Metaphysics of God arguments

St. Anselm’s ontological argument

A priori, deductive, “that than which no greater can be conceived”

1. God is “that than which no greater can be conceived”

2. The concept of God exists in my mind

3. If the concept existed only in my mind, then there could be a greater God that existed in reality

4. This is not possible as God is “TTWNGCBC” and existence must be part of this

5. Therefore, God must exist

Descartes’ ontological argument

A priori, deductive, “supremely perfect being”

1. Whatever we perceive "clearly and distinctly" to be certain must be so 

2. We perceive clearly and distinctly that God is a SPB 

3. A SPB has all perfections 

4. Existence is a perfection 

5. Therefore God exists 

Outline Norman Malcolm’s ontological argument

A priori, deductive, “four options”, “God is an unlimited/infinite being”

1. God either exists or does not exist

2. If God exists, God cannot come out of existence as that would require dependence on something. So, if God exists, his existence is necessary

3. If God doesn’t exist, God cannot come into existence as that would require God to be dependent on whatever brought him into existence. So, for God to not exist, his existence must be impossible

4. Therefore God’s existence is either necessary or impossible

5. The concept of God is not self-contradictory, so his existence is not impossible

6. God exists necessarily

Hume’s design argument from analogy

A posteriori, inductive, from analogy (on the basis of x and y being similar in certain respects, the conclusion is drawn that they will be similar in a yet further respect)

1. Human artefacts (eg, cameras) have certain ‘teleological’ properties (‘spatial order’: ie complexity, order, parts working towards a purpose) 

2. Nature itself (and natural entities within it: eg eyes) also has these same ‘teleological’ properties (‘spatial order’: ie complexity, order, parts working towards a purpose, etc) 

3. Human artefacts have these teleological properties because they have been designed by an intelligent being 

4. Similar effects/properties typically have similar causes/explanations 

5. Therefore, we can infer that nature/natural entities have these teleological properties because they have been designed by an intelligent being (ie God) 

William Paley’s design argument

A posteriori, spatial order (Parts put together in an intricate way so that they can achieve a purpose)

1. Anything with parts that work together toward a purpose is designed

2. Nature contains things that have parts that work together towards a purpose

3. Therefore, parts of nature are designed

4. Things that are designed needs a designer

5. A designer must be a separate 'mind' from that which it designs

6. Therefore, the designer must be distinct from nature (transcendent)

7. Therefore, the designer 'mind' is God

Richard Swinburne’s design argument

A posteriori, inductive, temporal order (regularities of succession governing how events occur over time)

1. There are some temporal regularities, e.g. related to human actions, that are explained in terms of persons

2. There are other temporal regularities, e.g. related to the laws of nature, that are similar to those explained in terms of persons

3. We can, by analogy, explain the regularities relating to the laws of nature in terms of persons

4. (As far as we know, there are only two types of explanation – scientific and personal)

5. There is no scientific explanation of the laws of nature (they are brute)

6. Therefore, there is no better explanation of the regularities relating to the laws of nature than the explanation in terms of persons

7. Therefore, the regularities relating to the laws of nature are produced by a person (a designer)

8. Therefore, a designer exists

The Kalam argument

from atemporal causation

1. Actual infinites cannot exist

2. The universe cannot be infinite, so it must have a beginning

3. Things that begin to exist, have a cause of their existence

4. If the universe has a beginning, then it has a cause

5. If something is caused, it is either because it occurs naturally or is willed into existence

6. Natural laws did not exist before the universe, so it must have been willed into existence

7. Therefore, there must be a God that willed the universe into existence

Aquinas’ 1st way

From motion (change from potentially X to actually X)

1. The universe contains motion

2. Nothing can move itself - it must be moved/changed by something distinct from it

3. If there were an infinite series of secondary movers then there would be no first mover

4. If there were no first mover then there couldn’t be any motion – since if you remove the cause, you cannot have the effect

5. Therefore there must be a first mover

6. God is the first (unmoved) mover

Aquinas’ 2nd way

From atemporal causation

1. In the world, we observe that things are caused.
2. Nothing can cause itself (as it would have to exist before itself — a contradiction).
3. Therefore, there must be a cause for everything that is caused.
4. But there cannot be an infinite regress of causes (this would mean no first cause, and thus no subsequent causes — which contradicts our observation).
5. Therefore, there must be a first uncaused cause — which itself is not caused by anything else.
6. This uncaused cause is what we understand to be God.

Aquinas’ 3rd way

From contingency

1. Contingent beings exist in the universe.  

2. If everything were contingent there would be a time when nothing existed.  

3. If this were so, there would be nothing now as nothing comes from nothing.  

4. Since contingent things do exist now (P1), there must be something that exists necessarily.  

5. Every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another or not.  

6. An infinite regression of causes is impossible.  

7. There must be a necessary being (ie a being that has, of itself, its own necessity) and this all people call God. 

Descartes’ argument based on his continuing existence

“Four options”

1. I exist 

2. I cannot have caused myself to exist for then I would have made myself perfect 

3. I cannot have always existed because then I would be aware of having always existed and my power to sustain myself 

4. My parents may be the physical cause of my existence but they cannot have caused my existence as a thinking being with a C+D idea of God as a SPB 

5. Therefore, I rely on something (God) for my continued existence and my idea of a supremely perfect being. If God didn't exist, we wouldn't exist and wouldn't have the idea of a SPB  

6. Therefore, only God could have created me  

Leibniz’s argument from the principle of sufficient reason

PSR: "every fact has an explanation that provides a sufficient reason for why things are as they are and not otherwise."

1. Principle of sufficient reason states that everything that exists must have a reason for its existence

2. There are two kinds of truth: necessary and contingent  

3. Necessary truths contain within themselves their own explanation whereas contingent truths require other facts to explain them  

4. Each of these further contingent facts also needs to be explained  

5. Therefore, a sequence of contingent facts doesn't contain the sufficient reason for any contingent fact  

6. Therefore, to provide a sufficient reason for any contingent fact, we must look outside the sequence of contingent facts  

7. Therefore, the sufficient reason for contingent facts must be in a necessary substance  

8. This necessary substance is God (as he requires no further explanation)