philosophy

A priori arguments

Prior = before experience

A priori argument is independent to experience

It concerns facts that are independent to experience (maths)

Tautologies (true by definition)

A priori arguments are deduction from pure reason

A priori arguments = deductive arguments which lead to certainty

Ontological argument for the existence of God

ONTOlogical —> existence/being starts with the concept of God

A prosteriori arguments

Post = after experience

A posteriori knowledge is gained through experience

Empirical method - using sensory experience and observation to gain knowledge about the world

Use empirical facts (known via the 5 senses) to make inferences about what is true

Inductive arguments which lead to probability

Teleological arguments for the existence of God (use observations of the world as evidence)

Cosmological arguments for the existence of God (begins with observations about the universe)

ontological argument

St Anslem of Canterbury

The proposition ‘God exists’ is a priori/deductive - it can be known to be true without reference to sense experience, just by thinking about God’s nature.

The definition of ‘God’ - ‘that than nothing greater can be conceived’ - means God must exist both in the understanding and in reality.

God’s existence is a necessary truth, not a contingent one.

Who was St Antelem of Canterbury

Benedictine monk, philosopher

Archbishop of Canterbury (1093-1109)

His definition of God ‘God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived’

He lived by : Credo ut intelleligam ‘I believe in order to understand’. Anselm believed in the importance of faith and that belief precedes understanding.

Anselm’s ontological argument (four stages)

1. By definition God is a being greater than which nothing greater can be conceived

2. Everyone can conceive of ‘God’ in their minds

3. It is greater to exist than to not exist.

4. Therefore God must exist both in the mind and reality (otherwise there would be an even greater being).

Gaunilo’s Criticism of Anslem

Gaunilo = monk who criticises Anselm’s ontological argument

Main point - you cannot define something into existence.

Just because you can imagine the concept of God does not mean that he actually exists.

The perfect Island analogy

Imagine the greatest, most perfect Island

If it’s truly the “greatest conceivable island” it should exist because an island that exists is greater than one that doesn’t.

However imagining it does not make it real.

Key criticisms

Concept ≠ reality (understanding something does not make it exist)

Need impirical evidence - you can’t just think things into existence

Subjective - everyone’s idea of ‘the greatest island’ is different

What was Anselm’s second formulation? How did he respond to Gaunilo?

Key distinction

Contingent being = something that could not exist; it depends on something else to exist e.g islands

Necessary being = something that cannot not exist because it doesn’t depend on anything else

Anselm’s reply:

Gaulino was wrong to compare God to an island.

Islands are contingent - they do not have to exist.

But God = greatest possible being so he must be necessary not contingent.

Because a being that must exist is greater than one that happens to exist.

Therefore, God cannot exist by definition, he exists necessarily.

How does Descartes support the Ontological argument?

God = a supremely perfect being by definition

A perfect being must have all perfections

Existence is a perfection

Therefore God must exist

Triangle analogy - you cannot have 3 triangles without 3 sides and 3 angles

Therefore you cannot have God without existence.

What was Kant’s criticism of Descartes argument?

• He argued that flawed logic is used

• If you accept that there is a God, it is also logical to accept that his existence is necessary. But you don’t have to crept that he exists in the first place.

• A triangle only exists if the triangles exist in the first place!

• If God exists then he exists necessarily, but if he does not exist, then he does not exist necessarily.

• Ontological arguments are bad logic because they make us suppose that if we justify God’s protection as including existence, we must believe that God exists.

Kant’s criticism 2

• Saying that something exists adds no real description to it

• E.g coins = gold, metallic, has kings face on it - these are predicated

• Adding that they ‘exist’ will tell you nothing about them

• Knowing what something is does not prove that it actually exists

• You only prove existence by seeing it/experiencing it with your senses

• Bertrand Russel gave another example : Men exist. Father Christmas is a man. So therefore Father Christmas must exist. This is syllogism.

Strengths of an ontological argument

• If you accept the starting point, the conclusion must be true as it is logical.

• Makes sense for theists - confirms what you already believe about God.

• God is unique - unlike an island. He is a necessary being, not contingent.

• Doesn’t need evidence/explanation. It is deductive and logical.

Weaknesses of an Ontological argument

• If just one premise is wrong, the whole argument will collapse

• Only works if you can accept Anselm’s definition of God, not everyone does

• Gaulino - you can’t define something into existence (e.g a perfect island)

• Aquinas - we can’t fully understand God’s nature anyway

• Kant - flawed logic - existence isn’t a predicate

What is a cosmological argument?

An a posteriori, inductive argument that uses observation of the universe to prove that God exists

What is an empirical argument?

Post = after experience

A posteriori knowledge is gained through experience

Empirical method = using sensory experience and observation to gain knowledge about the world

Use empirical methods to gain knowledge about the world

Inductive argument - makes in inferences based on evidence

Leads to probability rather than certainty (a priori)

What is Aquinas’s first Way of Motion?

1. Everything is a motion moving from potential—> actual

2. Nothing moves itself - things are moved by something else

3. Chain of movements cannot go back infinitely

4. There must be a first mover that started everything but is itself unmoved

5. The first mover = God

What is Aquinas’s second way (of causation)

1. Everything in the universe has a cause

2. Every cause has its own cause

3. Cannot have an infinite cause of events

4. There must be a first uncaused cause

5. The first cause = God

What is Aquinas’s third way (from contingency and necessity)?

1. Everything in the universe is contingent (depends on something else to exist)

2. If everything were contingent then nothing would exist

3. Therefore the must be a necessary being - something that does not depend on anything else for existence

4. This necessary being caused other beings but is not caused itself

5. This necessary being is God

Explain Lebiniz’s principle of suffering and one key criticism

Principle - everything must have a full explanation - no brute facts

“No fact can be real unless there is a sufficient reason why there is so and not otherwise”

God must have a reason for choosing this universe and not others

Criticism - even if the universe must have an explanation- why is it God, could science e.g the Big Bang explain it instead

What are the two logical fallacies criticised in the cosmological argument?

Fallacy 1 - fallacy of composition (assuming that because everything in the universe has a cause —→ the universe as a whole must have a cause. What’s true of one part does not mean that it is true of all parts.

Fallacy 2 - unwarranted leap (even if the universe had a cause —> it does not automatically mean that the cause is God. This conclusion goes beyond what the evidence proves.

What are the main strengths of Aquinas’s argument + some key criticisms against it?

It is an empirical argument

• based on observation - we can see cause and motion everywhere. Uses widely accepted empirical method.

Counter = fallacy of composition - parts do not prove that the whole has the same property. There is no evidence that the universe as a whole needs a cause or that that cause = God.

principle of sufficient reason (Leibniz)

Strength - everything needs a full explanation - so the universe must have that too, and that’s God.

Counter - Russel (the universe is simply a Brute fact “it’s just there, and that’s all.” It doesn’t need an explanation

• it fits with Christian scripture

Strength - “unmoved mover” or “uncaused cause” matches the Bible and traditional Christian beliefs about God (e.g Genesis)

Counter - only persuasive within theistic belief systems - it will not convince those who already don’t accept religious assumptions.

Outline the main criticisms of Aquinas’s cosmological argument

Fallacy of composition- what is true for some parts ≠ true for the whole

Necessary existence is meaningless (Hume) - we can imagine God not existing - logic alone does not prove that he must exist. No empirical evidence for ‘a necessary being’.

The universe itself could not be necessary (Hume) even if there was a first cause, it doesn’t have to be God. The universe could be the uncaused starting point e.g the Big Bang

Theory Brute fact - the universe is just there that’s all (there is no needed explanation) challenges the principle of sufficient reasoning.

What caused God? If everything needs a cause, then God should too- the argument inconsistently exempts God from its own rule.