Design, Ontological, Cosmological

Question 1

what is telos?

Answer 1

from the greek meaning end/aim/purpose

Question 2

what is an analogy?

Answer 2

an inference where information or meaning is transferred fro men subject to another, e.g. Paley is using his inference about the design of watches to the design of the universe

Question 3

what is natural theology?

Answer 3

based on reason rather than special revelations (revealed truths from God), without referring to scripture

Question 4

what is the anthropic principle?

Answer 4

the reason and purpose to life/of the universe is to support human life

Question 5

what is anthropomorphism?

Answer 5

speaking of non-human in human terms or as having human attributes

Question 6

What type of argument is Paley’s design argument?

Answer 6

A posteriori meaning it is based on evidence/sense experience, synthetic (using proof), proving that God exists

Question 7

what is an a priori argument?

Answer 7

one that must be true/logically true, eg. the bicycle is blue

Question 8

what does inductive mean?

Answer 8

they are probabilistic, given the evidence it is probably true, uses reasoning I which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion

Question 9

what does deductive mean?

Answer 9

if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. in other words it is impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false.

Question 10

what is a premise?

Answer 10

a proposition (statement) upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.

Question 11

what three observations in paley’s argument based on?

Answer 11

CRAP anagram

1) its complexity- the complexity of the natural world, organs such as the eye
2) its regularity- the regularity of the orbits of comets, planets
3) its purpose- the machines we make we infer to having a purpose, a watch has a purpose due to its regularity and complexity

Question 12

summarise the design argument

Answer 12

• some objects in the world show clear evidence that they were designed through their complexity and regularity, made for a purpose
• so it is likely that the universe was designed and links to the supposed cause that is God

Question 13

what was Paley’s analogy?

Answer 13

paley came across a watch and a stone when crossing a heath and thought they can’t be made in the same way, the stone may just be laying there but a watch is too complex to have just come about, it must have a designer

Question 14

what is an apologist?

Answer 14

someone who argues in favour of christianity

Question 15

what are 4 criticisms of paley’s argument and answers?

Answer 15

1) the watch sometimes breaks, the universe also goes wrong, it is hardly perfect, eg. natural disasters
answer: even if it doesn’t work properly it was still designed, imperfections in the universe but still designed

2) the way the parts of the watch/universe are put together is just one possible arrangement out of many, no designer, random process
answer: no one in their right mind would think a watch/universe came about by chance

3) there may be parts of a watch/universe that we don’t understand the purpose of, parts without a purpose, e.g. an appendix
answer: even if we don’t know the purpose we can still assume it has one, if the watch/universe can’t work without it it proves it has a purpose

4) epicurean hypothesis, given infinite time, it is inevitable that situations will be just right for the watch/universe to come about
answer: no watch/universe has ever been made by some ‘principle of order’ -anthropic principle

Question 16

what are the strengths of paley’s design argument?

Answer 16

• paley is right to argue the designer is the all-powerful god as it is the simplest explanation
• evil may be unavoidable in order for god to bring about good, e.g. the free will defence. you choose good or evil, therefore there should be goods or evils
• it is based on induction, what we observe, and we do observe the appearance of design. The analogy, reference to watch maker through different parts, this is the same with the universe. (Criticism: we have not experienced the design of the universe)
• anthropic principle. Richard Swinburne said that saying that God was the creator was the simplest explanation.

Question 17

what are 4 criticisms of Hume on the design argument

Answer 17

1) Why does the creator have to be God? A lesser could have designed the universe. Do they have a body? Is there one? Inappropriate to reason from the apparent design of humans and humans to a designer for the whole universe
2) Existence of evil and suffering in the world suggests a limited designer. Inconsistent triad, why is he allowing this suffering?
3) Making an analogy between the designers of human machines and the designer of the universe is just anthropomorphism- explaining in our own image, we would need to know how the universe is made
Philio says we cannot affirm the resemblance in cause between a house and the universe
4) The universe could have developed into a comparatively ordered state simply by chance, ‘Epicurean Hypothesis’ one chance out of many, it just happened,

Question 18

who is Anselm?

Answer 18

• a French monk
• archbishop of Canterbury and therefore he started with a theistic (believing) stance
• said that God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”

Question 19

explain Anselm’s argument

Answer 19

“that than which nothing greater can be conceived”

1) existing in reality > existing in imagination
2) God exists in reality > god existing in imagination
3) God = “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”
4) if god only existed in the mind, I could think of someone greater, namely a God who existed in reality also
5) therefore in order to be the greatest conceivable being, God must exist both in the mind and in reality

Question 20

what is the summary of Anselm’s argument

Answer 20

• it is based on the claim that God’s existence can be deduced from his definition, one he is defined there can be no doubt that he exists
• it claims that the proposition ‘God exists’ is a priori/deductive, known to be true without reference to sense experience
• God’s existence is necessary truth not a contingent one

Question 21

what does a posteriori argument mean?

Answer 21

depends on sense experience, not logic, e.g. ‘oak trees grow from acorns’ can only be known by sense experience and no by logic

Question 22

what is a synthetic statement?

Answer 22

those whose truth or falsity are determined by sense experience, e.g. Eloise has brown hair

Question 23

what is an analytic statement?

Answer 23

those that are true by the meaning of the words used, e.g. a bicycle has two wheels, this is analytic as a bicycle is by definition a two-wheeled vehicle

Question 24

what is a necessary truth?

Answer 24

a proposition that could not possible be false, e.g. 2 + 2 = 4

Question 25

what is a contingent truth?

Answer 25

a proposition that happens to be true but might have been otherwise

Question 26

what are the two essential premises of Anselm?

Answer 26

1) god is the greatest conceivable being

2) it is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind. therefore god must exist in reality.

Question 27

explain Gaunilo’s criticism of Anselm’s argument

Answer 27

He used the idea of a ‘perfect lost island’ in order to criticise anselm on behalf of the fool

1) it is possible to conceive of the most perfect and real lost island
2) it is greater to exist in reality than to exist in mind only. therefore, the most perfect and real lost island must exist in reality.

He is using an argument called a reduction ad absurdum (‘argument to absurdity). He says you can use Anselm’s argument to prove the existence of endless numbers of perfect objects so the real fool would be someone arguing in this way.
islands have no intrinsic maximum and so there can’t be a perfect island, so Anselm’s work doesn’t work.

Question 28

how does Anselm respond to gaunilo’s criticism?

Answer 28

1) to be a perfect island it would have to be “that island than which nothing greater can be conceived”
2) an island which is greatest to be conceived would have to exist necessarily since a contingent island would be less perfect than an island that existed necessarily
3) but islands are contingent, so cannot exist necessarily.
therefore the logic of the argument related to a perfect island does not apply to God.

he shows that necessary existence is a predicate only of God, and not of things

Question 29

what did Descartes believe on the ontological argument?

Answer 29

• he defined God as the “supremely perfect being”
• he doubted he knew anything and then realised the only thing he could know was that he was thinking, he concluded “I think, therefore I am”

1) whatever belongs to the essence (essential) of something cannot be denied of it
2) god’s essence includes existence as he possesses all perfections
3) therefore, existence must be affirmed by God. existence is a predicate of a perfect being.
THEREFORE GOD EXISTS.

he said:

• the argument cannot be applied to objects affected by time and space
• it can only apply to something that is perfect
• only god can have absolute perfection- there cannot be two absolutes

Question 30

what was Kant’s 1st criticism of the ontological argument

Answer 30

1) EXISTENCE IS NOT A PREDICATE
- descartes defines god as ‘the supremely perfect being’ meaning that God must possess all the perfect predicates (like all the omnis)
in addition he must possess the predicate of existence
- Kant says that existence is not a real predicate, it adds nothing to the concept of a thing. real predicates give us knowledge about a subject.
- eg. 100 thalers. predicates of round, metallic. if you then say “oh and they exist” nothing has been added.
the same is with God. listing all his predicates and then saying he exists doesn’t change our concept of God

Question 31

what was Kant’s second objection to the ontological argument?

Answer 31

2) we can accept the proposition that ‘existing necessarily’ is part of what we mean by God but it doesn’t follow from this that God exists in reality
- Anselm says ‘god exists necessarily’ is true by definition. can only know there is one through senses. it is a matter of experience than logic.
- e.g. ‘a unicorn is a horse with a horn’ is logically true but doesn’t mean there are actually unicorns. equally, ‘god exists necessarily’ is logically true because thats how we define him, but it doesn’t mean there really is a God

Question 32

other than Anselm what is another modern philosopher in favour of the ontological argument?

Answer 32

Alvin Plantinga

• born in 1932
• wrote notion of possible worlds
  1) there is a possible world in which there is a being who is maximally great, God
  2) “the greatest possible being” is God, he would have maximum greatness and exist in every possible world
  3) this is a possible world and so god must exist in this possible world as he has maximum excellence, he exists.

Question 33

who is kant?

Answer 33

• lived from 1724- 1804 from Prussia which then became part of Russia in 1946
• one of the most influential ‘modern’ philosophers

Question 34

other than Kant who is another modern philosopher against the ontological argument?

Answer 34

Frege
- 1848 to 1925
1) 1st order predicates tell us about the nature of something, e.g. the horse is brown
2nd order predicates tell us about concepts
2) Frege argues that Anselm and Descartes only use 1st order predicates, when existence is a 2nd order predicate
3) You can’t have existence (not nature) it is a CONCEPT

Question 35

what are 3 strengths of the ontological argument?

Answer 35

• according to Karl Barth the argument succeeds precisely because it is not meant to be a logical proof: it’s a confession of faith. It is clear to those with faith.
  the argument is deductive, so if it works, it is a proof
• Descartes was a rationalist, only believes in what is reasonable “I think, therefore I am”
  “supremely perfect being” if he was perfect he would possess all predicates (existence), exists, logical
• can give an understanding on the nature of God (necessary existence, not is there a God but more so how does he exist?

Question 36

what are 4 weaknesses of the ontological argument?

Answer 36

• some would reject Anselm’s definition of God of “TTWNGCBC”, but chrisitians like Aquinas would reject any attempt to define God as if we were able to define God then it would limit him.
• Soren Kierkegard thinks it is ridiculous to prove God through reason
  “for the fool says in his heart that there is no God”
• fideism (opp of reason), relies on faith, “a fideist is someone who urges reliance on faith rather than reason”, must have belief to understand
• Kant: existence isn’t a predicate

Question 37

who is the thinker behind the cosmological argument?

Answer 37

St Thomas Aquinas

• (1225-1274)
• was a Dominican friar
• wrote the summa theologica

Question 38

what were Aquinas’ first 3 arguments for the existence of God

Answer 38

1) argument from motion
2) argument from causation
3) argument from contingency

Question 39

explain aquinas’ first way: the argument from motion

Answer 39

• movement is caused by movers, the prime mover
• something must have started the motion in the first place
• example: Peter Vardy uses the example of a cat and some milk, a prime mover causes movement but it doesn’t move itself, the prime mover does not move
• there is no infinite regress of movers so there must be a first mover = God
• God = the unmoved mover, therefore God exists

Question 40

explain aquinas’ second way: argument from causation

Answer 40

• some things are caused
• anything that’s caused has to be caused by something else
• there cannot be an infinite regress of causes
• so there must have been a first causer, itself uncaused, and that is God

Question 41

explain aquinas’ third way: argument from contingency

Answer 41

1) everything we see in the universe is contingent, they need not exist but they do, this applies to everything.
2) if everything was contingent then at some time there was nothing, a time when nothing could have come from nothing
3) therefore something must exist necessarily, otherwise nothing would now exist, obviously false
4) everything necessary is uncaused or caused
5) the series of necessary things cant be infinite therefore there must be some uncaused being which exists of its own necessity.
by this, we all understand God.
6) it is a posteriori and inductive, based on observation, in Aquinas’ cause the observation that the universe exists and its properties

Question 42

what is the difference between a caused necessary being and an uncaused necessary being?

Answer 42

a caused necessary being is one that depends on something else to bring it into existence, but once created is everlasting.
an uncaused being contains the reason for its own existence, its very nature is to exist- it cannot not exist.

Question 43

what are 4 criticisms of the cosmological argument?

Answer 43

1) Russell says that way 3 commits the fallacy of composition
- the fallacy of inferring that even if parts of some something have certain properties doesn’t mean the whole one has that certain property
- way 3: going from every thing in the universe is contingent to the universe as a whole is contingent
- we can say that even if it its made up of contingent things it is necessary itself
- Reichenabach said ‘the wall is built from bricks’ so ‘the wall is brick’. this is fallacious

2) Hume says there is no such thing as necessary being
- any being that exists can also not exist
- true of God, Aquinas third way (god as necessary being) is false logic, it is logically impossible, to say that a statement is necessary means that its opposite would be a logical contradiction.
- Cleanthes says “whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent”
* REPLY TO HUME
- Aquinas’ does not claim that ‘god exists’ is logically necessary but instead is metaphysically necessary (nature or essence of things)

3) Russell suggests that the universe exists as an unexplainable ‘brute fact’
- Russell says ‘the world is simply there’, cannot be the result of a logical analysis of the facts
- simplest explanation of why the universe exists
- what caused it is that there is no explanation
- every man has a mother but there isn’t a mother for the whole human race (every event must have a cause, but there does not have to be a single cause for the whole series)
* REPLY TO RUSSELL
- science works on the assumption that there are no brute facts, otherwise science wouldn’t work, since works on the opposite principle

4) Hume and Cleanthes suggest that the universe itself may be the necessary being
“why may not the material universe be the necessarily-existent being?” (CLEANTHES)
- without having to bring in God
- conform with Occam’s razor that it is simpler to ‘make do’ with one entity than two
- If something has to be necessary, why can’t that be the matter which makes up the universe? Why does it have to be an unobservable God?
- there is no reason to assume God has different properties to the universe
BIG BANG, EVOLUTION
*REPLY TO HUME
- For Aquinas, matter would be a caused necessary being and would still need God as an uncaused necessary being to cause its existence

Question 44

what was said in the summa theologica about a necessary being?

Answer 44

“there must exist something the existence of which his necessary”

Question 45

What is Occam’s razor?

Answer 45

If there are competing hypotheses, choose the one that makes the fewest assumptions/entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily/ if there are two competing theories that make the same predictions, the simpler one is better

Question 46

what are 3 strengths of the cosmological argument?

Answer 46

• shows faith to be reasonable (it is a reasonable hypothesis that the universe owes its existence, nothing has more probability than the cosmological argument) , a posteriori (based on sense experience), so grounded, must be true
• anybody with faith can understand the evidence used by the third way, it is based on what we observe. the concepts themselves particularly of god being a necessary being, is simple so understood by any believer
  For someone that is convinced that God exists, the third way supports this by offering a reasoned proof that God must exist as a necessary being.
• Occam’s razor, why multiply the cause when one would suffice, one uncaused necessary being make the fewest assumptions and does not multiply entities unnecessarily

Question 47

who are cleanthes, demea and philo?

Answer 47

cleanthes and demea are generally supportive of religion

Philo is sceptic, he is the spokesmen for Hume’s view

Question 48

what does philo say about the teleological argument?

Answer 48

we can make conclusions based on experience for things we regularly observe such a shoes being built. but when we reason to something we haven’t experienced such has the ‘design’ of the universe, we can have less confidence in our analogy.

Question 49

what value does Paley’s Design Argument have for religious faith?

Answer 49

Positive:
1) it supports faith through reasoning
- supports natural theology in the sense that God can be seen in nature through the use of observation and reasoning, without the need for any special revelation from God.
Shows that philosophers can use reason and observation to talk rationally and meaningfully about God. This is a clear support for religious faith.

2) Paley’s argument can be used as part of the religious defence against atheism
- atheists have no more evidence that God does not exist that theists have for believing he does so the atheistic view is nothing more than a speculation than the speculation seen in theism
- so, if atheists can speculate that ‘God doesn’t not exist’ is reasonable then it must be reasonable for theists to speculate that God does exist
- there is nothing obscure or hard to understand about it so it is a reasonable claim that God exists

3) For those unsure on what to belief, the simplicity of Paley’s argument could provide a basis for belief. Also belief in God does not only depend on the design argument, you can also use the cosmological argument.

Negative
4) some wold argue it has no value for faith, because faith does not depend on any kind of proof or probability, it depends on commitment to God and to a religious way of life. for fideists faith does not depend on reason or proof.

Question 50

what value does Anselm’s ontological argument have for faith?

Answer 50

POSITIVES:

1) to some extent, Anselm’s ontological argument has value for those who believe in God already, since perhaps they are more likely to accept it as a logical proof
2) The reasoned ‘belief that’ God exists reinforces and supports ‘belief in’ (commitment to) God.

NEGATIVES:

1) Fideists reject the use of rational arguments to prove the existence of God. They think that reliance on such arguments devalues faith. If we could prove God’s existence by logic then faith would lose all of its value. We would not need faith if we could logically show that God exists.
2) if it fails as a proof, then its value to religious faith is limited, most agree that Kant’s objections defeat it, does not have the status of mathematical proof. if it was a proof there would be no arguments
3) Karl Barth rejected attempts to prove God’s existence using logic. He claimed that Anselm never intended the Proslogium to be seen as an argument proving God’s existence using logic. Anselm was only trying to understand the God he believed in and whose nature as the greatest conceivable being had been given to him in a religious experience where god revealed a name “TTWNGCBC”

Question 51

what value does Aquinas’ cosmological argument have for faith?

Answer 51

positives:

1) it shows faith to be reasonable, the argument is a reasonable hypothesis that the universe owes its existence and its nature to the existence of an uncaused necessary being. the third way supports this by offering a reasoned proof that God must exist as a necessary being.
2) those with faith can easily understand the evidence used by the third way, which is based on what we can observe. we observe that everything has causes , everything in the universe is contingent. the majority of his argument is simple and so can be understood by any believer.

negatives:

1) Aquinas believed that faith does not come from arguments but through God’s grace and by accepting the authority of church doctrines. Aquinas said that knowledge of god comes from natural theology and revelation.
2) Is Aquinas justified in assuming that the necessary being of his philosophical argument is the same as the personal and moral God of Christianity, with whom one can have a relationship?