Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
arguments based on observation - Coggle Diagram
arguments based on observation
a priori vs a posteriori
apriori - before experience
strengths
only reason + logic - the sense can deceive us
have to lead to one conclusion, once agreed that the premises are valid e.g - the ontological argument
weaknesses
aposteriori - after experience (empirical, uses sense + observations)
strengths
empiricism - all can experience + verify
less dogmatic
starts with something known, how can we start with a concept unknown about - argument is grounded
e.g: the teleological + cosmological arguments
weaknesses
Plato + Descartes' notion that the senses deceive
if we use the same evidence it can be interpreted differently
Kant - how do we know if the noumenal + phenomenal world is the same?
the cosmological argument
put forward mainly by Thomas Aquinas
Aquinas' 1st way - argument from motion
p(remise) 1 - things move
p2 - they are moved by something else
BUT - intention is implied
p3 - there cannot be an infinite regress
BUT - unproved
p4 - there must be a first mover that is unmoved (God)
p5 - God exists
BUT - assumption + jumps quickly
'the chain of causality started with God'
Aquinas' 2nd way - argument from causation
p1 - some things are caused
p2 - anything that's causes has to be caused by something else
p3 - there can't be an infinite regress of causes
p4 - there has to be a first causer which is God
p5 - God exists
the naturalistic fallacy - refutes Aquinas' 2nd way by suggesting that you can't say all things are caused just because this is all you've experienced - it's stepping outside our sphere of experience
paradox of the ravens
Aquinas' 3rd way - argument from messecity/ contingency
p1 - there are contingent things
p2 - contingent things can cause other contingent things, but there can't be only contingent things
p3 - there would be an infinite regress of contingency
p4 - an infinite regress is impossible
p5 - there has to be a necessary thing - God
Kant - no existential statement can be nessecary - nessecity only applies thought
strengths
based on observation
appeals to logic to justify
weaknesses
infinite regress - God is infinite? - can be supported by science (e.g Mackie's idea of the infinite hooks
what caused God + why is he assumed as the classically theistic God?
fallacy of composition
the notion of necessary beings is incoherent
Leibniz - supports Aquinas
p1 - everything that exists has an explanation for its existence
p2 - if the universe has an explanation - it's God
p3 - the universe exists
p4 - the explanation of the universe is God
FLAWS
if God doesn't need an explanation, why does the universe?
Leibniz argues this is because the universe is contingent + God is nessecary
fallacy of composition
cause doesn't have to be God
J.L Mackie - we can't verify the sufficient reason being God if it's beyond our experience
consolation - taking 2 concepts and saying they're the same thing
why must the explanation be God?
other scholars
J.L Mackie
ultimately posits that the cosmological argument fails
there can't be an infinite regress
analogy of the train - carriages need an engine, a regress of carriages would go nowhere - the engine is nessecary
Bertrand Russell - critic of Aquinas + Leibniz
'the universe is a brute fact'
fallacy of composition + example of the mother
just because we all have a mother, doesn't mean the universe has a mother - illogical jump
Richard Swinburne - support
promotes natural theology
'A may be explained by B and B by C, but in the end there will be someone or object on whom all other objects depend
Christopher Hitchens - 'what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof'
Richard Dawkins - the notion that things happened by chance is seems more likely than some cosmic deity commanding it into existence
the ontological argument
anselm's ontological argument
p1 - God is the greatest being
'God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived'
p2 - in our mind, God is the greatest being
tautological statement - even atheists have to agree
p3 - things can also exist in reality + imagination
sound argument
p4 - a being in reality is greater than a being just imagined
existence adds something (hidden premise)
p5 - if God is the greatest being he cannot just exist in the mind
conclusion - God must exist in the reality
logical + valid, deductive argument
flaws
does existence add to a concept??
you can't compare God as a concept as he's incomparable to anything in our sphere of knowledge
assumption that all agree with premise 1
reductio + absurdum - argument forces two possibilities
there is an ultimate being superior to anything - however inferior to entities in the mind + reality?
impossible - so absurd that the conclusion that God exists in the mind + reality must be accepted
descartes' ontological argument
(also based on logic) - both revolves around the notion of the ultimate entity
logic that knowledge of God is innate - through rationality we can deduce what that entity is
existence is a perfection - if God lacked in any way he would not be God - for him to be God he has to be perfect - has to exist therefore
circular argument - the concept has to be bought into - FLAW
notion that existence adds to a concept as it grounds + materialises it
gaunilo's criticisms
rejects Anselm's logic as it would define anything into existence
example of the island
Anselm's response - the idea of God is immutable
the teleological argument
Paley
foundations in Paley's argument
objects in nature are analogous to machines
the universe operates to certain laws
its order is best explained with reference to a designer
if a watch was found in nature there would be a question of who its designer is due to it's intricacies and perfection for telling the time
must be an intelligent designer
the universe is like that watch - same features but on a wonderous scale
flaws in Paley's argument
disanalogy, fallacy of composition
the universe is incomparable to a watch
the universes designer doesn't always point towards God (does it have to be an intellectual?)
design flaws? (hume's ship analogy)
Aquinas' 5th way of proving God's existence
p1 - things that lack intelligence, have an end of purpose
BUT assumption about human nature
p2 - things that lack intelligence cannot move towards their end unless they're directed by someone with knowledge + intelligence
p3 - e.g an arrow doesn't direct itself to a target + needs an archer
sensical + empirical analogy
BUT it's an inductive leap to compare human nature to inanimate objects
conclusion - there must be an intelligent being who directs all unintelligent natural things towards their end - that being is God
BUT - what is our end? + inductive leap to call this God
Aquinas developing Aristotle's notion of final cause
the argument from irreducible complexity
links to teleological argument - intelligent design + the complexity of the universe (intelligence of design)
developed by Behe - basic elements are needed to evolve into the universe - an intelligent designer is needed to make these building blocks
example of the mouse trap - its irreducibly complex - you can't remove anything
leibniz' principle of sufficient reason - something needs to account for order + design in the world
logical argument - made of a series of premises followed by a deduced conclusion - needs to be deductive logic
inductive reasoning - it's highly probable but never definite
deductive reasoning - you can definetely prove somthing
hume's criticisms
opposes the belief of God based on reason as opposed to revelation, with 5 separate criticisms
when we apply the principle of cause and effect (/anything outside of our experience) we are making an inductive leap
fallacy of composition elaboration - analogy of the 20 particles - we can't explain why each of them are in place but we don't need to ask their cause as a whole
ship analogy - an intricate creation isn't necessarily by an intelligent or singular creator, there are also design flaws (PofE) - doesn't link to modern theistic God
the epicurean hypothesis - with infinite time and finite particles were in existence, the world would eventually come together through chance
verified by Nietzche
the aptness of the analogy - the world is being compared to a machine - its organic + therefore doesn't need an explanation - Darwin - evolution isn't caused
you can’t assume greater things that what you know (uses pair of scales - we can only see one half of the scales - we can’t assume greater effects from the cause)