Module 2: Does God Exist?

The Ontological Argument (Anselm)

  • we all share a common conception of God

  • God is a being than which none greater can be imagined

  • the concept of an item is less good than an actual item

  • Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God

  • But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God

  • Therefore, God exists


Gaunilo, Descartes, & Kant on the Ontological Argument

  • Gaunilo

    • imagine the greatest island filled with breathtaking views, riches, and all your favorite activities

    • according to anselm’s logic, the island (or anything) has to be real in order to be the greatest

    • Gaunilo argues that something can exist in our minds and not in reality, and still qualify as the greatest

  • Anselm clapped back at Gaunilo saying that the comparison is illegitimate bc only God has the definition that nothing greater than He can be conceived

  • Descartes

    • Supported Anselm

    • Imagine a triangle without 3 sides

    • you can’t bc it doesn’t exist in reality

    • following the same logic, you cannot conceive of something perfect because it doesn’t exist in reality

    • God’s perfection entails he exists

  • Kant

    • whilst it is not possible to think of a triangle without three sides, it is possible to deny the existence of triangles

    • people can’t accept God if they don’t accept perfection

    • says anselm’s priori logic is circular


The Cosmological Argument

  • St. Aquinas argued that humans are fallible by nature and can never know the correct concept of God

    • bc of that, we can’t attempt to prove God by just invoking the concept

    • He has 5 ways of proving the existence of god

  • 1. Motion

    • 1. All bodies are either potentially in motion or actually in motion

    • 2. "But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality" (419).

    • 3. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect.

    • 4. Therefore nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality with respect to motion

    • 5. Therefore nothing can move itself; it must be put into motion by something else.

    • 6. If there were no "first mover, moved by no other" there would be no motion.

    • 7. But there is motion.

    • 8. Therefore there is a first mover, God.

  • 2. Efficient Cause

    • 1. Nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

    • 2. If A is the efficient cause of B, then if A is absent, so is B.

    • 3. Efficient causes are ordered from first cause, through intermediate cause(s), to ultimate effect.

    • 4. By (2) and (3), if there is no first cause, there cannot be any ultimate effect.

    • 5. But there are effects.

    • 6. Therefore there must be a first cause for all of them: God.

  • 3. Possibility and Necessity

    • 1. "We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be:" contingent beings.

    • 2. Everything is either necessary or contingent.

    • 3. Assume that everything is contingent.

    • 4. "It is impossible for [contingent beings] always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not."

    • 5. Therefore, by (3) and (4), at one time there was nothing.

    • 6. "That which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing."

    • 7. Therefore, by (5) and (6), there is nothing now.

    • 8. But there is something now!

    • 9. Therefore (3) is false.

    • 10. Therefore, by (2), there is a necessary being: God.

  • 4. Graduation

    • 1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better (hotter, colder, etc.) than others.

    • 2. Things are X in proportion to how closely the resemble that which is most X.

    • 3. Therefore, if there is nothing which is most X, there can be nothing which is good.

    • 4. It follows that if anything is good, there must be something that is most good.

    • 5. "Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God" (420).

  • 5. Design

    • 1. We observe that natural bodies act toward ends.

    • 2. Anything that acts toward an end either acts out of knowledge, or under the direction of something with knowledge, "as the arrow is directed by the archer."

    • 3. But many natural beings lack knowledge.

    • 4. "Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God" (420).


Rowe: Examination of Cosmological Argument (AI)

  • Author's Main Argument

    • Rowe examines the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, focusing on its historical development, deductive validity, and the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). ​ He argues that while the argument might be deductively valid, it does not provide sufficient rational grounds for belief in a self-existent being or the theistic God. ​​

  • Author's Reasons for Their Argument ​

    • Deductive Validity vs. Truth of Premises:

      • Rowe acknowledges that the Cosmological Argument is deductively valid, meaning that if its premises are true, the conclusion must be true. ​ However, he questions whether the premises themselves are true, particularly the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). ​

    • Criticism of the Second Premise:

      • Rowe critiques the idea that not every being can be a dependent being. He argues that the infinite causal series of dependent beings could exist without requiring a self-existent being. ​ He highlights objections from philosophers like David Hume and Bertrand Russell, who question the need for an explanation of the collection of dependent beings. ​

    • Uncertainty of PSR:

      • Rowe challenges the truth of PSR, which states that every being and every positive fact must have an explanation. ​ He notes that PSR is not intuitively true and may not be a universal presupposition of reason. ​ Without certainty about PSR, the premises of the Cosmological Argument remain unproven. ​

  • Questions for the Author

    • If PSR is not intuitively true, what alternative principles could be used to justify the existence of a self-existent being?

    • How would Rowe respond to the claim that the Cosmological Argument provides a plausible explanation for the existence of the universe, even if it is not definitive?

    • Could the Cosmological Argument be strengthened by incorporating elements of other arguments, such as the Teleological or Ontological Arguments?

  • Key Points for College Students

    • Historical Context: The Cosmological Argument has roots in Greek philosophy (Plato and Aristotle) and was developed further by Aquinas and Leibniz. Aquinas’ three versions focus on change, causation, and necessity. ​

    • Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): Central to the argument, PSR asserts that every being and positive fact must have an explanation. ​ Critics question its validity. ​​

    • Criticisms: Philosophers like Hume and Russell argue that the infinite series of dependent beings does not require a self-existent being. ​

    • Deductive Validity: The argument is logically valid but depends on the truth of its premises, which remain controversial. ​

    • Conclusion: Rowe concludes that the Cosmological Argument does not provide strong rational grounds for belief in a self-existent being or the theistic God. ​


Mackie: Evil Omnipotence (AI)

  • Author's Main Argument

    • Mackie critiques the traditional theistic view that God is omnipotent, wholly good, and yet evil exists. ​ He argues that these propositions are logically inconsistent and examines proposed solutions to the problem of evil, ultimately rejecting them as inadequate or fallacious. ​

  • Author's Reasons for Their Argument ​

    • Logical Inconsistency: Mackie argues that the coexistence of an omnipotent, wholly good God and the existence of evil is contradictory. ​ A good being would eliminate evil as far as it can, and an omnipotent being would have no limits in doing so. ​

  • Critique of Proposed Solutions: Mackie examines several solutions to the problem of evil, including:

    • Evil as a necessary counterpart to good. ​

    • Evil as a means to good. ​

    • The universe being better with some evil. ​

    • Evil as a result of human free will. ​

    • He finds these solutions either modify the definition of God’s omnipotence or goodness or fail to address the problem adequately. ​

  • Paradox of Omnipotence: Can an omnipotent being create things it cannot control? ​ He argues that omnipotence cannot be consistently ascribed to a being that exists through time. ​

  • Questions for the Author ​

    • How would Mackie respond to the claim that evil serves a greater purpose in the divine plan, even if humans cannot comprehend it?

    • Could the problem of evil be addressed by redefining omnipotence or goodness in a way that avoids logical inconsistency? ​

    • Does Mackie’s critique apply equally to non-theistic views of the universe, such as pantheism or deism?

  • Key Points for College Students

    • Problem of Evil: The logical problem arises from the coexistence of God’s omnipotence, goodness, and the existence of evil. ​

    • Adequate Solutions: Mackie identifies solutions that reject one of the constituent propositions (e.g., denying God’s omnipotence or goodness).

    • Fallacious Solutions: He critiques solutions that attempt to retain all propositions but covertly reject one (e.g., evil as necessary for good, or free will). ​

    • Paradox of Omnipotence: Mackie argues that omnipotence cannot be consistently ascribed to a being that exists through time. ​

  • Conclusion: Mackie concludes that the problem of evil undermines the logical coherence of traditional theism.


How God's Existence Shapes Medical Practice Today

  • Questions of God and whether he exists matter regardless of religious affiliation

    • the portion that believes in God, that belief affects their actions, thoughts and decisions

  • Playing God? The Girl Who Died Twice

    • Jahi McMath from Oakland CA entered the hospital Dec 9th, 2013 and was declared braindead Dec 12th 2013 after a complication with a tonsillectomy

    • family noticed complications but nothing was done until it was too late

    • Long history of racism in healthcare

    • refused to take Jahi off life support cus they didn’t believe she was braindead

    • the line of who is dead and who is alive has been blurred by new technology like ventilators

    • harvard committee convene to define what brain death means (socially constructed)

    • life support makes it possible to donate organs for braindead patients

    • has two death certificates, one when declared braindead, and one 5 years later (NJ) when her organs gave out

    • Mrs McMath “According to my Christian faith, someone is alive as long as their heart is beating”

    • transferred jahi to NJ, the only state you can keep someone braindead on life support against the doctors wishes bc of philosophical beliefs

      • been able to opt out for at least 30 years

    • Jahi went through puberty

    • shortage of ICU beds, declaring people braindead is a solution to that problem

      • icu bed usage is pretty much normal in NJ

    • many lawsuits bc of death by neurological criteria

      • Uniform Law Commission trying to change the meaning of death

    • should patients or families be able to opt out of the diagnosis

    • one change of definition could lead to brain death being diagnosed as a severe brain injury, not making organs available for transplant

    • demanding to believe that they are dead without that trust in the medical facility