Does God exist?

Ontological summary and philosophers

God must exist by definition; Anselm;Descartes;Malcolm

Critical ontology philosophers

Gaunilo;Hume;Kant

Ontological arguments

The only argument for God’s existence that uses a priori reasoning, deductive arguments. They aim to deduce God’s existence from the definition of God, thus, proponents of ontological arguments claim God exists is an analytical truth.

Anselm

By definition God is a being greater than which cannot be conceived. We can coherently conceive of such a being. It is greater to exist in reality than to only exist in the mind. Therefore, God must be definition exist.

Two beings Anselm

Imagine two beings: one is said to be maximally great in every way but doesn’t exist, the other is the same but does exist. The second being is presumably greater because it’s greater to exist in reality than in the mind. Since God is a being we cannot imagine to be greater he must be the second.

Descartes

I have the idea of God; the idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being. A supremely perfect being does not lack any perfection; existence is a perfection, therefore, God exists. Descartes’ argument is like Anselm’s but argues a perfect being rather than one which a greater being cannot be conceived.

Norman Malcolm

It’s not existence that is a perfection, but the logical impossibility of non-existence (necessary existence) is. Either God exists or he doesn’t. God cannot come into or go out of existence, if he exists he cannot cease to exist; therefore, if God exists, his existence is necessary. Therefore, if God doesn’t exist, his existence is impossible - God’s existence is either necessary or impossible. His existence is only impossible if the concept of God is self contradictory, which it is not; therefore God’s existence isn’t impossible, and he exists necessarily.

Malcom three pointer

Gods existence is either necessary or impossible. God’s existence isn’t impossible because the concept isn’t self-contradictory. Therefore, God exists necessarily.

Possible response to Malcolm

Malcolm talks about necessary existence in the sense of a property something does or doesn’t have but in the conclusion Malcolm talks about necessary existence in the sense it’s a necessary truth that God exists which is not the same thing. We can accept that if God exists, then God had the property of necessary existence but deny the conclusion that God exists necessarily.

Gaunilo’s island

If Anselm’s argument is valid, then anything perfect can be defined into existence. For example: The perfect island is, by definition, an island greater than which cannot be conceived; we can coherently conceive of such an island i.e. the concept is coherent; it is greater to exits in reality than to exist only in the mind. Therefore, this island must exist.

Hume: God doesn’t exist is not a contradiction

Arguing God must exist from God’s definition makes ‘God exists’ an analytical truth/relation of ideas. Hume argues God exists cannot be an analytical truth. If ontological arguments succeed God does not exist is a contradiction; a contradiction cannot be coherently conceived, God does not exist can be, therefore God does not exist isn’t a contradiction - therefore the ontological arguments don’t succeed.

Kant: Existence is not a predicate

Existence isn’t a property the same way brown is a property of chocolate, to say something exists doesn’t add anything to the concept of it. There’s no difference in imagining a unicorn and a gorgon that exists like there is imagining white chocolate and brown chocolate, adding existence to the idea of a gorgon doesn’t make them exist. When someone says God exists they don’t mean God has the property of existence, if they did when someone says God doesn’t exist they’d mean there is a God and he has the property of non-existence - which makes no sense. Instead people mean God exists in the world which cannot be argued from the definition and could only be provided via a posteriori experience thus the ontological argument fails to prove God’s actual existence.

Teleological arguments

Arguments from design: aim to show that certain features of nature and the laws of nature are so perfect that they must’ve been designed by a designer - God.

Hume

The fitting of means to an end in human design (e.g. the fitting of parts of a pen with the end of making marks) resemble the fitting of means to ends in nature (e.g. the many parts of a human heart to the end of pumping blood). Similar effects have similar causes, the causes of human designs are minds so, by analogy, the cause of design in nature is also a mind. Given the grandeur of the work of nature, this other mind is God.

William Paley: Natural theology

Paley compares man-made objects, such as a watch, with certain aspects of nature, such as stone; if you found a stone in a field you may assume it had always been there, but this is different for a watch because it has many parts organised for a purpose. Paley says this is the hallmark of design. Many aspects of nature, such as the human eye, are composed of many parts organised for a purpose, such as to see. So nature has the hallmarks of design but with the difference…of being greater and more. For something to be designed it must have an equally impressive designer, Paley says God.

Hume problems with his analogy

We can observe human-made items being designed but we have no such experience regarding nature, designs could by the result of natural processes (generation and vegetation).

The analogy focuses on specific aspects of nature that appear to be designed, generalising this to the conclusion that the whole universe must be designed.

Human machines obviously have a designer and purpose; biological things aren’t so obvious the appear to be the result of an unconscious process of generation and vegetation. The universe is more like a biological thing than a machine so by analogy the cause is better explained by an unconscious process of generation and vegetation rather than the conscious design of a mind.

These differences weaken the jump from human-made items being designed to the whole universe being designed.

Hume: Spatial disorder

Although there’s examples of order, there’s much vice and misery and disorder in the world. If God really designed the world their wouldn’t be huge empty or uninhabitable areas of the universe (suggests we happened by coincidence in a part of the universe with spatial order rather than design); some parts of the world go wrong and cause chaos which, if the world is designed, Hume argues suggest a sub par designer. Animals have bodies and feel pain in ways that they could live happier lives, if God had designed animals you’d expect He would make animals and humans in this way so their lives would be easier and happier. Hume argues such examples of spatial disorder show the universe isn’t designed or the designer isn’t omnipotent or omnibenevolent.

Hume: Causation

We never experience causation only the constant conjunction of one event following another, if this happens enough times we infer A causes B. E.g. experience tells you if one ball hits another, the second ball will move, you don’t experience it but it’s reasonable to accept this relationship because you’ve consistently seen similar examples. Imagine your friend coughs the same time you take a sip of tea, it’s obviously not reasonable to infer drinking the tea caused your friend to cough - you cannot infer causation from a single instance. The creation of the universe was a unique event, we cannot infer a casual relationship between designer and creation based on our experience of this one universe.

Hume: Finite matter, infinite time

Hume’s objection assumes time is infinite and matter is finite, it is inevitable given these assumptions that matter will organise itself into combinations that appear to be designed. Given an infinite amount of time, a monkey will eventually type the complete works of Shakespeare in a row. The monkey doesn’t learn to write or understand Shakespeare but given an infinite amount of time the monkey would inevitably type everything. Given enough time, it’s inevitable that matter will arrange itself into combinations that appear to be designed, even though they aren’t.

Darwin: Evolution by natural selection

It seems God designed giraffes to have long necks to reach leaves high in the trees but this can be explained without a designer: competition for food is tough and an animal with a random genetic mutation for a longer neck will be able to access more food and live to produce offspring; these offspring are likely to inherit the longer neck gene meaning their more likely to survive and reproduce; longer necked animals become more common so it’s again competitive to reach leaves; an animal with a slightly longer neck has an advantage over the others and lives to produce offspring. This process repeats until you have modern day giraffes. Given enough time and mutations it’s inevitable animals and plants will adapt to their environment, thus creating the appearance of design.

Swinburne

Swinburne accepts science can explain the apparent design of things (spatial order) like the human eye but he argues laws of nature (temporal order) can’t be explained in the same way. The law of gravity allows galaxies to form and planets in gravities and life to form on planets. If gravity had the opposite effect or was slightly strong, life could never form. We can’t give a scientific explanation for why laws of nature are as they are, science can only explain and predict things using laws it’s already assumed. In the absence of a scientific explanation, Swinburne argues the best explanation for temporal order is person - the laws of nature exist because someone designed them.

Multiple universes

Multiple universes is a popular physics theory as it explains various quantum mechanics phenomena. The number of universes are infinite so it’s inevitable some will have laws of nature that support life through sheer luck, just as there’ll be some where temporal order doesn’t support life.

Is the designer God?

God’s power is supposedly infinite but the universe is not; designers aren’t always creators, there could be two or more beings, possibly making small improvements; designers can die when their creations live on, how do we know the designer is eternal.

Cosmological arguments

Everything depends on something else for it’s existence, you depend on your parents who depend on theirs, the cosmological arguments apply this to the existence of the universe itself (and that is God).

Kalam argument

Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause.

Argument from motion

Some things in the world are in motion, things cannot move themselves, so whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by something else. If A is put into motion by B then something else (C) must have put B in motion and so on. If this chain goes on infinitely, then there is no first mover, which means there’s no other mover so nothing would be in motion - but things are in motion therefore there must be a prime mover, this is God.

Argument from Causation

Same as argument from motion but discusses first cause instead of mover: everything in the universe is subject to cause and effect (e.g. throwing a rock caused the window to smash); C is caused by B is caused by A and so on; if this chain of causation was infinite there would be no first cause, and if there was no first cause, there’d be no subsequent causes or effects. However there are causes and effects in the world, therefore there must be a first cause.

Argument from Contingency

Relies on a distinction between necessary and contingent existence, things that exist contingently are things that might not have existed e.g. the tree in the field wouldn’t exist if the seed hadn’t been planted years ago, so the tree’s existence is contingent on someone planting the seed - it exists contingently. Everything that exists contingently did not exist at some point, if everything everything exists contingently then at some point nothing existed, but then nothing could begin to exist. Since things began to exist, there was never nothing in existence, therefore there must be something that exists necessarily - this necessary being is God.

Descartes’ Cosmological Argument

I am a thinking being with the idea of God - what is the cause of my existence. Option 1 Myself: I cannot be the cause because I would’ve given myself all perfections (i.e. made myself God). Option 2 I always existed: I can’t always have existed because I would be aware of this, there has to be something that sustains my existence - the fact I existed a moment ago doesn’t guarantee I should continue existing. Option 3 My parents or a being less than God: The cause of an effect must have as much reality as the effect (casual adequacy principle, my concept of God must have as much reality as an infinite perfect being. I am a thinking being with the idea of God, my existence must have as much reality as a thinking thing with the idea of God. My parents may have caused my birth but they don’t sustain my existence moment to moment, plus there cannot be an infinite regress of cause (who caused the existence of my parents’ parents etc). Ultimately whatever caused my existence must be the cause of it’s own existence: this only leaves the option that God is the ultimate cause of my existence (option 4).

Descartes Reduced Cosmo

I am a thinking thing with the idea of God - what is the cause of my existence?

Option 1: I caused my existence; impossible I’d have made myself God.

Option 2: I have always existed; impossible there must be something that sustains my existence.

Option 3: My parents or some being less than God; my parents don’t sustain my existence moment to moment and they fall into the fallacy of infinite regression (who caused them and their parents etc), so whatever caused my existence must be the cause of it’s own.

Option 4: God is the cause of his own existence and the ultimate cause of my existence.

Leibniz sufficient reason

Every truth has an explanation of why it’s the case (even if we can’t know it). The sufficient reason of truths of reasoning is revealed by analysis, when you analyse and understand 2+2=4 you don’t need a further explanation why it’s true. Sufficient reason for truths of fact are harder as you can always provide more detail via contingent truths (you can explain a flower’s existence by saying someone planted a seed, but you could also ask why they planted the seed or why seeds even exist or why laws of physics are as they are etc). This process of providing contingent truths goes on forever. To escape this endless cycle we need to step outside the sequence of contingent facts and appeal to a necessary substance, Leibniz says this is God.

Leibniz two truths

Premised on Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason; every truth has an explanation of why it’s the case (even if we can’t know it). Leibniz then defines two different types of truth:

Truths of reasoning: necessary or analytic truths.

Truths of fact: contingent or synthetic truths.

Cosmo Problems

Is a first cause necessary?

Hume’s objections?

Russell’s fallacy of composition

Is the first cause God?

Is a first cause necessary?

Most cosmological arguments argue there can’t be an infinite chain of causes (except those from contingency) e.g. there must be a first cause or prime mover. We can respond by asking why must there be a first cause- perhaps there is just an infinite chain of causes stretching back forever.

Possible response; necessary first cause

An infinite chain of causes would mean an infinite amount of time has passed until now, if so then the universe can’t get any older (infinity+1+infinity) but the universe is getting older (the universe is one year older in 2025 than in 2024) therefore an infinite amount of time has not passed, therefore there isn’t an infinite chain of causes.

Hume’s objections to causation

An assumption (premise) of many cosmological arguments is everything has a cause. Hume’s fork can question this claim: everything has a cause isn’t a relation of ideas because we can conceive of something without a cause e.g. imagining a horse springing into existence for no reason - which is weird, but not a logical contradiction like a four sided triangle. Everything has a cause also isn’t a matter of fact, we never actually experience causation, we just see event A happen and event B happen after and even if we see this a million times we never experience A causing B, just the constant conjunction of A and B. Further, in the case of the creation of the universe, we only experience event B (continued existence of the universe) and never what came before (the thing that caused the universe’s existence). This casts doubt on the premise ‘everything has a cause’.

Russell: fallacy of composition

Russell argues the CA fall foul of the fallacy of composition, an invalid inference that because parts of something have a certain property, the entire thing must also have this property. E.g. just because all players on a football team are good doesn’t guarantee the team is good e.g. the players may not work well together; just because apples are round doesn’t mean things made from apples are round e.g. apple strudel. Applying this to the CA raises a similar objection to Hume’s: just because everything within the universe has a cause, doesn’t mean the universe itself does. Or applied to Leibniz’s CA - just because everything within the universe requires sufficient reason to explain it’s existence, doesn’t mean the universe itself does. “The universe is just there, and that’s all”

Possible response to fallacy of composition.

Everything in the universe exists contingently, if everything in the universe didn’t exist then universe wouldn’t either (the universe is a collection of things that make it up). So the universe itself exists contingently, not just the stuff within it, and so the universe itself requires sufficient reason to explain it’s existence.

IS THE FIRST CAUSE GOD?

Aquinas’ first and second ways and the Kalam argument only show that there’s a first cause, not that this cause is God. So, even if we accept there’s a first cause, it doesn’t necessarily follow that God exists - much less the specific being described in the Concept of God.

Teleological summary and philosophers

The universe must be designed; Hume; Paley; Swinburne

Critical teleology philosophers

Darwin; Hume; Kant

Cosmological summary and philosophers

There must be a first cause; Aquinas; Descartes; Kalam; Leibniz

Critical cosmology philosophers

Hume; Russell