Inductive arguments for the existence of God

Inductive arguments

• Based on evidence and experience  -- conclusion. Reached via inductive proof.
• When not able to gather direct proof - not present at the time to empirically witness it
• Equally, we cannot use pure logical reasoning to come up with a conclusion because neither the circumstances nor the events permit this to happen
• Inductive proofs are a posteriori bc they require evidence and/or experience for them to make sense
• Argument constructed upon evidence and/or experience is an a posteriori, inductive argument
• Applies to both cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God
• Evidence is gathered and conclusions are posited

Aquinas - First Way

• Aquinas' FW is often referred to as 'motion' or 'change'
• We notice that things tend to be in a state of change or motion when looking at the universe
• Things do not do this of their own accord but are instead 'moved' (or 'changed') by something else (restating what Aristotle said)
• Look back down this sequence of movements/changes, would have to eventually come to something that started the whole sequence of movers
• Need to find a point that started these things -
• and that means, necessarily, looking outside of the universe - i.e. to something that has not been moved by anything else and is in fact incapable of being moved/changed by anything
• But is responsible for initiating the whole sequence of movement/change
• Aristotle named this the Prime Mover, Aquinas developed this into the 'Unmoved Mover' - 'that which all men call God'.

• To illustrate this point further, Aquinas builds on Artistotle's examples and explanations
• Aristotle - things moving from a state of 'potentiality' (possibililty of moving/changing into) towards a state of 'actuality' (where it actually achieves or reaches its potential).
• However, both Ari and Aquinas noted that that this change could only happen if something that already possessed a state of actuality acted on that which was in its state of potentiality
• The third party is called the 'efficient cause'
• Ari used the example of a block of marble (potential) becoming a statue (actual) but only when acted upon by the sculptor (efficient cause)
• Aquinas uses the example of wood becoming hot in order to illustrate this point:
• The fire that makes wood hot must already have the property of hotness within itself in order, in turn, to make the wood hot
• Were it to have any other state (e.g. coldness) within itself then it would be impossible to make the wood hot
• 'For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot'

• Deals with the concept of cause and effect
• Everything observable in nature is subject to this law
• Although the idea that this chain of cause and effect could be traced back infinitely is seen as impossible by Aquinas
• Leads to - 'what was the first cause?'
• For Aq - 'God'
• Aq states -
• Not only the idea that cause and effect is a simple, undeniable law of the universe
• But also that it is impossible for anything within universe to cause itself (parents)
• Line of dominoes - the first (efficient cause) is the one that causes the second (intermediate cause) to fall, which in turn causes the third (ultimate cause) one to fall
• However, third would not have falllen, had the first one not have hit the second
• Aq's idea of efficient cause followed by intermediate cause and ending at ultimate cause can seem confusing at first, but, by using the domino analogy it gives a suitable visual expression of the philosophical idea

• Deals with the concept of contingency and necessity
• Aquinas notes that everything exists has the possibility of not existing (i.e. it is contingent) and draws the conclusion that if this was true of everything in existence then nothing would ever have come into existence
• This is bc in order for contingent beings to exist, there has to be a non-conotingent (i.e. necessary) being that brought everything else into existence.
• For Aq - 'God'
• Aq states that all things in nature are limited in their existence
• All have beginnings and endings
• Following this idea to its logical conclusion Aquinas notes that this means at one point in history nothing existed and that, even now, nothing would exist - which is plainly not the case
• Parent and child - without existence of parent, child cannot come into existence
• The child is contingent on the parent for its existence
• Aq states that the only possible solution to this dilemma is that something must exist that is unlike everything else in existence - no beginning, no end
• In other words, a necessary existence - needed to bring about existence of everything else. For Aq, this being was 'God'.

• Arabic word 'to argue or disuss', the Kalam cosmological argument can trace origins to work of Islamic scholars in 9th and 11th centuries of the Common Era
• Modernised and championed by Christian apologist William Lane Craig
• 1993 Craig stipulated his argument thus:
• 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
• 2. The universe began to exist
• 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
• 4. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a casual amount of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)
• This is a (relatively) straightforward and easy to follow argument
• However, in order to answer challenges to the idea that the universe might be considered infinite, Craig developed the following defence to his second point:
• 1. An actual infinite cannot exist
• 2. A beginningless temporal series of events is an actual infinite
• 3. Therefore, a beginningless temporal series of events cannot exist

• To explain, example of a library often referred to:
• Library with an actually infinite number of books
• Supposed that the li rary also contains an infinite number of red and infinite number of black books, so that for every red book there is a black book, and vice versa
• Follows that the library contains as many red books as the total books in its collection, and as many red books as red and black books combined
• Absurd - in reality, the subset (i.e. red/black) cannot be equivalent to the entire set (i.e. red and black)
• Hence, actual infinites cannot exist in reality

• However, critics point out that this is ignoring the fact there are two types of infinity recognised in standard mathematics - 'actual' and 'potential'
• Craig only refers to the impossibility of the first, not the second in his initial argument
• Craig responded by recognising that if an actual infinite was possible, a potential infinite confirmed the fact that the universe had a beginning
• This forms the 2nd part of his argument
• Craig's argument is often seen as v confusing; depends on an understanding of the concepts of infinity that are difficult to grasp
• However, in simplest form, it is straightforward and appealing
• Had significant influence in the rational theistic defence against atheistic arguments - especially in the fundamentalist Christian churches of America
• Summary:
• Kalam cosmological arg. bases itself on the impossibility of the universe being infinite
• Once this is agreed, then it is reasonable to ask 'How did it start?'
• Craig's version posits the requirement for a personal creator

Whether inductive arguments for God's existence are persuasive

• One of the key strenghts of inductive arguments lies in their ability in establishing probablity - gathering evidence and suggesting the most likely conclusion based on this evidence
• Evidence-based - more persuasive
• Inductive arg. are a posteriori and synthetic (tru in relation to how they relate to the world) as they depend on experience and/or evidence
• Provides them with credibility and makes them more likely to be persuasive
• Inductive arguments rely on experience that may be universal and testable - allowing it to be widely used
• For many, this is extremely important as it makes it more understandabe and accessible, and, therefore, persuasive.
• One of the key strengths is that the argument recognises there may be more than one correct answer - the evidence used can support more than one probable conclusion, which is useful if unsure what the conclusion should be
• Can be persuasive precisely because it has flexibility -
• Also allows for possibility of error - changes can be made to elements of the reasoning w/o undermining the process (or conclusion) as a whole

• Furthermore, inductive arguments are the basis of the vast majority of scientifically accepted theories and these have a wide appeal in the 21st century world
• Ppl readily accept such theories as valid precisely bc of the inductive and evidence-based approaches that led to these theories being formed
• This means that any philosophical or theological reasoning that mirrors the work of science must surely have a similar claim to both validity and persuasiveness
• - unlike any reasoning that has not been based on such foundations

• However, some may argue that they are not persuasive - often for the same reasons as others would claim them to be
• For instance, one of the significant weaknesses of inductive arguments is that they can be accused of having limited effectiveness as 'undeniable proofs'
• Their very flexibility means that they could be considered as weak arguments and, because of this, not persuasive
• Also true to state that inductive arguments can be readily challenged if alternative evidence, that is equally likely to be true, is provided
• Thereby undermining the persuasiveness of the argument
• Extension to this - also equally possible to accept all of the evidence but to deny the conclusion without contradiction
• If this is accepted then it suggests that there must be no persuasiveness in the argument as this limits its effectiveness,
• particularly in terms of attempting to establish the existence of a divine being with specific characteristics (e.g. God of Classical Theism as the designer of the universe)
• Perhaps most imp to consider is that the premises, whilst supporting the conclusion, do not make it definite - for many, this means that inductive arguments are not persuasive enough to support a basis for religious belief

• The Kalam cosmological argument would seem to benefit from being written in the modern scientific age
• Advantage over Aq - he has access to contemporary sci info about the universe: big bang theory, cosmological background radiation, etc.
• These all provide straightroward, scientifically valid evidence that the universe is finite and thus had a beginning
• Indeed, the contemporary views of the universe all agree that there was a starting point -
• This provides an extremely useful groundswell of opinion for any argument attempting to demonstrate that a beginning of the universe is required
• In a sense, this renders the need for Craig to prove the universe as finite as meaningless
• Why argue for something which is supported by the vast majority of the rational and scientific world
• The fact that the universe had a point at which it began appears not be in dispute
• In fact, not only is it not apparently in dispute, it is readily accepted, almost as sci fact rather than theory

• The concept that all things in our experience - including the universe itself, have beginnings, lends itself nicely to the first part of Craig's argument
• Craig's swork here, it would seem, is done - the Kalam cosmological argument for God's existence appears to be entirely convincing
• However, things are not quite as simple as they at first seem...
• Craig's argument moves from demonstrating that the universe had a beginning to the suggestion that this beginning had a cause, external to the universe - which Craig eventually asserts is God
• It is at this point of the argument that the empirical support thus far enjoyed, is no longer available
• The question of how convincing the argument is now rests on how far the individual is willing to accept the next steps in Craig's argument

• Effectively, Craig suggests that the cause of the universe must be through the deliberate choice of a personal being as the physical laws of the univere that cause everything within the universe to work did not themselves exist until the universe did
• This logically means that the cause of the universe could not be explained in terms of physical laws
• The only viable other explanation for Craig is that the cause is personal
• For Craig, the only viable personal agent capable of existing outside of the universe and having the will, power and ability to create the universe is God
• For the theist, there is much that is attractive about this argument
• It involves modern cosmology, appears entirely rational and fits in with traditional theistic interpretations regarding creation
• In this sense it is a convincing argument

• For those not predisposed to the position of the theist, however, the argument does not have the same power to convince
• One of the key elements of the argument that is often cited is that Craig states, quite categorically, that infinity is impossible
• Later in the argument he refers to a personal creator that is infinite
• As an argument, this is self-contradictory and is oone of the key reasons for non-theists to reject the Kalam cosmological argument for God's existence as unconvincing

• 'No case known... in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible' - Aquinas
• 'Necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God' - Aquinas
• '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' - Aquinas, Summa Theologica
• ''It is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect... 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' - Aquinas
• 'Find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be... But it is impossible fot 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... it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence... which is absurd' - Aquinas

• 'There must exist something the existence of which is necessary' ...
• 'But every necessary thing either has its necessaity caused by another, or not... 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 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... God' - Aquinas
• 'The cause of the universe must be a personal Creator... how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity?' ...
• 'If the cause of the water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees rom eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity' ...
• 'Personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time'