Russel's Challenges (vs Copleston)

Question 1

Whose argument does Russell respond to with necessary existence?

Answer 1

Copleston

Question 2

What is Russell’s argument about necessary existence?

Answer 2

• ‘Necessary’ as a quality can only be applied to ‘analytic propositions’ like “bachelors are married” (statements that are self-contradictory to deny).
• Says the only way to argue God’s existence would be if it could be shown that His existence was self-contradictory to deny.

Question 3

What did Hume say about Russell’s analytic proposition argument?

Answer 3

Said that anything that was not either an analytic or synthetic statement was “sophistry and illusion” - any statement that cannot be proved either true or false is meaningless.

Question 4

What does Russell say about Copleston’s argument about necessary existence and how meaningful questioning God’s existence is?

Answer 4

Said that Copleston’s argument is logically meaningless.

• “God exists” cannot be an analytical statement, just as “Herbert exists” cannot be either, as the only way to find meaning within it would be by going to find Herbert, making it synthetic.
• Russell argues that “necessary existence” can only be applied to analytic statements, of which “God exists” is not, meaning to Russell, Copleston’s argument of God existing is therefore logically meaningless.

Question 5

What is Russell’s analogy for looking at cause of the world?

Answer 5

Parenthood analogy:
- It is easy to see how every human being has a mother and a father and therefore a cause. The human race as a collective does NOT have a mother, he says “the concept of cause is not applicable to the total”.