Arguments for the existence of God

A priori

Knowledge gained before experience, based on logical reasoning

A posteriori

Knowledge gained after experience, based on observation

Deductive reasoning

An argument where logically the conclusion must necessarily be true due to the truth of the premises

Inductive reasoning

An argument based on induction, drawing general conclusions from observed phenomena

Design: Presentation: Paley’s Analogical Argument - ‘natural theology’

• When we see an object that appears to show evidence of purpose and complexity, we assume it has an intelligent designer.

• The more complex the design, the more intelligent we assume the designer is.

• The universe is infinitely complex therefore must have a perfect designer.

Paley’s watch and rock analogy

• We would not assume that the rock had been designed but we would assume that the watch had been designed as it shows purpose (telling the time) and complexity (multiple parts working together). The universe is more complex than a watch so it would be illogical not to also infer a designer.

• Paley gives several examples of evidence of God’s design in nature including the human eye, which is able to adapt to changes in environment

Design: Criticisms: Hume

Hume presents his arguments as a fictional dialogue about the existence of God:

• The character Cleanthes gives a version of the Design Argument, stating that the universe, like a house, shows signs of being designed for human beings and therefore (again like a house) must have a designer.

• The character Philo levels a number of criticisms against Cleanthes:

  • You can only use analogy if the two things being compared are similar. The universe is too different from a house for the analogy to be reliable.

  • If we follow the logic of the design argument we may be led to a number of different conclusions than the existence of a monotheistic God:

    • The universe may have been designed by a team of gods, just like a house is created by a group of builders, architects, etc.

    • The universe may have been designed by a giant spider (Hume is not suggesting this seriously but is showing that in the same way that spiders spin webs that appear designed, maybe God creates universes without thinking about it that also appear designed)

    • The universe may have been designed by a lesser god, which is in fact a better explanation for all its flaws

Design argument strengths

• It is argued by modern defenders of the Design Argument that the theory of evolution does not account for the full range of human experiences such as love of art, charity, etc. Therefore God is still a better explanation for these features of the world.

• Many religious believers still appeal to arguments from probability: due to the low probability of life developing in the universe, the fact that we are here is still evidence that God created the universe

• Accepts that evil is unfair and painful but proves it is necessary as without pain we could not appreciate good or recognise things as such

Design argument weaknesses

• Paley made his argument before the theory of natural selection became popular. Natural selection teaches that evolution selects for traits which adapt best to the environment. This explains why the world is full of complex and seemingly purposeful creatures without appealing to a creator. Charles Darwin himself, who created the theory of evolution, said that he thought it was a shame that he had disproved Paley’s previously successful theory. Richard Dawkins also argues that evolutionary biology gives a complete explanation for the existence of complex life.

• Against the argument from probability it can be argued that as these are the only conditions which allow for life, we will always be observing from the point of view of living in low-probability conditions. It is not “unbelievable” that we are here, as even unlikely events will happen at some point. (The Anthropic Principle)

• The Problem of Evil can always be used to challenge why a perfect God would not design a perfect world.

Value of the design argument

• The Design Argument is inductive. This means it relies on observations which are used to form a conclusion which is highly likely but not guaranteed by the premises. Most scientific arguments are inductive.

• The Design Argument is argued on the basis of a posteriori knowledge: it depends on experience of the world

• The Design Argument has been used as a proof for the existence of God, however even if it fails as a proof it could be seen as supporting or reinforcing faith. For example, a religious believer who is struggling with their faith may find God again in the beauty of the natural world

• Whether or not we accept the Design Argument may be less a matter of reason and evidence, and more a matter of whether we have a blik that makes us see the world in a religious light

• It forms a reasonable defence against atheism which has no more evidence for the non-existence of god than paley has for gods existence

Cosmological: Presentation: Aquinas’ Way 3. The argument from contingency and necessity

In his Third Way, Thomas Aquinas presents an argument for the existence of God from contingency and necessity:

• Everything we see in the world is contingent (dependent on something else for its existence)

• If everything is contingent, then at some point nothing existed

• If at some point nothing existed, then nothing would exist now – which is absurd

• There must therefore have been a necessary being to explain the existence of all the contingent beings

• This being is God

Cosmological: Criticisms: Hume

In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion David Hume raises several criticisms of the Cosmological Argument:

• The Cosmological Argument commits the fallacy of composition: assuming that what is true of the parts must be true for the whole

  • just because all contingent things dependent on other things for their existence does not mean the whole set of contingent things also depends on other things for its existence.

• Infinite regress - It is not meaningful to speculate about things we cannot know about concretely: ‘Never look beyond the present material world’. The answers are in this world, otherwise we will end up going back to infinity.

• The universe itself could be the necessary being - since we do not understand what quality allows god to be necessary, there is nothing stopping us from attributing this same mysterious quality to the matter of the universe instead

• God cannot be truly necessary as we can imagine him not existing without contradicting ourselves

Russell’s criticisms against Copleston (cosmological argument)

• The universe should be accepted as a brute fact, not needing a further explanation

• Aquinas makes the mistake of using the word ‘necessary’ to describe beings, when in fact it can only be used to describe statements. A statement is necessary if we cannot imagine it to be false – e.g. ‘A triangle has three sides’ – but this cannot be extended to beings themselves.

• Russell also gives a version of the fallacy of composition: just because every human being has a mother, this does not mean the whole human race also has a mother.

Cosmological argument strengths

• The Cosmological Argument is still open even after the Big Bang Theory, as it can be asked whether the Big Bang is a contingent event

• The premise of the Cosmological Argument – that everything is contingent – seems to be something we can all agree

• Russell is accused by Copleston of sitting at the chess board and refusing to make a move when he says that we cannot answer the question of how the universe wascreated; in contrast Aquinas gives an actual hypothesis

Cosmological argument weaknesses

• Occam’s Razor can be used to argue that we should not use God to explain the universe if the universe alone is a sufficient explanation

• It is often said that ‘That being is God’ is a logical leap – do we really have the right to infer that the necessary cause is an all-powerful being who loves us?

Value of cosmological argument

• Like the Design Argument, the Cosmological Argument is inductive and a priori. Aquinas is trying to show that religious claims are supported by observation, however, he does not aim his argument at atheists but at people who already believe in God. It may therefore be considered not to have full relevance for atheists.

• On the other hand, the Cosmological Argument does not directly contradict science and therefore shows it is possible to accept both theology and science at the same time.

• The value of this argument for religious believers is that it can allow them to accept the existence of God and combine this with the findings of science.

Ontological: Presentation: Anselm’s a priori argument

• God is that being than which nothing greater can exist

• It is greater to exist in the mind and reality than in the mind alone

• Therefore, God exists in the mind and reality

  • Anselm argues that god must necessarily exist because if god existed only contingently, god would depend on something else for existence and therefore would not be as great as a being that had to exist

Gaunilo’s parody

• The Most Perfect Island is that island than which nothing greater can exist

• It is greater to exist in the mind and reality than the mind alone

• Therefore, the Most Perfect Island exists in the mind and reality

  • We know that the most perfect island does not exist, so Gaunilo is showing that you cannot define perfect things into existence

Kant’s criticism of the ontological argument - existence is not a predicate

• Immanuel Kant argues that there is a flaw in the premises of the argument: it is not true that "it is better to exist in the mind and reality" because existence is not a predicate.

• What Kant means here is that existence adds nothing to the definition of a thing.

• 100 coins are always 100 coins whether they exist in the mind or in reality. Therefore God does not have to be described as existing in order to be perfect.

Value of ontological argument

• The Ontological Argument is the only argument that is a priori and deductive, with its basis in thought and reason rather than observation. This deductive argument is strong because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true too.

• Anselm argues that his argument proves that atheists are unreasonable, not Christians: "the fool says in his heart there is no God" (quoting Psalm 14 of the Bible). Anselm believes that if we understand the definition of God, we understand that God must exist.

• More value to the religious believer because it expresses and explores a definition of God and what type of being God is. Once a person who believes understands God as a perfect being, they can see God's existence is of a higher order than the rest of the universe.

Strengths of ontological argument

• Plantinga suggests that Gaunilo's Perfect Island criticism is flawed because God cannot be compared to an island: we can all agree on what 'the most perfect being' is but have different ideas about what is on a perfect island

• The Ontological Argument is more objective than the other arguments because it does not require us to agree on observations about the world

• The argument is deductive so if it works it is a proof

Weaknesses of ontological argument

• "That being than which nothing greater can be conceived" does not tell us anything about God - for example, it does not specifically prove the Christian God

• The argument assumes that we are able to imagine a being than which no greater can be conceived, which might not be possible as many philosophers consider God to be beyond understanding

Reason

The power of the mind to think, understand and form judgements logically

Faith

Belief that god exists, and faith in god as creator, saviour etc