Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
evidence for existence of god - Coggle Diagram
evidence for existence of god
intro: normative notion
some beliefs seem epistemically right, responsible
(justified in a sense)
some seem incorrect/irresponsible
(unjustified)
science is e.g. of more concrete consideration of epistemic merit.
args for theistic beliefs
trad args seem apriori
ontological arg
cosmological arg
telological arg = less a priori & more connected to science
teleological arg (& little fine tuning arg)
historical vers --> concentrate on apparent design of humans & life in general --> circumvented by eveolution
watch analogy - finding a watch in field would think it was designed/left there unlike a rock
follows that parts of nature inc people show elements of design
Hume - arg from analogy
considers vers involving whole universe - many parts are indicative of design, BUT whilst we can claim we know a watch is designed cause we know of watch makers, we have no knowledge of the universes creation, how can we claim this analogy holds over - alos no other universes to compare to
raises critiques:
God also demonstrates complex properties - must have also been designed
is analogy justified
object A has features x & y
object B has features x & so is analogous to A
therefore B has features y as well
not best way to argue - so analogy doesnt seem justified
if desigener why God?
alternative - inference to best explanation/abduction
cause of probs above many ditch arg from analogy --> instead say God was
better
explan of complexity of universe
prob of competing explains --> e.g. evolution - seems to explain flaws & redundancies of body
'fine tuning arg' - Paley
proponents of this arg continue with abductive reasoning - ignore arg from analogy
acceot evolution is true & explains complexity in living beings
accept physics is true
Prob with Constants
BUT prob with complexity of
constants
1st formula constant = standard gravity, 2nd formula constrant = gravtational constant
this is newton law of gravatation - explains why gravity is what it is
9.81 cause of formula:
G = gravationsion constant
R = distance between both
M2 = mass of the other object (earth)
M1 = mass of 1 object
its a value multiplied by a constant - why all thngs acclerate towards warth at 9.81 mpersec
theres a gravitations force between dropped things (x) & earth – its equal to the objects mass in Kg multiplied by the value of gravilty (~9.81)
constants govern universe -- if slightly diff universe would be v diff & life never come about
back to fine tuning
original arg - used more scientific principles to explain why things are the way they were - can do same here?
what explains constants - cant envoke more laws - still contain constants that need explaining
without designer would have to say its random (then prob of sheer chance of that happening)
fine tuning arg:
3) given no God would be v unlikly universe would be finely tuned
4) best explan of finly tuned universe is therefore God exists
2) given existence of God highly likly universe would be finely tuned
5) extremely likley that God exists
1) constants governing laws of nature are finely tuned
3 options:
deny logical leaps can be made
between 4 & 5 - but move seems safe unless give up on abduction & thereofre most of science - move to 4 may not be warrented - may be better explan out there
deny a premise
1, 2, & 3
accept conc
fine tuning without God - denying premise 3
evolution works by letting nat selection pick the best out of large num of induvials --> trumps teleological theories along Paleys lines --> can it do same for constants
maybe many universe with diff constants --> inevitable that at least 1 has constants conductive to life
this is the 1 youre in, of course cause the others cant sustain life
poss crit of fine tuning -->
anthropic principle
= whole universe designed to support life, can see this cause everything is 'just right' --> we living beings 'observers' exist & therefore the universe must exist in a way that support life so we can observe it
crit ---> unjustiifed to use probablistic reasoning like this
reformed epistemology - Plantinga
assume foundationalist frame work - beleifs jsutified bt:
inferential support by other beliefs/propositoins
basic justifed in non-inferential way
evidentialism
= beleif in God can only be justified inferentially (promote trad args; onto, cosmo & teleo & is presupposed by atheists)
reformed epistemology rejects evidentialism
--> certain beliefs about God are epistemically basic
beleifs about god are:
jusdtiifed not by inference from other beleifs/propositions
doesnt matter if trad args aginst/for Gods existance are unsound
beleifs about God are justified by
religious experience
the 'parity arg' - plantinga
argues we need more liberal conception of basic beleifs that foundationalist have traditionally presupposed - so we can vindicate beleifs like
the sun will rise tommorow
our memories are veridical
others have minds
to aviod scepticism - must accept much of what cognitive faculties non-inferentially deliver --> so should trust the faculty that supports beleif in God
problem - hard to distringush real REs from illusory
why think that any REs are genuine
Plantinga --> can raise same concerns about justifefrs of other basic beleifs
but arent these scientifically supported unlike REs
responce --> a reformed epistimologist can decopple the approach from Plantingas sensus divinatus --> & form presumption that phenomema that support beleif in God are analgous to perceptual experiences
religious experiences
compare to perceptual experiences
'given' by God, cant think yourself into having 1
they support theistic beleifs
dont have perceptual expoeriences of spirtual matter - but maybe things other than 5 sences can give analogous epistemic justification
are there real REs not just illusions?
lack scientific evidence
lots claim to have them
sensus divinatus
= Plantinga thought theyre triggered by this - its given to some thinkers by God
other objections
reject foundationalism
approach is too permissive
can claim beleifs in absurd things and justify it by sensus divnatus
