A LEVEL RS AQA Arguments for the existence of God

Who created the design argument?

William Paley

What is the analogy used by Paley to support his argument called?

The watch analogy

Explain the watch analogy

If you see a rock and are asked how the rock got there you would say that the rock had always been there but if you see a watch and are asked how the watch got there you couldn't say that the watch had always been there

Why is this logical?

The watch is more complex than the rock and all of its elements (e.g cogs) are shaped and sized in the right way to make the watch work as it should, it has a purpose (to tell time) and therefore we can infer that there is a watchmaker

Why can we infer that there is a watchmaker?

Complexity comes with intelligence behind it

Explain how Paley relates this logic to the existence of God in terms of premises

P1: the universe has parts that function for a purpose
P2: the universe must be designed by a universe maker
P3: the universe is a better design than a watch therefore it's designer must be greater than any human designer
P4: the designer must be distinct from the universe and have a mind
P5: God is greater than any human, is distinct and has a mind
P6: the universe designer is God

Who criticises the design argument?

Hume

What is Hume's first criticism of the design argument?

The universe is too unique

Why is the universe being too unique an issue?

In an analogy stronger resemblance quake stronger inference and Hume argues that the watch and the universe are too dissimilar so conclusion that universe is the work of a designer is weak because it is based in a weak analogy

How are the watch and the universe dissimilar?

Watch = mechanic, artefact
Universe = organic, one of a kind

What else does Hume say about the uniqueness of the universe?

Effective analogies need examination of many instances, we have observed many watches but only one universe so we don't know the norm - the universe could apparent

What does apparent mean?

accidental

Who agrees with Hume on this?

Antony Flew

What does Antony Flew say?

"we do not have experience of other universes to tell us that universes like ours are always works of God"

What is another point that supports Hume's argument that the universe is too unique?

We observe the watch as a whole but only observe a fraction of the universe, it is a leap in logic to assume that the rest of the universe has uniformity, complexity and purpose

What is Hume's second criticism of the design argument?

The diversity of casual explanation/relationship

Define the term casual explanation/relationship and give an example

cause between two things e.g. nature and trees

Why is this relavant?

Paley argues that there is a casual relationship between God and order/design but Hume argues that there are other explanations for order/design

Why does it make sense for Hume to say this?

There are many explanations for death like child labour, murder or cancer so there might be a variety of causes for order/design

What does Hume suggest as a cause for order/design?

Natural processes like self-regulation, growth and instinct

Give a real world examples of a natural process

Spiders making webs to protect their eggs

What part of the design argument is Hume criticising with this point?

The idea that design/order requires intelligence - if matter can't be the cause of order due to evidence then a theistic hypothesis can be rejected on the same grounds

Which hypothesis supports this criticism made by Hume?

The Epicurean hypothesis

What ideas does the Epicurean hypothesis present?

The universe started as particles acting randomly and accidental collisions of these particles created an ordered system

What does this suggest about design?

That it is apparent not intentional

Which theory supports this criticism made by Hume and the Epicurean hypothesis?

The multiverse theory

What ideas does the multiverse theory present?

Lots of universes exist and some have order, some have semi order and some have chaos

What does this suggest about design and the universe?

That God isn't needed to explain it

What is Hume's third criticism of the design argument?

The principle of proportionality

What is the basis for the principle of proportionality?

Like causes have like effects

How does this relate to the design argument?

The universe and the watch are both effects of design so if the watch has an intelligent designer (which we know it does) then the universe must have an intelligent designer too

Who does Paley suggest this intelligent designer is?

God

Why is this an issue for Hume?

Paley makes this assumption based on no empirical evidence and therefore it is a leap in logic to say that the universe has an intelligent designer and then to say that that intelligent designer is God

What does Hume suggest?

We must proportion cause to effect, only infer what the cause is by what is shown in the effects

What would happen if we applied qualities to God that were proportionate to his effects?

God wouldn't be omnibenevolent because we have evidence of evil in the universe
There are several Gods because there are several types of creation e.g. cars and humans
God no longer exists because because the absence of God doesn't = absence of design (baker + cake death example)
God is physical because creation is physical

What would this mean about the design argument?

1. That it doesn't support the God of Christianity
2. Suggests that the God of Christianity is a greatest cause needed to account for universe.

What is the response to these points?

1. Evil and suffering only challenges the qualities of the designer not the whole idea of a designer existing
2. Swinburne says God is a simpler explanation and that "simplicity is evidence for truth", Paley says that the designer must exist beyond their design which is why God is a suitable explanation for the universe.

What are the strengths of William Paley's design argument?

Offers a reasoned argument to show the universe might be designed
Based on empirical evidence that is clear to all
Inductive so attempts to show that believing in God is reasonable based on evidence of complexity, purpose and regularity - doesn't try to show God's existence as fact

What are the weaknesses of William Paley's design argument?

Makes leaps in logic e.g universe has a designer to that designer being God
Looks for evidence of a transcendent, wholly other God who tries to keep epistemically distance
There are other equal conclusions based on the evidence

What is the difference between faith and reason?

Faith is putting trust in something that you can't prove or have lack of evidence for
Reason is rational thinking with a coherent objective that avoids empirical evidence

Explain strong rationalism

Religious belief systems can only be rationally accepted if it is possible to prove that the belief system is true with no ambiguity

Which religions fulfil the belief of strong rationalism?

None

Explain fideism

Religious belief systems aren't subject to rational evaluation, all arguments rest on assumptions and some are fundamental assumptions

What are fundamental assumptions?

Assumptions that we accept with no proof, they are so basic that there is nothing more basic that they can be proven with

Explain critical rationalism

Religious belief systems can and must be rationally criticised even if conclusive proof is impossible

Why do some people believe that rational thought and empirical evidence can't provide evidence for God?

God is physical and transcendent so can't manifest himself in a physical universe
Humans can't perceive everything so may not be able to perceive God
God is wholly other, there is nothing like him so how do we know what to look for or how to classify him

Give 3 reasons why the design argument has some value to faith

Gives empirical evidence, makes intelligent designer the creator of the universe, justifies believing in God

Give 3 reasons why the design argument has no value to faith

Shows signs that intelligent designer isn't necessarily God, requires reasoning to prove that God exists which faith can't provide, isn't rational - can't be given meaning because it needs to be verified

Why could it be argued that the universe is more like a vegetable than a watch?

Both are a result of natural processes (organic)

What are the arguments against Occam's Razor?

Just because something is simpler doesn't mean that it is definitely more correct

Is it reasonable to conclude that the designer exists beyond the universe

Yes, to create something you must do if externally, you can't be inside of what you are creating because it doesn't exist yet.

How does the theory of evolution support Hume's argument that the universe displays apparent design?

Says things adapt to fit environment, no one chooses how that happens or what it happens to whereas design argument says things are purposefully designed to fit an environment

Why does theory of evolution not rule out a designer/God?

God/the designer could have designed evolution

Define the anthropic principle

The odds of boundary conditions being the right setting apparently is highly unlikely

What is an example of a boundary condition?

Strength of gravity

What does the anthropic principle suggest?

Design is intentional

How would having more universes disprove the anthropic principle?

If there were more universes it would be more likely to be apparent but we only have one example

What are the possible explanations for order in the universe?

Intelligent designer, God, limited being/group of beings, natural processes, epicurean hypothesis

How does Paley provide a proof for the existence of God?

Shows sufficient evidence, is inductive, explains complexity/regularity/purpose

How doesn't Paley provide a proof for the existence of God?

Doesn't use scientific proof, only tries to explain who the creator or scientific proof is

Who created the ontological argument?

Anselm of Canterbury

Which prayer is the ontological argument based on?

Proslogion

Give the line of proslogion that Anselm uses in his premises

"You are that than which nothing greater can be conceived"

What does Anselm claim?

The phrase "God exists" is a priori and deductive

Explain the Ontological argument in terms on premises

P1: God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" so possesses everything to the greatest extent and is greater than everything else
P2: the concept of God exists even in the mind of the atheist/fool because even to deny God's existence God must already exist in your mind so God exists in the mind at least
P3-5: existing in the mind AND reality is greater than just existing in the mind because real existence has more impact
P6: if God only existed in the mind then everything which exists in reality would be greater than God (real vs imaginary £1 million)
C: God must exist in mind and reality to be the greatest conceivable being

Who criticises Anselm?

Guanilo and Kant

What is Guanilo's criticism based on?

Reductio ad absurdum AKA argument to absurdity

What does this mean?

If we accept Anselm argument then we will reach lots of absurd conclusions

How does Guanilo use to illustrate this?

Replaces the word God in Anselm's premises with "perfect island"

How does Anselm respond to Guanilo?

The definition "that than which nothing greater can be conceived can only be applied to God

Why can it only be applied to God?

God is necessary and doesn't rely on anything, everything else is contingent and depends on God

Give an example of one contingent thing and how it depends on other things

A perfect island relies on good weather

What is Kant's criticism based on?

The idea that existence is not a predicate of God

What is a predicate?

Something that gives information about what "X" is like

Give an example of a predicate

The dog is brown

Why isn't existence a predicate of God?

The word "exists" only tells us that there is "X" in the world not what "X" is like

What does this mean for Anselm?

He cannot claim that existence is something God must possess because he needs empirical evidence of that in the world

Give an example of a predicate that can't be rejected

Having three sides on a triangle

What can be rejected without contradiction?

The existence of a triangle and its three sides together

What does Kant say about concepts?

It faire for certain concepts to require certain things but logical consistency does equal existence

Give an example that illustrates this idea about concepts

Unicorns have horns but that doesn't mean that unicorns exist

What does this mean in terms of God?

You can reject the existence of God without contradiction

Why can you do this?

Existence isn't a predicate of God

What is a predicate of God?

Necessary existence

Is this a good predicate?

No it is meaningless and self-contradictory

Why is necessary existence a self contradictory predicate?

"God is necessary being" is an existential statement that must be verified with observation and empirical evidence so can be denied and is synthetic.

Why is this self-contradictory?

Something that's is necessary should be able to be denied

Why is necessary existence a meaningless predicate?

Because existence isn't needed for something to be comprehended - we can comprehend unicorns without having them exist

Who argues against Kant?

Stephen T Davis and Normal Malcolm

What does Stephen T Davis say?

Existing things have properties that imaginary things don't have for example a real £1million has purchase power so existence would give God power to do things that expand the concept of God so existence must be a predicate

What does Norman Malcolm say?

Necessary existence isn't meaningless, it's purpose is to make God the greatest as it excludes non existence so he isn't like humans.

What does being necessary make God according to Malcolm?

Unlimited/independent

What does Malcolm say an unnecessary God would be?

Inferior

Why does Malcolm say God can't be necessary and have non existence?

It's a blatant contradiction, like saying that "God who must exist does not exist"

How is the ontological argument useful to faith?

The definition that God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" is based on religious revelation (epiphany)
If human reason could prove God's existence through reasoning then God wouldn't be needed - would just be another object of human knowledge.

How is the ontological argument useful to reasoning?

Anselm asks God to give him understanding to faith so he "may understand" that God exists, asks for rational proof
If it wasn't intended to be logical proof then why address the fool? (implied that Anselm is trying to convince someone that it is the truth)
Why would a contemporary (Guanilo) argue w/ Anselm just trying to understand his faith? - he is more likely trying to argue knowledge/validity/truth

Who created the cosmological argument?

Thomas Aquinas

What are the other names for the cosmological argument?

Aquinas' argument for contingency, Aquinas' 3rd way, way 3

Explain the cosmological argument in terms of premises

P1: some things are capable of existing/not existing because they can be generated/corrupt.
P2: we call these things possible beings
P3: a possible being cannot be the cause of its own existence
P4: reason 1 is because it has to exist to cause own existence but if it already exists then it doesn't need to cause its own existence, reason 2 is if it caused its own existence then it would be both prior to itself and not prior to itself which is a contradiction and impossible
P5: so a possible being must get its existence from a cause that exists external to it
P6: it is impossible for everything that exists to be a possible being
P7: nothing could have begun to exist in reality if everything were a possible being because a possible being only comes to exist through an already existing cause external to it which would not exist if everything were a possible being
P8: this is because if nothing could have begun to exist in reality then nothing would have existed in the past and nothing would exist now because "from nothing, nothing comes"
P9: this is absurd because things exist now
P10: therefore not all things are possible beings, at least one necessary being must exist
P11 there are two ways to be necessary, get necessity from another or get necessity from itself (per se)
P12: if it has its necessity from another then it requires a cause external to it
P13: an infinity of beings that get necessity from another would not explain how anything came to exist just as it is clear that an infinity of possible beings would not explain how anything came to be

What is the conclusion of the cosmological argument?

There must be a cause that has of itself its own necessity on which all other beings are dependent for their existence and we call this cause God