critical analysis

hypothesis: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence, as a starting point for further investigation

hypothetical: based on a hypothesis

plausible: (of an argument/statement) seeming reasonable or probable

logical fallacy: reasoning that has a flaw in its structure

improbable: not likely to be true or to happen

illogical: lacking clear sense or sound reasoning

How persuasive are a posteriori arguments?

PERSUASIVE	NOT PERSUASIVE
it uses evidence They are credible because they require experience and/or evidence People are more likely to be persuaded, as they can garner physical and tangible evidence via their senses The conclusions reached will be more convincing than a priori arguments The reasoning is underpinned by empirical observation of our surroundings Our senses are our primary method of gaining knowledge The arguments are based on logic Many arguments like the existence of God and theory of evolution are through a posteriori arguments, our knowledge of the complexity of the world around us proves that there must be a creator which is God	The teleological argument states that the natural world is orderly so there must be a designer, however, some may disagree and think the world is chaotic so will not be persuaded of the argument as it is subjective. ‘hypothetical reasoning’ - persuasiveness of the argument is dependent on the quality of the explanation. Also there might be better more suitable explanations. God is not a ‘thing’ or an object, so it is difficult to find evidence for god’s existence as he exists outside of the constraints of time and space. Could be a result of chance The world is too varied to produce evidence for or against God. The design argument cherry picks evidence from the natural world such as order and patterns but completely ignores the imperfections and horrors of the world.

PERSUASIVE

NOT PERSUASIVE

it uses evidence

They are credible because they require experience and/or evidence
People are more likely to be persuaded, as they can garner physical and tangible evidence via their senses
The conclusions reached will be more convincing than a priori arguments
The reasoning is underpinned by empirical observation of our surroundings
Our senses are our primary method of gaining knowledge
The arguments are based on logic

Many arguments like the existence of God and theory of evolution are through a posteriori arguments, our knowledge of the complexity of the world around us proves that there must be a creator which is God

The teleological argument states that the natural world is orderly so there must be a designer, however, some may disagree and think the world is chaotic so will not be persuaded of the argument as it is subjective.
‘hypothetical reasoning’ - persuasiveness of the argument is dependent on the quality of the explanation. Also there might be better more suitable explanations.
God is not a ‘thing’ or an object, so it is difficult to find evidence for god’s existence as he exists outside of the constraints of time and space.
Could be a result of chance
The world is too varied to produce evidence for or against God. The design argument cherry picks evidence from the natural world such as order and patterns but completely ignores the imperfections and horrors of the world.

Can teleological arguments be defended against the challenge of chance?

CAN BE DEFENDED	CANNOT BE DEFENDED
Ockham’s razor – the simplest argument is the most likely. The best. The existence of God, a guiding force, may be easier to accept than the belief in everything turning out exactly as it needed to by chance. Eg. The many random genetic mutations over millions of years necessary to produce an eye from light sensitive cells – a simpler explanation is God created it. Chance may not be able to account for the world’s true complexity – if you spill ink onto paper, it may create a nice pattern by chance; but if it forms the entire works of Shakespeare, something other than odds may be at play. If anything that is required for life (gravity, the chemical makeup of water, the structure of human lungs, etc) was off even slightly from how it is as we know it, life may not be able to exist. The fact that the conditions for life on earth are so perfect indicates the existence of a God, as the odds of these occurring so perfectly by chance are slim Anthropic principle	Other established theories (evolution) provides more plausible observed evidence that matches other evidence, resulting in these theories being much more convincing. Ockham's razor can be applied – it is much simpler to reason that everything that exists only exists from chance, as if things did not develop in the way that they did then they would simply not exist. It is much more plausible to argue that everything that exists does so in the way that it does because all other eventualities just didn't survive. This evidence of 'design' is a result of adaptation to surroundings and if this adaptation didn't occur the species would just die. This line of reasoning removes the need for a creator and is also much simpler than the elaborate idea that a divine, omnipotent and omniscient creator must have designed everything.

CAN BE DEFENDED

CANNOT BE DEFENDED

Ockham’s razor – the simplest argument is the most likely. The best. The existence of God, a guiding force, may be easier to accept than the belief in everything turning out exactly as it needed to by chance. Eg. The many random genetic mutations over millions of years necessary to produce an eye from light sensitive cells – a simpler explanation is God created it.

Chance may not be able to account for the world’s true complexity – if you spill ink onto paper, it may create a nice pattern by chance; but if it forms the entire works of Shakespeare, something other than odds may be at play.

If anything that is required for life (gravity, the chemical makeup of water, the structure of human lungs, etc) was off even slightly from how it is as we know it, life may not be able to exist. The fact that the conditions for life on earth are so perfect indicates the existence of a God, as the odds of these occurring so perfectly by chance are slim

Anthropic principle

Other established theories (evolution) provides more plausible observed evidence that matches other evidence, resulting in these theories being much more convincing.
Ockham's razor can be applied – it is much simpler to reason that everything that exists only exists from chance, as if things did not develop in the way that they did then they would simply not exist. It is much more plausible to argue that everything that exists does so in the way that it does because all other eventualities just didn't survive. This evidence of 'design' is a result of adaptation to surroundings and if this adaptation didn't occur the species would just die. This line of reasoning removes the need for a creator and is also much simpler than the elaborate idea that a divine, omnipotent and omniscient creator must have designed everything.

Do cosmological arguments simply jump to the conclusion of a transcendent creator without sufficient explanation?

YES	NO
The design arguments make a jump which is larger than can be justified. God is just one of a large number of hypotheses, none of which have much evidence so can’t jump to one conclusion- a transcendent creator- without enough explanation as to why it’s more convincing thank, for example, evolution and natural selection. Ockham’s razor. – doesn’t use the simplest explanation available	is it plausible that something other than a transcendent God could create and design the universe? - philosophers like Aquinas + Aristotle note the need for a Uncaused Causer, Unmoved Prime Mover which is capable of bring cause and effect and motion into being without caused or affected - this being has to have special kind of existence, a ‘necessary existence’, not dependent on anything else and not itself caused, ‘self-existent’ - would have to transcend the rest of universe and exist in unique, all-powerful way, such that it could only be that ‘which we call God’ (as Aquinas explains)

YES

The design arguments make a jump which is larger than can be justified.

God is just one of a large number of hypotheses, none of which have much evidence so can’t jump to one conclusion- a transcendent creator- without enough explanation as to why it’s more convincing thank, for example, evolution and natural selection.

Ockham’s razor. – doesn’t use the simplest explanation available

is it plausible that something other than a transcendent God could create and design the universe?

- philosophers like Aquinas + Aristotle note the need for a Uncaused Causer, Unmoved Prime Mover which is capable of bring cause and effect and motion into being without caused or affected

- this being has to have special kind of existence, a ‘necessary existence’, not dependent on anything else and not itself caused, ‘self-existent’

- would have to transcend the rest of universe and exist in unique, all-powerful way, such that it could only be that ‘which we call God’ (as Aquinas explains)

Do arguments from observation present logical fallacies which cannot be overcome?

YES	NO
The improbabilities presented in a posteriori argument functions in a similar way to logical fallacies in a priori arguments. As all a posteriori arguments are inductive, they are therefore only ever based on assumptions about arguably entirely subjective observations of cause and effect.	A posteriori arguments cannot contain logical fallacies as a priori arguments do, as they are based on (often subjective) observations. A posteriori arguments can only be improbable, as they are technically impossible to prove to be certainly true or false.