Arguments for the Existence of God- Inductive Flashcards
Cosmological argument overview
A posteriori- Based on evidence, observation or experience.
Inductive proof- an argument constructed on evidence and/or experience that puts forward a possible conclusion based on these.
Cosmological argument- based on?
There must be an explanation for the existence of the universe. The C arg, suggests that the explanation can’t be found within the universe so it must be God.
Cosmological argument- Aquinas’ 1st way (motion), based on Aristotle
Refered to ‘motion’. When we observe the universe, things tend to be in a state of motion or change. Things don’t change by itself but by something else. (marble-potential, can be a statue-actual, but needs a sculptor-efficient cause). (Natural forest fires go against.) Aquinas said if we looked back through the chain of changes, something had to start it (an unmoved mover, outside of the universe) This being God.
Cosmological argument- Aquinas’ 2nd way (causation)
Similar structure to 1st way. We can observe cause and effect. But argues that infinite regress of causes can’t exist because they need an explanation that lies outside of the chain, therefore an uncaused causer. (dominoes) Nothing can be it’s own cause.
Dominoes analogy criticism
After the first domino is pushed by God, he has no control after, this limits him being all powerful (God of classical theism).
Cosmological argument- Aquinas’ 3rd way (contingency)
Contingency means depending on something else. Things in the world are contingent but if everything was contingent, there would be a time when everything had passed out or not come into existence. This is because a non contingent being is needed to bring the contingent things into existence, this being God. (eg. child is contingent from parent).
Cosmological argument- the Kalam argument
Based off of Craig.
- everything that begins to exist has a cause for it’s existence.
- the universe can’t be actually infinite, must have had a beginning.
- the universe requires a cause.
- The cause must have been a personal being capable of choosing to cause the universe. This being God.
Cosmological argument- the Kalam argument- Hilbert’s infinite hotel
A hotel with an infinite number of rooms that are all occupied. A new guest turns up and there’s room for them but in a finite hotel there would be no room. Craig therefore argues that actual infinity can’t practically exist, the universe must be potentially infinity, meaning that is has a beginning and will go on infinitely. Must have been caused to exist:laws of nature or choice of a personal being. But it must have been a personal being because laws of nature didn’t exist before the start of the universe.
Challenges to the cosmological argument- Hume
Hume argued that just because we can observe cause and effect in the universe, it doesn’t mean it applies to the universe itself.(fallacy of composition). He also argues that whilst we can talk about things we have experience of, we have no experience of creating a universe, so we can’t talk meaningfully about it.
Challenges to the cosmological argument- Hume continued
There’s not enough evidence to say whether the universe had a cause and definitely not enough to make any conclusion as to what the cause might have been. He also argues that if God could be accepted as the cause of the universe, there’s no way to determine what sort of God this would be and no way of determining if it was the God of classical theism.
Teleological argument overview
A posteriori- based on observation.
Teleological arguments set out to prove the existence of God by pointing to the order and regularity of the universe. (design qua regularity). Some also refer to the apparent purpose of objects in the universe. (design qua purpose).
Teleological argument- Aquinas
Aquinas’ argument is by analogy, it works by comparing certain features of the universe to objects that have been designed. An analogy is an inference that if 2 or more things are alike in some ways they will probably be alike in other ways.
Teleologictal argument- Aquinas- the archer and arrow
- Things that like intelligence have an end/purpose.
- Things that don’t have intelligence can’t move towards their purpose unless they are directed by someone with knowledge and intelligence.
- For example, an arrow does not direct itself towards its target, but it needs an archer to direct it.
- Therefore by analogy, there must be some intelligent being which directs all unintelligent beings towards their ends. (God.)
Teleological argument- Aquinas explained
Belief that everything has an end or purpose to which it moves. Examples. a tree know when to shed its leaves, but it doesn’t have intelligence (God guides it to do this).
A leaf is able to direct itself towards the sun to achieve maximum sunlight, it doesn’t have intelligence so it must have been God.
Ducks have webbed feet to fulfill swimming better, feet don’t have intelligence so must have been guided by God.
Teleological argument- Aquinas’ criticisms
Flew- Aquinas’ claims don’t appear to match our observations, the archer and arrow makes sense as we can see the hand of the archer, but with the leaf or the duck’s foot this isn’t the case. So it shows that the analogy is not close enough to work effectively.
Aquinas also seems to fail to account for non living things. What is the ‘end’ of a rock or a grain of sand.
