The ARGUMENTS for God's existence

Question 1

What are the 4 Ontological arguments? (SUMMARY)

Answer 1

1. ANSELM: Greater to exist in reality than only in the mind
2. ANSELM: Greater to be necessary than contingent
3. DESCARTES: supremely perfect, existence is a perfection
4. MALCOLM: God is either impossible or necessary

Question 2

What are the 6 Cosmological arguments? (SUMMARY)

Answer 2

1. AL KINDI (Kalam) - anything with a beginning has a cause
2. AQUINAS (motion) - unmoved mover
3. AQUINAS (causation) - uncaused cause
4. AQUINAS (contingency) - necessary cause is needed
5. LEIBNIZ - principle of sufficient reason, necessary substance needed
6. DESCARTES - power to create my mind and sustain my existence

Question 3

What are the 2 Teleological arguments? (SUMMARY)

Answer 3

1. PALEY - Designer, watch like an eye

2. SWINBURNE - Cause of temporal order (natural laws)

Question 4

Ontological arguments in general:

Answer 4

• DEDUCTIVE
• A PRIORI
• prove God’s existence from the definition of God alone

Question 5

Teleological arguments in general :

Answer 5

• INDUCTIVE
• A POSTERIORI
• show evidence of design and therefore a designer (God) through order and patterns within the world

Question 6

Cosmological arguments in general:

Answer 6

• INDUCTIVE
• A POSTERIORI
• show evidence of a God through the existence of the universe
• the idea the universe depends on something to exist

Question 7

ANSELMS FIRST argument

Answer 7

ONTOLOGICAL

1. By definition God is a being ‘that than which no greater can be conceived’
2. This idea is coherent
3. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind
4. Therefore God must exist in reality

Question 8

ANSELMS SECOND argument

Answer 8

ONTOLOGICAL

1. By definition God is a being ‘that than which no greater can be conceived’
2. This idea is coherent
3. It is greater to exists necessarily than contingently
4. If God exists contingently, then there would be a being greater than God (a necessary one)
5. Therefore, God must exist necessarily.

Question 9

DESCARTES (onto) argument

Answer 9

ONTOLOGICAL

1. I have a clear and distinct idea of God
2. This idea of God is of a ‘supremely perfect being’
3. A supremely perfect being cannot lack any perfection
4. Existence is a perfection
5. Therefore, God exists

Question 10

MALCOLMS argument

Answer 10

ONTOLOGICAL

1. Either God exists or God doesn’t exist
2. God cannot come in or out of existence (transcendence)
3. So, if God exists, God cannot cease to exist and so exists necessarily
4. If God doesn’t exist, God’s existence is impossible (as he cannot come into existence)
5. Therefore, God’s existence is either necessary or impossible
6. For God’s existence to be impossible the concept of God would have to be self-contradictory
7. The concept of God isn’t self contradictory
8. So God’s existence isn’t impossible
9. Therefore, God exists necessarily

Question 11

AL KINDI (KALAM) argument

Answer 11

COSMOLOGICAL

1. Everything that begins to exists, has a cause to its existence, as actual infinities are impossible
2. The universe has a beginning to its existence
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence then this is God
5. Therefore, God exists.

Question 12

AQUINAS 1st Way

Answer 12

COSMOLOGICAL
Motion
1. Everything in the universe is changing/in motion
2. For something to be in motion, it must have a move (in order to move from potential to actual)
3. Aquinas rejects infinite regression as if there’s no first mover then nothing would be in motion
4. Things are in motion, so there must be an unmoved mover
5. The unmoved mover is God.

Question 13

AQUINAS 2nd Way

Answer 13

COSMOLOGICAL 
Causation 
1. Everything has a cause and an effect 
2. Nothing can cause itself
3. This would lead to an infinite regress of caused things
4. Aquinas rejects infinite regression, as with no first cause there would be no effects 
5. Therefore an uncaused cause is needed
6. This uncaused cause is God.

Question 14

AQUINAS 3rd Way

Answer 14

COSMOLOGICAL
Contingency
1. Everything in the universe exists contingently
2. Everything that exists could of not existed (as contingent things rely on something else)
3. SO, if everything exists contingently, at some point nothing existed
4. If at some point nothing existed, nothing could begin to exist, as nothing would be there to cause the existence of everything else.
5. BUT things do exist, so there was never nothing in existence.
6. SO there must be something that exists necessarily not contingently
7. This necessary being is God

Question 15

LEIBNIZ argument

Answer 15

COSMOLOGICAL

1. Principle of sufficient reason = every truth has an explanation of why it is the case
2. Two kinds of truth: Truth of reason and Truth of fact
3. TOR has sufficient reason as they contain within themselves their own explanation (analytic)
4. Whereas TOF require other facts to explain them
5. Each of these further contingent facts also need to be explained
6. Therefore TOF cannot provided sufficient reason
7. To escape this endless cycle of contingent facts and provide sufficient reason we must look to a necessary substance
8. This necessary substance is God (as he requires no further explanation

Question 16

DESCARTES (cosmo) argument

Answer 16

COSMOLOGICAL

1. DID I CAUSE MYSELF? No, if I did I would have given myself all the perfections and so would no if I had cause myself as I would be omniscient (perfection)
2. AM I INFINITE? No, I do not have the power to sustain my own existence, so something else must sustain me
3. MY PARENTS? No, they created my physical body but couldn’t create my metaphysical mind, nor could they create my idea of God (trademark).
4. THEREFORE, the only option is that there is a God who has the power both to create my mind and to sustain my existence

Question 17

PALEY argument

Answer 17

TELEOLOGICAL

1. Paley compares a man-made object like a watch to aspects of nature like a pebble.
2. He argues: If we saw a watch on the beach we wouldn’t assume it naturally appeared there like a pebble
3. BECAUSE the watch (unlike the pebble) is composed of many parts organised for a purpose.
4. Paley calls this the hallmark of design
5. He then compares the watch to another aspect of nature: the human eye
6. Just like the watch the eye has many complicated parts organised for a purpose (e.g. to see)
7. So, like the watch, the human eye has the marks of design
8. For something to be designed it must have a designer
9. Paley claims this designer is God

Question 18

SWINBURNE argument

Answer 18

TELEOLOGICAL

1. The laws of gravity are so specifically designed for us
2. WHAT IF they were different: if they repelled matter (life wouldn’t form), if they were stronger (planets wouldn’t form)
3. We can’t give scientific explanation for why the laws of nature (e.g. gravity) are the way they are as these laws are brute.
4. Science can explain and predict other things using these laws (e.g. spatial order), but first has to assume these laws.
5. SO the best explanation for temporal order is a personal explanation
6. We give personal explanations for things all the time e.g. that building exists because someone designed it and someone built it.
7. BY ANALOGY, we can explain the laws of nature (temporal order) in a similar personal way as there’s no better explanation of the regularities
8. Therefore, the laws of nature are the way they are because someone designed them (God).