our world is finite; why should God be considered infinite?

If we judge the attributes of the creator by what is created, the God in whom Christians believe - omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient - cannot be inferred. When there are design faults in a machine we infer that the designer lacked resources or skills, or simply didn’t care. The universe appears to contain many design faults (causing needless pain and suffering) which does not suggest planning, order or purpose but a cruel, immoral designer. Perhaps then the universe was created by a flawed god who lacked the power, skill or love to create something better (or perhaps it was created by an infant god or a senile god).

Question 22

What did Hume think in general and what is his epicurean hypothesis?

Answer 22

Hume did not think that any of these alternative explanations are likely, but underpinning all his criticisms is the belief that design and cosmological arguments only demonstrate that God is one of the large number of possible hypothesis. We simply do not have sufficient experience to know, for a fact, that all order comes about because of an intelligent idea. It could’ve come about by random chance.

Hume puts forward an alternative theory, the Ancient Greek Epicurean hypothesis (from the Greek philosopher Epicurus around 200 BC) which states that given an infinite amount of time, a finite number of particles may eventually fall into order by chance. Darwin’s later findings seemed to support this idea of random chance, even though Hume lived 80 years too early to know about Darwinism.

Question 23

Aquinas and evolution

Answer 23

Teleological arguments hinge on the claim that God is the only plausible explanation for the design we observe in the natural world. They were accepted by most people until 1859 when an alternative explanation came along from the English scientist Charles Darwin - his theory of evolution.

Aquinas would have been dimly aware of the theory of evolution because Aristotle had reported an idea proposed by one of his predecessors Empedocles, who had asked why animals have sharp teeth in front and flat teeth at the back.

Empedocles’ answer was because this works best for survival - those whose teeth didn’t happen to grow this way died out, leaving the species that we see around us.

In 1859, in his book On the Origin of Species, Darwin put forward compelling evidence for the theory of evolution - that natural selection is the best explanation for the features that Paley had puzzled over.

Question 24

What are 4 main principles around the natural selection theory?

Answer 24

1. Replication: Organisms reproduce themselves, passing their characteristics onto their offspring.
2. Random mutation (change): Every generation brings new characteristics, some better for survival, some worse.
3. Harsh conditions: In the fight for survival, this with a slight advantage will be more likely to reproduce, causing small changes in the species.
4. Aeons of time: Small changes in the species add up from generation to generation, resulting in new species.

Example of natural selection: The feathers of a peacock becoming more bright and distinctive to attract mates.

According to the theory of evolution, humans and monkeys share a common ancestor which is different from both,

Question 25

What does natural selection mean for the design theory?

Answer 25

Evolution creates the appearance of an intelligent design in the natural world. It will look like someone has programmed the squirrel to take care of her family, but evolution can programme a species just as easily as an intelligent designer can.

Question 26

How have theists reacted to natural selection?

Answer 26

Common today to combine the theory of evolution with theism - to claim that God is responsible for the process of evolution (theistic evolution).

However, in order to truly justify the existence of God, the teleological proof needs to show that there is a crucial role for God to play - something about the natural world that evolution cannot explain.

Question 27

Evaluation of natural selection and Paley’s watch

Answer 27

Perhaps we should give Paley’s argument its due. Before Darwin, the on,h explanation for the intricacy of the eye was the existence of a designer.

Yet Darwin’s theory did not demolish teleological proofs altogether. Theists either:

• Incorporated it into their argument for God’s existence.
• Put forward a second type of teleological argument - the anthropic principle.

Question 28

What is the anthropic principle?

Answer 28

What strikes Tennant as most odd is that an extraordinary list of specific, unconnected physical conditions have to be in place in our universe in order for human life to be possible (chemical, thermal and astronomical). These features can be traced back billions of years to the Big Bang.

The likelihood that this chain of events - culminating in conscious intelligent beings - could occur by pure chance is so low that we are forced to conclude that it is NOT a set of amazing coincidences - but that God intended it to be that way.

Anthropic comes from the Greek word for man so this is the anthropic teleological argument because it argues that the universe is so exactly right for human life that it must have been designed.

Question 29

Examples of conditions necessary for human life

Answer 29

The Big Bang had to occur exactly as it did. Scientist Paul Davies maintains that if the strength of the initial event had varied by one part in 10/60 (Novemdecillion (that’s a 10 followed by 60 noughts!)) there would have been no Big Bang.

There is a precise balance in the constants that govern nature. Without the strength of gravity there would be no expansion of the universe so no formation of stars or planets (it’s been speculated that the 2 forces need to be balanced to an accuracy of one part in ten thousand billion, billion, billion, billion (thousand sextillion)).

Earth is at the precise distance from the sun necessary for just enough light and heat.

The argument is that if these things were only slightly altered then no form of complexity or life could exist in the universe.

Question 30

What are the basic premises of the anthropic argument?

Answer 30

1. For human life to come into existence, very specific, unconnected, physical conditions need to be in place.
2. All these features are found in place in this universe.
3. Either these special features have occurred by chance (the Epicurean hypothesis) or by Intelligent Design (the ‘God hypothesis’).
4. The probability of all these features occurring by chance/coincidence is minute.
5. Therefore, the most likely explanation is that an intelligent Designer, God, intended to create a universe which would produce human life. Natural selection is part of God’s plan.

Question 31

Challenges to the anthropic principle

Answer 31

• This principle assumes that the entire universe exists for the sake of humans - but this is unlikely. Science has shown that there are 100 billion + (perhaps infinite) other galaxies in the universe - the earth is just a tiny dot in this vastness. We happen to live in one which is suited to life but have no access to others.
• Most of the universe is bleak, cold and barren. Where is the evidence for design in these in these remote, uninhabited, uninhabitable galaxies? What purpose do these serve?
• With so many different possibilities in the universe, it is likely that conditions for a hospitable planet, will happen. The odds are always against something happening - your parents meeting, your conception - yet, it happens.

Question 32

What is Tennant’s aesthetic design argument?

Answer 32

Tennant also argued that human ability to appreciate beauty, to enjoy art, music and literature is evidence of a divine creator. Beauty is not necessary for survival nor for the development of life so it cannot be ‘explained away’ by Darwinist idealist - it cannot be the result of natural selection.

Question 33

Do teleological arguments work? YES

Answer 33

• People point to the example of ink being split onto paper - the ink could slash into all kinds of shapes and patterns. But if it splashed so that it formed the works of Shakespeare, we might suspect that there is more than chance involved. It is even more likely ghat chance could account for Shakespeare himself and all the books, animals and plants in the world.
• If order and and design in the world is simply random chance, we have to assume that gene mutation caused something as complex as an eye to develop from basic light - sensitive cells.
• Philosopher Anthony Flew, following a lifetime of atheism, was finally converted to theism following his reflection in double helix within DNA - two strand that run opposite each other and twist together. He said he could no longer deny that the incredible complexity of DNA could have any explanation other than God.

Is God the simplest explanation?

• According to a principle known as Occam’s razor, where 2 or more hypotheses are offered, it is reasonable to accept the simplest one - the one that makes fewest unsupported assumptions. The ‘razor’ come from the idea of shaving off any unnecessary assumptions from a theory.

Swinburne appeals to this principle, saying that the sheer complexity of the universe makes it unlikely that it would just ‘happen’ to be the way it is. But is God a simple explanation? If we cannot understand God, is this an explanation?

Question 34

Do teleological arguments work? NO

Answer 34

• If God designed the world, thus leaves more questions, including:
  Why did he create illness/make people die?
  Why did he make parts of the universe apparently barren and useless?
  Why he he create desert locusts?
  Why did he give life to evil men and women?
• Some might see the world as imperfect, chaotic and purposeless.

Question 35

What is the cosmological argument?

Answer 35

Cosmos: all that exists. The universe.

They argue for the existence of God based on the existence of the universe. They address one main question: Why does the universe exist?

Question 36

What does Aquinas conclude about the universe?

Answer 36

Aquinas concludes that an explanation cannot be found within the universe, therefore, the universe exists because of God.

Question 37

What is Aquinas’ cosmological argument?

Answer 37

Aquinas’ first three ways (or five) are his cosmological argument. He tries to answer why it is here and why it continues.

1. The unmoved mover
2. The First Cause
3. Contingency

Question 38

What is Aquinas’ First Way?

Answer 38

The argument from motion.

Aquinas takes up Aristotle’s idea of moths and adapts it (motion includes change from potentiality to actuality i.e. cold things becoming warm, people growing older etc).

Aquinas argues that nothing can move or change by itself (everything is moved by something).

He argues that there cannot be an infinite regression of movers (chain of events going backwards for ever) because if there were, there would be no first mover - so nothing would have started moving at all,

Therefore, there must be an unmoved mover which itself cannot be moved or changed but which started the chain of movement and change. He called this unmoved mover God.

Example

Suppose you see a stone moving. You might ask what’s moving the stone. You might realise that a long stick is pushing the stone. But this prompts a new question - what’s moving the stick? Suppose you realise that a person’s hand is pushing the stick. But at a deeper level, what is moving the man? For him to push the stick, neurons must fire in his brain, blood must flow through his body a long time ago, and he didn’t start it. So what moved the man?

His parents? What moved them? We won’t be satisfied until we come to the beginning of the chain - something whose motion doesn’t need to be explained because it isn’t moving - an unmoved mover. For Aquinas, this can only be God.

Question 39

What is Aquinas’ Second Way?

Answer 39

The argument from cause

Aquinas argues that everything within the universe is the result of a succession of causes and effects. Causes must be caused (otherwise there would be no effect) and nothing can be it’s own cause (a logical impossibility because nothing can exist before itself). Yet the cosmos contains human beings.

There cannot be an infinite regression of causes (chain of causes going back to infinity) because then there would be no first cause - and all later effects wouldn’t have happened.

Therefore, there must be a first cause, a special case, which is itself uncaused, that began the chain of cause and effect. Aquinas called this uncaused causer God.

Question 40

What is Aquinas Third Way?

Answer 40

The argument from contingency

Everything in the universe is contingent (dependent upon something else for its existence). If things sometimes do not exist, then it is possible that there was a time when nothing existed. Yet there is something now (a universe) and the universe can not come from nothing. So there must be a different type of being, a necessary being, that has brought things and beings into existence. This necessary being we call God.

Question 41

What are potential flaws in Aquinas’ argument?

Answer 41

• Is it reasonable to assume an infinite regress of moves/changes - rather than an unmoved mover?
• Is it possible that what we understand to be cause and effect is more like a correlation than a cause? Perhaps things occur together but one doesn’t necessarily cause the other.
• Does Aquinas make leaps in logic? Just because things within the universe are contingent does this mean that the universe is also contingent? (Fallacy of composition)
• Does Aquinas leap to the idea of God/ a necessary being? Is this another assumption? Could the necessary being be something other than God or a different type of God, for example a deist creator - one that started the world but then has no further involvement with it?

Question 42

Strengths of Aquinas’ cosmological argument

Answer 42

• For every event, something has made it happen. It doesn’t constantly go until infinity. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers because if there were, there would be no first mover - so nothing would have started moving at all.
• Fairly cohesive, makes sense, the universe started at some point.
• There can’t be an infinite regression of causes because then there would be no first cause - and all later effects would be no first cause - and all later effects couldn’t have happened. There has to be a first cause. This makes sense, someone had to have started it all.
• The universe cannot come from nothing as it is contingent (dependent upon something else for its existence). Everything in the universe is contingent. Best argument here.

Question 43

Weaknesses of Aquinas’ cosmological argument?

Answer 43

• Why does there have to be a first mover? The universe is infinite so why can’t it infinitely regress?
• Why should we assume the unmoved mover to be God? Maybe it’s just nature.
• Maybe the universe did come from nothing e.g. the Big Bang.
• Maybe the universe is contingent and nature is necessary? Nature is the unmoved mover???
• Fallacy of composition - What is observed about the parts cannot be assumed to be the same for the whole.
• Is it reasonable to assume an infinite regress of moves/changes - rather than an unmoved mover?
• Perhaps things occur together but one doesn’t necessarily cause the other.
• Could the necessary being be something other than God or a different type of God, for example a deist creator - one that started the worlds but then has no further involvement with it?

Question 44

David Hume’s argument against the Unmoved mover

Answer 44

Aquinas bases his cosmological argument on the premise that everything in the universe is caused by something else and that an infinite regress of causes and movers (endless chain going backwards through time without beginning) is absurd. The chain must end somewhere and that somewhere is God.

But David Hume points out that things like number can go back to infinity - so it is a theoretical possibility that the cause and effect chain is infinite (doesn’t not stop anywhere).

Question 45

David Hume’s argument against the Uncaused Causer

Answer 45

For Hume, it is unreasonable to extend the idea of cause (which he calls the necessary connection between events) to something outside our experience (God). Since we have no experience of universes being created, we cannot assume there was an initial motion and/or cause. We can never discuss it with any knowledge of certainty. Causation in the universe may be implied but is never observed. To demonstrate this point Hume presents a thought experiment about billiard balls. When you observe billiard balls colliding, what you see is a sequence of events, but not any actual ‘push’ or ‘force’.

Furthermore, even if we accept that everything in the universe has a cause or a reason for its existence, we cannot make the jump to a belief that the entire universe has a cause or reason, as Aquinas and Leibniz have. This is a fallacy of composition. Hume explains this by likening it to particles of matter - just because you can explain the cause of each particle in a collection of 20 particles of matter, this does not mean you can explain the cause of the whole group of particles.

Bertrand Russell supports Hume’s view, arguing that it is overstepping the rules of logic to move from individual causes in the universe to the view that the whole universe has a cause. He offers his own analogy to make his point; just because every human has a mother, this does not mean that the human species as a whole has a mother, this does not mean that the human species as a whole has a mother. The universe is simply a ‘brute fact’ that we cannot coherently talk or argue about. The universe is just there and that’s all.

Hume is saying ghat Aquinas and Leibniz are wrong. Perhaps not everything has a cause or explanation. Perhaps the universe is uncaused or self-caused, perhaps we should accept that it simply has no explanation or find an explanation that lies within the universe.

Question 46

David Hume’s argument against The Third Way: Necessity and contingency

Answer 46

For Hume, the term ‘Necessary Being’ has no meaning. A being that cannot not exist is impossible, because something that exists, by definition, could not exist! All statements to do with existence are synthetic meaning that their truth can only be determined by observation and experience. Again, Russell supports this view, by pointing out that the only necessary things are analytical statements which are true by definition, such as ‘triangles have three sides’.

Question 47

What is Leibniz’s cosmological argument?

Answer 47

As rational creatures, says Leibniz, we are entitled to seek a rational, ‘sufficient’ explanation for why everything in the universe is the way it is; it is irrational not to. If something could have failed to be the way it is, then there must be some explanation of why it is that way - the sky is blue but it might not have been blue, so there must be some reason, or explanation for why it is blue rather than any other colour.

By ‘sufficient’ explanation Leibniz means a complete or ultimate explanation, as opposed to an incomplete, proximate explanation. If someone dies and the doctor tells you ‘It’s because his heart stopped beating’ this would be a proximate explanation, giving the immediate cause only but we would want a sufficient explanation - to know why his heart stopped beating.

Following this logic, we are entitled to seek rational, ‘sufficient’ explanation for the universe itself, as opposed to a proximate explanation. He gives the example of a geometry textbook. You might ask ‘Where did this geometry book come from?’ and a reasonable answer might be ‘It was copied from a previous geometry text book’. But even if you know that all geometry books were copied from the previous one, you still want a sufficient reason; you want to know why all the books exist - why there is such a thing as geometry text books at all.

What goes for the geometry books goes for the world as a whole - there must be a sufficient explanation of why it exists at all. What is true if the books is also true if the states of the world. If you suppose the world eternal, you will suppose nothing but a succession of states and will not find in any of them a sufficient reason.

Some sort of external something has to be the reason for its existence since a sufficient explanation cannot be explained by other, contingent things in the universe.

P1 All contingent facts/things in the world must have an explanation (PSR)
P2 The fact that the world exists must have an explanation. The existence of the world can’t be explained by other contingent things in the universe.

C1 The existence of contingent things/beings must be explained by something which is not contingent - something that is Necessary.
C2 There is a Necessary Being and this is God.

Question 48

What do some philosophers believe about Leibniz’s theory?

Answer 48

Some philosophers believe the PSR to be the ‘ultimate’ version of the Cosmological Argument since it side-steps the debate about infinite regress (even an eternal world requires a sufficient explanation) and avoids the problems of a posteriori arguments because it’s a deductive argument. The question is whether, by detaching itself from science, the PSR is a weaker argument than Aquinas’ since scientific evidence can make arguments for God more persuasive.