Arguments for the existence of God

Question 1

What is ‘A prioi’

Answer 1

a concept is known independent of any experience, it is
inherently understood.

• An example of this is Aquinas’ understanding of the 5 precepts – everyone can understand them naturally, it is inherently obvious to everyone.

Question 2

What is ‘a posteriori’

Answer 2

A posteriori – a concept is known on the basis of experience.

An example of this is a scientific fact, which is proven right through formulating and testing a hypothesis.

Question 3

What is the design argument?

Answer 3

The world must have a designer based on aposteriori
reasoning: through observation one can see:

The world is complex; the world exhibits regularity; the
world has a purpose.

The world therefore shows evidence of being designed
and made for a purpose, therefore he concludes that
the designer must be omnipotent, and concludes that
the designer is God.

Question 4

What is the watch analogy?

Answer 4

if a person walking across a heath found a watch
on the ground (having never seen one before) they
would assume from looking at it that it had a maker –
this is because of how intricate the design is, all the
prats are designed to work together. The watch also
clearly has been made for a purpose. Paley compares
this to the universe, arguing that it too is complex and
intricate and has a purpose.

Question 5

An example of Paley’s argument from nature?

Answer 5

The watch analogy :Paley gives examples from nature to show the complexity and regularity that he discusses – for example a creature’s eye is perfectly designed for sight, the planets are designed in their orbit, and birds are designed biologically to be perfectly suited to flying.

Question 6

How does Paley’s argument help people to have faith?

Answer 6

Uses logic and reason.

Provides evidence for faith in God from the world around us.

It is simple.

Gives people a way to respond to atheism.

Question 7

What are the three arguments for the existence of God?

Answer 7

Design, ontological, cosmological

Question 8

How is God defined in Paleys’ design argument?

Answer 8

The universe shows evidence that am omnipotent, omniscient being must have brought it into existence

Question 9

What type of reasoning is used in Paleys design/analogical argument?

Answer 9

Paley used inductive reasoning, which gives new knowledge about what is probably true
Premise: all things in the universe show evidence of being designed
Conclusion : the universe must have a designer (God)

His reasoning is also A posteriori – conclusions are drawn on the
basis of experience and evidence.

Paley drew on evidence from the natural world to show that it must
be designed – for example, he observed the planets and saw that
they orbit in a regular order, suggesting that they have been designed
this way.

Question 10

Hume’s criticism of Paley

Answer 10

Paley hasn’t necessarily proved the existence of the God of Classical Theism, he could have proved that a “lesser being” exists, or that a pantheon of God exists.

The problem of evil suggests that the world is not designed, or that the designer is somehow limited, being “malevolent” or “impotent”.

The universe is an organism that could have grown itself – a watch is a machine that needs a designer, but the world is not like a machine.

Paley anthropomorphises the universe – uses human terms to understand it when it is non-human.

The universe could have developed by chance (supported by the Big Bang/Evolution).

Who assigns purpose?

Question 11

Strengths of Paley?

Answer 11

Uses evidence from the world around us which shows that it is most likely that the world is designed – eyes, planets and seasons, fish gills, bird’s wings.

The Watchmaker Analogy shows that it is illogical to assume that the world does not have a designer.

Question 12

weakness of Paley?

Answer 12

Paley’s Design Argument is inductive, but it’s evidence does not amount to scientific proof, because we have no clear way of assessing the degree of probability of his argument, because whatever part of Paley’s evidence we use, there will always be those who reject it in favor of Hume’s view.

Degree of probability: we cannot say without a doubt that Paley’s argument is correct.

When answering the question “Does Paley’s argument prove that there is a divine creator?” it is down to personal belief whether or not you are convinced that the universe made itself or something else made it.

Question 13

How does Aquinas define God?

Answer 13

God is the First Cause:
God started the chain reaction that caused the universe to exist.

God is the Uncaused Cause:
God, with His omni-characteristics, was not created Himself and is
eternal.

God is a non-contingent being:
God does not rely on other beings for His existence.

God is a necessary being:
For there to be existence in the universe, God must exist.

Question 14

What type of reasoning is used?

Answer 14

Aquinas uses inductive reasoning, which gives new knowledge about
what is probably true.
Premise: All things in the universe have a cause
Premise: The universe must also have a cause.
Premise: At some point, the chain of causes must have a beginning.
Conclusion: There is a being which caused the universe to exist (God).

His reasoning is also A posteriori – conclusions are drawn on the
basis of experience and evidence.
Aquinas uses evidence of the world around him to prove that the
universe is contingent, but must have a non-contingent cause.

Question 15

What evidence is given?

Answer 15

Aquinas observed the Cosmos and concluded that the processes of the
universe could not be explained by themselves.
He argued that every part of the universe: galaxies, planets, seasons,
demonstrated the law of cause and effect.
Aquinas observed the universe and saw that everything has a limited
lifespan, he therefore concluded that there is no contingent being that is everlasting.
This means that at some point, before contingent beings, there must
have been nothing in existence.
‘Ex nihilo nihil fit’ – Latin for “out of nothing nothing will come”

However, nothing can come from nothing, so the fact that beings exist
suggests that they came from a different kind of being, an uncaused
being.
Another key idea of Aquinas’ argument concerns possibility.

He argues that something can only be possible because it has
happened.

Therefore, if it is possible that there was a time where nothing
existed, it is because nothing truly existed at this time.

Question 16

What evidence is given?

Answer 16

Aquinas observed the Cosmos and concluded that the processes of the
universe could not be explained by themselves.
He argued that every part of the universe: galaxies, planets, seasons,
demonstrated the law of cause and effect.
Aquinas observed the universe and saw that everything has a limited
lifespan, he therefore concluded that there is no contingent being that is everlasting.
This means that at some point, before contingent beings, there must
have been nothing in existence.
‘Ex nihilo nihil fit’ – Latin for “out of nothing nothing will come”

However, nothing can come from nothing, so the fact that beings exist
suggests that they came from a different kind of being, an uncaused
being.
Another key idea of Aquinas’ argument concerns possibility.

He argues that something can only be possible because it has
happened.

Therefore, if it is possible that there was a time where nothing
existed, it is because nothing truly existed at this time.

Question 17

How does Aquinas commit a fallacy of composition?

Answer 17

Aquinas commits a “Fallacy of Composition”: Something is true of the whole argument because part of it is true.

He views that humans must have mothers and concludes from this that the universe must have a mother, but this is “In a different logical sphere”.

Another example: Hydrogen is not wet, and oxygen is not wet, therefore H2O isn’t wet.

Question 18

How did Bruce Reichenbach counteract that Aquinas’ argument constituted a fallacy of composition

Answer 18

This has however been counter argued by Bruce Riechenbach, who argues that Aquinas’ argument does not constitute a fallacy.

He argues that Aquinas is describing the universe as something based on observation: “The universe is built from contingent things, therefore the universe is contingent.”

This is as true as saying “This wall is built from bricks, so the wall is brick.”

Composition therefore can’t be a ‘fallacy’

Question 19

Russell’s brute fact arguement?

Answer 19

Bertrand Russell explained that we can’t ask about the cause of something like the creation of the universe or all existence because we can’t experience it. He then stated, there’s no explanation needed and “the universe is just there, and that’s all.”

For Russell, the universe is a brute fact that needs no explanation. Why can’t the Universe just exist, he asks? After all, if theists are willing to accept the existence of God as the necessary being as a type of brute fact that either caused itself to exist or it doesn’t need a cause as in the case, why cannot an atheist accept the existence of the universe as a brute fact, as a necessary explanation for why anything at all exists?

Question 20

Hume’s criticism of the cosmological argument

Answer 20

Hume also argued that “necessary existence” is a meaningless term: this is because existence is not based on logic, it is based on sensory experience.

All sensory experiences are called “Synthetic propositions” rather than
“Analytical propositions” (logical statements like 2+2=4).

Question 21

Aquinas has proved the argument

Answer 21

Isn’t it possible to prove something through overwhelming probability?

Physics argues that unobservable entities like sub-atomic particles (called “Quarks”) must exist. No one has seen one, but the evidence for
their existence is so overwhelming that it is considered true. This shows that it is possible to accept the existence of an unobservable entity: so it should also be possible that the existence of God can be accepted based on the evidence.

Gerry J. Hughes Believes that the Cosmological Argument acts as conclusive proof for God’s existence. Hughes agrees with Aquinas’
reasoning and argues that the only satisfactory explanation of the universe can be that there is a being that exists that must have caused the universe.

Question 22

Aquinas has not proved the argument

Answer 22

There is no scientific evidence for Aquinas’ argument.

There are logical arguments against Aquinas’ argument – particularly the problem of evil, which seems to give evidence that there is no God.

Aquinas’ argument is not enough to convince atheists.

Aquinas’ argument is based on synthetic statements, which are based on the senses, not on analytic statements that can be worked out by reason. Synthetic statements can be more unreliable that analytic
statements.

Question 23

How does Aquinas’ argument help faith?

Answer 23

Uses evidence from the world around us to prove that it is most likely that God does exist.

Uses logic and reasoning to support the ideas.

God keeps his omni-characteristics.

Supported by the design argument.

Question 24

is it a strong argument?

Answer 24

Aquinas does not commit a “fallacy of composition” as Russell suggests:
instead he uses classic aposteriori reasoning: drawing the most likely conclusion from what he observes.

Aquinas explains that God is not like other beings, because he is the only uncaused necessary being.

Science itself assumes that there is no “brute fact” – this goes against
logical reasoning, so the universe must have a being that brought it into
existence.

There could be many caused necessary beings, but these should still be
contingent on one uncaused necessary being, which exists in and of itself.

Occam’s Razor: one uncaused being makes fewer assumptions than many.

No scientific theories explain why there is something other than nothing
(Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit). There is still the need for a necessary being that can
exist so everything else can exist.

Question 25

What is the Ontological argument?

Answer 25

1. It is true by definition that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God exists only in the mind, then we can imagine something greater than God.
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God – see point 1; it’s logically impossible.
6. Therefore, the only remaining possibility is God exists both in mind and in reality.

Question 26

How does Anselm define God?

Answer 26

God is “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.”

This means that God is the greatest being that can possibly be thought of.

This is essential to the theory, as the “ontos” (being/nature) of God
forms the argument – he must exist by definition.

In addition, Anselm comments that the greatest possible being must possess all good qualities to the maximum amount – therefore there is no being that is more loving, powerful or wise than God.

Question 27

What type of reasoning is used in Anselm’s argument?

Answer 27

Anselm uses deductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning: If the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.

Premise: God is the greatest possible being.
Premise: To be the greatest being, God must exist.
Conclusion: God exists.

His reasoning is also apriori: A priori – a concept is known independent of any experience, it is inherently understood.

This is because Anselm does not require synthetic evidence, and his
argument can be understood through the application of logic alone.

Question 28

What evidence is given for Anselm’s argument?

Answer 28

God is the greatest conceivable being.

It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind.

Therefore, as the greatest conceivable being, God must exist in reality.

Anselm describes this as a “necessary truth”.

He phrases this in terms of a “subject”

and a “predicate”. The subject is the being which is being discussed, and a predicate gives information about the subject.

“God exists.”

Question 29

Gaunilo’s criticism of Anselm’s ontological argument

Answer 29

Anselm’s Responsio:

P1: It is possible to conceive of the most perfect and real lost island
P2: It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind
C: Therefore the most perfect and real island must exist in reality

Question 30

Anselm’s response to Gaunilo’s criticism

Answer 30

The greatest possible island would have to exist necessarily.

Islands are contingent (dependent on prior causes), so cannot exist
necessarily.

Therefore, Guanilo’s logic cannot apply to an island but can apply to God who is a necessary and non-contingent being.

Question 31

Kant’s criticism of Anselm?

Answer 31

“Existence” is not a predicate. This is because saying that something exists does not give us more information about it.
He argued that one could describe all the predicates of a Thaler which would add to one’s understanding of it: Gold, round, metal, etc.
However, saying that the Thaler also exists doesn’t add anything new to our understanding of it.
In the same way, there is no difference between the God that we have a concept of through the predicates of the 3 O’s, and a God that actually exists.
Anselm uses Analytic statements in his argument: it is true by definition.
It is possible to make analytic statements about things that do not exist: e.g. “a unicorn is a white horse with a horn.”
This is analytic because it is how we define a unicorn, it is true in itself.
However, even though saying “a unicorn is a white horse with a horn” is logically true, it is not necessarily true.
Equally, saying “God exists necessarily” is logically true, but it is not necessarily true.

Question 32

How does Anselm’s argument help faith?

Answer 32

Offers a definition of God that can be understood by logic and reasoning.
This allows people to understand God better and helps their relationship with him.

Does not use synthetic statements (based on evidence from the world
around us) which can be criticised as being subjective/unreliable in nature.

Concludes that logically God must exist, and being able to think about God shows this.

Anselm argues in the Proslogion that those who do not believe in God are “Fools”: this is from Psalm 14:1 “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” This is the same as an atheist saying “there is no God”: the problem that they have is that they do not understand the overall concept of God.