Arguments for the existence of God

• Design Argument: Type of argument

  - A posteriori (empirical in nature, based on observation)

  - Inductive (based on probability, conclusion not necessarily true but the stronger evidence for it, the more likely it is to be true.

  - Analogical (based on a comparison between the features of two different things).

  
  

  - Paley's argument uses the approach of natural theology:

  -> It makes no appeal to any form of special revelation, such as the Bible or religious experience.

  -> It uses reason, the latest scientific knowledge and observation.

  
  

  - Paley's argument is based on three observations of the world:

  -> Complexity.

  -> Purpose.

  -> Regularity.
• Paley's watch analogy


  - Observation of the watch would point to the watch's complexity and to the exact suitability of its parts and of their arrangements to serve its purpose.

  - This could not have occured by chance. A complete explanation requires reference from its purpose giver.

  - An intelligent watchmaker must have designed it.

  
  

  - The universe is complex, it shows the same precise sustainability of parts and arrangement to serve its purpose.

  - This could not have occured by chance - it must have been designed by a universe maker.

  - The far greater complexity of the world requires an infinitely greater designer.

  - The universe designer is God.
• Criticisms of the design argument: Hume

  Rejection of the idea of design

  - Mechanistic analogies are inappropriate:

  -> Such analogies are deliberately chosen because they encourage the idea of a designer.

  -> Living organisms would be more appropriate. e.g. a vegetable, which would not require an explanation in terms of a designer.

  - The apparent order could be due to chance

  -> Hume suggested that given the constantly changing arrangements of its atoms over an infinite period of time, it was inevitable that order would eventually emerge.

  -> He also suggested the possibility that the universe alternates between periods of chaos and periods of order, and by sheer chance, existence currently is in a period of order.
• Criticisms of the design argument: Hume

  Little can be said about any designer

  - The mechanistic analogy is anthropomorphic:

  -> Humans have no knowledge of how universes are made.

  -> This means we can know nothing about the capacities of nature or any universe designer.

  -> The mechanistic analogy is in effect creating a universe designer in our image.

  -> The designer is not necessarily the God of Christian theism:

  - A cause must be proportional to its effects.

  - The traditional Christian understanding of God is not required by what is known of the universe.

  - Intelligent minds are attached to physical bodies, so the designer could be mortal and may be long dead.

  - Teamwork is often behind design, so a number of deities of different skills, both male and female, could be responsible for the universe.
• Criticisms of the design argument: Hume

  The problem of evil

  -> The existence of so much natural and moral evil in the world is evidence of a flawed design.

  -> Hume considered God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence to be incompatible with the existence of evil. Thus, the existence of evil calls into question the character of a creator God.
• Evaluation of Paley's Design 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 compatible with theism.

  - Paley's claim that 'nature shows intention' is supported by the Anthropic Principle. The multiverse theory is incapable of proof.
• Evaluation of Paley's Design Argument: Weaknesses

  - Claims made by theism about the nature of a designer God go way beyond the evidence.

  - Existence of evil suggests incompetent, indifferent or malevolent designer - or no designer at all.

  - Apparent order, purpose and design are just by chance. Support from Darwin and Dawkins.

  - Universe could've designed itself by chance. Support from multiverse theories.
• Design Argument's status as a 'proof' : Does offer proof of God

  - Most things that we accept are true in life are based on inductive arguments. They are accepted as 'true beyond reasonable doubt'. The stronger the evidence, the more true a claim probably is.

  - Some would argue that the laws of nature require explanation and that we cannot be sure that the multiverse theory is true. This means that the challenges do not diminish the probability that Paley's argument is true.
• Design Argument's status as a 'proof' : Cannot offer proof of God

  - Only deductive arguments can give absolute proof. The Design Argument is inductive, so we can never be absolutely certain.

  - Paley's observations to support his argument can be explained naturally, e.g. the regular rotation of planets is due to gravity. If the multiverse theory is true, then the apparent design is pure chance.
• The value of Paley's Design Argument for religious faith

  Positive

  - Paley's argument is rationally and empirically based.

  - It is consistent with biblical teaching and there is a guiding hand directing the whole of nature and human lives in a purposeful way.

  - Theists cannot prove God's existence but nor can atheists prove God's non-existence.

  
  

  Negative

  - Paley's argument does not successfully address the problem of evil.
• Ontological Argument: Type of argument

  - A priori (prior to and independent of observation, non empirical, relies on logic).

  - Deductive (type of argument that aims to give certain proof - if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true).

  - Analytic statements (based on logic, true by definition).

  - Necessary truths (relate to statements that could not possibly be false)

  - Necessary things (things that cannot possibly fail to exist).
• Anselm's ontological argument


  PREMISE 1: God is, by definition, the greatest conceivable being.

  -> It is the common-sense view of God.

  -> It says so in the Bible: "of his greatness there is no end".

  God has great making qualities. The greatest possible being would have all the great making qualities to the highest possible level.

  
  

  PREMISE 2: It is greater to exist in reality than to not exist.

  -> Anselm thinks that things that exist in our mind AND reality are greater than things that just exist in our minds.

  -> Existence is a great-making property.

  -> So existence must be a quality that God has. i.e. God must exist.

  
  

  CONCLUSION: Therefore, as the greatest conceivable being, God must exist.

  -> A non-existent thing can never be the greatest because it would be greater if it existed.

  -> If God didn't exist, he wouldn't be the greatest thing, because there would be a great-making property that he did not have.
• Criticisms of the ontological argument: Gaunlio and reductio ad absurdum


  - A reductio ad absurdum argument attempts to show that we should reject a certain argument because it leads to absurd conclusions.

  - Gaunlio created a 'parallel' in response to Anselm. This changes what the argument is about but keeps the same logical structure. He hopes by doing this it can show that the ontological argument has absurd implications.

  
  

  His parallel:

  PREMISE 1: It is possible to conceive of the greatest lost island.

  PREMISE 2: It is greater to exist in reality than to not exist in reality.

  CONCLUSION: Therefore, as the greatest conceivable island, it must exist.

  
  

  Thus, he argues that, reductio ad absurdum, the Ontological argument is therefore flawed in some way.

  
  

  Anselm's response to Gaunlio:

  - He argues that Gaunlio misuses the ontological argument in his parallels.

  - Of course the argument produces absurdity when used for contingent things, because it was never meant to apply to them.

  - As God is a necessary being, it applies.
• Criticisms of the ontological argument: Kant

  - Kant made two objections to the Ontological Argument: that statements about existence:

  -> Are synthetic, not analytic.

  -> Must be proved empirically through observation.

  
  

  Existence is not a predicate (property)

  - A real predicate is something that gives information about a subject.

  - e.g. the cat sat on the mat. 'sat on the mat' gives information about the cat.

  - Going on to say that the cat exists gives no further information about the cat.

  
  

  Something cannot be defined into existence

  - Kant accepted that necessary existence belongs to the concept of God.

  - But this does not mean that God exists.

  - The fact that something could exist does not mean that it actually does exist.
• Evaluation of Anselm's ontological argument: Strengths

  - It is a deductive argument, so if it works, it gives absolute proof as opposed to 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.
• Evaluation of Anselm's ontological argument: Weaknesses

  - Kant's challenges suggest it does not work in either of its forms.

  - Arguments about existence need to be empirically based.

  - Aquinas and others have since 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: Type of argument

  - Aquinas' argument is:

  - a posteriori (based on observation)

  - inductive (based on probability - not necessarily true)
• The Cosmological Argument: Part 1 (proves that at least one necessary thing must exist)

  PREMISE 1: Everything in the natural world is contingent.

  -> Everything Aquinas observed was contingent.

  -> We cannot make observation-based claims about what the supernatural world is like because (by definition) we can't observe any of the objects in it).

  
  

  PREMISE 2: If everything in the natural world is contingent, then at some point in time, there was nothing in the natural world.

  -> He observes that nothing contingent exists eternally. They were all created at some point, and they will all end at some point.

  
  

  PREMISE 3: Nothing can come from nothing.

  -> He observed that nothing can just come into existence without a cause.

  -> e.g. a flower can't grow without a seed.

  
  

  CONCLUSION 1: Therefore, at least one thing must necessarily exist.

  -> If only contingent objects existed then we'd still have nothingness.

  -> The first contingent object could not have created itself, so there must have been a necessary being to start the process.
• The Cosmological Argument: Part 2 (shows that the necessary thing is God)

  PREMISE 4: Everything necessary must be either caused or uncaused.

  -> Must be true because those are the only two possible options.

  
  

  PREMISE 5: The series of necessary beings cannot be infinite.

  -> If we assume that the necessary being is caused then we get an infinite regress (a sequence of reasoning which can never come to an end). This is unacceptable.

  -> The infinite regress doesn't explain where the universe comes from, because we never go back to the first cause. We cannot accept that there is no explanation for the universe's existence because of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (everything must have an ultimate reason or cause).

  
  

  CONCLUSION 2: Therefore there is at least one thing that exists necessarily.

  
  

  CONCLUSION 3: The most natural way to understand this being is as God.

  -> God's qualities.
• Objections to the Cosmological Argument: Russell

  1. Russell argued that Aquinas was guilty of the fallacy of composition

  - Fallacy: a failure in reasoning that makes the argument invalid.

  -> Fallacy of composition: The fallacy of inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact it is true of the parts of the whole.

  OBJECTION: Just because what we see in the world is caused, does not mean that the universe itself has a cause. The existence of the universe is unexplainable, it's just a brute fact.

  
  

  LOGICAL FORMAT:

  P1: Aquinas' argument that the Universe is contingent commits the fallacy of composition, so it is invalid

  P2: Aquinas has given us no reason to think that the Universe could not be necessary.

  P3: If the Universe is necessary, it doesn't need a separate cause.

  CONC: Therefore, we don't need a God to explain why the universe exists - it is just a brute fact.
• Hume's objection to the cosmological argument

  - The search for deep and ultimate explanations isn't really worthwhile. He would say something like, "The Universe was created by the Big Bang. Now stop there."

  - Aquinas wants an explanation of why something is there rather than nothing at all. He wants an answer to the big, ultimate final philosophical questions.

  - Hume doesn't think he can answer these questions, so they're just not worth asking in the first place.

  - Hume's objection would be that Aquinas is asking the wrong sort of question, the type of question we can't answer and isn't going to take us anywhere useful.