Aruments To Prove That Belief In God Is Reasonable Flashcards
What is Thomas Aquinas’ basic argument?
Nothing can happen by itself.
Everything that happens has to be caused by something else.
The universe cannot just have happened by itself.
A very powerful force must’ve cause the universe.
This cause must’ve been God, who is the uncaused cause.
This means God must exist.
How may people EXPLAIN Aquinas’ argument?
-Aquinas put forward the cosmological argument which looked at the existence of the Cosmos and proposed that for it to exist it must have been caused
-Everything that exists has a cause of existence
-The universe exists therefore the universe has a cause
-Many causes can be traced back through time but it does not make sense to keep going forever. This means there needs to be a first uncaused cause
-The only thing that could create the universe is God therefore God is the creator
-God is the first cause, the prime mover
-God does not need a cause because God has always existed and always will - He is eternal
How may people CRITICISE Aquinas’ argument?
-Contains self contradiction : it states there are no uncaused causes yet it also states God does not need a beginning
-Limited experience : we assume that because everything in our experience needs a cause, everything else must need one too. Our experience is limited and things may be able to exist without a cause. Quantum physics suggests particles may be able to appear from nothing so perhaps the singularity occurred spontaneously
-Why does the universe need a beginning? If God can be without a cause, why can’t this be true of the universe itself? The universe may be going through an infinite number of expansions and contractions
-Based on assumptions : at most it shows it might be reasonable to believe in God, but this fits more with the Deist view than the God of traditional Theism
Paleys analogy of the Telelogical Argument
Paley proposed if you were walking across a heath and cam across as stone you might suppose it had always been there however if you came across a watch you might assume it had a designer due to its complex design for it to serve a purpose of telling the time
How could the Telelogical Argument be DESCRIBED?
-The word ‘teleos’ means purpose, so it’s about the universe being here for a reason
- A-posteriori argument is based on observation of the nature of the universe
-Paley used analogy to compare the world to universe. The universe shows a huge amount of complexity and regularity
-Examples of regularity include the seasons and the structure of the solar system. Purpose includes things like eyes for seeing and wings for flying
-The only designer powerful and intelligent enough to design the world is an all powerful, all knowing God
How would people ARGUE the Telelogical Argument DOES prove the existence of God?
-The world looks designed : regularity and purpose in nature and has been perfectly created to sustain life, therefore its reasonable to infer a designer
-Modern technology : comes in the form of the anthropic principle. The sheer number of coincidences that would be required from the moment of the Big Bang means a purely naturalistic explanation stretches credulity
-It is not reasonable to believe the debris from the Big Bang would form such complex things in the universe. The rise of life is contrary to physical law of entropy so the only explanation is an all powerful God
-Evolution was part of Gods plan, He used the mechanism of evolution to create life
-It is supported by inductive reasoning and is a posteriori argument
-If we follow Ockham’s razor then the simplest explanation for the existence of our universe is the correct one and that is the existence of an intelligent designer
-The argument is consistent with scriptures, the revealed world of God. “His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen” Romans
How would people ARGUE the Telelogical Argument DOES NOT prove the existence of God?
-There is evidence of ‘bad design’ in the world e.g. natural disasters so perhaps this is down to chance rather than design and this means there is no need for a God
-There is no proof that the universe needs a creator, maybe it has always been there
-Belief that there is a creator relies on a leap of faith - the universe and life was designed therefore it was God who designed it
-Comparisons used to explain the design argument are not appropriate. A mechanical watch should not be compared to organic material
-Natural processes/ the laws of physics/ chance and necessity are enough to give a complete explanation so there is no need to resort to the idea of a designer God
-We may be very unlikely, but this needn’t mean we are meant to be here. We are like winners in the lottery - just lucky to be here
-Even if the BBT and evaluation are complete, it’s perfectly possible for God to exist beyond the material world however that’s all we can ever say. God, because he is transcendent can neither be proved nor disproved so the Telelogical Argument gets you nowhere
How may people AGREE with Aquinas’ argument?
-We can observe the universe exists and everything that exists needs a beginning/cause
-Only God could be the cause of the universe as he is the only being powerful enough
-It makes sense for God to be a ‘necessary being’ as God is in a different category to things that are a part of the material universe
-Many mathematicians agree that infinite regress is impossible so there has to be a first cause and the only being we have knowledge of that doesn’t need a cause of existence is God
-Science supports the idea of the universe having a begun in e.g. the Big Bang and agrees things can’t cause themselves
-Ockhams razor says they simplest explanation is the right one and the first cause is arguably the simplest
