Unit 3: The Existence of God Flashcards
Explain Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument.
Nothing can happen by itself.
Everything that happens has to be caused by something else.
The universe cannot just have happened by itself.
A very powerful force must have caused the universe.
This cause must have been God, who is an uncaused cause.
This means that God must exist….
How might someone criticise Aquinas’ argument? (6)
The argument contains self-contradiction – it states that there are no uncaused causes, yet God does not need a beginning.
We just assume that everything needs a cause due to experiences. Quantum physics suggests particles may be able to just appear, so perhaps the singularity occurred spontaneously.
If God can be without cause, why not the universe? The universe may be going through an infinite number of expansions and contractions.
The argument is based on assumptions, therefore proves nothing. At most it shows it might be reasonable to believe in God, but this God fits more with the Deist view, not Traditional Theism.
As science advances, natural explanations for the origins of the universe may emerge, rendering the need for a “God” unnecessary.
The multiverse theory suggests that our universe might be one of many. If multiple universes exist, then perhaps our universe’s existence doesn’t need a single cause but is one of countless possibilities in an ever-existing multiverse, making Aquinas’ argument less likely and convincing.
Why might people agree with Aquinas’ cosmological argument? (5)
We can observe the universe exists and everything that exists needs a beginning/cause.
Only God could be the cause of the universe because he is the only being powerful enough
It makes sense for God to be a ‘necessary being’ because God is in a different category to the material universe.
Many mathematicians agree that infinite regress is impossible, so there has to be a first cause, and the only being we have knowledge of that doesn’t need a cause for its existence is God
Science supports the idea of the universe having a beginning, eg the Big Bang, and agrees that things can’t cause themselves.
**Ockham’s razor* says the simplest explanation is the right one and the first cause is arguably the simplest.
Why did Paley think the universe and life were designed? (4)
- The world looks designed, and it has been perfectly designed to sustain life. Therefore, there must be a designer.
- The sheer number of coincidences that would be required from the first moment of the Big Bang expansion means a purely naturalistic explanation stretches credulity. Fine-tuning points to a “finetuner”.
- It is not reasonable to believe that the debris from the Big Bang would form such complex things in the universe. The only logical explanation is an all-powerful God
- All the complex things in the universe, work in such an organised way, so the universe must be designed.
Why might people believe the universe was designed by God? (6)
The world looks designed (examples of regularity and purpose in nature) and it has been created perfectly to sustain life. It is therefore reasonable to infer a designer.
The sheer number of coincidences that would be required since the Big Bang expansion means a purely naturalistic explanation isn’t convincing. Fine-tuning points to a “finetuner”.
It is not reasonable to believe that the debris from the Big Bang would form complex things in the universe.
The rise of life is contrary to physical law of entropy, so the only logical explanation is an all-powerful God.
Evolution was part of God’s plan. God used the mechanism of evolution to create life.
If we follow Ockham’s razor then the simplest explanation for the existence of our Universe is the correct one and that is the existence of an intelligent designer.
The argument is consistent with scriptures, the revealed world of God. ‘His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen.’ Romans.
Explain Paley’s teleological argument. (5)
- Paley’s watch analogy - if someone was walking over a heath, and they came across a stone and asked how it got there, they might say it was always there - it had no purpose or reason
- But if someone came across a watch, and saw the various complex parts of the watch, they would conclude it has regularity and purpose (it tells the time)
- Therefore, that person can conclude the watch had a watchmaker (designer) for its regularity and purpose and complex parts
- The universe shows evidence of regularity (orbit of plants, seasons) and purpose (eyes for seeing, ears for hearing)
- Therefore, it is reasonable to say the universe had a maker who made the complex parts
- So we can conclude the maker is an all-powerful God who designed such a complex universe with superior intelligence
How might people argue against the teleological argument? (6)
There is evidence of “bad design” in the world, eg natural disasters, so perhaps this is down to chance rather than design, and this means there is no need for God.
There is no proof that the universe needs a creator, maybe it has always been there.
Belief that there is a creator relies on a leap of faith– the universe and life was designed by someone we can’t understand.
Comparisons used to explain the design argument are not appropriate. A mechanical watch shouldn’t be compared to organic material.
Natural processes, chance and laws of physics are enough to give a complete explanation so there is no need to resort to the idea of a designer God.
We may be very unlikely, but this doesn’t mean we are meant to be here. We are like winners in the lottery – just lucky to be here.
It’s perfectly possible for God to exist beyond the material world, however that’s all we can ever say. God, because he is transcendent, can neither be proved, nor disproved so the teleological argument gets you nowhere.
“The teleological argument provides complete proof of the existence of God.” To what extent do you agree? Give reasons for your answer. (8)
AGREE:
- Things cannot put themselves in order
- The fine tuning observed in the universe straight after the Bing Bang, means we have to infer a designer
- If Ockham’s razor is applied, the simplest argument for the design of the universe is that God exists
- Replication in organisms requires genetic information and information requires intelligence. The first species which need information rich DNA must have needed a replicator, which is God
DISAGREE:
- The laws of physics and evolution theory give us a credible, alternative belief in a designer
- The nature of the universe only exists in our mind, it doesn’t matter what universe we stayed in it would have always been perfect
- Even if the universe is designed perfectly, it doesn’t prove God made it. It could have been many gods who made it
- Analogies used to describe the teleological argument are not valid. You can’t use a watch to compare natural things
“The teleological argument does nothing to prove God’s existence.” How far do you agree? Give reasons for your answer. (8)
AGREE:
- There is evidence of “bad design” in the world (natural disasters), so perhaps this is down to chance
- There is no proof the universe needs a creator, maybe we have always been here
- The Universe may have a predisposition to order. It may be in its nature to be the way it is, just as a vegetable develops naturally
- We have no evidence to suggest that the Universe is not just the result of pure chance.
DISAGREE:
- Things cannot put themselves in order
- The fine tuning observed in the universe straight after the Bing Bang, means we have to infer a designer
- If Ockham’s razor is applied, the simplest argument for the design of the universe is that God exists
- Replication in organisms requires genetic information and information requires intelligence. The first species which need information rich DNA must have needed a replicator, which is God
Why might some religious people believe in the nature of God?
They feel they have had personal experiences of God’s presence, such as feeling peace, comfort, or guidance during difficult times.
People raised in religious families or communities are often taught from a young age about the nature of God, including qualities like God’s love, mercy, and justice.
Many religious people believe in the nature of God as described in sacred texts, like the Bible, Quran, or Torah. These texts often contain descriptions of God’s qualities—which strengthen a person’s faith.
Belief in God’s nature can give people a sense of purpose and meaning in life. They may feel that God has a plan for them and that their lives are part of a bigger purpose.
Some people believe in the nature of God because they feel that belief in a just and loving God gives them a moral foundation and helps guide their actions.
For many, belief in the nature of God is rooted in faith—trust in something that goes beyond what they can see or fully understand.
Explain why some people might disagree about the nature of God. (4)
If God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omnibenevolent (all-loving), then why would He allow pain, natural disasters, or injustices to occur?
Since God’s existence cannot be proven scientifically, many find it difficult to believe in a deity whose nature cannot be observed or measured.
Conflicting accounts of different religions make it hard for some to accept one consistent understanding of God, leading to doubt or rejection of the idea altogether.
The nature of God is often described as mysterious and beyond human understanding, with qualities like omniscience (all-knowing) and omnipresence (being everywhere at once). For many, this level of complexity makes it difficult to comprehend or relate to God.
Scientific advancements offer natural explanations for things that were once attributed to God, such as the origin of the universe or the causes of natural events.
People created the concept of God to feel protected, guided, and comforted. If this is true, then God might not exist independently but rather as a human invention.0
