Arguments Based on Observation

Aquinas’ teleological arguments

* Aquinas thought God gave us out reasons so that we could learn about him.
* In his 5 ways, Aquinas gives 5 way in which we can use reason to conclude God exists.
* the 5th of the 5 ways is a short teleological argument
* He used the example of an arrow heading for a target. If we saw the arrow in flights, we would conclude it must have been shot on purpose because arrows cannot move on their own.
* When we see planets moving in an orderly way, we can therefore conclude that a divine mind must have put them in motion on purpose, because planets cannot move on their own.

Paley’s teleological argument

* He used the analogy of a watch on a heath, to show that when we seen things working in an orderly and purposeful manner, we know that they must have been designed.
* He said we see order and purpose in the world too, in the structure of animals and plants, and can conclude that they must have been designed by God.
* We can tell from the care God put into creation that God must care for us.

Aquinas’ cosmological argument

* Cosmological arguments address the question of why the universe exists at all, and conclude that it must be because of God.
* The first 3 of Aquinas’ 5 Ways are variations of his cosmological argument

\

The First Way

The unmoved mover - we observe motion and change in the world, there must be a reason for this, which must be God.

The Second Way

The Uncaused Causer - we observe chains of cause and affect the world. There must be a reason for which must be God.

The Third Way

Contingency - we observe that everything in the universe depends on something else for its existence. There must be something that doesn’t depend on anything else, otherwise nothing would ever have stated, and this must be God.

Lebniz and the principle of sufficient reason

* He argued that there must be a sufficient reason or explanation for everything.
* The universe requires a sufficient reason, and the only reason sufficient to explain the existence of the universe must be God.

The anthropic principle

This is a principle that says the universe seems expertly fine-tuned to allow for humans life to exist. It seems more likely that this is a result of deliberate design, than that it happened by chance against enormous odds.

Hume’s Criticisms of Teleological and Cosmological Arguments

* Hume argues that the analogy between the world and a watch is weak; the world is not very obviously like a watch in its mechanisms.
* Order in the world Doe not necessarily mean that someone must have had the idea of the design - it is an essential part of the world’s existence. It could have come about by chance.
* The universe is unique, so we cannot know how universes are usually made or whether ours is unusually orderly.
* Just because the things in the universe have causes, it doe snot follow that the universe as a whole must have some kind of universal cause.
* Perhaps the universe is its own cause.
* We cannot look at the effects, the world, and confidently infer the cause is God.
* It might not be the God that Christians describe.
* Might be a stupid God, who copied another design.
* Might be a whole committee of Gods, or even demons.

Possible Criticisms of Teleological Arguments

\
* Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection provides an alternative explanation for the characteristics of living things. Chance is a possibility. This might be considered a better fit than the God hypothesis.
* Not everyone sees the world as orderly and beautiful and chaotic and ugly.
* As a an a posteriori argument, it can only lead to a probable conclusion, and does not prove anything.

Possible criticisms of a posteriori arguments

* We don’t always see the same things when we look at the world, and our experiences are not always the same as other people’s so a posteriori arguments do not appeal to everyone.
* A posteriori arguments try to find the ‘best fit’ explanation, but they can never be certain.
* They cannot prove, they can only suggest strongly probable conclusions.
* Some new evidence might come along which forces a need for a new explanation.
* The need for constant review of a posteriori reasoning can be considered a strength as well as a weakness, as it discourages arrogance and encourages questioning.

Possible criticisms of cosmological arguments

* The argument might be considered to have strength because we all share the experience that the universe exists. - God could be the best available explanation.
* Other theories suggest different explanations for the existence of the universe, such as the Big Bang theory, or chance. These might be considered a better fit than the God hypothesis.
* Not everyone thinks the universe requires any explanation or reason.
* As an a posteriori argument, it can only lead to a probable conclusion and does not prove anything,

teleological

Use observation of order, beauty, and complexity to draw the conclusion that God exists.

Cosmological

Use observation of the fact the universe exists to draw conclusions that it must have been brought into existence by God,