Transcript Philosophical Arguments about God

Philosophical Arguments
about God and Religion
First things first…
 What does the word “God” mean to you?
 Do you believe in a God?
 If so, where does this belief come from? (If not,
where does this belief come from?)
 What is the purpose of (a) God?
 Is God and religion the same thing?
 Can the Universe exist with a God? (why/why not)
 Is morality/ethics tied to the belief in a God?
Why do People believe in God?
 Religion includes God as part of their belief
system.
 Parents instill the idea.
 Conclude on their own existence of a supreme
being.
 Life makes sense with God
 Explains why humans exist
 To keep things in the universe in Harmony and
under control.
Agenda and Objectives…
 Through notes and discussion, students will be
able to differentiate between Theism, Deism,
Atheism, and Agnosticism as well as identify the
three major philosophical beliefs in supporting
God’s existence.
Contact (1999)
Some Terms to Know…
 Theism- the belief in a
god or gods.
 Atheism- the absence
of belief in God, or an
active disbelief in God.
 Agnosticism- the
“indecision concerning
God’s existence,” or
the view that the
existence/nonexistence of God can
not be proven.
 Deism- affirm the
existence of God, but
deny that God has
revealed himself as it
is claimed by the
monotheistic religions
 Evil-the intent to
cause harm, “negative
moral acts or thoughts
that are cruel, unjust,
or selfish.”
For the Existence of God
 For many, God is
omnipotent, meaning “One
having unlimited power or
authority.”
 Omniscient, “knowing
everything that can be
known.”
 And also, omnipresent,
meaning “the state of
being everywhere at
once.”
Arguments for Existence…
 Ontological argument
 Cosmological
argument
 Teleological
argument
 Moral argument
The Ontological Argument
(1) Jim is a bachelor
(2)  Jim is unmarried.
(1) I have two apples
(2) I have two additional apples
(3)  I have four apples.
The Ontological Argument
(1) Jim is a bachelor
(2)  Jim is unmarried.
(1) I have two apples
(2) I have two additional apples
(3)  I have four apples.
The Ontological Argument
(1) Jim is a bachelor
(2)  Jim is unmarried.
No Experience
Necessary.
(1) I have two apples
(2) I have two additional apples
(3)  I have four apples.
The Ontological Argument
(1) Jim is a bachelor
(2)  Jim is unmarried.
A priori
Necessary.
(1) I have two apples
(2) I have two additional apples
(3)  I have four apples.
Bachelor = Unmarried by
definition.
(1) Jim is a bachelor
(2)  Jim is unmarried.
A priori
Necessary.
(1) I have two apples
(2) I have two additional apples
(3)  I have four apples.
2 + 2 = 4 by definition.
f
Bachelor = Unmarried by
definition.
(1) Jim is a bachelor
(2)  Jim is unmarried.
A priori
Necessary.
(1) X is that which nothing greater can be conceived.
(2) Existence in reality is better than existence in the mind.
(3)  God exists in reality.
Bachelor = Unmarried by
definition.
(1) Jim is a bachelor
(2)  Jim is unmarried.
A priori
Necessary.
(1) X is that which nothing greater can be conceived.
(2) Existence in reality is better than existence in the mind.
(3)  X exists in reality.
The Ontological Argument
 St. Anslem
 The argument for the
existence of God is one that
doesn’t depend on premises
that are grounded in
experience.
 Central to Anselm’s
argument is a distinction
between two ‘kinds of
existence’:
 1. For a thing to exist in
reality is for it to be part
of reality, to really exist.
 2. For a thing to exist in
understanding is for
someone to have an idea
(concept, thought) of
that thing. (like saying
you have something ‘on
your mind’.)
 he knew God’s existence
by faith (faith as
knowledge)
Argument outline
 Suppose you could conceive of God’s
nonexistence
 Then you could think of something greater than
God-- something just like God, but existing
 God is “a being than which none greater can be
conceived.”
 But nothing can be conceived as greater than
God
 So, God’s nonexistence is inconceivable!
Another way to think of it...
 Anselm in effect defines God as a perfect being
 A perfect being must have all perfections– omnipotence,
omniscience, omnibenevolence...
 Existence is a perfection (or so Anselm seems to say)
 Therefore, God must have existence – God must exist
 To deny this is self-contradictory
 It would be like saying: "Triangles have three sides by
definition, but there is a triangle with only two sides"
The form of the argument
 Note that Anselm's argument is a reductio ad
absurdum
 It offers a proof that God exists by
 – Assuming that God doesn't exist, and
 – Arguing that this leads to an absurdity
 This would mean: we must reject the
assumption that God doesn't exist.
Objections
 There are various classic objections to the
classic argument
 One tries to show that the argument is invalid
 – that if we reason the same way in other cases,
we get false conclusions
 Another tries to show that the argument is
based on a confusion about the notion of
existence
Total Philosophy
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rYfMv1WvmU
Gaunilo, a monk who was a contemporary of St. Anselm, offered an influential
reply to the ontological argument.
Gaunilo’s objection
 We could define ‘the perfect island’ as the island than which
none greater can be conceived. Then, by the same reasoning,
we could ‘prove’ the existence (in reality) of such an island.
 But this is absurd. So there must be some fault in Anselm’s
reasoning. (Note, this doesn’t show exactly what the fault is,
only that there must be one.)
 A possible reply: the perfect island, unlike God, can’t be
conceived to exist in reality. For any island we think of, we
can think of a greater island. The perfect island is like the
greatest number.
 Is God really different in this respect? Perhaps the idea that
God is an ‘infinite being’ is relevant here.
Objection 2- Immanuel Kant
 claims that ‘existence is not a predicate’.
 (A predicate is a word or phrase whose function is to attribute a
property to things, e.g. the predicate ‘red’ attributes the property
of redness.)
 When we say that a thing exists, claims Kant, we do not
attribute to it a new property, in addition its other properties.
 According to Anselm, if God didn’t exist (in reality), then he would
lack a property, existence, that contributes to greatness.
But Kant says this makes no sense, because existence is not a
property, like redness, that a thing can either have or lack!
Huh?
 “To see this more clearly, suppose that we give
a complete description of an object, of its size,
its weight, its color, etc. If we then add that the
object exists, then in asserting that it exists we
add nothing to the concept of the object. The
object is the same whether it exists or not; it is
the same size, the same weight, the same color,
etc. The fact that the object exists, that the
concept is exemplified in the world, does not
change anything about the concept. To assert
that the object exists is to say something about
the world, that it contains something that
matches that concept; it is not to say anything
about the object itself.”
Getting to the point…
 If Kant believes that existence is not a property
of objects, then it is impossible to compare a
God that exists to a God that does not!
 A God that exists and a God that does not are
qualitatively identical!
The Cosmological Argument
 St Thomas Aquinas
 Everything that
exists must have a
cause.
The universe exists,
therefore it must
have a cause.
This “first cause” is
God.
3 minute philosophy
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz_iGGGMddw
Argument’s premises
1.
the universe exists
2.
everything that exists has a cause
3.
causes precede their effects
4.
the chain of cause & effect cannot go back in time indefinitely (an
infinite regress)
5.
therefore, there must be a ‘first cause’ that is not itself an effect
(ie. it has no prior cause)
6.
since everything has a cause, this first cause must be the cause of
itself (ie. it must necessarily exist)
7.
this self-caused first cause is God
8.
therefore, God exists
Flaws…
 it is conceivable that the chain of cause & effect
extends back into infinity. By way of contrast,
consider the future… do you suppose the future has
a specific ending point?
 It is based on the assumption that everything has a
cause. This then begs the question – if this ‘first
cause’ is God, what caused God?
 if one accepts the idea of a ‘first cause’ (ie.
something that has always existed), it can be argued
that the universe may always have existed. The
regress could end with the necessary existence of
the universe. It need not end with the positing of
God as a ‘first cause’.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
 Does God exist?
 Place your bet
 Total uncertainty— no
data
 What should you do?
Pascal’s Wager
 “Let us weigh the gain and the loss
in wagering that God is. Let us
estimate these two chances. If you
gain, you gain all; if you lose, you
lose nothing. Wager, then, without
hesitation that He is.”
The argument…
 One does not know whether God exists.
 Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul
if God does exist.
 Believing in God is of no consequence if God
does not exist.
 Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in
God.
Pascal’s Wager
The Teleological Argument
 Teleological comes from
the Greek word ‘telos’ –
meaning ‘design’ or
‘purpose’
1.
the complexity of life on
earth and the harmonious
organization of living
organisms exhibits
evidence of intelligent
design
2.
a design necessitates the
presence of a designer
---------------------------
∴
that designer is God
 William Paley’s
argument from design.
 argued that the
complexity & efficiency of
natural objects (ex. the
eye, the brain, etc.) are
evidence that they must
have been purposefully
designed.
 How else could they have
come to be as they are –
perfectly adapted for the
purpose they serve?
 Paley uses a watch & its maker to draw an
analogy.
 Just by looking at a watch and all its intricate
parts working together in unison, we can tell
that it was designed by a watchmaker. So, just
by examining the complexity of the eye and how
it suits its purpose so well (to see), it must have
been designed by some sort of ‘Divine
Watchmaker’ (God).
Critics: David Hume
 it assumes without
justification that there is
a significant resemblance
between objects which
occur naturally (ex. the
eye) and those which
have been designed by
humans (ex. a watch).
Is there a strong
similarity between the
two sufficient to make
the analogy strong?
 Hume argued that we
cannot infer from the fact
that examples of order in
our universe have human
causes (ex. the watch)
that the universe as a
whole has a cause & has
been designed, because
the universe is unique.
 Therefore, because the
universe is unique, we
cannot rely on analogy to
explain it.
Also…
 If the world/universe was designed, who
designed the designer?
 the argument of design tells us little about God
except God is a design-producing being. The
argument doesn’t allow us to draw any
conclusions as to God’s nature or character
beyond that. The design argument doesn’t
prove the existence of only one God, as there
may be multiple designers.
Darwin
 the scientific theory
of evolution now
provides an
explanation of how
complex life develops
without the need for
a ‘designer’.
 by a process of
survival of the fittest
explains how
adaptations to
environments have
occurred, without
needing to introduce
the notion of God.
Kant’s Moral Argument
• argued that man must assume the existence of
God and life after death if he is to make sense
of his desire for happiness and his moral duty.
• believed that the uniting of man's desire for
happiness with man's moral duty could not
occur in this life or without God's power.
Therefore, it is morally necessary (not rationally
necessary) to assume God's existence.
 It’s rational to be moral
only if it’s rewarded
 That doesn’t happen in
this life
 It must happen in
another life
 So, there must be an
afterlife, and a just God
The Formal Moral Argument
 (1) Morality consists of a set of commands.
(2) For every command there is a commander.
Therefore:
(3) There is a commander that commanded morality.
(4) Commands only carry as much authority as does their
commander.
(5) Morality carries ultimate authority.
Therefore:
(6) The commander that commanded morality carries
ultimate authority.
(7) Only God carries ultimate authority.
Therefore:
(8) The commander that commanded morality is God.
Therefore:
(9) God exists.
The Perfectionist Moral Argument
 1) We ought to be morally
perfect.
(2) If we ought to be
morally perfect, then we
can be morally perfect.
(3) We cannot be morally
perfect unless God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.
 takes the fact that there is
a gap between our moral
duties and what we are
capable of doing to imply
the existence of God.
 we cannot achieve moral
perfection by our own
strength, but we can do so
with God’s help, which is
available to us. God can
forgive us; God can take
the punishment for our
sins; God can restore us to
righteousness.
“battleground of rational
consistency”
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.php
The Problem of Evil: How Can an All-Good,
All-Powerful God Exist and There Still Be Evil
in the World?
What is EVIL?
There are two types of evil:
 Moral evil: deliberately caused by humans e.g cruelty
 Natural evil: things which happen accidentally such as
earthquakes and floods.
Many people think that the existence of evil and suffering in
the world shows that there is no God or if he exists,
he(she) is unkind.
The Problem of Evil
 If God exists, He is all good, all knowing, and all
powerful
 If He is all good, He is willing to prevent evil
 If He is all knowing, He knows how to prevent it
 If He is all powerful, He can prevent it
 But evil exists
 So, God does not exist
Dostoevsky
 God and evil are not reconcilable: evil
is real, so is God, and that situation is
senseless.
 Suffering (e.g., of children and animals)
is never made up and is unforgiveable.
It has no purpose or rationale: that is
why faith is not rational and does not
make sense
John Hick
 experience of evil is part of the
process by which we evolve into
moral beings
 Response: the horrific
suffering necessary for such
moral development is
inconsistent with the existence
of a loving God!
Why does God allow
suffering?
FREE WILL was given by God but
sometimes people do not use it
wisely. Because gave them freedom
they have the opportunity to make
wrong choices – and this is when we
see evil and suffering!
Let’s Debate! But first, let’s review
some arguments Atheists would have
with evil.
 Reply 1: evil is simply the absence of the good or real: it
follows from being imperfect (Augustine)
 Response: why, then, does God create at all?
 Reply 2: evil is defined from our perspective
 Response: this makes evil (& good) unreal
 Reply 3: evil is necessary to appreciate the good; it allows us
to become moral beings
 Response: why can’t God produce good without causing
evil? Is evil then ultimately good? And why so much evil?
What does a dying infant learn through suffering?
 Reply 4: evil results from free choices
 Response: this doesn’t explain natural evil (e.g., storms)
Second, Review of agnosticism…We don’t know if
God exists. So why do people believe in God?
•
Freud: religion provides us with the delusion of a father
figure who protects us from the anxieties of life
•Kant: morality requires the coincidence of
virtue and happiness, which can be
accomplished only by God
• Marx: religion is our “opium” to compensate
for socio-political alienation
"Dawkins Theist-Atheist Scale”
(page 50 from Richard Dawkin’s God Delusion)

1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C. Jung, 'I do not believe, I
know.'

2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain,
but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there

3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards
theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are
exactly equiprobable.'

5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism.
'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'

6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I
think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is
one.'
Debate Paper
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/
Debate Scenario
 Your teacher is in the midst of an existential funk. She is
questioning not only her own existence but the existence of a
Judean-Christian god. Please give her advice…
 Is she wasting her time with all this ballyhoo about some
god, the creator of all things?
 Should she should snap herself out of her disbelief and
realize that there is a god who is ultimately good, all
powerful, and all knowing?
 Or should she just not worry about it, knowing that there is
no way to prove either case and just roll the dice and wait for
the outcome when she dies. (Is this really just a cop-out?)