arguments for the existence of God

Question 1

a posteriori

Answer 1

-empirical in nature
-based on sense experience

Question 2

inductive

Answer 2

based on probability and not knock down proof
-the conclusion is not necessarily true; the stronger the evidence for it, the more likely it is to be true

Question 3

analogical

Answer 3

-based on a comparison between the features of two different things

Question 4

design argument analogy

Answer 4

when walking on the ground you stub your toe on a rock, you think nothing of it, however when you stub your toe on a watch you would raise the question on how it got to be there, unlike with the rock
“ the marks of design are strong; a design must have a designer”

Question 5

Hume as a critic of the DA
(not Paley)

Answer 5

-even if universe was designed, no evidence that it is the God of classical theism (a lesser being could be responsible)
- existence of evil and imperfection suggests a limited designer ( epicures inconsistent triad)
- “if he is able, but not willing? then he is malevolent”
-intelligent minds can also be within mortals, so who is to say that a mere mortal didn’t create it and die long ago.

Question 6

strengths and weaknesses for DA

Answer 6

STRENGTHS
-Swinburne argued that the existence of a single omnipotent God is the simplest explanation
- Paley said evil might be unavoidable for God to bring about good; Free will defence, process theodicy and Hicks Irenaeus theodicy
- Evolution itself requires explanation [Swinburne]. It is not incompatible with theism
- Paley’s claim that ‘nature shows intention’ is supported by the anthropic Principle. The multiverse theory is incapable of proof.
WEAKNESSES
-claims made by theism about the nature of a designer God go way beyond the evidence
- existence of evil suggests incompetent, indifferent, or malevolent designer- or no designer at all.

Question 7

DA as a proof/not a proof

Answer 7

PROOF
- most things that we accept as true in life are based on inductive arguments. They are accepted as ‘true beyond reasonable doubt’ (more proof= strong)
-laws of nature require explanation and that we cannot be sure multiverse theory is true
NOT A PROOF
-only deductive arguments can give absolute proof
-Paley’s explanations to support his argument can be explained naturally; if multiverse theory is true, apparent design is pure chance

Question 8

a priori

Answer 8

-this type of argument is prior to and independent of sense experience
-non empirical
- relies on logic

Question 9

deductive

Answer 9

-this type of argument aims to give certain proof
- if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true
- a set of premises is a set of propositions on which and argument can be based or from which a conclusion might be drawn

Question 10

necessary truths/things

Answer 10

NECESSARY TRUTHS
- relate to statements that could not possibly be false- e.g. a circle has no sides
NECESSARY THINGS
- things that cannot possibly fail to exist- for example, the laws of mathematics, according to some mathematics and scientists

Question 11

Ontological argument

Answer 11

• by Anselm; Gods existence can be deduced from the definition of God, the statement ‘God exists’ contains the predicate ‘exists’ in relation to the subject ‘God’ so God must exist by the a priori and deductive definition.
  PROSLOGIUM 2
• God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived
• there is a difference between having a concept in mind and knowing that it exists in reality. If God existed only in the mind then a greater being could be conceived, but by Gods definition he is to the absolute and ultimate degree, therefore he must exist in reality too
  “the fool says in his heart “there is no God””- even the fool understands concept of God

Question 12

Gaunilo criticisms/ Proslogium 3 and the responsio

Answer 12

Gaunilo on behalf of the fool;
- he followed same structure as Anselm, substituting the lost island for God
- if you dream up a lost island of all your favourite things to you nothing greater can be conceived
- but because of Anselm’s structure, you could argue that it must also exist in reality over mind because you can conceive nothing better
PROS 3 + RESPONSIO
-Anselm argued the distinction of necessity and contingency:
-a necessary being would be a being whose non- existence would be contradictory
-a contingent being is something that may or may not exist, being dependent on something else for its existence.
- Anselm pointed to the key difference between and island:
-island=contingent -God=necessary
-God cannot be contingent because greater being cannot be conceived
- Anselm was pointing out that only in God is necessary existence an integral property. Only God cannot be though not to exist.

Question 13

Kant as a critic

Answer 13

-Both of his two challenges stem from his conviction that statements about existence:
-are synthetic, not analytic
-must be proved empirically through sense experience
-existence is not a predicate:
-a real predicate is something that gives information about a subject.
- “ the cat sat on the mat” gives no info on cat, going on to say that the cat exists gives no further information about the cat

-something cannot be defined into existence
-Kant accepted that necessary existence belongs to the concept of God
-but this does not mean he actually exists; the fact that something could exist does not mean it actually does exist.

Question 14

strengths and weaknesses of Anselm’s argument

Answer 14

STRENGTHS
- its independence of evidence from human observation protects it from possibly unreliable evidence
-Anselm’s definition is in fact claiming that God is limitless and for many, if there is a God, his definition makes good sense
WEAKNESSES
- arguments about existence need to be empirically based
-Aquinas and others since have challenged Anselm’s definition of God. Humans cannot know the nature of God and any attempt to define God limits him- whole argument would collapse
“God dies a death of a thousand qualifications”

Question 15

the status of Anselm’s argument as proof

Answer 15

PROOF
- Karl Barth claimed Anselm never intended it as a proof. He thought it consisted of Anselm’s meditation on religious experience.
- some theologians think it was simply a meditation on the nature of God that was intended to assure his fellow monks their faith was reasonable.
NOT A PROOF
-not really what a proof is because its more a confirmation of a belief that someone already has
- the fact that he issued a response suggests that Gaunilo understood it as an attempt to prove the existence of God

Question 16

Anselm’s argument religious faith value

Answer 16

positive
-works for people who are already theists
-shows their belief to be rational
-the reasoned ‘belief that’ God exists reinforces and supports ‘belief in’ God
negative
-if it fails as a proof, then its value to religious faith is limited.
-Karl Barth rejects attempts to prove Gods existence using reason; God can only be known through revelation not by logic; Karl said Anselm never intended it to be a proof he was rather trying to understand the God he believed in

Question 17

Aquinas’ cosmological argument background

Answer 17

-inductive
- a posteriori
- Aquinas’ Way 3 focuses on contingency and necessity
-everything in the cosmos is contingent
- Something must therefore exist necessarily as its cause
-Aquinas’ version of ‘cosmological’ comes in the first three of his ‘five ways’ which are arguments intended to prove the existence of God
- first three ways are inter connected but way 3 is often seen as most important

Question 18

Aquinas’ way 3

Answer 18

PART ONE
- because everything in the natural world is contingent there must’ve been a time where nothing existed. “out of nothing, nothing can come”, ridiculous because vast contingent things now exist- so that must mean that something must exist necessarily
PART TWO
- everything that is necessary must be caused or uncaused. Aquinas refers to the possibility to infinite regress ( an unending series of necessary caused beings- there must be something at the start, an uncaused necessary responsible for the existence of the caused necessary beings and all contingent beings
-“this all men speak of as God” Aquinas

Question 19

Critics: Hume and Russel

Answer 19

-“ I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all”
Russell
1- Russel argued Aquinas was guilty of the fallacy of composition
- just because what we see in the world is caused, it does not mean that the universe itself has a cause
2-Hume and Russell rejected the concept of a necessary being
-statements about existence are synthetic rather than analytic
- there is no contradiction in stating that God does not exist
3-Hume suggested that the universe might be a necessarily- existent being
- Occam’s Razor; the simplest argument is more likely
-the universe could be necessarily existent rather than contingent upon an unseen necessarily existent God.
4-Hume said using Aquinas’ infinite regress, it would be reasonable to ask what caused God

Question 20

counter arguments to weaknesses (critics)

Answer 20

1- not always the case e.g. all 50 states in USA are in northern hemisphere, the USA as a whole is in the northern hemisphere so can be true for whole
2-the case for necessarily existing matter is no stronger than that for a necessarily existing mind. Scientific cosmological theories do not explain why there is something rather than nothing, whereas idea of God does
3-most people seek an explanation for things and this is how science operates.
4-Aquinas was talking about God’s metaphysical (not his logical) necessity.

Question 21

Aquinas’ way 3 as a proof/not

Question 22

aquinas way 3 for religious faith

Answer 22

pos:
-reasonable hypothesis, alternative explanations have no greater probability
- difficult language, but easy concept, so its Accessible to any Christian not just theologians
- supported by design argument
neg:
- not all theists accept it
- kant rejected it because he thought the idea of God as a necesaary being was dependant on the ontological argument
- Karl barth rejected all attempts to prove Gods existence through reason
- theist stephen evans regards the argument as limited value- does not indicate the God of Christian Theism