Arguments For the Existence of God

• The argument is a posteriori meaning based on experience of the universe.

• The first form of the argument is analogical, which relies on drawing an analogy between the universe and objects of human design - For example, Paley's watch analogy

• The second form is the inductive argument, based on the observation that the universe demonstrates regular motion both in its parts and on the whole. -

• For example Aquinas' fifth way which states that the beneficial order in the universe couldn't happen by chance and God is the explanation for this order. He argued that for non-intelligent matter to behave in a way that is beneficial, there needs to be an intelligent power to bring this state of affairs about. This is God. 

• Paley's watch analogy is easy to comprehend and is logically sound.

• Paley's observations of regularity are supported by science, as are Aquinas' observations of beneficial order. 

• It is supported by both natural and revealed theology

• It is a posteriori and inductive meaning it is a scientific theory that can be assessed

• Behe's belief in irreducably complex systems, if accepted, would destroy the Darwinian theory of natural selection. It would require a designer God. 

• a posteriori and inductive - Kant would argue that this type of argument can never lead to absolute certainty.

• Hume's criticisms
  • We have never seen a universe created so how could we possibly know anything about how they are created?
  • It is not clear at all, even if we accept the design argument, that we arrive at monotheism. For example, many people contribute to making a modern car. Wouldn't it make sense to imagine that a universe is also designed by some sort of committee?

• Theory of evolution appears to explain the beneficial order observed by Aquinas, as Dawkins says, 'evolution is the blind watchmaker' which addresses Paley's analogy directly.

• Claims that the universe cannot account for its own existence, and so the argument seeks causes that have their culmination in the existence of God. 
• Inductive and a posteriori and so, at best, lead to probabilities rather than 'proofs'.

Key ideas and concepts:

• Leibniz
  • 'nothing takes place without sufficient reason'
• Aquinas' 3 ways
  • the unmoved mover
  • the uncaused causer
  • way of contingency
• Kalaam argument - al kindi & al ghazali, muslim philosophers  -  revived by William Lane Craig
  • everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, the universe has a cause.

1) Way of Motion 

• Based on Aristotle

• Everything is in a state of change

• Everything that changes must potentially be in the state into which it will change

• Nothing can be in the same current and potential state at the same time e.g ice + water

• Therefore something changing from state A to state B must be acted upon by something already in state B - Everything which changes is changed by something other than itself

• Aquinas took this to mean that there is not an infinite regression of changing forces 
  • There is a  P R I M E   M O V E R  /  U N M O V E D  M O V E R - This is God. 

2) The First Cause Way 

• Everything which exists is caused to exists by something other than itself.

• There cannot, he says, be an infinite regression of causes. 

• Therefore there must be a  F I R S T  C A U S E R  =                                                             T H E  U N C A U S E D  C A U S E R

3) The Way of Contingency

• There are two modes of existence
  • Contingent - dependent/subject to chance
  • Necessary - It cannot not exist - not subject to change or causation

• Aquinas says that only God has necessary existence. 

• a posteriori - based on empirical evidence gained through observation around us and coming to conclusions.

• Infinite regress is unlikely - Infinite regress of physical matter is accepted as unlikely. The cosmological argument provides an a posteriori explanation for the alternative.

• It's logical - Logic dictates that objects do not bring themselves into existence and so they must have a cause. If this is so, there must be a first cause and the cosmological argument provides one.

• Inconsistent notion of necessary being - If nothing can cause itself, why is God the exception?
• -reply to this - nothing in the universe can be its own cause, God operates outside of the universe so isn't governed by universal laws.

• Why the Judeao-Christian God? - Even if there is an un-caused causer before the beginning of the universe, there is nothing to suggest it is the God of theism. So the cosmological argument, if proven, would only prove an uncaused causer, not the existence of the Judeao-christian God.

• Radio debate between Russell and Copleston in 1948 - Russell states that the universe doesn't require an explanation it is 'just there, and that's all' 

• Set out by Anselm (1033-1109), Archbishop of Canterbury 

• a priori - not based on observation

• Based on the definition of the word 'God'  

• Argues that the word 'God' refers to something that has necessary being.

• Based on idea that God is 'that than which a greater cannot be conceieved'

• Something is greater if it exists than if it doesn't

• If God is the greatest thing imaginable, he must exist for if he didn't, you could imagine something greater.

• If you accept the premise then the conclusion must be true as it is logically necessary. 

• The argument is intellectually stimulating and logically satisfying.

• If the multiverse theory is proved correct then Plantinga's argument becomes mathematically and logically sound.

These strengths are quite weak compared to those of the cosmological or teleological arguments i.e. providing emperical evidence

• Limitation of an a priori argument is that if one premise is shown to be inaccurate the whole argument falls to pieces.

• Kant: We can simply reject the definition.

• Kant: Existence is not a predicate. If we add or take away existence from something, it does not change the definition. You cannot define God into existence.

• Russell: You cannot say existence is predicate otherwise you could say this: 1. Men exist  2. Father Christmas is a man  3. Therefore Father Christmas exists. This is syllogism.

• Hume: Necessary existence is not a coherent concept as existence can only be contingent.

• Gaunilo: If you can imagine the perfect island, then since it's perfect and existence is part of perfection, it must exist. Otherwise the most terrible island would be better than the imaginary one purely because it exists.