Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
A posteriori arguments for God, image - Coggle Diagram
A posteriori arguments for God
Teleological Argument
Aquinas' Fifth Way
Aristotle believed that everything had a telos / purpose / final cause, so this applies to the universe too
A being with knowledge is needed to direct things to their purpose/end, 'as the archer directs the arrow' - design qua purpose
The overall order evident in the world is proof of a designer - design qua regularity (small point)
Other views
Issac Newton thought the solar system was designed as it was ordered and that the uniqueness of the human fingerprint also shows design
Tennant's Anthropic Principle suggests that the world seems made with the exact conditions for humans to evolve, so suggests it was designed with us specifically in mind (not chance we evolved)
Richard Swinburne applied Ockham's Razor (that theories shouldn't be multiplied beyond necessity so the theory with fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct) and said that God was the simplest explanation for why the richness of the universe came from simple physical laws
Arthur Brown said the only purpose of the ozone layer seems to be to protect life, supporting design qua purpose
Darwin said that natural selection didn't explain human morals (caring for weaker members of the species) so perhaps theistic faith is a better explanation of this?
The Genesis account of creation
William Paley
Analogy of the Watch: If a man finds a rock while walking, it seems natural and so has no designer. If a man finds a watch, even without knowing what a watch is, then he would know there must be a watch-maker because of its complex design. As the universe is so complex, it follows there should be a universe-maker (God) too
Design qua regularity - if gravity were stronger or weaker the universe would not exist, so a calculating being must have planned and constructed the universe
Cosmological Argument
Aquinas' argument
First Way (Way of Motion): Goes back to the ideas of Plato and Aristotle of how chain of change and motion started. Aristotle came up with the Prime Mover, which Aquinas identified with the Christian God. As nothing can move or change by itself and there cannot be an infinite regress, there must be a Prime Mover so God must exist
Second Way (Way from Causation): Everything has a cause and this cannot be itself as something that causes itself is a 'nonsense.' As there cannot be an infinite regress there must be an Uncaused Cause (from Aristotle) that started the chain of cause and effect
Third Way (Way of Contingency): Everything is contingent, dependent on something else for its existence. Based on ideas of Maimonides, as you cannot get something out of nothing, 'there must be one non-contingent being on which everything else depends and is self-explanatory,' a being to bring everything else into existence
Leibniz
Principle of Sufficient Reason - there needs to be a good reason to bridge the gap between nothing and something. As some things do not contain the reason for their existence within themselves, Leibniz suggested that the reason for the universe lay in an uncaused, self-explanatory God that existed outside of the universe (this gives an unknowable, deist God)
W.L. Craig
Advocates for a personal God as there must be a personal agent existing outside of time to start the process, who willed the universe into existence
He disputes the idea of an infinitely existing universe as the history of it is based on one event following on from another. As this is a collection formed by successive addition, it cannot be infinite
Challenges
David Hume
Who designed the complex mind? Why one God and not many? With the world's flaws, is there a trainee God? Order may result from chance (Epicurean thesis). Creating an object is not the same as creating the universe - God isn't a magnified human being
The universe could be infinite (Oscillating Universe Theory), our understanding of cause and effect may just be statistical correlation, jumping from our experience to a universal truth is a leap in logic, we have no experience of universes needing to be caused, still tells us no attributes of the creating being so doesn't have to be Christian God, could accept the universe as a non-contingent being without God
John Stuart Mill
Natural evil shows a flawed design, and far outweighs human evil. While a God may exist, they aren't the all-good, all-loving Christian God
As experience teaches us that all events are caused, the idea of an Uncaused Cause cannot be suggested
Richard Dawkins
Fully rejects any notion of a creator, standing fully by evolution to explain the natural world today
Immanuel Kant
Our perceptions of the world may not be accurate, so we can't know that it is ordered at all - limits design qua regularity
Cause only arises in the spatio-temporal world, so any talk of a cause outside of this 'has no meaning whatsoever'
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
The natural world is the result of chance rather than purposeful design, undermines Genesis account of creation
Defenses of Genesis
Day-Age Theory: Days represent ages. Micro-evolutionary changes happen on their own but macro-evolutionary changes need God's intervention
Evolutionary Creationism - evolution is part of God's plan
Pope John Paul II seemed to accept evolution in 1996, but claimed that God still infused souls into our bodies
In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI said evolution had strong proof but didn't answer 'From where does everything come?'
Stephen Hawking
Space-time may be curved and so have no beginning or end. 'What place then for a creator?'
Bertrand Russell
Leibniz and others fall into a Fallacy of Composition where they assume that something is true of the whole because it is true of one thing. Just because I have a mother doesn't mean the universe has one. He wasn't concerned with the universe having a cause: 'The universe is just there and that's all'
Brian Davies
Too big a leap in logic from accepting a Prime Mover to describing this as the Christian God. While there is some compatibility, the Prime Mover God is reduced to more of a concept or idea which only holds value to the believer
Key discussions
Whether a priori or a posteriori arguments are the more persuasive for God's existence
A priori may be better as if the logic is proved correct then the existence of God would be proved as a truth, a posteriori can't offer this
A priori may be better as it does not rely on our perceptions being accurate as a posteriori does
A posteriori may be better as a priori surely cannot prove the existence of God when God is undefinable. Aquinas believed human language can't define God so we can only understand God through His effects in the world (through perceptions)
A posteriori may be better as even if a priori tells us the truth of definitions, we still require sense experience to see that it exists in reality
Whether teleological arguments can be defended against the challenge of 'chance'
Design qua purpose - the universe must be designed as such intricate systems would be so unlikely to happen by chance, and some parts of the universe seem designed with a purpose in mind which chance wouldn't necessarily account for
Design qua regularity - the universe is far too ordered and not chaotic enough to be down to chance, it seems fine-tuned for our existence
The chance may be unlikely but it isn't impossible. There is an assumption that the universe has a purpose just because everything we create does, but surely it is a leap in logic to have the same argument for both a human object, like a watch, and the universe. Why would it be the Christian God anyway?
Order may result from chaos by chance (Epicurean thesis), it may not be ordered at all as it relies on our perceptions being accurate. Weak Anthropic Principle fits with evolution - life is adapted for the environment not the other way around
Whether cosmological arguments jump to a conclusion about a transcendent creator
There cannot be an infinite chain of cause and effect or change, so a Prime Mover and Uncaused Cause is logical, as is therefore ideas about a creator. Craig argues this makes a personal God that willed everything into existence
There has to be something to bridge the gap between nothing and something, a necessary being on which everything depends else how would everything be here?
Cause and effect may just be statistical correlation, if everything has a cause then an Uncaused Cause is illogical, cause outside of space-time doesn't make sense and only the believer gives any value to the God argued for by this argument
The universe may just be infinite or non-contingent in itself, no need to go to an external non-contingent being, could be the result of chance without need for a creator with intentions
Whether there are logical fallacies that can't be overcome
Fallacy of Composition: the assumption that the universe needs a cause and has a purpose because everything that we know has a cause and purpose. How can we claim to know the universal truth when our perceptions are so limited?
Aquinas clearly starts with the end of the Christian God in mind - but to claim that the arguments show the attributes of the Uncaused Cause or Prime Mover is untrue, and rather seems down to individual belief
If the universe has no cause or purpose, no start or end, no bridge between nothing and something other than random chance, then logic breaks down and we would essentially be making the insensible claim that the universe is illogical and magical, rather than logical as it generally appears to be. Why doubt the senses when it is a basic belief?
The being described is not totally incompatible with the Christian God. The arguments lay the foundation for the understanding that a God-like figure exists, whose attributes are then evident in their involvement in the world, such as through Jesus Christ as the Son
