Arguments for the existence of God Flashcards
Outline the teleological argument
William Paley - Christian apologist
A posteriori inductive argument grounded in empiricism.
Paley’s outlines his watch analogy in “Natural theology” where he demonstrates how a watch consists of intricate, complex component enabling it to perform a regular motion and fulfil a purpose of keeping time. This indicates intentional design rather than an object occurring out of chance.
Paley transfers this inference to the design of nature; the universe is comprised of complex parts working together for a purpose. The cyclical nature of transitional seasons and regularity of its orbit indicate intentional design and something needed to set it in motion.
Paley concludes just as a watch required a designer, so must the universe, a designer Paley concludes to be God.
Outline Hume’s criticisms of the teleological argument.
Outlined in Dialogues concerning natural religion.
Problem of evil - cause is proportional to its effect. Hume argues the presence of evil within the world contradicts the notion of an omnibenevolent designer.
Analogies cherry pick similarities - Hume argues that Paley only outlines the similarities between a designed mechanism, such as a watch, and the universe, which support his hypothesis of the design argument. Hume highlights that machines are the result of trial and error and often the product of multiple designers. From this, we would therefore assume there could have been many previous trial worlds or there are multiple designers and not just one theist God. This universe could be one of many “botched and bungled” worlds.
Problem of spatial disorder - Paley argues that the evidence of purpose within the world indicate design. However, there is vast amounts of empty space within the universe, seemingly fulfilling no purpose. This contradicts the idea of design.
Alternative organic analogy - Analogies between the designers of human machines and a designer of a universe is anthropomorphic. Hume proposes an alternative analogy. Rather than comparing the universe to a man made machine, Hume suggests an organic vegetive one is more appropriate. Plants are in a state of flux, change and growth, similar to the changing states of the universe opposed to a stagnant machine. This analogy arguably offers a better comparison as well as being compatible with Darwinian ideologies. Evolution is a natural process of growth and change and not concluded to be directed by an external agent such as God.
Outline critiques and counter arguments to the design argument-
Problem of evil -
JS Mill observes the pain and suffering within the natural world. He states “nature kills” and so questions how observations of the universe lead to beliefs in Christian theism and an omnibenevolent designer. Hick’s Irenaean theodicy shows evil as having an instrumental purpose for human moral development. This would not be able to occur in a morally static universe. Similarly, the free will defence portrays how nature must be free to operate on the laws which govern it.
FR Tennant - anthropic principle defends the design argument:
The probability of the 30 boundary conditions being perfectly aligned (eg distance from sun, expansion of big bang, force of gravity) to facilitate intelligent life to develop is incredibly low. Therefore, something must have designed it to bring about this occurrence and for these boundary conditions to be finely tuned.
Polkinghorne - science indicates the universe is deeply intelligible and finely tuned for human life. He argues these aren’t just chance accidents but suggestive evidence for God’s existence.
Richard Dawkins argues that the world hasn’t been specifically designed for human survival but rather through evolution humans have adapted to be better suited to our environment; natural selection is the “blind watchmaker.”
Teleological argument value for and against proof of God
The argument uses empiricism and observation to gain evidence, an approach popular within the 21st century.
Only deductive arguments can provide absolute proof. As we cannot have 100% certainty, Pascal argues it has “metaphysical proofs for the existence of God…have little impact.”
Even if there is evidence in support for a designer, there is nothing to suggest this must be the God. This requires faith.
Teleological argument value for faith
Consistent with scripture “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
Polkinghorne argues faith is “motivated belief, based on evidence” Therefore the design argument can provide them with supporting evidence to their pre-existing beliefs.
Paley’s use of empiricism gives theists a rational explanation and support for their beliefs.
Wittgenstein - “reasoned defence of their faith.”
Polkinghorne “faith is motivated belief based on evidence.”
Pascal “we know the truth, not only through our reason, but also through our heart.” Fiedists also believe that belief in God requires faith alone and thus, rational arguments have little value as God cannot be proven this way.
Teleological argument does not address problem of evil and therefore may restrict belief in an omnibenevolent God.
Outline Anselm’s ontological argument
Based on a priori reasoning, written to the fool in the Psalms. Atheists have an understanding of what God is, as they know what they are rejecting.
Anslem argues once we correctly define God we cannot deny God’s existence.
“God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived” Anslem believes the idea of God exists in everyone’s mind, even atheists as they have a concept in their mind which they reject.
As the greatest conceivable being, God must possess the greatest conceivable predicates. God must therefore be omnipotent, omniscient and possess the predicate of existence.
God exists necessarily and thus cannot not exist. As if God were not to exist, God would be inferior to any being which does exist and would therefore no longer be the greatest conceivable being.
Outline Gaunilo’s critiques of the ontological argument and Anselm’s response.
Reductio absurdum
Gaunilo uses Anselm’s criteria of existence and applies it to “the perfect island” to demonstrate
the illogical nature of Anselm’s argument. He argues you cannot define something into existence.
Gaunilo describes the most perfect island. To be perfect, this island must exist both in reality and in the mind as it would fall short to any island which exists in reality. From this rationale, the perfect island exists.
Anselm responds to this critique in his second formulation. Anslem argues that Gaunilo fails to object his argument as he compares the existence of an island to God. For Anselm, these are incomparable as an island is contingent and can therefore not exist. In contrast, by Anselm’s definition as the greatest conceivable being, God exists necessarily and therefore cannot not exist. There is something unique about God’s existence. Our ordinary way of understanding existence does not apply.
Outlines Kant’s criticisms of the ontological argument
Exclusion of the word “if”
If God exists, than God exists necessarily. We can reject Anselm’s definition of God and thereby reject all of its defining predicates.
Existence is not a predicate:
It does not give us any greater understanding of a concept. Kant uses the idea of a thaler to demonstrate this. Statements on existence are a posteriori synthetic and therefore a priori arguments on God’s existence have little value. However, Kant does the same mistake as Gaunilo by applying Anselm’s logic to contingent things, such as a thaler.
Evaluate the ontological argument as status of proof
Support from Descartes:
Descartes defines God as a “supremely perfect being”, therefore God must possess all qualities of perfection, including existence. If God did not exist he would not be perfect. Descartes is a widely respected key figure in modern philosophy. Scholarly support from a praised individual could be seen to add credibility to the ontological argument.
In the 21st century and an age of epistemic imperialism, we value empirical evidence. Therefore, a priori arguments on existence are rendered meaningless. Gaunilo adequately demonstrates how something cannot be defined into existence, proof is required.
A priori arguments provide absolute proofs. However, for this to be true, the premises of the argument must be accepted. Therefore, the ontological argument immediately fails if someone rejects Anslem’s definition of God. Religious faith is required to be part of the theistic language game and thus, see God as the greatest conceivable being.
It is a priori and therefore does not rely on fallible sense experience - Plato argues evidence gained through empirical means are unreliable.
Evaluate the value of the ontological argument for religious faith
The argument is immersed within the religious language. The Ontological argument is written as a prayer to the fool in the Psalms.
Anselm believes that faith precedes understanding and therefore the argument is a product of faith rather than proof of faith.
Karl Barth believes that the ontological argument is the result of a religious experience, in which God revealed himself to Anselm as the “greatest conceivable being.” Therefore, it is about faith rather than logic and so has value for people already participating within the theistic language game and so it has value as a prayer, confirmation and declaration of belief in God.
Fideism: God’s existence is not something which can be proven, belief requires in faith alone and is independent of reason.
Aquinas argues it is impossible to know about the nature of God and so the ontological argument which is focused on the technicalities of God’s nature is insufficient.
Outline the cosmological argument
Aquinas’ 3rd way - the argument from necessity and contingency is based on our observations that all things we see in the world are contingent. This means they a moved, changed and caused. They do not need to exist, but they do, they previously did not exist and will go on to no longer exist.
If everything is possible to be and not to be, this means at one time there must have been nothing. This means there would be nothing in the present day that exists, as nothing can come from nothing. Our knowledge shows that this is not the case.
From this observation that all things are contingent, Aquinas infers there must be an uncaused cause which exists of its own necessity. An uncaused cause he concluded to be God.
Summa Theologica - “in nature we find things that are possible to be and not to be”
Outline arguments against the cosmological argument
Even if we accept a necessary being, the conclusion that this uncaused cause is God is a jump in faith rather than logic. Up until the arguments conclusion, it is grounded in empiricism.
Russel argues the argument suffers from the fallacy of composition. This refers to a failure in reasoning where something of a whole is inferred to be true just because something is true of parts of the whole. Russel argues we cannot move from our observations of the parts, things within the world, to a conclusion about the whole of the universe.
Russel argues the universe is just a “brute fact” Our epistemological limits about the existence of the world must be treated as a brute face that is incapable of further explanation.
Hume questions why God must be the necessary being. He suggests the universe itself could be the uncaused cause. This is supported by Occam’s razor which suggests the more probable explanation is the simpler one which avoids over complicating an argument. It is a simpler explanation for matter (the universe) to be the uncaused cause, rather than God ( mind and matter.) Hume suggests the world could be a vegetable and have grown itself. However, Aquinas believes that matter requires a necessary being to bring out its existence. Aquinas believes God is the only being which can exist eternally so can be the only uncaused cause. However, this makes the argument move from a question in empiricism to a question of faith.
Quantum mechanics suggests that somethings randomly occur without a direct cause.
Outline arguments for the cosmological argument
Copleston draws upon Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reasoning There must be a satisfactory explanation to why this particular universe exists. This gives the cosmological argument contemporary support and shows the argument is durable even within a more secular modern world.
Based on empirical a posteriori sense experience that everything has a cause, this approach is consistent with modern science.
Gerry Hughes - argues nothing happens without a causal explanation and therefore satisfactory explanations to the existence of the universe does not appeal to brute facts which argues something “just happened.” Therefore, Hughes states it is reasonable to think the transcendent explanation as God.
The cosmological argument is contradictory. It is based on the observation that everything must have a cause. Therefore, there must be something which caused God.
Mackie argues we have no reason to accept the implicit assumption that the uncaused cause is God.
