Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Arguments for the Existence of God - Coggle Diagram
Arguments for the Existence of God
Design/Teleological
Presentation: Paley’s analogical argument
If one comes across a rock, its origins can be explained referring to natural causes. But if one came across a watch, there would be no explanation.
The watch is made up of cogs and springs, etc. and this design couldn't have come about by chance - there must be a watchmaker, who designed it with the purpose of telling time. This world is even more complex than a watch in how it is put together, so there must be a creator - God
Purpose/telos; order; complexity
Fine-tuning
Foundational fine-tuning
Forces of nature: gravity; electromagnetism; nuclear
If any one of these was out by a fraction, there would not be this universe
Locational fine-tuning
Everything in our universe is just right
Criticisms: Hume
Analogies to human design don't work
Objects of human design and objects of the natural world anre too different to learn anything useful from the comparison.
Analogies don't imply the existence of the classic Judeo-Christian God
The world is flawed and could not imply the existence of a perfect God
Maybe suggests a senile God, an apprentice God, or a team of God
Analogies are anthropomorphic
The grand watchmaker is an example of anthropomorphic thinking
Has been made redundant by science
A complex, ordered universe is inevitable (Epicurean hypothesis)
Infinite timme equals infinite possibilities
Given infinite time, an infinite number ofmber of possibilities will happen. This ordered universe is clearly possible so with infinite time it is inevitable. It only looks special beacause it has led to people who appreciate its improbability.
Ontological
Presentation: Anselm’s a priori argument
Anselm's 1st ontological argument
Deductive argument: does not rely on evidence to reach its conclusion
Argues 'God exists' is a tautology
True by definition
A priori truth
Reductio ad absurdum
Reduces the oppositions argument to absurdity
Argues atheism is contradictory
The argument
The definition of God is ‘that, than which nothing greater can be conceived’.
It is greater to exist in the mind and reality than to exist in the mind alone.
I can conceive of a God that exists in the mind alone.
I can conceive of a God that exists in the mind and in reality.
God is the greater of these.
Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.
Anselm's 2nd ontological argument
His logic only applies to God as God is the one thing ‘than which nothing greater can be achieved’
Everything other than God exists contingently
God exists necessarily
Criticisms: Gaunilo and Kant
Gaunilo's criticism of Anselm's 1st ontological argument
Greatest island
You could apply the same logical structure to the definition of anything and then logically it would have to then exist.
Kant's criticism of ontological arguments
If ‘God exists’ is a tautology, then the statement is only true of the definition of God (the idea), not reality
Kant argues that if Anselm is correct and ‘God exists’ is a tautology, then we see that the predicate ‘exists’ is true by analysing the subject ‘God’. This makes the proposition ‘God exists’ analytic.
However, analytic propositions are only true about the definitions of subjects. Only synthetic propositions offer propositions about the world around us
So in Anselm’s argument the conclusion ‘God exists’ is about the definition of God, not about the actual existence of God in the world
We might have to accept that the definition of God contains the idea ‘would have to exist', but we don’t have to conclude that there is an actual God in the world that fits this definition.
'Exists' is not a predicate
Imagine a ball in Stanhope park. Now imagine the ball exists.
Existence is not a predicate: it does not say anything about a subject
Bertrand Russell
'Exists’ is shorthand for ‘there is an example of this in the world around us’, so for the ball we would add ‘and this ball is really there in Stanhope Park’.
If this were true, the claim ‘God exists’ translates to ‘God is out there in the world around us’.
This would be a synthetic claim that could only be backed up with evidence, and it does not appear to be a tautology.
Cosmological
Presentation: Aquinas' Way 3, the argument from contingency and necessity
Everything in the world is contingent
If things can not exist there must have been a time when they did not
There must have been a time when nothing existed
There must be a necessary being which brought everything now into existence
A prime mover
Nothing comes from nothing
Criticisms: Hume and Russell
Hume
Hume's Fork
Matters of fact
A posteriori
Based on evidence/observation
Empiricism
Synthetic claims
Inductive arguments
Probability
Qualities
Specific to time and space
Probable
Contingently true
Contains no contradictions
Relations of ideas
A priori
Based on reason/logic
Rationalism
Analytic claims
Deductive arguments
Proof/beyond doubt
Qualities
Universally true
True across space and time
Absolute, certain, beyond doubt
Realtions contain contradictions
Hume's conclusions
We might think that the world needs a first cause, but it doesn't
Causation is a relation of ideas, not a fact
The principals the argument depends on are relations of ideas, not facts about the world
Eg. nothing comes from nothing; there can be no infinite regress
Maybe this isn't the way the world is and its equally possible there could be an infinite regress
We can't argue from things we have seen to things we have't seen and certainly not to things we could never see
Russell
Aquinas was guilty of the fallacy of composition
What is true of the parts is not necessarily true of the whole
Just because what see in the world is caused, it does not mean that the universe itself has a cause
The existence of the universe is simply unexplainable, it is just a brute fact
Students should study the basis of each argument in observation or in thought, the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments, their status as ‘proofs’, their value for religious faith and the relationship between reason and faith.
The strengths and weaknesses of the arguments
Design/teleological argument
Strengths
Swinburne argued that the existence of a single omnipotent God is the simplest explanation
Paley said evil might be unavoidable for God to bring about good.
Evolution itself requires explanation. It is not incompatible with theism.
Paley's claim that 'nature shows intention' is supported by the Anthropic Principle (fine-tuning). The multiverse theory is incapable of proof.
Weaknesses
Claims made by theism the nature of a designer God go way beyond the evidence
Existence of evil suggests incompetent, indifferent of malevolent designer - or no designer at all
Apparent order, purpose and design are just chance. Support for this from Darwin and Dawkins.
Universe could have 'designed itself' by chance. Support for this from multiverse theories.
The ontological argument
Strengths
It is a deductive argument, so if it works, it gives absolute proof as opposed other arguments' reliance on probability
Its independence of evidence from human observation protects it from possibly unreliable evidence
Anselm's definition is in fact claiming that God is limitless and for many, if there is a God, his definition makes good sense
Weaknesses
Kant's challenges suggest that it does not work in either of its forms
Arguments about existence need to be empirically based
Aquinas and others since have challenged Anselm's definition of God. Humans cannot know the nature of God and any attempt to define God limits him. If this is the case, the whole of the ontological argument collapses.
The cosmological argument
Weaknesses and counter-arguments
Fallacy of composition: what is true of the parts may not be true of the whole
This is not always the case (Eg. Each of the 50 states of the USA is in the northern hemisphere. The USA is in the northern hemisphere. Both statements are true).
The universe could be a necessarily-existent being. Supported by the principle of conservation of matter and some modern cosmological theories.
The case for necessarily-existing matter is no stronger than that for a necessarily-existing mind. Scientific cosmological theories do not explain why there is something rather than nothing, whereas the idea of God does.
The universe could be just brute fact
Most people seek an explanation for things and this his how science operates.
Why not infinte regress of contingent being?
This still does not explain why there is something rather than nothing
It cannot be shown that the existence of any being is logically necessary
Hume misunderstood Aquinas. Aquinas was talking about God's metaphysical necessity.
Their status as ‘proofs’
Design/teleological argument
The argument cannot offer proof of God
Only deductive arguments can give absolute proof. This argument is inductive, so can never be abbsolutely certain.
Paley's observations to support his argument can be explained naturally. If the multiverse theory is true, then the apparent design is pure chance.
The argument does offer proof of God
Most things that we accept as true in life are based on inductive arguments. They are accepted as 'true beyond reasonable doubt'. The stronger the evidence, the more probably true a claim is.
Some would argue that the laws of nature requires explanation and that we cannot be sure that the multiverse theory is true. This means that the challenges do not diminish the probability that pales argument is true.
The ontological argument
Proof of the existence of God
The nature of this argument as a priori, analytic, and deductive means that if its premises are true, then it does indeed prove the existence of God. Many scholars have claimed, and still do claim, that it is valid.
Some claim it is a proof in that it is a faith-based acceptance.
Karl Barth claimed that Anselm never intended it as a proof. He thought it consisted of Anselm's meditation on a religious experience.
Some theologians think it was simply a meditation on the nature of God that was intended to assure his fellow monks that their faith was reasonable.
Not proof of the existence of God
Most scholars agree with Kant that the most it shows is that if God exists, then he exists necessarily. But it is all about the 'if'.
It is more of a confirmation of a belief that someone already has, rather than proof.
The fact that he isued as response suggests that Gaunilo understood it as an attempt to prove the existence of God
Anselm's preface to the Proslogium also suggests he saw it as a proof
The cosmological argument
Not proof of the existence of God
Only deductive arguments can give absolute proof - the cosmological argument is inductive
Aquinas' 3 way will never convince athiests
Proof of the existence of God
most things we accepts true in life are based on inductive arguments, accepted as 'true beyond reasonable doubt'.
It may be true that no argument would convince those whose view of the world is fixed, regardless how rational.
Their value for religious faith and the relationship between reason and faith
Design/teleological argument
On the positive side
Paley's argument is rationally and empirically based
Consistent with biblical teaching that there's a guiding hand directing nature and lives in purposeful ways
Theists cannot prove God's existence but nor can atheists prove God's non-existance
According to Price, religious faith should include both 'belief in' and 'belief that'.
Paley's argument gives evidence to support the 'belief that' God exists
His description if the universe's design encourages 'belief in' God
On the negative side
For fideists, rational arguments play no part in faith as they do not lead to commitment
Paley's argument does not successfully address the use of evil
The ontological argument
On the positive side
The argument works for those who are already thiests
It shows that their religious belief is rational
The reasoned 'belief that' God exists reinforces and supports 'belief in' to God
On the negative side
If it fails as a proof, then its value to religious faith is limited
Fideists reject the use of rational arguments to prove the existence of God. They think that reliance on such arguments devalues faith.
Karl Barth rejected attempts to prove God's existence through reason
God can be known only through revelation
Claimed Anselm never intended the Proslogium to be seen as an argument proving God's existence using logic
Anselm was simply trying to understand the God he believed in and whose nature as the greatest conceivable being had been given to him in a religious experience.
The cosmological argument
On the positive side
A reasonable hypothesis
Alternative explanations for the origin of the universe have no greater probability
Difficult language, but the concept is easy to understand
Supported by the teleological argument
On the negative side
Not all theists accept it
Limited because it does not indicate the God of Christsin theism
