Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
ARGUMENTS USING OBSERVATION (a posteori) (Evolution And Dawkins (Charles…
ARGUMENTS USING OBSERVATION
(a posteori)
Cosmological argument
Aquinas
1st Way
MOVEMENT
things move and change
they do this because other things move them
however the mover itself is moved by something as things cannot move themselves
but this cannot keep reoccurring as there would never be no first mover so nothing would have started off moving
everything is in a state of actuality
(how it is)
and Potentially
( what it might become )
all things that are moved
( the potentially becomes the new actuality )
are moved by something else
therefore there must be an unmoved mover
That being God
2nd Way
CAUSATION
Things need efficient causes
because it cannot have existed before itself
things can't cause themselves
otherwise the effect would be taken away
we cannot go back to the idea of infinity as there would then be no first cause
there must be an uncaused cause
this uncaused causer must be God
3rd Way
CONTINGENCY
Contingent things exist
these things have not always existed because they not existed at some point because they rely on something for their existence
there was once nothing
so there must be a necessary being to start everything off
something that has always been here
that necessary being is god
how to explain existence of things
Hulmes Criticisms
we cannot establish for certain the principles of cause and effect
we expect certain events to follow others but maybe this is just habit
we see that event A is followed by event B but this does not mean that A CAUSED B
The cause should reflect the effect
we observe a world that is imperfect and limited so shouldn't God be like that too?
finite causes are more likely to create finite products
fallacy of composition
Hulme makes the point that if we know about the causes within the universe, we do not need to explain the universe as a whole
Russel makes the point too that every human being has a mother but we can't move from this to say there is a mother of the world
no statement about existence can be logically necessary
any being claimed to exist , may or may not exist
based on Humes fork
What he does is he attempts to distinguish matters of fact from ideas.
Basically it helps to establish from what is true and what is false.
Hume doesn't believe a priori knowledge is good enough knowledge to explain the world but rather only tells us about the "relation of ideas"
Its not that good because in order for it to work we have to think like Hume but since we rely on our own senses we cannot do this.
To say that a statement is necessary means that its opposite would be a logical contradiction
yet it is possible to say that god does not exist
Evolution And Dawkins
design is an illusion
things appear designed because they have adapted to their enviroment
they are only adapted because they have gradually changed over successive generations
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution
natural selection
things adapt to keep up with the earths changes
somethings therefore didn't make it.
eg. giraffes got longer necks to eat leaves off tall trees
Survival of the fittest
a way of describing the mechanisms of natural selection
the stronger ones live to reproduce and make stronger offspring
natural selection shows why things appear to be designed therefore answers the design argument
BUT! :!!:
THE WEAK ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
but the evolutionary process and the big bang were designed by God in order to create life
Life on earth was not inevitable due to chance
He also hasn't answered the 2nd way
blind watchmaker
nature is like a blind watchmaker, it does not plan.
each part of nature responds to what happens
adaptations are random and a matter of luck
origin of the species
Darwin's theory consisted of two main points.
1) diverse groups of animals evolve from one or a few common ancestors
2) the mechanism by which this evolution takes place is natural selection
Teleological Argument
Aquinas
the 5th way
things in nature must fulfil their purpose
there must be a mind that guides them
:bow_and_arrow: for an arrow to hit a target there must be an archer
an intelligence
in real terms the archer is God
design arguments
Payley
the analogy of the watch maker
:leaves: Imagine you are walking across a heath and you come across a stone and a pocket watch. :watch:
you inspect both and come to these two conclusions
the stone leads you to conclude that it could have been there forever and there is nothing in particular that leads you to believe it lies on the heath for any particular reason
however if you analyse the pocket watch in the same way, you would conclude that you could not make the same judgement on the intricately built pocket watch as you would the stone
therefore all the evidence would show that the watch had been designed for a purpose (to tell time) and designed with the necessary regularity (the mechanisms inside) to meet its purpose
so, payley then concludes that if you look at nature in the same way, nature cannot have come about by itself, take the human eye for example :eye:
therefore it must have a designer, that designer being God
Hulmes Criticisms
humans do not have sufficient enough knowledge of the creation of the world to assume it could just be one creator :lower_left_paintbrush:
as humans we can only experience things that we have created on this planet :earth_africa: and this universe, and in terms of the whole universe that is not a lot.
so it is impossible for us to draw conclusions about the whole from a small part
the universe is a vast machine, it is more like a living thing than it is a man made thing so it grows by its own accord :national_park:
even if Payley or Aquinas was right about the world being designed by a higher being, it wouldn't necessarily be the God of theism :pray::skin-tone-3:
could be lesser gods, intelligent designers etc :open_hands::skin-tone-3:
matter could be self ordering
it may have a inner tendency towards order. We have no evidence that a designer exists
