Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Traditional Arguments for the Existence of God (The Ontological Argument…
Traditional Arguments for the Existence of God
The Ontological Argument
A priori knowledge - knowledge before experience
Based in reason - worked out in a similar way to maths, using 'logic' / deductive reasoning
Deductive - If the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true
Anselms Definition - 'God is that than which a greater cannot be concieved'
Impossible to think of anything greater than God
Tortology
Based on the idea that God is greater than anything else people can think of
It's better to have the concept in your mind and reality because its easier to prove
If you can imagine it, it exists
Subject: God
Predicate: Existence
Conclusion: God exists
Criticisms
Gaunilo
Subject: There is an island which is the greatest possible island
Predicate: It is greater to exist both in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone
Conclusion: Therefore, the greatest possible island
Perfection is different to everyone
Ad Absurdum (logical fallacy)
Overload objection - if we accept the logic for God, we must accept it for everything. Cannot be logically correct.
Anselms Reply (Second ontological argument)
Contingency:
Something that relies on something else to work.
The force required for x to be in existence.
God cannot not exist because he is non contingent. He doesn't have a beginning or end. Because it is greater.
Necessary:
Cannot not be the cause (God) must exist
God must necessarily exist because:
If God were contingent (he) would not be the greatest possible being
It is greater to have neither a beginning or an end than to have a beginning an end
If God must have no beginning or end
Therefore God must necessarily exist
Descartes Ontological Argument
1) I have an idea of a supremely perfect being
2) A supremely perfect being having all perfections
3) Necessary existence is a perfection
4) Therefore a supremely perfect being exists
He says that it is as impossible to think of God as not existing as it is to imagine an uphill slope without a downhill slope or to imagine a triangle without its internal angles adding up to the sum of two right angels
Tortology - True by definition
Criticisms
Kant
If God existed then necessary existence would be inseparable. tortilogical from his characteristics
Hyperthetical, we don't know
#
Existence isn't a predicate
Predicates add something to the description. Existance doesn't. Existence is simply a grammatical device to indicate that there is an instance of x which we can experience. It is nit therefore a predicate.
True predicates describe something about the physical or conceptual characteristics of the subject.
Illustration
A piece of paper can be imagined to be in all different shapes and sizes which change its description. However, imagining it exists doesn't change its description therefore, it can't be a predicate
The Teleological Argument
Keywords
analogy - comparing 2 things - if properties of A match the properties of B then we must agree that property C is common to both
Empirical - knowledge gained from 5 senses (sight, smell,touch,taste and sound)
A - Posteriori - knowledge after experience
Inductive - argument based on a-posteriori knowledge gained through empirical observation e.g all swans ever seen or experienced are white, therefore, all swans are white
Infer - educated guess
Intelligent design:
Harmony
Complexity
Purpose
Natural Object (Tree)
Purpose:
Produces oxygen for help/allow animals and humans to breathe
Produces habitats
Complexity:
leaves
bark
many parts
roots
cells
allowing treat grow and blossom
Harmony:
all parts work together allowing the tree to grow
Argument based on analogy
Teleological argument based on study of purpose ends and goals in nature
Argument based on a watch - complex must have a designer therefore the world is that complex so it must have a designer
Criticisms
Hume
We should try and make God in a more human term to understand him even though he is much more
Why only one God? It normally takes more than one person to create something intricate and you don't always get something perfect first time
We only have knowledge of things which are designed and things from nature. The universe is something that there is only one of them (that we know of) we are unable to go back in time to see the universe and we can not compare it with anything else such as you could with apples and oranges
Unlimited amount of time. Infinite possibility so every possible combination has happened. trial and error
Occams Razor
The strongest argument is the one which relies on the assumptions
Design: There is a God who is omnipotent, omnibeevolent, omniscient etc.
Epicurean Hypothesis
Infinite time/ finite matter/ chance
No evidence for either - both make unverifiable assumptions
Problem of infinity
You can't add or remove from infinity, change implies time. 'unlimited time' is a 'paradox'. it does not make logical sense
Strengths
'Chance' is more plausible than the concept of a God with unlimited power
We have experience of chance, but not of a being with unlimited power
Anthropromorphism
Projecting human qualities
Strengths
History of religion shows that we project our human qualities onto the world to help us understand and control it such as praying to the God of the sea to help control/understand it. The same could apply to 'design' - a human quality projected onto the world to help us make sense of it.
Weaknesses
It is necessary to project our experiences onto the world in order to understand it.
Paley's argument is an 'inference to the best explanation'
unknowable using your experiences of what we know
Many Gods Argument
Weaknesses
Appears to contradict himself by suggesting 'many Gods' (although in effect all he is intending to do it show the weakness of the analogy
An all loving/ all powerful / all knowing God is a better explanation for the creation of the universe than one God .
Many Gods raised more questions and assumptions than one God
#
The Cosmological Argument
Summa Theologica
First Way - The argument from motion
1) Nothing can move itself
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover
3) Movement cannot go on for infinity
4) This first mover is the Unmoved mover, called God
Aquinas is starting from an a posteriori position. For Aquinas motion includes any kind of change. e.g growth. Aquinas argues that the natural condition is for things to be at rest. Something which is moving is therefore unnatural and must have been put into that state by some external supernatural power.
Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an unmoved mover (God) who first put things in motion.
Second Way - Causation of Existence
This way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an uncaused first cause who had began the chain of existence for all things.
1) There exists things that are caused by other things
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself
3) There cannot be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist
4) Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause Called God
Third Way - Contingent and Necessary Objects
This way is sometimes referred to as the modal cosmological argument. Modal is a reference to contingency and necessary. This way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that cannot exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately necessitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent being to exist. This being, Called a necessary being, is what we call God.
1) Contingent beings are caused
2) Not every being can be contingent
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings
4) This necessary being is God
Necessary and Contingent truths
Necessary - Can't change
Contingent - Changeable
Aquinas' cosmological argument
#
Argument from 'contingency'
Inductive argument
Uses empirical evidence
A posteriori knowledge
Criticisms
Universe itself my be a necessary - existent being
Adequate explanation without bringing God into it
Conforms with the principle of Occam's razor
Simpler to 'make do' with one entity (matter) rather than two (mind and matter)
If something has to be necessary, why can't that be the matter which makes up the universe? Why does it have to be an unobservable God?
Hume's Fork
There are only two kinds of 'truth claim' and they are stuck on different prongs:
1) a priori - Analystic - Necessary (logically true e.g maths)
2) A posteriori - synthetic - contingent. (senses)
Can only say God exists synthetically not analytically
The universe exists as a 'brute fact' there is no explanation
Counter Criticisms
The universe needs matter to exist but matter must exist to make the universe however, to make matter exist a necessary being must exist
#
Fallacy of composition is sometimes true but not always.
Universe - quite possible everything is contingent and needs a cause
e.g all the parts of the wall are made of brick
#
If your a scientist, response would be 'we don't have an answer yet but we will in the future'. everything has an answer. Principle of sufficient reason: everything has a sufficient reason including the universe
#
Hume is mistaken: when Aquinas says 'God necessarily exits' he is not making an analytic claim. Instead he is making a 'metaphysical claim'
#
Fallacy of Composition