Arguments for the existance of God

Question 1

Who talked abouy the Design argument and what did he say?

Answer 1

• William Payley

- Argues that God exists through natural theology

Question 2

Define deductive proof:

Answer 2

• A logical process where the conclusion contains no more information.
  Where you break down logical information

Question 3

Define inductive proof:

Answer 3

• Logical process in which we draw a general conclusion from individual observations

Question 4

Define premise:

Answer 4

• A point that helps support a conclusion

Question 5

Define a posteriori:

Answer 5

• Arguments that depend on your 5 sense

Question 6

Define analogical:

Answer 6

• An attempt to explain something difficult by comparing it to something thats easier to understand

Question 7

Define natural theology:

Answer 7

• The view that questions about Gods existance can be answered by reasoning + science rather than special revalations

Question 8

Define telelogical argument:

Answer 8

• Argument for existance from the evidence of order, and hence design in nature

Question 9

Bases of the design argument:

Answer 9

• A posteriori + Inductive = Conclusion is probably rught, but can be false

Question 10

What analogy did Payley use?

Answer 10

• Watchmaker analogy

Question 11

Summarise the argument:

Answer 11

• Some objects (watch) show they were designed as they show complexity, regularity + has a purpose
• Similarly, the universe also has these 3 things
• So there must be someone far greater who designd the universe. This is God

Question 12

Whats the cosmological argument?

Answer 12

• The argument for the existance of God that claims that all things exist in nature depend on something else for their existance

Question 13

Who talks about the cosmological argument?

Answer 13

• Aquinas

Question 14

What are the basis of the cosmological argument?

Answer 14

• A posteriori + inductive = probably true but can be false

Question 15

Out of the 5 ways, which way is the cosmological argument?

Answer 15

• motion of change
  argument of causation

Contingency + necessity = way 3

Question 16

Define contingency:

Answer 16

• Things/ beings, dependent on other things to exist.

Question 17

What did Aquinas observe?

Answer 17

• The cosmos (stars, moon and planets)

- They are the result of cause and effect as they move and change

Question 18

What does the latin phrase “ex nihilo nihil fit” mean?

Answer 18

• out of nothing, nothing can come

Question 19

Define “reductio ad absurdum”:

Answer 19

• “Reduction to the absurd”
• This shows a statement is true because its denial leads to a false result.
  (rocks have weight otherwise they’d be floating)

Question 20

Define Infinite regress:

Answer 20

• The possibility that there might be an infinite series of caused necessary beings.

Question 21

Summaries the cosmological argument:

Answer 21

• Inductive + posteriori + define contingency which implies the existance of something necessary (God)
• 3rd out of 5 ways of contingency + necessity by resesrching the cosmos, resulting in cause and effect
• Aquinas claims all contingent beings have a finite lifespan (no contingent being is everlasting)
• Because “ex nihilo nihil fit” but this is a “reductio ad absurdum” as many contingent beings/things exists now
• Aquinas said the possibility of an infinite amount of cause necessary beings “infine regress) but this is also absurd as then therr would be no ultimate cause of the series so no series at all
• So there must be an uncaused necessary being who brings into existance all caused contingent + necessary beings (God)

Question 22

What is the ontological argument:

Answer 22

• The argument that God exists and is defined as most perfect + must exists, since a God who exists is greater than one who does not

Question 23

How od the onotological argument structured:

Answer 23

• Proslogium 2
• Guanilo “on behalf of a fool”’
• Proslogium 3

Question 24

Who talks about the ontological argument?

Answer 24

• Anselm

- Guanilo

Question 25

What are the basis of the ontological argument?

Answer 25

• Priori (relies on logic)
• Deductive (if premisis are true, conclusion is true)
• Analytical statements (true by definition)
• Subject (who/what the research is about) + Predicate (more info about subject)Subject: God
  Predicate: Exists

Question 26

What did Anselm argue?

Answer 26

• Argument is based on definition of God which shows Gods existance
• Gods existance is a necessary truth and NOT CONTINGENT

Question 27

Proslogium 2:

Answer 27

• Anselm defined God as “than that which nothing greater can be concieved”
• Quoted from Psalm 14:1 that evn a fool can understand the concept of God.
• Difference between having a concept in the mind and knowing God exists in reality.
• If God existed only in the mind, a greater being could existst.
• So God cannot only exist in the mind, so he has to exists in the mind + reality

Question 28

Proslogium 2:

Answer 28

nl

Question 29

Guanilos “behalf of a fool”:

Answer 29

• Followed same structure of Anselm, substituting the lost island for God.
• Possible to coneive the perfect and real lost island, its greater to exist in reality and not just mind, so the perfect and real lost island must exist in reality
• Guanilo knows this concept makes little sense but is using the method of “reductio ad absurdum” (argument of absurdity)
• Suggests that Anselms argument can be used for any perfect objects , so the real fool is who argued this.
• We can show the perfect island does not exist, so Anselms argument does not work

Question 30

Proslogium 3:

Answer 30

• Anselm discussed the distinction betwen contingency and necessity. A necessary being would be a being whos non existance would be contradictory.
• Anselm then defined God again
• A necessary being is greater than a contigent being
• If God was contigent then a greater being could exist
• This is ridiculous given the definition of God
• Therefore god is a necessary beong
• Anselm pointed out difference between God and an Island, islands are contigent.
• Only God cannot be though not to exist