Philosophy - Arguments For the Existence of God Flashcards
What type of argument is the design argument for the existence of God?
a posteriori
Where does the evidence to support the design argument come from?
The evidence to support the argument comes from the natural world as supporters argue the world displays clear evidence of order, purpose and design.
Is the design argument inductive?
yes
What is an inductive argument?
an argument that reaches a conclusion based on strong probability instead of conclusive proof
Cicero quote about divinity and superior intelligence
‘What could be more clear or obvious when we look up to the sky and contemplate the heavens, than that there is some divinity or superior intelligence?’ – Cicero (79 BCE – 51 BCE)
What are the design arguments 3 premises and conclusion
Premise 1: The world contains order, regulatory, purpose and beauty
Premise 2: By looking at an object containing these properties, we may infer that is was designed
Premise 3: The world is an object containing these properties
Conclusion: The world was designed and the designer we call ‘God’
What is a premise?
A premise is a statement or a preposition. You add premises together to reach a conclusion.
Examples of apparent order, regularity, purpose and beauty in the world
The sun setting, us sleeping, going to the toilet, the seasons, carbon cycle, water cycle
Challenges to the design arguments
Disability (if I have been given an eye but can’t see how it this showing designed purpose?)
Who was St Thomas Aquinas
13th Century Christian Scholar
Who was St Thomas Aquinas’ main inspiration
His main inspiration was Aristotle and his 4 causes
What book did St Thomas Aquinas wrote? Describe the pages dedicated o God’s existence
He wrote a book called the ‘Summa Theologica’, with 4 pages dedicated to God’s existence with 5 ways/proofs for God
What are St Thomas Aquinas’ 5 ways/proofs for God?
- Unmoved mover
- Uncaused cause
- Necessary being
- Moral
- Design
What does Thomas Aquinas argue regarding the archer
- He argues that intelligent objects (like the arrow of an archer), can only be aimed towards a goal (like the target of an archer), with the guiding presence of an intelligent being (like the archer). The intelligent being, he argues, is God.
What is Thomas Aquinas’ argument? What does this mean?
- He says this argument is a ‘design qua purpose’ argument because it seeks to show that the universe has direction and a goal (in other words it has a purpose) and that it is enabled by God.
How is Aquinas’ belief similar to that of Aristotles?
- Aquinas’ teleological belief makes use of a belief that Aristotle held, that everything in the universe has telos (purpose). Aquinas does not offer specific examples, but we can consider Aristotle’s example that ducks have webbed feet for the purpose of swimming faster.
What difference is there between Aristotle’s argument and Aquinas’ argument?
- But one crucial difference between Aristotle and Aquinas is that Aquinas did not think that this telos came about naturally, but rather Aquinas argued that there must be an intelligent being behind this purposefulness; someone who designed the webbed feet of the duck for the purpose of swimming.
Basically what is Aquinas’ argument?
- Basically, Aquinas argued that everything has a purpose (telos) and that a designer (God) designed us intelligently with the purpose of helping us reach our telos, just like how ducks were designed with webbed feet to help them reach there telos.
3 important extracts from Thomas’ Aquinas ‘summa theologica’ regarding his teleological argument
‘Therefore some intelligent being exists which directs all natural things to their end. This being we call God’
‘Achieve their end by design and not by chance’
‘Something without intelligence could not move towards an end’
Describe David Hume’s weak analogy argument
Cannot be assumed that it is obvious to everyone how the world, like a watch, is formed regularly and for a purpose. You can’t compare manmade objects to the natural world, they are completely different so we cannot draw the same conclusions regarding whether there was a designer or not.
Describe David Hume’s order does not prove design argument
Self-sustaining order could have come about by chance. Hume uses Epicurus’ idea of infinite time to argue that apparent design could happen at random. We have no worlds to compare our order to, maybe our world has very little order in fact. We have to have some order to survive, but we can’t prove this order came from God.
Describe David Hume’s not the christian God argument
We have a finite and imperfect world; there is no need to assume that there must be an infinite and perfect God behind it. We do not know, looking at the world, whether God is clever, or good, or loving. He could have been stupid and copying someone else’s ideas or stumbled upon this design after countless trials and errors.
Describe David Hume’s more than one God argument
The world could have been made by a committee or team of Gods (or maybe even demons). Many people work together to make machines – the analogy points to there being more than one God.
Describe David Hume’s universe is unique argument
The universe is unique, so we are unable to say what it is like, what it could have been like or how it came into being, because we cannot have experience of any other way that things might have been. In other words, we cannot assume that the universe has a designer because we have no clear evidence that the universe was designed (no one was there to witness the event).
What is natural theology?
The study of God through the natural world
Where did English theologian William Paley put forward the most famous form of the design argument?
His work entitles ‘natural theology’
Link between evil and suffering and David Hume
The world is designed poorly with natural evil, so the Christian God can’t be the designer.
David Hume quote about great leaps
‘You cannot make great leaps and assume that B follows A as a proof, when there could be a variety of other possible explanations’
Socrates quote for design argument
‘With such signs of forethought in the design of living creatures, can you doubt they are the work of design?’
Psalm 19
‘The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands’
What is Darwins theory of evolution?
- Darwin’s theory of evolution is the theory that the difference species we see in the world today have not always existed in their present form. Life started as a very simple molecule and over time it evolved and changed to adapt to its surroundings, this is evolution. Natural selection occurred as well, where the weaker traits of a species disappeared as the animals with them died off before they could reproduce.
According to Darwin, why is God not the designer?
- Darwin would argue that God did not have a role in the creation of earth and so the design argument does not hold up since the world does not hold signs of design suggesting a designer, but these designs were developed over a long time due to evolution and natural selection – he no longer has a role.
According to Darwin, why can’t God be a micro-manager?
- He argues there’s no longer a need to assume the existence of God, as if God was a micro-manager then he would be responsible for all the bad parts of nature that hurt and make things suffer for no reason, which makes no sense.
Obnoxious quote by Richard Dawkins from The Blind Watchmaker
‘Paley’s argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong.’
What does John stuart mill say about crimes and how nature is similar
.People who commit acts of unreasonable behaviour are justly punished for their crimes
.Some things that people do are fundamentally wrong
.Nature is guilty of exactly the same crimes that are condemned in reality
JSM quote about nature and crimes
‘Nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another are nature’s everyday performances’
What is natural evil, examples
.Nature allows the innocent to be killed by wild animals, starve or freeze people to death and even poison them – but it is not held to account for it – it does it without the care
Why does JSM argue that the design argue doesn’t work?
.If we accept that what some people do is wrong, and we see nature committing these same acts, Mill’s point is that we can’t assume we live in a good world
.A wrong act is still a wrong act, no matter who does it
.Because of what happens around us we cannot believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing and benevolent deity is the designer/creator
How is evil a matter of perspective?
things may look bad but God has another perspective and may want the world this way for a particular reason
Why does JSM dismiss the idea that evil may be based upon perspective?
the fact is that bad things still are happening!
What does JSM argue evil leads to?
Mill would argue that it is natural for evil to lead to more evil
Why does JSM disagree with the idea that bad helps us grow mentally and spiritually?
.Some theologians would say bad helps us grow mentally and physically, Mill disagrees since then good people should suffer less than the bad but this isn’t always the case
JSM Quote for suffering and proportion
‘Each person’s share of suffering and happiness would be exactly proportioned to that persons good or evil deeds’
JSM view on the afterlife
.People use the afterlife as a way to explain this, saying punishment and justice comes then
.Mill argues that if we need to use the idea of an Afterlife for justice then it just adds to the fact that the present world is not designed well
Define inductive
to arrive on a conclusion based on the weight of evidence
Where is the cosmological argument from?
.The first 3 of Aquinas’ ways
What is the cosmological argument also known as?
.Also known as the first cause argument
What 3 versions of the cosmological argument are there?
.The argument from motion/change
.The argument from causation
.The argument from contingency
Basically what is the cosmological argument?
Basically, God must exist due to the fact that the universe needs a cause, in other words, the universe needs a cause (God)
What does there need to be for the cosmological argument to work?
.For this argument to works there needs to be a first cause, not an infinite regress (the universe has no beginning)
What could be argued as to be the first cause of the universe?
.The Big Bang could be argued as the first cause
How did Aquinas reach the idea about an ‘uncaused cause’?
.According to the cosmological argument, the first cause (the big bang) needed to be caused by something which itself cannot be caused – the uncaused cause, which Aquinas argued was God
Counter arguments for the cosmological argument
The universe may be a result of:
.A fluke chance event
.Has always existed in same form
.There may be a number of causes
Define natural theology
the study of God in the natural world
Define infinite regress
The chain of cause and effect goes back and back infinitum
What does the cosmological argument base itself on?
The concept of causation
Thomas Aquinas first 3 ways
- there are things that are in motion/caused/contingent
- these things require something else to move/cause/create them and so on …
- This chain of movement/causation/contingency can’t go back forever
What is a proponent?
A person who puts forward/presents the argument
Why, according to Aquinas, must God exists outside of time and space?
He created time, creators of the rules aren’t affected by them.
Give two main weaknesses of the cosmological argument
.Jumping to conclusions
.Can’t go back in time to see the cause
Who took part in the BBC radio debate 1947, and what was it about?
.Christian Philosopher Frederick Copelston
.Prominent Atheist Bertrand Russell
.About the existence of God, specifically Russell criticising the cosmological argument
Define Fallacy
a misleading or unsound argument
Define fallacy of composition
The error that concludes since the parts have a certain property, the whole likewise has that property. For example, when applied to the cosmological argument it would be making a statement such as ‘Objects within the universe are created. Therefore the universe was created.’
What two assumptions does Russell refuse to believe about the cosmological argument?
.Russell refused to accept the assumption that the universe is contingent or dependant on something outside of the universe for its existence
.Russell refused to accept the assumption that there must be a complete explanation for the existence of the universe
What is Russells famous quote about the universe?
‘I should say that the universe is just there, and that is all’
What does Russell feel no need to ask?
why the universe is there or what caused it to be there
Russell says that Aquinas and Coppleston commit a fallacy of composition, how?
because they apply what is true for an individual being to the whole of the said being, for example a human has a mother but the human race does not
How does Peter Vardy add to Russell’s fallacy of composition argument?
saying, ‘one cannot move from individual causes to a claim that the totality of all has a cause’
What does Russell believe about the universe?
.He believed that things in the universe ‘just are’: everything does not require an explanation
.Russel did not feel the need to enquire any further than brute, material existence of the universe
Does Russell support infinite regress?
Yes
What does Russell argues about the beginning of the universe?
.He does not agree that the universe must have had a beginning: instead he argues that there may be no reason for the existence of the universe
What is coppleston’s response to Russell on the radio interview?
.Copleston claimed that Russell’s arguments were simplistic.
.By just accepting that the universe is there, Russell was not taking part in the debate over God’s existence
.Copleston said there was nothing he could say to defeat Russell in the argument if he refused to enter into a discussion about what caused the universe in the first place
Copleston chess quote about Russel
.’If one refuses to even sit down at the chess board and make a move, one cannot, of course, be checkmated.’
What is Russell’s counter response to Copleston on the radio show?
.Russell argued that this was precisely the point he was making
.The whole debate about the cosmological argument depends on your willingness to ask the question ‘Why is the universe here?’
.To copplestone it is a meaningful question, and to Russell it is not
If we told Russell that everything requires an explanation, what would he do?
ask, what is the explanation for God?
What does Hume believe about all knowledge and ideas?
they can be reduced to some experience that our senses provided
What mistake does Hume say humans make?
.Hume’s examination of people’s thinking, led him to conclude that humans think they know a great deal more about the external world than is warranted
.The mistake humans make is to allow imagination to make a connection between cause and effect
For Hume, how is Aquinas incorrect?
Aquinas is wrong as he is making a connection between cause and effect
.Aquinas has observed cause and effect around him and the existence of the universe. His error is joining these two events together when they are in fact two separate events
.It is just the habit of the mind that joined these two events; it is induction
Define induction
A method of reasoning where a conclusion is reached by linking observation of cause and effects to draw a conclusion
Hume quote from Concerning Natural Religion, 1779, on existence of the universe
‘Why must we conclude that the universe had to have a beginning? How can anything than exists from eternity have a cause, since the relation implies a priority in time and in a beginning of existence?’
Explain Hume quote from Concerning Natural Religion, 1779, on existence of the universe
even if the universe did begin, it does not mean that anything caused it to come into existence
What two possibilities does Hume imply about the start of the universe?
.That the universe could simply be brute fact. That is we do not require a first cause
.A beginning does not automatically mean God was the cause
According to Hume, why can we not speak meaningfully about the universe?
.Hume argued we have no direct experience of the creation of the universe and so we cannot speak meaningfully about it
According to Hume why cant we establish the universe has a cause?
.Hume based his knowledge on the observable cause, but you cannot see the cause of the universe
.You cannot go outside the world to see both the world and its cause and thus establish a relationship between them
Hume quote for God not being cause of universe
Hume states – ‘even if the cosmological argument was valid, it would still not establish what its supporters claim. If there had to be some first cause, why could this not be the material, physical world rather than God?’
Who is Kant?
A German philosopher who agreed with Hume
What did Kant argue about the cosmological argument?
.Argued that the idea that every event must have a first cause only applied to the world of sense experience. It cannot apply to something we have not experienced
Kant quote for the cosmological argument
‘We shall thus spare ourselves much severe and fruitless labour, by not expecting from reason what is beyond its power, or rather by subjecting it to discipline, and teaching it to moderate its vehement desire for the extension of the sphere of knowledge.’, Kant
Why, for Kant, is it impossible for people to have any knowledge of what God created or of God himself?
He did not accept it is valid to extend knowledge we do possess to questions that transcend our experience. God would be a casual being outside of space and time as we understand it, therefore it would be impossible for people to have any knowledge of what God created or of God himself.
Why don’t we have any empirical evidence of the cause of the universe?
.We can’t observe the creation
Basically what did Kant believe about the cosmological argument
.Kant felt the cosmological argument appealed to our experiences of this world but concluded for something out of this world – which we have no evidence for
Cosmological argument strength - richard swinburne
It is a strong inductive argument, it leads to a conclusion that the God of classical theism is the unmoved mover, uncaused causer and necessary creator of the universe
Uses Ockham’s Razor
The simplest and therefore most likely explanation for the universe is God
Cosmological argument strength - ‘a posteriori’ and empiricl evidence
Bases assumptions on the observable word
Everyone has experienced cause and effect and so are able to understand the belief in the universe having a first cause
cosmological argument strength - the big bang theory
Scientific support for the argument
Shows the universe has a beginning and is not infinite
Scientifics have not fully established what caused the big bang, it could be God
cosmological argument strength - experience
Everyone has experience of the universe, that is undeniable
We are able to measure time
This suggests the universe has a starting point
If it were an infinite universe we couldn’t measure time
cosmological argument strength - satisfies the need to find a cause
The cosmological argument satisfies the need to find a cause of the universe
For the theist (believer in God) it offers support for their faith
As well as providing meaning and purpose to their existence
What is Ockhams razor?
A principle attributed to 14th century logician and Franciscan friar – William of Ockham
Ockham was a village in the English county of Surrey where he was born
The principle states:
‘Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily’
How can Ockhams razor link to the cosmological argument?
‘When you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better’
Weakness of the cosmological argument - contradicts itself
The suggestion, from philosophers such as Aquinas, that infinity is impossible yet God is infinite is a logical contradiction
Therefore the conclusion that God exists is flawed
Weakness of the cosmological argument - weak for atheists
Hume and Kant would argue that it fails to justify the existence of God, just hints as the possibility of a first cause
Doesn’t offer any support for belief in the God of classical theism
Weakness of the cosmological argument - brian davies
The cosmological argument alone cannot stand as proof for the existence of God
It needs to be supported by other evidence
The teleological argument could be this evidence but it is also heavily criticised
Brian Davies quote fr cosmological argument
‘As an argument for a first cause of all existing things the cosmological argument seems a reasonable one. But it does not by itself establish the existence of God with all the properties sometimes ascribed to him’
Weakness of the cosmological argument - based on assumption
Hume says humans make the link between cause and effect in their experience and try to use that to explain the universe – saying God created the universe, but this is not a part of their lived experience
Russel says the argument is weakened by the fallacy of composition, by assuming that all humans have a mother you can’t assume the universe has one
Weakness of the cosmological argument - scientific theories
Newton’s first law of motion, the steady-state theory and the Big Bang all challenge the argument
Each highlights a weakness in one of Aquinas’ ways
Suggests there is no need for a God as the universe is either eternal or the result of a spontaneous random event.
Example of fallacy of composition, mr davis
Mr Davis is ginger and Mr Davis is a man, and therefore all men are ginger
What is the ontological argument based around?
The nature of God
List some qualities of God
.Omnibenevolent .Omnipotent .Omniscient .Transcendent .Eternal .Judge .Law-giver .Creator .One .Perfection
What is Anselms aim?
Anselm’s aim is to refute the fool who says in his heart that there is no God, and show that god does exist
Psalm 14:1
The fool says in his heart “there is no God”
What two important features does Anselms ‘fool’ hold?
.He understands the claim that God exists
.He does not believe that God exists
What did Anselm do to reach his aim?
In order to refute the fool Anselm writes a prayer on the attributes of God called the Proslogion.
What does Anselm present in his prayer?
He presents two arguments in this prayer to prove to the fool that God by definition must exist.
Which WP was a philosopher who put forward one of the most famous versions of the teleological argument?
William Paley
Which DQP is a technical term used by scholars to show that an intelligent being is behind the universe and has made it for a specific reason?
Design qua purpose
Which JHN was a Catholic Cardinal who argued that evolution could be part of God’s design for the universe?
John Henry Newman
Which M is a term used by Thomas Aquinas to say that all things in the universe are changed and changed by something else?
Movement
Which C is a term used by Thomas Aquinas to suggest that everything within the universe and the universe itself must have?
Cause
Which N is a term used by Thomas Aquinas to refer to a being that cannot not exist. A being that has always existed before time and space?
Necessary
Which A does David Hume and Bertrand Russel say that the cosmological argument is based on?
Assumption
Which BD is a scholar who says that the cosmological argument on its own cannot prove the existence of God?
Brian Davies
The ontological argument is both deductive and ‘a priori’, what does this mean?
A deductive argument is where the conclusion has to follow the premises (argument)
It is ‘a priori’ as we don’t require external evidence for the conclusion. It is based on words and their meaning
What is Anselm’s definition of God
‘as that than which nothing greater can be conceived’
What does Anselm mean when he says that God is ‘as that than which nothing greater can be conceived’?
ANSELM THINKS GOD IS PERFECT – THE BEST OF THE BEST – NO ONE AND NO THING IS GREATER
State the points of Anselm’s first argument
God is greater than which nothing can be conceived
If God exists in the mind alone (only as an idea) then a greater being could be imagined to exist
This being would be greater than God
Therefore God cannot exists only as an idea in the mind
God must exist in both the mind and in reality
Who was Anselm’s first critic?
another monk called Gaunilo, who wrote On Behalf of the Fool
What did Gaunilo accuse Anselm of?
Gaunilo accused Anselm of making an illegitimate leap from existence in the mind to exist in reality
Define absurd
something wildly unreasonable, illogical or inappropriate
What does Guanilo do to critique Anselm?
Gaunilo constructs his own version of an ontological argument based on an island
What could Gualino’s argument be described as
a parody
State Gualino’s argument
- Imagine a perfect island
- If the island only exists in my mind then I could think of a more perfect island that exists in reality
- This island would be greater than the one I first imagined
- Therefore, my first island must exist in both my mind and reality because it is the ‘perfect island’
- Conclusion = the perfect island exists
According to Anselm, what are the two types of existence?
Necessary and contingent
What type of existence is an island?
Contingent
What type of existence is God?
Necessary
What is necessary existence?
you must exist and don’t require anything or anyone to exist
What is contingent existence?
you might not have existed and require something or someone to exist
What is Anselm’s second argument
God is the greatest possible being (nothing greater can be conceived)
It is greater to be a necessary being than a contingent being
(Because you weren’t made by something, nothing is better than you)
If God exists only as a contingent being (like the island) then a greater being can be imagined, namely a necessary being.
Therefore God must be a necessary being and exist in reality
As he is the greatest, and therefore necessary, and therefore he exists
An island could be the greatest, but it is contingent, so there is always something better, which means it doesn’t have to exist
What is a predicate?
A characteristic
What is Rene Descartes version of the ontological argument?
The idea of God contains the idea of existence (existence is a predicate of God)
Therefore God must exist (the conclusion is not just that God does exist, but that God cannot not exist, i.e. God’s existence is necessary)
Essentially:
1. God is a supremely perfect being
2. Existence is part of perfection (a predicate). In other words the word perfect means existence.
3. Therefore, if God is perfect he must exist
Why is Rene Descartes ontological argument strong?
Existence is a necessary part of the meaning of God, you cannot know God without saying he exists.
You can’t think of a triangle without 3 sides
You can’t think of a mountain without a valley
So just as the three sides are inseparable from the triangle and the valley from the mountain, existence is inseparable from God.
When Kant criticises the ontological argument, what type of criticism is it?
Two fold
What are the two folds of Kant’s criticisms of the ontological argument?
Existence is not a predicate, reject the subject and the predicate
Explain Kant’s view on existence being a predicate
.According to Kant, existence is not a predicate so the ontological argument is based on a mistake
.When we add existence to a concept it doesn’t add any more understanding or description to the idea
.It is a definition that tells us noting about whether God actually exists, so the ontological argument is pointless
Explain Kant’s rejection of the subject and predicate
.Kant would agree that to reject the three sides of a triangle or to say a mountain doesn’t have a valley is contradictory
.However there is no problem with rejecting the whole triangle or the whole mountain
.Kant applies this to God, if you accept God and then reject his necessary existence there is a contradiction, but if you reject the concept of God then there is no contradiction
Thomas Aquinas’ criticism of the ontological argument
To define something implies we have an understanding of something. Aquinas says God exists outside of our universe. Therefore God is beyond understanding. He is necessary and we are contingent.
Alvin Plantinga criticism of the ontological argument
It is impossible for the ontological argument to prove God exists to those lacking in understanding/faith. He uses the analogy of blindness. We could never prove to a blind, or colour blind, person the claim that ‘the dress is red’. They would never have no means of gaining proof.
David Hume & Bertrand Russell criticism of the ontological argument
.They work in an ‘a posteriori’ manner, reach conclusions based off of evidence
.Like empirical evidence, observable evidence based on the senses
.There is no empirical evidence for the ontological argument, it is all based off of logical reasoning and definitions of words, it is ‘a priori’
.For this reason Hume and Russell struggle to accept the argument, as it is not based off of any evidence
.We have no experience of God so we cannot simply define God into existence
According to Hume ad Russell, what 3 things can statements be?
Synthetic, subjective and value judgements
What is a synthetic statement?
you require evidence to support it
What is a subjective statement?
opinion based/belief/faith
What is a value judgement?
Beliefs based on upbringing
Which types of statements are biased?
Subjective and value judgements
Why do Russell and Hume believe the ontological argument is biased?
.Hume and Russell say that the ontological argument is subjective and based on value judgements, it is biased
