The existence of God - arguments from observation

Question 1

what is a teleological argument?

Answer 1

An argument for Gods existence that uses human experience and empirical evidence

Question 2

what is inductive reasoning?

Answer 2

This means it uses observation to reach a probable conclusion.

Question 3

how many ways does Aquinas form

Answer 3

5 way
4= cosmological argument
5= teleological argument/design argument

Question 4

what is Aquinas 1st way

Answer 4

We observe the world around us
We observe motion in the world
There cannot be an infinte regress
A static being must have caused the first motion
This being must have been God
Therefore , God exists

Question 5

what is Aquinas 2nd way?

Answer 5

We observe the world around us
We observe causation in the world
There cannot be an infinte regress of causes
There must be an uncaused cause
This cause must have been God
Therefore , God exists

Question 6

what is Aquinas 3rd way

Answer 6

We observe the world around us
We observe contingency in the world
There cannot be an infinte regress
A necessary being must exist
This being must have been God
Therefore , God exists

Question 7

what is Aquinas 4th Way?

Answer 7

We observe the world around us
We observe degrees of perfection
There must be a perfect being in which everything else is measured against
This being must have been God
Therefore , God exists

Question 8

what is the design argument?

Answer 8

we observe the world around us
We can observe benefical order and purpose - everything is moving towards its telos - natural laws in the universe created
how can non-intelligent things give themselves purpose without guidance from an intelligent being
An intelligent being must have made benefical order and purpose
This intelligent being/designer must have been God. Therefore, God exists.

Question 9

what is Aquinas’ archer analogy

Answer 9

To illustrate this point, Aquinas draws our attention to the fact that we humans can direct an objects behaviour through exerting physical force on it, just as an archer does with an arrow.

An arrow hits a target even though it isn’t intelligent and cannot comprehend what it’s doing. There must be something which can comprehend the goal/end of the arrow and influenced/designed it to move in the way it does: the archer (who has intelligence) did this by shooting the arrow in a particular way while having the goal/end in mind.

God’s ability to direct the behaviour of things in the world is of a much greater type than our ability, however. God directs the behaviour of objects by creating natural laws which govern and regulate the behaviour of all objects by directing them towards the end that God has in mind for them.

Just as an archer has the power to make an arrow goal-directed, God has the power to make everything in the world goal-directed.

So, there must be an archer for the arrow of the universe, which must be a God.

Question 10

Examples of beneficial order and purpose in the world

Answer 10

the seasons
phases of the moon
cycle of life

Question 11

what are Hume’s criticisms?

Answer 11

Epistemological limits- The cosmological arguments takes us beyond the scope of human understanding.
To conclude that there was a first cause of the universe is out of our understanding.
Whilst the universe exists, we cannot prove that it is caused.
The fallacy of affirming the consequent
fallacy of composition
Aquinas rejects the possibility of an infinite regression without probable cause

Question 12

How is Aquinas guilty of ‘The fallacy of affirming the consequent’

Answer 12

He goes from cause to effect
whilst we know the world exist and there could b a reason for its existence. we cannot know what the effect is because there are an endless amount of possibilities.

Question 13

how is Aquinas guilty of ‘the fallacy of composition’

Answer 13

What is true of part of the whole is not true of the whole thing.
In the case of the universe, Cosmological arguments rightly point out that the parts of the universe (at least those we have observed) have a cause or are contingent. However, it commits the fallacy of composition to assume that therefore the universe itself as a whole is contingent or has a cause.

Question 14

What did Anscombe say about cause

Answer 14

‘accepting everything in the universe doesn’t have a cause is like believing a magician really pulls out a rabbit from his hat’

Question 15

what is Paley’s teleological argument?

Answer 15

we observe the world around us
We observe intricacies and care in the world
There must have been an intelligent being to cause this intricacy
this being is God
God exists

Question 16

what is Paley’s analogy?

Answer 16

if we imagine a man walking through a heath and finding a rock he would probably not question its orgins
but If we were to imagine a man finding a pocket watch when walking through a heath he would observe its beauty and recognize that for this to be so perfect and precise it must of had a creator. similarly, The world must have.

Question 17

What example does Paley use to exemplify the worlds intricacies?

Answer 17

uses the example of an earwig ‘The hinges in the wings of an earwig, and the joints of its antennae, are as highly wrought, as if the Creator had nothing else to finish.’

Question 18

Limitations of Teleological arguments

Answer 18

Assume we can observe goodness in the world - Darwin and wasps. JSM analysis of the world around us leads to a malevolent creator which is not fitting with Gods attributes so he is not creator.
They only at most suggest that the world was created we cannot assume this was the Christian God
Hume’s criticism
Human reason is flawed (Barth and the fall) so the conclusion that we observe the world as having order etc. is not a truthful claim
lacks evidence

Question 19

strengths of teleological arguments

Answer 19

Use empirical modern day thinking that is valued in society
Scriptural support the heavens declare the Glory of Gods works and the skies proclaim the work of Gods hands
the World is a mirror for God existence - Calvin - natural theology and there are points of contact with the world that allow us to know God such as beauty - Edwards and aesthetic

Question 20

what is swinburnes criticism of arguments from observation?

Answer 20

it would require an ontological argumemt to prove that God is the intelligent being

Question 21

describe similitudo

Answer 21

there are similarities between the creator and the creation

Question 22

what type of theologians are paley and aquinas?

Answer 22

natural theologians

Question 23

what are humes criticisms of the design argument?

Answer 23

1. why must design be caused
2. evidential problem of evil
3. fallacy of affirming the conceuent
4. fallacy of composition

Question 24

explain humes epicurean hypothosis

Answer 24

• the worlds order and purpose may be by chance
• epicureas argued that the basic constitutes of the world are indivisble atoms
• modern physics is similar- the world is no more than the changing of atoms
• so if given infinate time it is likely that the perfect/optimum arrangement for human life would be created
• so the observed order and purpose in the universe occured via chance and it was not a result of God
• the oscillating universe theory further illustrates this

Question 25

explain why we cannot go from observing the world to Gods existence

Answer 25

• a posteriori observation cannot prove Gods existence
• there could be a designer but the flaw of Aquinas’s design argument is to go from the world to God when the world is so flawed and full of evil
• we cannot know the God from classic theism (omnibenevolent etc) through a posteriori episteme
• the evidence suggests an imperfect God

ALSO
- unique situation - beyond our epistemical limits

Question 26

what are aquinas first two causes called?

Answer 26

atemporal causation

Question 27

what is atemporal causation?

Answer 27

Aquinas was influenced by aritstotle who attempted to explain the change in the world. He defined change as potentiality and actuality , questioning how the effect of a cause can exist if the cause no longer does.

aquinas was interested in effects that couldnt live without their cause and so develops the first and second way of atemporal causation

Question 28

what are cause and motion dependent on?

Answer 28

ontologically dependent on the first unmoved mover

Question 29

what is the causal principle?

Answer 29

the idea that everything has a cause

Question 30

explain humes rejection to the cause principle

Answer 30

humes fork

the causal principle is not analytical, it is not true by definition that everything has a cause because we can imagine something not having a cause

that makes it synthetic

we can only know through experience if something/everything has a cause

yet we cannot experience ALL events of cause and effect so we cannot say that ALL events are caused

not matter how many times you observe A effect B this doesnt make their causation necessary

so, just because we observe a degree of cause in the world doesnt mean that we can say the universe has a cause

Question 31

copelstons response to fallacy of composition

Answer 31

P1. A series is either caused or uncaused.
P2. If a series is uncaused, then the reason for its existence must be internal to it; its existence is necessary.
P3. A series of contingent things can’t be necessary. No amount of contingent things can be necessary, not even an infinite number of them.
C1. Therefore, a series of contingent things cannot be necessary.
C2. Therefore, a series of contingent things must have a cause.
C3. Therefore, there must be a cause of the series of contingent things which is outside the series.

Question 32

what is the masked man fallacy?

Answer 32

The masked man fallacy.
Hume assumes that we cannot imagine impossible things.
The masked man fallacy shows that we can. A person could hear of a bank robbery by a masked man – and they could imagine that it is not their father. However, if it was their father – then it’s impossible for it to not be their father. Yet, that is what they conceived – so, we can conceive of the impossible.
In that case, when Hume conceived of God not existing and claimed this meant God’s non-existence was ‘possible’ – Hume was wrong.
God’s non-existence could be an example of something that is conceivable but impossible – as the masked man fallacy illustrates.

Question 33

what is humes critique of God as a necessary being

Answer 33

Hume’s critique of the idea of a necessary being:
A ‘necessary being’ is actually a meaningless concept.
A necessary being is one which must exist.
In that case, we shouldn’t even be able to imagine it not existing.
However, Hume claims that ‘whatever we can imagine existing, we can imagine not existing’. Hume claims we can imagine God not existing – so it must therefore be possible for God to not exist, and this means it cannot be the case that God must exist.
So, the very idea of a necessary being is absurd and meaningless – because there is no being which we are unable to imagine not existing.