Teleological And Cosmological argument

Question 1

What type of argument is Teleological argument and Cosmological argument

Answer 1

A posterior

Question 2

What is Teleological argument?

Answer 2

-is the ‘study of’ purpose or ‘telos’ means everything in the world is designed to reach a purpose
-Is ‘A posterior’ because it gains knowledge of the world to prove the existence of God
-Everything is designed for a reason or purpose otherwise it would not be designed in the first place anything that is designed must have a designer

Question 3

What is Aquinas Summa theologica Fifth way?

Answer 3

It’s the teleological argument The analogy is things in the universe having telos/final cause this links to the arrow hitting a target

Question 4

What is Aquinas Fifth Argument?

Answer 4

-All objects have to follow a Natural law they have goal/purpose and the reason objects perform their job efficiently is that they were designed that way
-Everything that is designed must have a designer conclusion everything in the natural world does not think for itself example an arrow heads towards its goal because its directed/ guided by something which does think ‘‘This being we call God’’ is making things reach their target

Question 5

What is Paley teleological argument?

Answer 5

He uses the analogy of the watch and the eye as its is complex. intricate piece of machinery, shows workmanship , all are perfectly intertwined and all parts work together in order to research its purpose (to tell the time) he links the eye to the universe because watch showed evidence of a designer watchmaker and the eye shows evidence of design only possible evidence is God and if we look even further the most complex and amazing design of all is the universe. In conclusion the world needs the grandest designer God

Question 6

Paley stated the same design is found in the natural world based on the science findings example?

Answer 6

-Human eye are extraordinary flexibility and ability to see
-Wings on birds and how the were designed to fly
-Fin of fish designed to swim
These evidence could only be the result of a ‘designing creator’ for Paley is God

Question 7

What is Paley Second argument (Design qua regularity)?

Answer 7

Paley infers a designer due to the consistent order and pattern in the Natural world. For example rotation of the planets and gravity are ordered, regular and predictable another indication of God design

Question 8

Hume criticism of Teleological argument?

Answer 8

-Hume criticism of the analogy
-Hume try to prove there might be more than one god
-Does the world have design and order?
- Hume Criticism there is no God

Question 9

What is Hume criticism of Analogy?

Answer 9

The watch and eye are not similar enough to draw conclusion for e.g. natural objects are organic and grow over time unlike mechanical objects which are non organic and do not develop over time

Question 10

What is Hume criticism by trying to prove their might be more than one God?

Answer 10

For argument sake Hume says let assume that the world was designed by a creator. Hume stated that even the universe is designed we are not able to point to any evidence that shows that this universe must have been designed by a single creator and maybe might be a group of creators -If we look at the ship we know that there are a large number of people contributed to design this ship. If we are taking this analogy seriously we can assume that the universe is similarly has a number of designer/creators

Question 11

What is Hume criticism does the world have design and order?

Answer 11

Hume says we cannot make this claim unless we have seen less ordered worlds. As we have nothing to compare this world to, how can we be sure that this one is well ordered?

Question 12

What is Hume criticism there is no God?

Answer 12

For argument sake Hume says let’s assume that the world was designed by the creator. Hume stated that even if the universe is designed we are not able to point to any evidence that shows that this universe must have been designed by a creator who is omnipotent, omniscient etc -Parallel of a scale if we see one side of scale but not the other we don’t have enough evidence to know exactly how heavy the other side is. In the same way if we only see the eye but not the designer we can’t be sure how great the designer is

Question 13

What is Richard Dawkins criticism of Teleological argument?

Answer 13

• Healthiest species survive and pass on genes
• Variations which promote survival become features of the species and the rest will die out
• In conclusion not evidence of design but chance mutations over thousand of years example eye was not designed but mutated of years and fins in the fish survived and pass the genes on

Question 14

What is J.S Mill criticism of Teleological argument?

Answer 14

• If you look at the world ‘as a neutral’ (i.e. not assuming that God exists) then we have to admit that there are things in the world that are not perfectly designed
• What about natural disasters (earthquakes, tornados etc.)? What about diseases and things that cause extreme pain. (It is not that a religious person couldn’t explain why God might allow these things, but rather that, if you were not sure if religion were true, it would be hard to argue that these are examples of perfect design.)

Question 15

What is Cosmological argument?

Answer 15

is ‘a posteriori’ because uses empiricism to gain knowledge about the existence of God from examining the cosmos using your senses

Question 16

What is Aquina’s 3 ways?

Answer 16

First way Unmoved Mover
Second way Uncaused Causer
Third way contingency

Question 17

What is Aquinas First way-Unmoved Mover steps?

Answer 17

1)Things are clearly moving ( a posteriori evidence)
2)Things that moved must be moved by something ( things cannot move themselves)
3)There cannot be an infinite chain of movers (infinite regression)
4)There must be a first, unmoved mover that causes motion in all things
5)Conclusion this first unmoved we call God

Question 18

What is Aquinas Second way-Uncaused Cause steps?

Answer 18

1)Universe exist and is constantly changing
2)Everything in existence has a cause
3)Causes Must come before the effect
4)A chain of causes and effects cannot go back to infinity
5)There must be a first cause, which is not in itself CAUSED-an uncaused cause. First uncaused is GOD

Question 19

How Does J.L Mackie Illustrated Aquinas rejection of infinite regress with a train?

Answer 19

Each carriage pulls the one behind it, but you cannot have an infinite change of carriages. That wouldn’t explain why the train is moving. There has to be something at the start of the train that is different from the carriages and needs an engine to start the movement. The Universe is like a carriage. God is like the engine

Question 20

What is Aquinas Third way- Contingency and Necessity steps?

Answer 20

1. Ordinary things in the universe are contingent-they come into being
2. Therefore at one point in time nothing existed
3. If there was nothing it would be impossible for anything to start to exist and even now there would be NOTHING
4. However we know there is SOMETHING -Therefore we need to accept a being whose existence is necessary
5. Without the necessary existence of this being, nothing would exist
6. Being who existence is necessary is GOD

Question 21

What are Hume’s criticism of Cosmological argument?

Answer 21

Hume first criticism Just becuse everything within the universe can be explained through causes Does not mean there is a cause for the whole universe this is known as the Fallacy of Composition cannot not exist does not rely on anthing for its own existence

Hume second criticism We assume there is a relationship between cause and effect we are in the habit of seeing effects and associating them with causes as a ‘matter of logic’ no

Question 22

What is Bertrand Russell criticism of cosmological argument?

Answer 22

-He says that every man has a mother is not proof that the human race has a mother this means you can’t have an leap of logic
-Even if specific things in the universe need an explanation why does the universe as a whole need one we should not move from the specific to the general because some things are ‘just there’ which require no explanation the universe as one such case