Arguments For The Existence of God

Philosophy of Religion
ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

All the arguments for the existence of God will present problems and will not provide
absolute proof of the existence of God. The key point is whether they show God to be
reasonable or even probable. Can it be accepted logically that God exists? Is theism a
reasonable option?
Concept of God:
There are two ways which we can gain knowledge of God: through revelation or through
reason. This has led to some people drawing a distinction between the God of the Bible and
the God of Philosophy. Each method emphasises certain characteristics of God.
Revealed theology is the attempt to understand God through revelation i.e. through
scripture. Revealed theology gives us a view of God as
The Only God

- In the opening books of the Bible, Yahweh is the only true God, the God of Israel
- The first commandment states that we should worship only one God
- Bible also rules out possibility of other gods several centuries later
- God is universal and worshipped by all, not just Jews
The Creator
- God created the world
- In the Old Testament God regularly intervened, but afterwards became
increasingly absent
- God is outside of space and time
A Personal God
- God created humans in his image
- Has human attributes and personal qualities
- Old Testament emphasises righteousness
- New Testament emphasises positive and compassionate qualities
- God is Love
A Holy God
- Sets God apart from everything
- A unique and supreme power should be worshipped
- God has spiritual and moral perfection
- Power to overcome our sins
Natural theology attempts to understand God through human reason. Natural theology
gives us a view of God as
Omnipotent
- God is able to do anything and his power his limitless
- But some philosophers question this power e.g. Aquinas lists 20 things God
cannot do i.e. change the laws of maths
- Aquinas argued that God can only do what is logically possible
Omniscient
- Perfect knowledge
- Can God know what is logically impossible, e.g. can God know a round square,
or is Gods knowledge propositional, i.e. God knows the truth of things?
- Practical knowledge knowing how to do things

Benevolent
- Perfectly good full of passion and love, based on righteousness
- Abstractness is greater than the personal aspect of God
- Gods goodness is the source of all good
- What about the problem of evil?
Immutable
- God is not subject to change and is eternal
- God is incorporeal i.e. does not have a body, does not have parts
- God is perfect so no need to change
- Attributes cannot be separated all aspects of the same thing i.e. Gods nature
What are the advantages and disadvantages of an anthropomorphic view of God?
Able to identify with him for personal connections

Easier to make up a picture of him
Makes him more real and less abstract
Easier to understand him
Settle fear of unknown
He can understand us and has a more personal interest in us
We are supposedly created in the image of God
If he is so human, why is he so special
Linked with human flaws and limitations
Offensive to religious people
Devalues God
Takes away awe of God
The via negativa:
The apophatic way

An attempt to understand God
Associated with the 6th century Christian mystic Psuedo-Dionysius
Represents the line of thought that God is so mysterious and different from us and
anything we can experience, that we can never fully understand what he is like
We should appreciate the otherness and mystery of God
Drawing a distinction between God and humanity, and not trying to limit God, who
transcends any particular religion or culture

In order to know what God is, we have to rule out what God is not
By only speaking about God in negatives we can say that God is invisible, immortal,
timeless and incorporeal

Brian Davies criticises this approach by claiming that it will lead us nowhere in
terms of our attempt to understand God

We can only reach a correct conclusion by process of elimination if we start with a
fixed number of options and there is no one to verify whether we are right
The method only works if you understand what you are describing in the first place
The Presumption of Atheism:
Anthony Flew argued that the demonstration of Gods existence was essential
The burden of proof lies with the theists to demonstrate that there are rational and
empirical grounds for believing in God

Such proofs are clearly a task for natural theology
In the absence of any such proof atheism is the only reasonable default position
Compared this to the way that the legal system presumes that someone is innocent
until proven guiltily

Flew argued that religion dies a death of a thousand qualifications as it is
constantly altering Gods characteristics to fit God in with the world

In order to accept there is a God, we need to have knowledge of God, which comes
from proof rather than from belief

We must presume atheism and we cannot believe in God until proof is given
A priori and a posteriori arguments:
A priori arguments (deductive arguments), are those which rely on the processes of
logic to prove a point. You do not need to have any particular experiences or provide
any evidence, in order to make the proof; the proof can be made solely through the
logic of the argument.
A posteriori arguments (inductive arguments), are those which depend on some kind
of evidence to support them. They are derived from experience, they come after
experience. These sorts of arguments look at the world, experience X and state that
therefore Y must be true. A posteriori arguments for the existence of God include the
cosmological design, and moral arguments, as well as the arguments from religious
experience.
Can Gods existence be demonstrated through argument?
For an atheist, even if an argument is sound, this will not change his or her opinion
about Gods existence. However, there is more to religious belief than just agreeing to
a set of statements; religious belief goes beyond reason and involves commitment to
a new way of looking at the world and of behaviour. Faith in God seems to demand
an element of uncertainty and a willingness to take risks in spite of an absence of
concrete proof. Christians might argue that experiences recorded in the Bible, e.g.
that of Jesuss life and resurrection, are proof but others do not accept these
examples as proof.
Believers often point out that God must remain partially hidden from the world, in
order to maintain epistemic distance, which is a distance of knowledge or awareness
of God. Only with this epistemic distance, is it possible for humans to have genuine
free will to exercise faith and moral judgements. If Gods existence were undeniable,
faith would mean nothing, and people would have no choice but to believe.
Most writers who have attempted to show the existence of God through reasoned
argument have recognised that their arguments do not constitute incontrovertible
proof. However, what they do try to show is that belief in God is reasonable and even
probable, as it can be accepted logically that God exists.
Cosmological arguments for the existence of God:

The basis of the cosmological argument is that the universe cannot account for its
own existence. The argument states that there must be a reason for the existence of
the universe and this has to be something which is not part of the physical world of
time and space.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
The fact that the universe exists is proof that there is a God
There may have been a starting point, but not necessarily God
The existence of the universe can be explained scientifically
There is no explanation
The world has existed infinitely
Aristotles concept of the Prime Mover:
In Physics Aristotle argued that

1. Everything is in motion and undergoing change
2. It is not possible to imagine a beginning or end of motion
3. There must be an eternal mover creating the eternal motion
4. This Mover must be Unmoved, otherwise something is causing its movement
5. This is God the Unmoved Mover or the Prime Mover
There must be a Mover, which moves them all without being moved, eternal and a
substance and actual.
The Prime Mover is
- Eternal the source of eternal motion; incapable of not being eternal, because
-
anything less than eternal is changing and imperfect

Independent exists necessarily and does not depend on anything else for its
existence
Non-material could not be made of any kind of matter or material, because
such things can be acted upon and can change

A substance a spiritual, intellectual but non-material substance
Perfect everything wants to imitate perfection and is drawn towards it
Unchanging perfection cannot change
Actual perfection has no potentiality and so it actual
A person it has intelligence which is the essence of personhood; its activity has
to be purely spiritual and intellectual, that is thought; the only thought that God
has is about God

The Final Cause of the Universe the ultimate good towards which everything is
moving; it causes movement by drawing everything towards itself, as the object
of desire and love

Transcendent and impersonal has no plan for us and cannot act in our
physical world
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274):

Cosmological arguments made up the first three of Aquinas Five Ways. A key goal
for Aquinas was to show how faith and reason could work alongside each other.
Aquinas based his cosmological arguments on the two assumptions that the
universe exists and that there must be a reason why.
1. The First Way The Unmoved Mover
- Here, Aquinas concentrated on the existence of change or motion in the world
- Everything which is in motion or changing has to be put into motion or changed
-
by something else
Things stay the same unless some force acts upon them to make them move
The sequence of one thing moving another could not be infinite
Therefore there must have been an Unmoved Mover to set the whole thing off
God sustains the universe the continued changes and movements are because
of the continued existence of a mover

The existence of God can be proved in five ways. The first and more manifest way
is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the
world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by
another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards
which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is
nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But
nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a
state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is
potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not
possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the
same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot
simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is
therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should
be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in
motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be
itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and
that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would
be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent
movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the
staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary
to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands
to be God.
2. The Second Way The Uncaused Causer
- Concentrates on the concept of cause
- Every effect has a cause and nothing can be the cause of itself
- Infinite regress is impossible
- Therefore there must have been a First Cause which we call God
- Concentrates on the Aristotelian idea of efficient cause, which is the agent which
-
makes something happen

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we
find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it,
indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so
it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not
possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the
first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of
the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to
take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause
among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But
if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient
cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient
causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first
efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

3. The Third Way Contingency
- The world consists of contingent beings, which are beings that begin and end,
-
and which are dependent on something else for their existence

Everything in the physical world is contingent, depending on external factors for
its existence
-
Contingency includes dependence on something having brought them into

existence in the first place and on outside factors for the continuation of their
existence
There is some other being, capable of brining other things into existence but
being independent of everything else

This being is necessary, is not caused and depends on nothing else to continue
to exist
This necessary being is God
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in
nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be
generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be.
But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at
some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time
there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there
would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to
exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in
existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and
thus even now nothing would be in existence which is absurd. Therefore, not all
beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which
is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by
another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which
have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to
efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being
having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather
causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
Criticisms of Aquinas argument:
There is no reason why the cause and effect chain cannot be infinite so we do not
have to look for a beginning and a time when it must have started
- BUT, e.g. Leibniz, argued that even if everything moved the next thing in an
infinite chain, there would still need to be an explanation of the whole chains
existence
Anthony Kenny argued against the idea that actual x can only be brought about by
what is actual x, for example, Aquinas argued that for a stick to become hot, this
has to be caused by actual heat, whereas Kenny argues that it could be caused by
friction it is not dead men who commit murders.

The whole cosmological argument depends on the idea that nothing can cause itself,
but then it is self-contradictory to postulate God as an uncaused causer, doing
exactly what it just claimed was impossible
- BUT Aquinas responded saying that this makes the mistake of considering God
to be a thing like other objects in the universe, whereas God is not an object but
differently entirely God is unique and exists in a unique kind of way

Just because there is evidence to suggest that everything in the universe is
contingent does not necessarily mean that the universe as a whole is contingent
some scientific theories suggest that matter or energy may be eternal
BUT these suggestions are still being explored by scientists and questions about
the possible eternity of matter remain unanswered

Hume argued that logically the cosmological argument need not lead to one first
cause but there could be a variety of different causes, and that there is no logical
reason to link this to the Christian God

Fallacy of composition
- It is overstepping the rules of logic to move from individual causes of individual
components of the universe to the assumption that the totality has a cause
The Kalam argument in Islam:
The Kalam argument focusses on a beginning of time and rejects the idea of infinity
a) P1: Whatever comes into being must have a cause
b) P2: The universe came into being
c) C1: The universe must have a cause
d) C2: This cause is God/Allah
Al-Ghazali argued that there must have been a real point at which the universe
began, rather than an infinite regress, because although infinity is a mathematical
concept, it cannot exist in actuality

The universe must have had a cause, because there must have been a time when it
began to exist, and everything that begins to exist must have a cause to make it
come into existence

It is an axiom of reason that all that comes to be must have a cause to bring it about.
The world has come to be. Ergo the world must have a cause to bring it about.
If the universe could not have existed infinitely, then there must have been a time
when the universe did not exist

There was once the possibility of a universe coming into existence or a universe not
coming into existence, and there must have been something to have made the choice
between the two possibilities

There must be some personal, intelligent agency to choose that the universe should
exist, and this personal intelligent agent must exist outside of space and time
Some argue that there cannot be an infinite number of days before today, otherwise
we would have never reached today, so there must have been a starting point
The argument misunderstands the nature of infinity and that infinity has to exist in
actuality even if we cannot imagine it

The universe could just have begun at random, without any conscious choice made
by an agent
Even if the argument is accepted it does not provide evidence for the existence of a
God with all the qualities and characteristics that theists claim God has
The argument is self-contradictory, since it denies the possibility of infinity existing
in actuality, but uses this as part of an argument to demonstrate the actual
existence of an infinite God
William Lane Craig:
Argued in favour of the Kalam argument

Explained the view that an infinite regress could not exist in reality, using the
example of a library with an infinite number of books
If one of the books were loaned out, the library would still have to contain an
infinite number
If every other book were to be taken away, the shelves would still have to be full
Suppose we add an infinity of infinite collections to the library is there actually
not one more single volume in the entire collection than before?
Thus he forms the argument that the earth cannot have existed infinitely
a) P1: An actual infinite cannot exist
b) P2: An infinite temporal regress is an actual infinite rather than a potential
infinity
c) C: Infinite temporal regress cannot exist
A series involving temporal addition cannot be actually infinite
Time in the future is potentially infinite
Leibniz and the principle of sufficient reason:
Leibniz argued that even if the universe has always existed, this still does not give us
an explanation of why it exists

Everything has to have a sufficient reason, even if we do not know what these
reasons are
A full explanation of something includes not just an explanation of how it works but
also how it came to exist

The sufficient reason of the universe is God
- David Hume argued that we could not logically move from the idea that
everything in the universe has a reason, to say that the universe as a whole
-
must have a reason

Bertrand Russell similarly said that just because every human being has a
mother doesnt mean that the human species as a whole has a mother
Hume argued that we can imagine something coming into existence without a cause
as this is not an incoherent idea
- BUT just because you could imagine something existing without a cause, it does
-
not follow that in reality it could exist without a cause

For example, Elizabeth Anscombe gave the example that we can imagine a rabbit
which had no parents and just existed, but obviously this would not be an actual
possibility just because we could imagine it
Debate between Russell and Copleston:
The BBC Third Programme in 1948 brought together Frederick Copleston (a Jesuit
priest and philosopher) and Bertrand Russell (an atheist philosopher) to debate live
on radio some of the issues regarding the existence of God

Copleston argued the case for theism while Russell took an atheist/agnostic position
They agreed on the definition of God as a supreme and personal being, who is
distinct from the world and creator of the world

The problem of Gods existence is considered to be one of great importance because
if God does not exist then human beings and their history have no purpose other
than the purpose they choose to give themselves or is imposed upon them
Copleston argued that, unless one accepts the existence of a first cause, there is no
explanation for the existence of the universe at all
-
Without such an explanation, the universe is gratuitous

Quoted Jean-Paul Sartre: Everything is gratuitous, this garden, this city and
myself. When you suddenly realize it, it makes you feel sick and everything begins
to drift thats nausea. (Nausea)

No object of experience contains within itself alone the reason of its existence, so
there must be a reason external to itself, which is an existent being

- There can be no absolute values without God
Copleston: if there is a contingent being then there is a necessary being.
- Each object in the universe is dependent on the existence of other things and
-
relies for its existence on a reason external to itself

Since nothing in the world contains the reason for its own existence, there must
be an external explanation, something outside the objects in the universe which
accounts for their existence and for the existence of the universe as a whole
There must be a being which contains within itself the reason for its own
existence
- It is meaningful to talk of a necessary being whose essence involves existence
Russell refused to accept the notion of a necessary being as one that cannot be
thought of not existing
- Russell argued that the word necessary can only be applied to analytic
propositions as opposed to synthetic propositions

An analytic statement is true by definition whereas a synthetic statement needs
to be verified by observation or experience

The only grounds on which one could consider a being as necessary is if there
was a being whose existence is self-contradictory to deny

- It does not make sense to talk of a God as necessary
Copleston considered that our knowledge of the existence of God is a posteriori
- He also thought that an adequate explanation is ultimately a total explanation,
-
one to which nothing further can be added a sufficient reason (Leibniz)

Every existent thing must have a sufficient reason for its existence
God is his own sufficient reason; and he is not the cause of himself. By sufficient
reason in the full sense I mean an explanation adequate for the existence of some
particular being.
Copleston also argued that you cannot have an infinite series of contingent
beings, because if you add contingent beings to infinity, you still get contingent
beings and no necessary beings

- Thus an infinite series will be as unable to cause itself as one contingent being
Russell believed that the existence of the universe is just brute fact
- The universes existence does not demand an explanation
- He argued that Copleston was guilty of the fallacy of composition, that is he was
assuming that as everything in the world has cause, then the world as whole
-
needs a cause: the concept of cause is not applicable to the total

Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that
therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasnt
a mother thats a different logical sphere.

The concept of the universe as a whole having a cause is meaningless
Russell also claimed that scientists were discovering first causes which havent
in themselves got causes, undermining the whole notion of everything having to
have a sufficient reason
Russell rejected the need to find an explanation for the existence of the universe
- I should say that the universe is just there, thats all.
- Russell saw the argument for a cause of the universe as having little meaning or
-
significance
He established it as a question that has no meaning
Coplestons view of Russells position was to suggest that Russell was denying
the importance of the argument

If one refuses even to sit down at the chess-board and make a move, one cannot,
of course, be checkmated.
Humes criticisms of the cosmological argument:
Why must there be a link between cause and effect?

- Assume a chain of cause and effect
- No way of establishing the principle of causality
Why must the universe have a cause?
- If God is his own cause, then why cant the universe be its own cause?
Why cant there be an infinite series of causes?
- Human inclination that drives us to seek a first cause rather than accept the
possibility of infinity
We cant infer the cause of the universe from the cause of things within the universe
without observing it?
- We can only know what causes something to happen if we have repeatedly
-
observed it
There can be no inferences made about a cause of the universe since we have
had no experience of observing causes of other universes

We cant infer the cause of the universe from the cause of things within the universe
by assuming that a characteristic of parts of the universe is also a characteristic of
the whole
- Cannot make the same assumptions about the totality of a thing as we can
-
about its component parts

Speaking about causes only makes sense in regard to things in the world, not its
totality
BUT sometimes a totality can have the same character as its part e.g. a wall
made of bricks is a brick wall

If all the contingent parts of the universe failed to exist at once, the universe
itself as the totality of these parts, would cease to exist, which shows the
universe is contingent and therefore requires an explanation

Why must there be a being whose existence is necessary
- No proposition about existence can be logically necessary, as we can only realise
-
the existence of things by experience

All existential propositions are synthetic.
Can either have relations of ideas or matters of fact
Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent so there
is no being whose non-existence implies a contradiction

- Idea of necessary existence is flawed
How can you argue that this being corresponds with the Christian God
- Like causes resemble like effects
- We should not postulate more than is necessary to account for the given effect
Since the universe is finite, it would prove only that its creator would have to be
powerful and wise enough to create it, but not infinitely powerful, wise or good
Hume intended to show that the argument does not provide any justified reason to
believe in God, rather than to prove that there is no God therefore the result of
Humes critique is not atheism as much as agnosticism
Will science be the end of the cosmological argument?
Recently, subatomic physics has suggested that things can exist without a cause
and that motion does not have to be the result of a mover

Investigations in quantum physics suggest that electrons can pass in and out of
existence without any apparent cause
- BUT some would argue that there seems to be no cause because of our limited
understanding, rather than that such things are causeless in reality

Peter Atkins, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford, dismissed the
cosmological argument for the existence of God
- There is of course one big, cosmically big, seemingly real question: Where did it all
come from? Here we see most sharply the distinction between the methods.
Religion adopts the adipose answer: God made it for reasons that will forever
remain inscrutable until, perhaps, we become one with Him (that is, until we are
dead). Such an answer, while intrinsically absurd and evil in its implications,
appears to satisfy those for whom God is a significant part of their existence.
Science, in contrast, is steadily and strenuously working toward a comprehensible
explanation. Witness the extraordinary progress that has been made since the
development of general relativity at the beginning of the twentieth century. Though
difficult, and still incomplete, there is no reason to believe that the great problem,
how the universe came into being, and what it is, will not be solved; we can safely
presume that the solution will be comprehensible to human minds. Moreover, that
understanding will be achieved this side of the grave. (Free Inquiry magazine,
Volume 18, Number 2, 1998).

Lawrence Krauss A Universe from Nothing
- The universe sprang from nothing
- Empty space is unstable
- Universe started in nothing and will end in nothing
- Makes us uncomfortable but the universe doesnt exit to make us happy
Strengths of the cosmological argument:
A posteriori
- Draws upon experience of the world being complex
- Have experience of chains of cause and effect
No other feasible explanation
- Need a necessary being to bring all contingent things into existence
Consistent
- Combines both reason and revelation
- Confirms what is revealed through faith
Agrees with science
- On need for cause of the world
- Can be in line with the Big Bang
Meaningful
- Presence of God gives us purpose
God is the simplest explanation for the existence of the universe
- Ockhams razor: entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity
- The simplest explanation is the most viable/likely answer
- Swinburne: If we can explain the many bits of the universe by one simple being
which keeps them in existence, we should do so even if we cannot explain the
existence of that simple being.
Weaknesses of the cosmological argument:
Not fully a posteriori

- No experience of God
- Only have experience of the physical world
Inductive leap
- Jumps from the existence of a necessary being to existence of God
- Makes assumptions about things beyond our limited experience
- Reaches a conclusion that is beyond the evidence available
- Just because everything in the universe has a cause, does not mean that the
universe as a whole has a cause
Contradictory
- Says that everything needs a cause but then what caused God
World is just brute fact
Biased
- Starts from a position of faith
Design arguments for the existence of God:

Design arguments for Gods existence are often known as teleological arguments.
Teleological comes from the Greek word telos meaning tail or end or purpose. The
ends are important they are the goal or purpose, and are used in order to draw
ones conclusions. Design arguments propose that the universe displays features of
design and order, which point to an intelligent designer, which is God. Teleological
arguments appeal to our aesthetic sense, and so have an emotional pull as well as
an appeal to logic, accounting for its enduring attractiveness.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The universe displays order, purpose and regularity

The complexity of the universe shows evidence of design
Order, beauty and complexity do not arise by blind chance
Such design implies an intelligent designer
The designer of the universe is God and so God exists
Aquinas design argument:
The Fifth Way from the governance of the world

Design qua regularity order and regularity in the universe suggest a designer
Design qua purpose the parts of the universe fit together for some purpose
Nature seems to have an order and a purpose to it
Nothing inanimate is purposeful without the aid of a guiding hand, as inanimate

objects could not have ordered themselves as they do not have any intelligence with
which to make plans or patterns

God is a guiding hand for the non-intelligent beings that act in an ordered way
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which
lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their
acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result.
Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now
whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by
some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark
by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are
directed to their end; and this being we call God.
William Paley (1743 1805):
Trained for Anglican priesthood and graduated from Christs College Cambridge in
1763
Natural Theology published in 1802
By referring to natural world one could understand the nature of God
The analogy between the World and the Watch
- Argued that the mechanism of the universe could be compared to the
-
mechanism of a manufactured object such as a watch

Features of the watch
o The watch is complex because it has several parts, which interact with each
o
other and have responsibilities towards each other

Given these responsibilities, the watch can be said to have a total purpose
to tell the time

Person who found the watch would conclude that someone must have made
the watch rather than the watch occurring by chance

We do not have to see the watch being made to realise there must have been
a maker
This mechanism being observed, the inference we think is inevitable, that the
watch must have a maker.

Features of the world
o Looking at a watch is similar to looking at the world
o The world works so well that it must have been intricately designed and
o
things in the world seem to act for individuated purpose

The world is complex, as there are billions of species of animals and plants in
o
o
the world, and the world is ordered, as we can see that there are distinct
The world itself is even more impressive than a watch in its workings
the contrivances of nature surpass the contrivances of art, in the
complexity, subtility, and curiosity of the mechanism

The use of analogy
o By analogy we can say that the world has a total purpose and that the world
o
must have been designed

Both the world and the watch display features of order and complexity
By proportioning the causes to the effects, we can see that the world-maker
must be that much more impressive than the watch-maker, because the
world is so complex and so ordered

The creator of the world could conceivably be so powerful that it is
reasonable to attach the term God to him

Revealed theology backs up this claim that the maker of the world is God
Genesis 1:1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
It is nonsense to say that a watch came about by chance or has always
existed, then it is equally nonsensical to say that the universe came about by
chance or has always existed.

The conclusion is not invalidated if the world doesnt work perfectly
- The watch doesnt have to work perfectly to infer that it has a designer
- Just because something goes wrong, it doesnt mean that God is imperfect or
that God does not exist
- The world could be made perfectly but still go wrong, just as a watch does
- Pre-emptive argument against the problem of evil
The conclusion is not invalidated if we dont understand all the parts of the watch
- Merely shows that we are less competent than the designer
- Just because we do not understand all the parts of the world does not mean that
our conclusion about there being a designer is invalid
- We are inside the world and therefore our knowledge of the world is limited
- We do not have the Archimedean perspective required
Not only is everything clearly designed but it is designed for a purpose and designed
to an infinite degree of care
- Design qua purpose everything is designed for a purpose by a designing
-
creator
Design qua regularity the regularity of the universe provided further evidence
for a creator God

Paley points to the intricacy of animals and humans and indicates that there is
evidence of craft and skill even on the smallest scale

Uses the example of the human eye to illustrate the idea that everything has
been put together in a particular way in order for it to fulfil a purpose: there is
precisely the same proof that the eye was made for vision, as there is that the
telescope was made for assisting it

- Thought that the design of an eye was a convincing argument against atheism
Evidence not only of intelligent design but also of Gods care
- The hinges in the wings of an earwig, and the joints of its antennae, are as highly
wrought, as if the Creator had nothing else to finish. We see no signs of diminution
of care by the multiplicity of objects, or of distraction of thought by variety. We
have no reason to fear, therefore, our being forgotten, or overlooked or neglected.

It is a happy world after all. The air, earth, the water, teem with delighted existence.
In a spring noon, or a summer evening, on whichever side I turn my eyes, myriads of
happy beings crowd upon my view A bee amongst the flowers in spring, is one of
the cheerfullest objects that can be looked upon. Its life appears to be all enjoyment; so
busy, and so pleased If we look to what the waters produce, shoals of the fry of fish
frequent the margins of rivers, of lakes, and of the sea itself. These are so happy, that
they know not what to do with themselves.
-
Very optimistic in attempt to demonstrate the goodness of the worlds designer
from the happiness of the worlds inhabitants

Recognises that there is suffering but argues that this does not affect our
judgement of the goodness of our deity as there is more happiness than misery
in the world: Happiness is the rule: misery is the exception.

BUT Arthur Schopenhauer argues that misery always outweighs happiness
The pleasure in this world, it has been said, outweighs the pain; or at any rate,
there is an even balance between the two. If the reader wishes to see shortly
whether this statement is true, let him compare the respective feelings of two
animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other.

Schopenhauer uses the example of one animal which is happy enjoying the
experience of eating and the other one is unhappy because it is being eaten, but
the experience of the animal being eaten is a far more extreme pain than the
mild pleasure of eating

we generally find pleasure to be not nearly so pleasant as we expected, and pain
very much more painful

For Paley, pleasure predominates over pain, while for Schopenhauer pain
predominates over pleasure

It is only by radically downplaying the existence of pain and torment in our world
that Paley can so fervently contend that the designer of the world is good
The design argument is more like a hymn of praise than a philosophical proof, and
this is why atheists are rarely if ever brought to conversion by it, for they do not
share the same providential view of the world

- Design argument is an ecstatic expression of religious belief
- Misconceived as an attempt to justify that belief or to convince unbelievers
- Presentations of the design argument are profound and moving
- A sense of wonder and amazement in face of the complexity and beauty of nature
The argument responds to the intuitive human assumption that all things are
explicable
The more we observe about the world, the stronger the argument
Paleys argument is supported by revealed theology (Christian)
Paley emphasises Gods position as unique and outside the universe
Paley confirms that the world has specific purpose, even if we dont know it
There could be multiple creators of the world, whereas Paley automatically assumes
that there is the one and only God

The creator of the universe could be flawed, limited or talentless, as the world is far
from perfect
Given the existence of evil and suffering, the only God that we are left with is an
immoral and malevolent designer, and therefore not worthy of human devotion
Kant:
Kant argued that our ideas about order, design and causality come from the way
that we perceive the world around us

Our minds like to put things in order, and to see patterns and sequences
Perhaps the order in the world is something that we impose on it, when we perceive
it, rather than something that is objectively there
Thought that the teleological and the cosmological arguments were essentially
linked, because both arguments ultimately depend on the idea that God is
necessarily existent
These arguments assume that there is a God who necessarily exists by definition
and Kant did not think that this was sound reasoning
Anthony Flew:
Refers to John Wisdoms Parable of the Gardener:

- Two explorers in a jungle come across a clearing which has the appearance of
-
being tended; one believes that there is a gardener and the other disagrees
After an exhaustive series of tests, the gardener has not been revealed
The believer continues to maintain that a gardener tends the plot an invisible,
intangible and inaudible gardener

- The sceptic is not convinced
- Appearance of order may lead to assumption of a gardener i.e. God
Wisdoms point
- Wisdoms point is that although two people can be presented with exactly the
-
same empirical evidence they can draw completely different conclusions

One person sees the garden as neglected, the other as cared for by a gardener
In the same way the atheist sees the universe as a place without God (they may
point to natural disasters, to terrible injustices, to pointless suffering); but the
believer points to the order and beauty of the world and sees this as evidence of
the work of divine intelligence

Influence of preconceptions on the believer and the sceptic means that there is
nothing, no experiment or observation, that could verify and confirm either of
their conclusions
Wittgenstein: The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the
unhappy man
The difference between the believer and the non-believer is something like a
difference in response to the world in which we find ourselves

Flew: Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener
differ from an imaginary gardener or even no gardener at all?
- At every stage the believer qualifies the hypothesis that God exists even in the
-
light of contrary evidence

Flew refers to this as the death by a thousand qualifications
What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of
the love of, or of the existence of, God?

- Believes that religious statements are meaningless
Hare argued that religious language cannot make factual claims because religious
beliefs are bliks, a way in which experience is interpreted
- Bliks are modes of cognition and have significant importance to the way one
-
orders their life

Bliks are ways of regarding the world which are in principle neither verifiable or
falsifiable
Whatever experience you have you will still believe/interpret in the same way e.g.
the parable of the Gardener
-
No experience can count as evidence against a blik as the blik in question

determines how experiences are understood and therefore what they are
considered to be evidence for

Uses the example of the lunatic who is convinced that all university dons want to
murder him, and will accept nothing as evidence against his conviction
Religious belief is such a blik evidence that seems persuasive to a sceptic has
no effect on the believer and why believers find evidence of God where sceptics
see nothing of the sort
F. R. Tennant (1866 1957):

Tennant was one of the first people to put forward a version of the design argument
which included reference to and acceptance of the theory of evolution. According to
Tennant, evolution is entirely consistent with design arguments, because of the way
in which evolution itself seems to have a purpose. Evolution has a purpose, and is
both created and guided by an intelligent God: the multitude of interwoven
adaptations by which the world is constituted a theatre of life, intelligence, and
morality, cannot reasonably be regarded as an outcome of mechanism, or of blind
formative power, or aught but purposive intelligence. Tennant believed that evidence
supporting the theory of evolution was also further evidence of the existence of God.
The anthropic principle:
The world seems set up to provide for human life: the loaded dice
The argument that the natural laws of the universe have been fine-tuned to allow
human life to exist

The way in which the universe seems to be structured so that it was inevitable that
life would develop

Every one of the coincidences inherent in the fundamental laws of nature and the
specific relationships between different physical phenomena is necessary for life and
for consciousness
If the laws of nature were even slightly different, human life (and other forms of life)
could not have happened

The fact that we are here against all the odds is evidence of the existence of a God
who had fine-tuned the universe deliberately so that we could exist

Discoveries in science have strengthened the theists case for Gods existence
- Paul Davies has maintained that if the strength of the initial event had varied by
-
one part in 1060 then there would have been no Big Bang
Roger Penrose, in The Emperors New Mind, calculates the statistical
improbability of the fine-tuning of the existence of the universe as 1 in 10 billion
multiplied by 123
There needs to be a precise balance in the values of constants that govern
gravitational force and the weak nuclear force in every atom without this there
would be no expansion of the universe and no formation of stars or planets

Stars must been formed, and within them carbon atoms (essential component of
organic matter) created from the fusion of hydrogen and helium atoms
A life-containing planet needs to be at a precise distance from the Sun in order
to have just enough light and heat to maintain life once it has emerged
-
There must have been the development of self-replicating DNA and there must
take place the same random mutations that led to the natural selection of
mammals and eventually the emergence of our ancestors on the African plains
When we consider all the physical conditions that the universe had to possess for
humans to evolve then, as Russell Stannard puts it, there seems to be a conspiracy
to fix the conditions

Three versions of the anthropic principle
- The weak anthropic principle
o Given that we are here, the universe must have the properties and
coincidences necessary for us to exist

o Gives no insight into why the universe is this way
The participatory anthropic principle
o The universe would not exist unless there were observers to see it
o BUT there is evidence that the universe existed long before humans and
continues to exist in parts where we cannot observe

The strong anthropic principle
o It is somehow necessary for the universe to have these special properties and
o
coincidences
The universe was constructed and could not have come into existence in any
other way
It was inevitable that human life should have come about, given the
structure of the universe

The weak anthropic principle does not tell us anything but simply states the obvious
There could be an infinite number of universes existing and so we happen to live in
one which is suited to life but have no access to the others so life was bound to
happen given infinite possibilities

The argument seems to give humanity a special status which is unwarranted if the
universe was structured differently, dung beetles would not be here either, so the
argument could equally well be made that the universe is designed for the existence
of dung beetles or even for the existence of cancer

It might be highly unlikely that the structure of the universe allows for our
existence, but everything that ever happens is highly unlikely, when considered
alongside all the other possibilities of what might have happened instead simply
the random effect of chance
The aesthetic design argument:
Tennant argued for the existence of an intelligent God who designed the universe in
the basis of beauty of the world

Beauty cannot be explained away by Darwinist ideas
World contains so much beauty, which is not necessary for life, but enhances life
Beauty has little survival value and is a biologically superfluous accompaniment of
the cosmic process

The natural world is full of beauty on a scale which humans can never copy
The beauty of the natural world provides evidence for the existence of God because
there is no scientific explanation to account for beauty
There is no reason for there to be so much beauty in the world, unless it is put there
by God, for the purposes of human enjoyment and for God himself to enjoy when he
looks at his creation

BUT beauty is not an absolute quality beauty is in the eye of the beholder
BUT beauty is a value-judgement and cannot be said to exist objectively
Richard Swinburnes design argument:
Argument from probability (building a cumulative case for theism)

- The sheer complexity and providential nature of the universe makes it highly
-
unlikely that the universe would just happen to be the way it is

The more probable reason for order in the universe is design rather than random
chance
Its probability is raised by such things as the existence of the universe, its order,
the existence of consciousness, human opportunities to do good, the pattern of
history, evidence of miracles and religious experience

In the light of this evidence, theism is more probable than not
The simple hypothesis of theism leads us to expect all the phenomena that I have
been describing with some reasonable degree of probability. God being omnipotent
is able to produce a world orderly in these respects. And he has a good reason to
choose to do so: a world containing human persons is a good thing God being
perfectly good, is generous. He wants to share.

It is a universe where humans are designed to occupy the highest position and
the natural laws function so as to make this possible and so that humans can
meaningfully contribute to its development and maintenance

Like a good parent, a generous God has reason for not fostering on us a certain
fixed measure of knowledge and control, but rather giving us a choice of whether
to grow in knowledge and control.

It is because it provides for us these opportunities for humans that God has a
reason to create a world governed by the natural laws of the kind we find. Of
course God has a reason to make many other things, and I would hesitate to say
that one could be certain that he would make such a world. But clearly it is the
sort of thing that there is some significant probability that he will make.
Card Shuffling analogy
- Swinburne also uses an analogy to explain his theory; he gives the example of
the random drawing of 10 cards from 10 decks of cards. If each card drawn were
the ace of hearts you would not put this down to luck or chance! You would
expect the game to have been fixed in some way. In exactly the same way, the
laws governing the universe have been fixed by an intelligent creator.

Scientific discoveries provide good grounds for belief in God
not merely are there enormous numbers of things, but they all behave in the same
way. The same laws of nature govern the most distant galaxies we can observe
through our telescopes as operate on earth, and the same laws govern the earliest
events in time to which we can infer as operate today. Or, as I prefer to put it, every
object, however distant in time and space from ourselves, has the same powers and
the same liabilities to exercise those powers as do the electrons and protons from
which our own bodies are made. If there is no cause of this, it would be a most
extraordinary coincidence too extraordinary for any rational person to believe.

It stretches our credibility if we are asked to believe that the regularity of the laws of
physics is just a coincidence and it would be far simpler and more rational to
conclude that these laws must exist because of a divine intelligence

Other possibilities depend on us accepting the occurrence of very unlikely
coincidences, which require just as much of a leap of faith as belief in God requires
Swinburne is impressed not only by the laws of physics themselves but by the fact
that these laws are easy for humans to observe, as these laws have important
consequences for us e.g. we can observe that objects fall when dropped and we can
use this knowledge to avoid accidents

God gives us the freedom to make choices for ourselves and for other people, as well
as giving us the freedom to decide how much knowledge we want to have and gives
us the ability to make advances in science and technology

Paleys book is devoted to showing how well built in all their intricate detail are
animals and humans, and so to concluding that they must have had God as their
maker. The analogy of animals to complex machines seems to me correct, and its
conclusion justified.
Polkinghorne
- God chose to create a universe governed by science
- As our knowledge of science grows, so too will our knowledge of God
Humes criticisms of design arguments:
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Criticised ideas of design 27 years before Paley wrote on the idea of design
Pre-empted some of the findings of Darwin
- Suggest that things, e.g. animals, have to adapt in order to survive
- I would fain know how an animal could subsist, unless its parts were so
adjusted.
The analogy between man-made objects (i.e. a watch) and the world is weak
- Characteristics of purpose and design might be obvious in a watch, but are not
nearly as obvious in the world
- Little similarity between the world and man-made machines
- The universe resembles more an animal or a vegetable than it does a mechanism
Order in the world does not necessarily mean that someone must have had the idea
of the design order may not have come about because of an intelligent idea
Order is a necessary part of the worlds existence
- If the world were chaotic it would not survive
- This self-sustaining order could have come about by chance
There is no reason to suggest that the creator of the world is the Christian God
- The cause of the world is hidden from us and its cause should be proportional to
-
the effect it produces

Example of a pair of scales with one end hidden from view, the end we can see
contains a weight we know and we can also see that the other end outweighs but
we have no means of knowing by how much

We cannot infer with any confidence that the hidden end contains 100kg or a
tonne or an infinite weight
-
The world is finite and imperfect so there is no need to assume that there must
be a perfect infinite God behind it

We cannot legitimately assign attributes or characteristics to the designer
When we infer any particular cause from an effect, we must proportion the one to
the other, and can never be allowed to ascribe to the cause any qualities, but what
are exactly sufficient to produce the effect.

There is no reason to assume that the world was made by just one God
- Other possibilities are equally likely
- Could have been a team of Gods or even a team of demons
- Could have been an old or senile God
- Why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?
The universe is unique
- With no experience of any other way that things have been we cannot say what
-
our universe is like or what it could have been like

We do not know how worlds are usually made or what degree of order to expect
We have no other standards, i.e. other worlds, by which to judge the order in the
world
Allowing, therefore, the gods to be the authors of the existence or order of the
universe; it follows, that they possess that precise degree of power, intelligence, and
benevolence, which appears in their workmanship, but nothing farther can ever be
proved, except we call in the assistance of exaggeration and flattery to supply the
defects of argument and reasoning.
- Beyond reason to worship and adore a divine being
- Can only draw conclusions from what we can reasonably know
- Fairer to say an intelligent designer is more powerful than humans rather than
infinitely powerful
A man who follows [the hypothesis of design] is able, perhaps, to assert or conjecture
that the universe sometime arose from something like a designer, but beyond that
position he cannot ascertain one single circumstance, and is left the utmost licence
of fancy and hypothesis.
J. S. Mills criticisms of design arguments:
If we look at the world and the rules which govern it, we see cruelty, violence and
unnecessary suffering
If the world has been deliberately designed, then it indicates something very
different from a loving creator God

Living things inflict cruelty on each other and seem to be designed for that purpose
- Many animals have special features to enable them to be efficient killers e.g.
-
sharp claws and teeth

Killing, the most criminal act recognised by human laws, Nature does once to
every being that lives

In sober truth, nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for
doing to one another are natures every-day performances.

Everything, in short, which the worst men commit against life or property, is
perpetrated on a large scale by natural agents.

Nature itself causes suffering through natural disasters
-
A single hurricane destroys the hopes of a season; a flight of locusts, or an

inundation, desolates a district; a trifling chemical change in an edible root starves
a million people.
If there is a God who created and designed the world, then it must be a God who
wants his creation to be miserable

It does not make sense to use the world as evidence of the existence of a good God
and we cannot want to worship a God who would design such a world
If God designed the world, this indicates a cruel God who wants creatures to suffer
Richard Dawkins:
Modern Darwinist: Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Darwinism
- Darwin introduced the idea of evolution and natural selection, which provide
convincing arguments for atheism
- Over many different generations, species evolved as the offspring with the
stronger characteristics, which led to a greater chance of survival, lived for longer
and were able to produce more offspring to continue the strong characteristics
while the weaker traits became extinct
- Complexity was one of the characteristics which led to a greater chance of
survival, and so more and more complex plants and animals were formed, with
different characteristics to suit different habitats
- Natural selection provides an alternative explanation, and seemingly more
plausible explanation, for the complexity and suitability for purpose of the world
Dawkins argues that religion is an excuse not to investigate scientifically as theists
assume that there are inexplicable elements to the world and satisfied with
attributing the lack of any explanation to God, which discourages them from
investigating further until they find the truth

The Blind Watchmaker (book titled to immediately challenge Paleys famous analogy)
- Paleys genius was his passion for nature He had a proper reverence for the
complexity of the living world, and he saw that it demands a very special kind of
-
explanation. The only thing he got wrong was the explanation itself.
Paley talks about a divine watchmaker
As scientists come closer to an understanding of how everything works, there is
less and less need to resort to God to explain things

The discovery of DNA provides an explanation for the existence of humanity
Natural selection is an alternative designer
Nature evolves by itself and gives an illusion of design without a designer
Not a bleak idea as faces up to the truth
We can create our own purpose, like Sartre: existence precedes essence
the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics albeit deployed in a
very special way"

Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin
discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and
apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and
no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight
at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is
the blind watchmaker.
River out of Eden

- No fundamental and deep distinction between living and non-living material
- life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information
- DNA can explain the most fundamental causes of life
- Nature is neither cruel nor caring, just indifferent
Science has proved itself to be more than just another theory because its principles
can be put into practice and shown to work, whereas beliefs about God cannot be
tested at all and are therefore worthless
- Airplanes built by scientific principles work airplanes built to tribal mythological
specifications dont.
Dawkins assumes that the universe is a brute fact, but this assumption cannot be
proven true
Hume suggested that there are many possibilities for the existence of the universe,
but we cannot know which is true

The probability of the universe being a brute fact will always remain only a
probability, as other possibilities have not been shown to be impossible

Randomness is not something which can be demonstrated and so it is impossible to
prove that something has happened by chance

Ian Barbour if Dawkins objects to religious belief setting limitations on scientific
discovery, then he should not allow science to dictate the usefulness of religion
Alister McGrath the point of view put forward by Paley in his teleological argument
is not typical of most Christian thought today, so Dawkins is criticising an approach
that is more than two hundred years out of date, and if Christians were to criticise
the science of two hundred years ago, they would probably be able to find fault with
that too
Williams: DNA exhibits too much design work to be the product of mere chance.
Intelligent design:
Scientific view on design

- A modern formulation of the teleological argument
- A theistic science
- Certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an
-
intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection

Presents an alternative to natural selection, so rejected by both atheists and
mainstream scientists
Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able
to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural
law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof
- Intelligent design has claimed that certain features of the universe we find
-
ourselves in ourselves are best explained by an intelligent cause

Intelligent design does not identify or name the intelligence behind it, however
merely states that one must exist

The term was first created in 1987 by the US Supreme Court in the landmark
case of Edwards vs. Aguillard which ruled that creation could not be legally
required to be taught in schools alongside evolution

The consensus amongst the scientific community is that intelligent design is not
science
-
The US National Academy of Sciences justifies this by saying that creationism,

intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life
or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of
science.
Paul Davies
- Fine-tuning Paul Davies everything is so finely tuned for human existence
-
which points towards an intelligent designer

If nature is so clever as to exploit mechanisms that amaze us with their
ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of intelligent design
behind the universe? If the worlds finest minds can unravel only with difficult
the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are
merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance?

Michael Behe, a professor of biochemestry
- Irreducible complexity the systems in nature are so complex that you cannot
-
take away any one part and keep it functioning, so must have been designed
Specified complexity complex designs with a special purpose
Behe defined an irreducibly complex system as one being composed of several
well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the
removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease
functionally
This apparently proves that modern life forms could not have evolved naturally
However, nearly all of the examples Behe provides have been rebuked by science,
and were based on misunderstandings of the systems in question

In the 2005 District Court trial Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, where
Behe gave evidence, the court found that Professor Behes claim for irreducible
complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been
rejected by the scientific community at large.

However, despite the obvious failure of the argument it continues to be used by
proponents of intelligent design and creationism

Many take the example of haemoglobin, which is said to be such a complex
molecule that it cannot have come about through chance alone, and is
apparently irreducibly complex

The Darwinists explanation is that there is a smooth path from simplicity to
complexity that can be traced through the history of life, and haemoglobin
molecules can be traced back to much simpler replicating molecules which
gained a greater and greater complexity through natural selection

Pseudo-science dressed up or pretend science
Scientists coming up with a religious theory
Not all scientific theories are proven
Vague on who designer is less specific
Lack of evidence so shunned by mainstream scientists
Arguments from morality to God:

The moral argument moves from the existence of morality to the existence of God. It
concludes that there must be a God since there is morality. We also have feelings of
moral obligation which point to our accountability to a divine law-giver.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804):
A priori argument for the existence of God even though he was working from our
experience of moral obligation

Infers the existence of God from the empirical evidence of the psychological
phenomenon of human morality
- two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing awe, the starry heavens
above me and the moral law within me

We all have an innate moral sense within us
He based his view on our common experience of a sense of duty
We know, in ourselves, what is right, we know where our duty lies and what we
ought to do
We have this experience of the universe as a place where morality is important,
we know what food is, and we know that it should be rewarded

This innate sense of a moral structure for the universe points to the existence of
a God who can ensure justice

- It is morally necessary to assume the existence of God.
Kants moral argument
1. A good will, or a person with right moral intentions, seeks to bring about the
Highest Good, the summum bonum, the perfect state of affairs
2. Ought implies can, so because we know that we ought to aim for the Highest
Good, it follows that is must be achievable, i.e. there is a necessity connected
with duty as a requisite to presuppose the possibility of this highest good; and as
this is possible only on condition of the eixstence of God it is morally necessary
to assume the existence of God
3. Although the realisation of the Highest Good has to be a possibility, it is not
within our power as humans to achieve it, because, although we can strive
towards virtue in our thought and conduct, we cannot ensure that happiness is
added to virtue to make the perfect state of affairs
4. Therefore, there must be a rational moral being, who, as creator and rule of the
world, has the power to bring moral worth and happiness together: the
existence is postulated of a cause of the whole of nature, itself distinct from nature,
which contains the ground of the exact coincidence of happiness with morality
5. As this reward for happiness clearly does not happen in this life, where the good
sometimes have lives of tragedy and the wicked prosper, it must be attained in
eternity
Rejected all other arguments for the existence of God, because of their ultimate
dependence on the idea that God is necessarily existent
- These other arguments are theoretical arguments
- The existence of God is not something we can know through the powers of
reason, as reason only works for the world of sense experience, but Gods
existence is beyond the grasp of the five senses

Kant distinguished between the phenomenal and noumenal world
- The phenomenal world is our physical world but God belongs to the noumenal
- All experience is mediated though time and space and what the world is really
like, independent of our experience, is unknowable
- We cannot argue from this world to the next
Kant proposed a practical argument
There are strong practical reasons for believing in God even if Gods existence
cannot be proved
By postulating the existence of God and an afterlife we are giving ourselves
strong practical reasons for being moral

- Makes our lives and moral duties worthwhile and meaningful
- God is a postulate of practical reason
Humans are rational, autonomous, moral decision makers
- As human beings we experience ourselves as autonomous decision-makers, and
an action is only a matter of morality if this action is one that has been freely
-
through reason
Morality is a matter of doing ones moral duty
- The only intrinsically good reason for moral action is the good will
- The Categorical Imperative the right thing to do has to be applicable
-
chosen
God is not a divine lawgiver but God wills the moral law which we discover
universally
Reason is the basis of morality
Happiness should not be the motive of action even though the result of doing
your duty may be a state of happiness

Did not believe that Gods existence could be proved but could be established
through faith
- Reasoned that it made rational and logical sense to postulate the existence of
-
God from our experience of the nature of morality

Mackie: Kant suggests that moral reasoning can achieve what speculative
reasoning cannot, and that the existence of a god can be defended as being
necessarily presupposed in moral consciousness.

Basic premise is that humanity ought to strive towards moral perfection
- Assumes that the universe is fair and that the summum bonum is achievable
- These assumptions are effectively faith claims as they cannot be proved
- If you hold that the universe is fair and if the summum bonum is achievable then
life after death and God become necessary postulates
- If the assumptions are rejected then so are the postulates
Moral statements are prescriptive so ought implies can
- Ought implies can: we ought to endeavour to promote the highest good, which
-
must, therefore, be possible

But, Kant observed that in this life the virtuous are not always rewarded with
happiness
Therefore, our opportunity to achieve the highest good must extend beyond this
life and we need the help of God to achieve it

It is beyond humans to ensure we are truly rewarded for our virtue
Therefore the existence is postulated of a cause of the whole of nature, itself
distinct from nature, which contains the ground of the exact coincidence of
happiness with morality

BUT we cannot argue that just because we ought to aim for the highest Good
that there is something that can bring it about

The summum bonum (highest good) was the goal of the Categorical Imperative
- Must take the highest good as a supreme end
- The summum bonum represents the combination of virtue and happiness
- Doing ones moral duty and achieving a state of happiness
An average level of virtue is not enough so we are obliged to aim for the highest
standard possible
True virtue should be rewarded with happiness
Virtue is rewarded with happiness
All humans should aspire to achieve the summum bonum
The highest good is possible in the world only on the supposition of a Supreme
Being having a causality corresponding to the moral character

- If the summum bonum was not achievable then moral behaviour is meaningless
Kant speaks of God as one of three postulates of pure practical reason
- Postulate means to suggest or assume the existence, fact or truth of something
-
as a basis for reasoning, discussion or belief

A need of pure practical reason, on the other hand, is based on a duty to make
the highest good the object of my will so as to promote it with all my strength. In
doing so, I must presuppose its possibility and also its conditions, which are God,
freedom, and immortality.

Freedom if we feel obliged to fulfil a certain duty, we must have the freedom to
fulfil it
Immortality we cannot achieve the highest good in this life and it is illogical to
aim for something we cannot achieve and therefore we must achieve the highest
good in an afterlife
God humans do not have the power by themselves to bring about the highest
good and so we need God in order reward virtue with happiness

Does not assume the existence of God as basis
It ensures a sense of justice, where virtue is rewarded, thus avoiding demoralisation
He acknowledges that the existence of God cannot be proved and only that to
postulate it provides the best explanation for our sense of morality

Criticisms of the summum bonum
- Just because we aim to achieve it does not mean that it is possible
- We cannot assume that there is a God to help us achieve it
- If we are rewarded it does not mean that we are being rewarded by God
- Attempting to achieve the summum bonum will promote good whether we achieve
-
it or not
The goodness of the attempt to achieve it is not undermined if the summum
bonum is not achieved

- You do not need a belief in God to act morally and do good
- A simple belief in God does not tell us how to be moral
Even if one accepts Kants claim that God is a postulate of pure practical reason that
does not help an individual to solve a moral problem or dilemma

J.L. Mackie: Even if, as Kant argues elsewhere, ought implies can, the thesis that
we ought to promote the highest good implies only that we can seek to promote it, and
perhaps, since rational seeking could not be completely fruitless, that we can to some
extent actually promote it. But this does not require that the full realisation of the
highest good should be possible.

Kants argument is circular as he argues that we have a sense of aiming for the
highest good, which only exist if there is a God, so God exists, which means we have
a sense of aiming for the highest good Can we suppose that the existence of God
follows from the fact that we ought to aim for something which can only exist if there
is a God?
Michael Palmer: Kants moral argument looks suspiciously like trying to keep your
cake and eat it.
- Kant rejects other arguments for Gods existence which he called theoretical
arguments
- But his argument still seems similar to the arguments that he rejects
The concept of an objective moral law is an assumption in response to the idea that
morality is set down by God
- Cultural relativism says that morals are influenced by different societies
- Emotivism says that emotions are personal to each person so we cannot
generalise
Evolution may show that the characteristics of kindness has evolved as an
advantage
The extent to which a person has a moral obligation is debatable and even if they
do, there is no reason that this obligation is to God

It may be argued that there is no objective moral law and therefore there is not
independent moral law-giver

Utilitarianism
- Kant contradicts himself as he says that we should do our duty without reward
but the summum bonum is a kind of reward
- Utilitarians see happiness as being achievable in this life
Virtue ethics
- Eudaimonia is the ultimate end in life
- Aristotle argued that happiness is not always guaranteed
- Happiness is a possibility but does not have to be achieved in the life or in the
afterlife
- Even if it cannot be achieved moral behaviour is still meaningful
- Morals are for the best interest of people
Premise that ought implies can is false
- Usually we assume that we ought to do only things which are possible but it
could make sense to aim towards something, even if it is not ultimately
-
achievable, as it could be worthwhile to make efforts in the right direction

Brian Davies argues that it would not be meaningless to tell a not very able child
you ought to learn French even if fluency is not a possibility

Kant jumps from it ought to be possible to therefore it is possible
John Hick argues that Kant has moved from the idea of logical possibility to the
assumption of actuality just because something is possible does not mean that
it will ever actually happen

Davies asks why we have to postulate the behind the moral law there must be a
Christian God when there could be other possibilities, e.g. law-giving could be done
by a whole group of angels
- The amount of power and knowledge require to enable people to achieve the
-
summum bonum is not necessarily the same as omnipotence and omniscience

This power is greater than what humans have, not necessarily unlimited power
Why cannot a top-ranking angel do the job...? Why not a pantheon of very clever,
Kantian-minded angels?
Sigmund Freud suggest that our sense of right and wrong is just the internalised
voice of our parents or society, our conscience is an inner policeman and the
internalised voice of parents and society
Bertrand Russell argued the humanist case for morality, rejecting the idea that there
is any sort of supernatural deity and objecting to the idea that morality must be the
result of a divine law-giver
- Instead our morality is the result of humanity seeking to promote the
satisfaction of desire for the majority of people, and our moral codes exist for the
wellbeing of society and consequently for the individuals in it, rather than being
-
the result of any outside cause

Bertrand Russell points out that much evil has been done in the name of religion
(the Crusades, the persecution of the Jews, the martyrdoms of so-called
heretics) and that true morality lies in the opposite direction from religion
James Rachel argued that the whole concept of a God who is the object of worship
goes against morality, because worship requires the submission of ones own moral
freedom and a being who requires worship, and therefore the loss of moral freedom,
is therefore not worthy of worship
Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801 1890):
An Anglican that converted to Catholicism and became a Cardinal

When we do something wrong we feel ashamed, we feel guilty and we feel responsible
- This implies that there is one before whom we feel ashamed, guilty and
-
responsible
We cannot say that we are ashamed before the community because we feel guilty
even when no-one does or can know of what we have done

If, as is the case, we feel responsibility, are ashamed, are frightened at
transgressing the voice of conscience, this implies there is One to whom we are
responsible, before whom we are ashamed, whose claim upon us we fear.If the
cause of these emotions does not belong to this visible world, the Object to which
[our] perception is directed must be Supernatural and Divine.

Humans have a conscience and it is the duty of each individual to inform their
conscience directly, but it is the existence of the faculty of conscience that points to
God as the divine author of this faculty
- Conscience is the voice of God, the voice that guides our behavior and produces
-
feelings of guilt and shame

Conscience is an awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to ones conduct together
with the urge to prefer right over wrong

Conscience is the aboriginal vicar of Christ.
Conscience is a law of the mind a messenger of him, who both in nature and in
grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his
representatives.
Thus conscience is a connecting principle between the creature and his Creator;
and the firmest hold of theological truths is gained by the habits of personal
religion.
Counterfeit conscience
- Many are guilty of having a fake conscience shaped by society
- The term conscience has been misunderstood and is used to defend any
-
personal choice
But true conscience is a stern monitor and is nothing to do with our own selfish
desires
Raises problems for God if God is making us perform immoral actions

What happens if you do not believe in God or you cannot hear Gods voice?
What happens to human free will if God is constantly telling us what to do?
Frequency of moral mistakes made when conscience is followed invalidates the claim
that it is Gods voice because God surely cannot make mistakes
- We have to build up a significantly sensitive conscience to hear Gods voice
-
clearly
The more we pray and are in relationship with God, the more able we are to hear
his voice
Sigmund Freud (1856 1939):
Our sense of duty and moral awareness can be explained by socialisation

Our moral awareness cannot be of divine origin because of the differing opinions on
ethical issues as if it were, morality would be absolute and we would all come to the
same conclusions
The human psyche is made up of three parts
- The Id our basic instincts and primitive desires
- The Ego developed personality which comes from understanding the external
world
- The Super-ego the unconscious internalised voice of society
The super-ego can be divided into two parts
- The ego-ideal which represents the rewarding parent and gives us feelings of
-
pride and satisfaction

The conscience which represents the punishing parents and gives us feelings of
guilt and discomfort

Conscience is the product of the unconscious mind, the super-ego
- It observes the ego, gives it orders, judges it and threatens it with punishment,
-
exactly like the parents whose place it has taken

Our conscience is a moral policeman developed during childhood
Conscience is little more than the inherited traditions of the community and
family in which one is brought up and which lives in ones superego for the rest
of ones life
Thomas Aquinas 4th Way:
The argument from degree

Observed a gradation of quality in everything
If things have different degrees of goodness, there is a supreme perfection to which
these things approximate
1. We experience things in the world that are noble, true and good
2. These things must take their reality from things which are more noble, true and
good
3. To avoid infinite regression there must be something which is most noble, true
and good
4. This being all men call God
For any given quality there must be a perfect standard by which all such qualities
are measured and these perfections are contained in God

God causes the goodness in all things
BUT Aquinas assumes that the world is good, that the being who created the world
is God, and that there is no such things as infinite regression

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there
are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But more and less are
predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways
something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more
nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest,
something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost
being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in
Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire,
which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. 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.
H.P. Owen:
The existence of objective moral laws suggests that there is a divine law-giver who
wrote these laws

It is impossible to think of a command without also thinking of a commander.
A clear choice faces us. Either we take moral claims to be self-explanatory modes of
impersonal existence or we explain them in terms of a personal God.

Since commands and laws do not write themselves, they must either be brute facts
or put there by God

We need an explanation for these laws and they must have been put there by God
Dom Trethowan:
Rejected the use of logic to establish Gods existence

Interpreted morality as a religious experience which points towards God
When we make a moral decision we choose between possible courses of action and a
sense of obligation guides us to make a choice

The value instilled by God in his creation (the sanctity of life) explains the sense of
obligation that we feel

We have value because we received it from a source of value. That is what I mean, for
a start, by God. that is why the demand upon us to develop ourselves is an absolute
unconditional command.
An objective moral law is far from being self-explanatory
Moral laws can only be explained by the existence of a metaphysical theistic being
If one believes in an intelligent and purposive God one has a reason to believe in a
non-human lawgiver
BUT morals do not only make sense if one is obedient to a personal, law-giving being
as some laws just need to be logically obeyed, e.g. do not pick on someone bigger
than you so you dont get hurt, such laws have more to do with logic and selfpreservation than morals
Peter Geach:
One obviously relevant sort of reply to a question Why shouldnt I is an appeal to

something the questioner wants and cannot get if he does so-and-so. I maintain that
only such a reply is relevant and rational.

The reason for doing an action is human interest, not to satisfy a non-human law-
giver
If someone already believes in God, the fact of a moral law is to be expected, to give
people an objective standard in deciding what action to take, but one cannot argue
the other way from the fact there is such a standard to belief in God
The Euthyphro Dilemma:
First proposed in Platos Euthyphro dialogue, challenging the divine command

theory: Is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it
is loved?
Bertrand Russell reformulated the Euthyphro Dilemma: Is something good because
God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?
It is good because God commands it (divine command theory)
- God is the ultimate source of moral authority
- Moves from a belief in the existence of God to ethical theories
- Actions are good because God said so rather than being good in themselves,
-
which make moral codes meaningless

No sound reasoning for thinking some actions are better than others, except for
the arbitrary whim of God

Certain moral actions could have been deemed otherwise immoral had God
willed it
Saying God is good becomes meaningless - reduces Gods goodness to his power,
capable of enforcing his commands

Moral goodness implies moral choice but in this case God cannot choose wrong
since if he choose something it must be right

William Alston: since the standards of moral goodness are set by divine
commands, to say that God is morally good is just to say that he obeys his own
commands that God practices what he preaches, whatever that might be

C.S. Lewis: if good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of
God Himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend
would have the same claim on us as those of the righteous Lord.

If God commands things arbitrarily, then why worship Him? God could have
commanded what we now see as bad as good.

Leibniz: in saying that things are not good by any rule of goodness, but merely
the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realising it, all the love of
God and all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done if he would be
equally praiseworthy doing exactly the contrary? Where will be his justice and his
wisdom if he has only a certain despotic power, if arbitrary will take the place of
reasonableness.
God commands it because it is good
- God is no longer necessary for an ethical system to work
- God is subordinate to a higher law and creates rules on pre-existing morals so
-
there is a higher standard than God

God is no longer omnipotent since he cannot alter the separate set of morals
-
God becomes a law-transmitter rather than a law-giver, so can have morality
without God
Good is based on Gods nature but does not come from God
Richard Price: It may seem that this is setting up something distinct from God,
which is independent of him, and equally eternal and necessary.

Hugo Grotius: What we have been saying [about the natural law] would have a
degree of validity even if we should conceded that which cannot be conceded
without the utmost wickedness, that there is no God, or that the affairs of men are
of no concern to him.
Challenges to the Moral Argument:
Virtue ethics
- Develop virtues yourself
- No external influence
- Can achieve Eudaimonia in this life
- Do not need an afterlife
Utilitarianism
- Base actions on consequences as motives are not important
- Act solely for welfare of others
- Dont need heaven or God to make actions meaningful
- Mill: He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right
whether his motive be duty or hope of being paid for his trouble; he who betrays
the friend that trusts him, is guilty of a crime, even if his object be to serve another
friend to whom he is under greater obligations.

It is a mistake to confuse the standards for right action with a consideration of
our motives to perform a right action

Scrutiny of motives or intentions will show that almost all good behaviour
proceeds from questionable intentions

- In our moral analyse we should ignore matter of intention
James Rachels argument from moral autonomy against God
- If any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship
- No being could possibly be a fitting object of worship, since worship requires the
abandonment of ones role as an autonomous moral agent
- Therefore, there cannot be any being who is God
Bertrand Russell
- Moral codes exist for the wellbeing of society
- Not the result of any outside cause, i.e. God
- Much evil has been done in the name of religion, e.g. burning of witches
- True morality lies in the opposite direction of religion
Joseph Fletcher
- Attacks concept of objective moral law because he looks to consequences
- If law is truly objective there is no room for consequences
- As soon a s we take into consideration the consequences the law ceases to be
objectively binding
Richard Dawkins
- Evolutionary process that ensures the best fit between the individual and his
-
environment extends to cultural characteristics as well as physical ones

Cultural evolution the evolutionary process is both physical and cultural
-
The conscience is like a safety mechanism that restricts behaviour and prevents
needless suffering
Natural origins of morality come from genetic tendencies to be altruistic genetic
kinship, reciprocal altruism, reputation and advertising
o Deriving our moral sense from Darwinian origin
o Discredits the view that goodness is incompatible with the selfish gene
o Selfish describes the genes that are strong enough to survive survive at
o
o
the expense of their rivals

Selfishness lies within the gene but does not characterise the organism itself
There are circumstances in which genes ensure their own selfish survival by
influencing organisms to behave altruistically.

Moral relativism
- There are no objective moral laws
- Cultural relativism moral laws relate to culture and society so moral obligation
is defined in terms of social approval or disapproval
Nietzsche
- God is dead!
- The idea of God is no more and with it goes all the claims to absolute values,
-
truth and goodness

Humans have to create their own values
morality is the herd-instinct in the individual
People follow religion and morality in order to fit in, but this isnt a good thing
Ontological arguments for the existence of God:

Ontology is the branch of philosophy that explores the concept of existence and
what it means to exist. The Greek word ontos means reality or actuality.
Ontological arguments are a priori arguments aiming to prove the reality of God, by
arguing that God exists necessarily.
St. Anselm (1033-1109):
Archbishop of Canterbury and a Benedictine monk

Theology is faith seeking understanding
Published the Proslogion which established the ontological argument, aiming to
show that the existence of God was a logical necessity

Even to suggest that there is no God requires the concept of God
Anselm has assumed that if something is logically necessary then it must also be
factually necessary
Responding to Psalms 14: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
Anselms first ontological argument in Proslogion 2
1. God is than that which nothing greater can be thought
2. Everyone can understand this definition, even atheists
3. The greatest thought must have an equivalent reality, because something that
exists in reality is greater than something that exists just in the mind
4. If the idea is in understanding alone, then something can be thought of that is
greater and so God is no longer the greatest thing one can think of, which is a
contradiction
5. A God that only existed in our minds would be inferior to a real God and God
cannot be inferior to anything in any way

6. In order for God to be the greatest thought, God must exist
7. Therefore God exists.
Thus even the fool is compelled to grant something greater than which cannot be
thought exists in thought, because he understands what he hears, and whatever is
understood exists in thought.

But clearly that than which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist in the
understanding alone. For if it is actually in the understanding alone, it can be thought
of as existing also in reality, and this is greater. Therefore, if that than which a greater
cannot be thought is in the understanding alone, this same thing than which a greater
cannot be thought is that than which a greater can be thought. But obviously this is
impossible. Without doubt, therefore, there exists, both in the understanding and in
reality, something than which a greater cannot be thought.
For no one who understands what God is can think that God does not exist For God
is that than which a greater cannot be thought, and whoever understands this rightly
must understand that he exists in a way that he cannot be non-existent even in
thought. He, therefore, who understands that God thus exists cannot think of him as
non-existent.
Anselms second ontological argument in Proslogion 3
1. God is unique cannot be thought of as an object alongside others
2. Gods existence cannot be a matter of chance
3. It is impossible to conceive of God as not existing
4. Gods existence is necessary rather than contingent
5. If God were a contingent being, he would not be the greatest since we could
imagine him not existing
6. Because God is unsurpassable in every way, God must have necessary existence
7. Therefore God exists necessarily
8. God cannot fail to exist
Claiming that the statement God exists is an analytic statement
BUT first we have to accept Anselms original definition
BUT just because an argument is logical does not mean that it is true
BUT proves nothing to non-believers in God
Gaunilo:
Benedictine monk who plays devils advocate to criticise argument and Anselms
logic but ultimately shares Anselms belief in God

Replies on behalf of the fool
Argument is fallacious as you can use the same reasoning to prove the existence of
entities that clearly dont exist

Gaunilo raises the problem of a perfect island
- With Anselms definition Gaunilo can prove the existence of a perfect island and
-
all sorts of things

Since it is perfect, Gaunilo argued that Anselm was saying that it must exist,
since part of the perfection Anselm was arguing about included existence, the
island must exist

Otherwise even the grottiest island was better than the imaginary one
- But clearly there is no such perfect island

Something in the mind does not have to exist in reality
We cannot bring something into existence just by defining it as superlative
Technically Gods reality cannot be conceived at all because it is beyond human
thought and understanding

Anselms reply was that he was not arguing about temporal, contingent things (such
as islands, which are rooted in time and space), but of the greatest thing that can be
thought
Islands have no intrinsic maximum a notional island can always be bettered
Ren Descartes:
Descartes Ontological Argument:

1. The idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being
2. A supremely perfect being has all perfections
3. Existence is a perfection
4. God exists
Existence is a necessary predicate of God
It would illogical to believe that God had every possible perfection, but then to say
that he did not exist

Descartes presented God as a supreme being containing all perfections and to be a
perfect being God must exist

Descartes, similarly to Anselm, leads us to a situation whereby disagreeing with him
would cause a contradiction

If God does not exist he cannot be the supremely perfect being that Descartes
defines him as, contradicting Descartes initial definition of God

Compares idea of God with a triangle idea of God has a natural unity to it
- It is impossible to have a triangle without having its three sides and angles
- In the same way it is impossible to have God without recognising that he must
-
exist
The non-existence of God is inconceivable
Existence can no more be separated from the essence of God than can its having
three angles equal to two right angles he separated from the essence of a triangle,
or the idea of a mountain from the idea of a valley.

Kants criticisms of Descartes
- We do not have to accept that the statement God does not exist is self-
contradictory
It is wrong to suggest that you are enquiring open-mindedly into Gods existence
and then introduce the concept of existence as a necessary part of your
description of God
All existential (to do with existence) propositions are synthetic; in other words,
we have to use our senses to verify that something exists and that the concept of
God contains the predicate of existence

Existence is not a predicate or quality of a thing. In other words, it is not good
enough to simply say God exists; for this statement to be true it has to be
shown that God exists
Norman Malcolm (1911-1990):
Malcolm agreed with Kant in his belief that existence is not a predicate but he also
agreed with Anselm that existence must be necessary

In order to be God, God must have necessary existence, because God either exists or
does not
1. If God does not exist today, then he never can and never will his existence must
be impossible
2. If God does exist, then he must exist necessarily
3. Gods existence is therefore either impossible or necessary
4. Gods existence is not impossible as it is not logically contradictory to have a
concept of a God who exists it is an idea that we can entertain without any
logical absurdity
5. Therefore, given that Gods existence is not impossible, it must be necessary. So,
God exists necessarily

The groundlessness of religious belief:
- Gods existence is part of the groundlessness of belief; it is a given and there is
no need for empirical evidence Our lives are often based on mere acceptance of
fundamental beliefs on the basis of no evidence and these beliefs are held in the
-
same way religious belief is held

We live within a framework, and although we may test our beliefs within this
framework, the framework itself is not put to the test

Wittgenstein: whenever we test anything we are already presupposing something
that is not tested

This framework is not questioned but accepted subconsciously
A framework does not rise or fall on the basis of evidence or grounds: it is
groundless.
religion is groundless
Within the framework of each system there is criticism, explanation, justification.
But we should not expect that there might be some sort of rational justification of
the framework itself.

Some things we have to accept without grounds, e.g. the law of induction, we
cannot prove it but scientists still use it

Belief in God requires no proof
Religion is a form of life; it is language embedded in action Science is another.
Neither stands in need of justification, the one no more than the other.
Acknowledged that his argument would not convince atheists but felt that it was still
worthwhile as the believer would understand Gods necessary existence

BUT there are things that do not exist that are not contradictory or impossible
BUT it is not illogical to say that God might exist
BUT just because something is logical does not mean it is true
Alvin Plantinga (1932- ):
Presents a modern restatement of the ontological argument in The Nature of

Necessity, wanting to prove that the existence of God is logically necessary
Modal logic
- What is, what cannot fail to be and what cannot possibly be
- Consideration of what could exist or could occur in a possible world out of an
-
infinite number of possibilities

An object or being may exist in some possible world and not others
Defined God as a being of maximal greatness

- Such a being would have to exist necessarily, rather than contingently
- This being fits in with Descartes idea of perfection and Anselms description of a
being that than which nothing greater can be thought
Things can have different degrees of greatness, i.e. something has a greater degree of
greatness in a world in which it exists than in a world in which it does not exist
Aims to show that saying God does not exist in the actual world is a contradiction
- There is a possible world in which God exists
- In order for God to be a maximally great being, he must exist in all possible
-
worlds and the actual world

Otherwise, there could be a being with a greater degree of greatness than God in
another possible world

- So to be the greatest possible being he must exist in every possible world
Argument
1. A being of maximal greatness would have to exist necessarily
2. A being of maximal greatness cannot be contingent because it would have to
depend on other factors for its existence and so would not be maximally great
3. Planting says that a maximally great beings existence in a possible world is
either necessary or impossible (only two choices)
4. A maximally great beings existence is only impossible if it is self-contradictory
5. A maximally great beings existence is not impossible because God can only not
exist if he is a contradiction or is impossible in a possible world
6. The existence of a maximally great being is not impossible in an infinite number
of possible worlds and therefore is necessary in all worlds, including ours

A being can only have maximum greatness if it has maximum excellence in every
possible world so Gods non-existence is impossible

BUT the choice is not limited to possible or necessary, there is a potential to exist,
even though he either exists or not

BUT the concept of no maximality could be used to prove that God does not exist
following Plantingas logic

BUT Plantinga assumes that there is a greatest possible being and that there are a
number of possible worlds

BUT he assumes that something is greater in the actual world in which it exists
than in a world it doesnt exist

BUT he assumes that God must exist in all possible worlds to be the greatest
possible being
Leibniz:
Impossible to think of God as lacking any perfection

Need to ensure that concept of God is logical and is not contradictory
Omits the possibility that the idea of God is incoherent or is self-contradictory
therefore Descartes must prove that the idea of God does not contradict itself and
then run his argument from there

Need to insure that all predicates or characteristics are compatible with each other
God is a coherent idea and so following the argument God exists
Immanuel Kant:
Existence is not a predicate

A predicate is a property of something
Existence tells us nothing more about the being
Existence is the thing that all other qualities rely on
God cannot be logically necessary as you cannot jump from a definition to reality
When we say something exists we mean that the concept, with all its
characteristics, has been actualised, that there is at least one example of something
with these characteristics in real life

When we are thinking of God we are thinking of a concept
Whether or not this concept is actualised is an issue, but not an issue that can be
resolved simply by adding existence to the different predicates we ascribe to the
concept
Saying something exists is making a judgement on its reality
Argument
- If you have a triangle
- Then it must have three angles and three sides
- To have a triangle without three angles involves a contradiction
- But if you do not have the triangle, you do not have its three angles either
Similarly
- If you accept that there is a God, it is logical to accept also that his existence is
necessary
- But you do not have to accept that there is a God
Statements about existence are synthetic and definitions are analytic
The angles and sides of a triangle are necessary because they are part of the
definition of a triangle but say nothing about the actual existence of a triangle
Existence is not an extra quality, it is just a way of saying that there is the thing
itself, with all the qualities already given

BUT perhaps necessary existences a predicate, but it can only be predicated of God
BUT Malcolm argues that you can either have a triangle or not, but you simply
cannot have no God, so the two situations are not exactly parallel
- The necessity of having a triangle having three angles is a logical necessity,
-
disagreeing would involve a contradiction

But it is not factually necessary for there to be a triangle at all
Kant dismissed logical necessity but Malcolm suggests that Anselm was
concerned with factual necessity that it is impossible for things to be as they
are if God did not exist, and therefore that it is actually not possible for there to
be no God
You cannot not have God
Thomas Aquinas:
Argument has a transitional error as moves from a definition to reality without any
empirical evidence
Need an a posteriori approach to find out about God
Questions that the definition of God provided is universally accepted
- Perhaps not everyone who hears the name God understands it to signify
something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have
believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this
name God is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought,
nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands what the name
signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally.

Definition does not tell us that God exists in reality but that when we think of God
we have to think of him as existing

There has to be more than just a definition to show the existence of God
It is necessary to provide firm evidence, rather than just argument, and this
evidence was, he hope, explained in his Five Ways

Gods existence cannot be regarded as self-evident
It is impossible to have a mental concept of the non-existence of truth because it is a
contradiction in terms but it is not impossible to have a mental concept of the non-
existence of God
Although we can approach an understanding and awareness of God, God will always
remain unknowable to the finite human mind

It is impossible to have such a clear understanding of God
David Hume:
Rejects concept of a necessary being arguing that nothing can be logically necessary
Things have to be proven empirically
To reflect on anything simply and to reflect on it as existent are nothing different from
each other
Thinking about God does not prove his existence question of existence is distinct
Thinking of an object as existing is the same thing as thinking about an object
Existence does not add any characteristics to the concept
Whatever you think of as existing, you can also think of as not existing
The question of whether an object actually exists in reality is distinct
Nothing is demonstrable unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing that is
distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction.
Bertrand Russell:
Anselm uses the world exist incorrectly

Existence cannot be a predicate
The ontological argument only adds to our description of God but does not show
that he actually exists

If it were we could argue all sorts of things into existence
E.g. Men exist Santa Claus is a man Santa Claus exists
Cannot claim knowledge of a perfect being with no experience of it or experience of
any sort of perfection
Gottlob Frege (1848-1925):
Distinguishes between first and second order predicates

First order predicates tell us something about the nature of something e.g. the
horses are brown

Second order predicates tell us about concepts, e.g. the horses are numerous
Frege criticises Anselm and Descartes for using existence as a first order predicate
when it should actually be second order
Keith Ward:
The attraction of the ontological argument is that it expresses the extreme limit of the
human attempt to probe the rational structure of reality Its success lies in its
demonstration that God is either existent or impossible; that, if a perfect being is
possible, then it necessarily exists.
Once you concede that you understand the idea of God you are committed to his
existence

Arguments For The Existence of God

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arguments For The Existence of God

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philosophy of Religion

ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

The Only God

- Practical knowledge knowing how to do things

What are the advantages and disadvantages of an anthropomorphic view of God?

Able to identify with him for personal connections

The via negativa:

The apophatic way

transcends any particular religion or culture

timeless and incorporeal

terms of our attempt to understand God

The Presumption of Atheism:

empirical grounds for believing in God

until proven guiltily

constantly altering Gods characteristics to fit God in with the world

from proof rather than from belief

A priori and a posteriori arguments:

Cosmological arguments for the existence of God:

In Physics Aristotle argued that

anything less than eternal is changing and imperfect

such things can be acted upon and can change

has is about God

of desire and love

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274):

of the continued existence of a mover

makes something happen

efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

and which are dependent on something else for their existence

Contingency includes dependence on something having brought them into

being independent of everything else

Criticisms of Aquinas argument:

friction it is not dead men who commit murders.

differently entirely God is unique and exists in a unique kind of way

the possible eternity of matter remain unanswered

reason to link this to the Christian God

The Kalam argument in Islam:

concept, it cannot exist in actuality

come into existence

when the universe did not exist

between the two possibilities

actuality even if we cannot imagine it

William Lane Craig:

Argued in favour of the Kalam argument

Leibniz and the principle of sufficient reason:

an explanation of why it exists

also how it came to exist

must have a reason

not follow that in reality it could exist without a cause

Debate between Russell and Copleston:

on radio some of the issues regarding the existence of God

distinct from the world and creator of the world

Without such an explanation, the universe is gratuitous

to drift thats nausea. (Nausea)

there must be a reason external to itself, which is an existent being

relies for its existence on a reason external to itself

propositions as opposed to synthetic propositions

to be verified by observation or experience

was a being whose existence is self-contradictory to deny

one to which nothing further can be added a sufficient reason (Leibniz)

beings and no necessary beings

needs a cause: the concept of cause is not applicable to the total

a mother thats a different logical sphere.