Transcript Philosophical arguments about god PPT

Philosophical Arguments
about God and Religion
Bell Ringer…First things
first…answer some questions







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?
Bell Ringer…Make a list…
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.
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.”
Bell Ringer….Review!
Theism
 Atheism
 Deism
 Omnipotent
 Omnipresent
 Omniscient


Agenda and Objective:
Through notes and
discussion, students will
identify the Ontological
Argument and its critics.
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
1,2, or 3
#1- Read and be prepare to discuss St.
Anslem
 #2- Read and be prepare to discuss St.
Thomas Aquinas
 #3- Read and be prepared to discuss
William Paley

The Ontological Argument
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Jim is a bachelor
 Jim is unmarried.
I have two apples
I have two additional apples
 I have four apples.
The Ontological Argument
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Jim is a bachelor
 Jim is unmarried.
I have two apples
I have two additional apples
 I have four apples.
The Ontological Argument
(1)
(2)
Jim is a bachelor
 Jim is unmarried.
No Experience
Necessary.
(1)
(2)
(3)
I have two apples
I have two additional apples
 I have four apples.
The Ontological Argument
(1)
(2)
Jim is a bachelor
 Jim is unmarried.
A priori
Necessary.
(1)
(2)
(3)
I have two apples
I have two additional apples
 I have four apples.
(1)
(2)
Jim is a bachelor
 Jim is unmarried.
Bachelor = Unmarried by
definition.
A priori
Necessary.
(1)
(2)
(3)
I have two apples
I have two additional apples
 I have four apples.
2 + 2 = 4 by definition.
f
(1)
(2)
Jim is a bachelor
 Jim is unmarried.
Bachelor = Unmarried by
definition.
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.
(1)
(2)
Jim is a bachelor
 Jim is unmarried.
Bachelor = Unmarried by
definition.
A priori
Necessary.
(1) X is that which nothing greater can be conceived.
(2) Existence in reality is better than existence in the
(3)  X exists in reality.
mind.
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

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!

Good Morning!


Bell Ringer…
Agenda and Objective:
Through notes and survey,
students will identify the
Teleological argument as
well as evaluated one’s
rational consistency in
believing in God.
What is the
Cosmological
argument?
 What is Pascal’s
wager?

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.
Argument’s premises
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
the universe exists
everything that exists has a cause
causes precede their effects
the chain of cause & effect cannot go back in time
indefinitely (an infinite regress)
therefore, there must be a ‘first cause’ that is not
itself an effect (ie. it has no prior cause)
since everything has a cause, this first cause must
be the cause of itself (ie. it must necessarily exist)
this self-caused first cause is God
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’.
Variations..

the Kalam cosmological argument
► relies on the premise that the universe has a
beginning in time

the Modal cosmological argument
► is based on the premise that the universe
stretches back into eternity
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.

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.
Welcome Back!
Grab a computer, log on, an put to the
side. (we’ll use them later)
 Bell ringer…What are the three
philosophical arguments for the existence
of God?
 Agenda and objective: Through notes
students will identify the moral argument
and through a survey students will test
their consistency in their argument.

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

Good Morning! Bell Ringer

What are two types
of evil?

Agenda and
Objectives:
Through readings
and discussions
students will
analyze the debate
over God and
suffering.
Good Morning!
Bell Ringer…
What is the
Teleological
argument?
 What is the
ontological
argument?
 What is
cosmological
argument?
 What is a criticism
for each argument?


Agenda and
Objectives:
Through notes,
discussion, and a
reading students
will understand the
moral argument for
existence as well
as identify
arguments
pertaining to evil.
Welcome Back!

Bell Ringer…review
for your quiz!

Agenda and
Objective: Through
notes and
discussion,
students will
identify the
Ontological
Argument and its
critics.
Good morning…bell ringer

Review with your
neighbor Hick and
Dostoevsky’s view
about a Moral God.

Agenda and
Objectives:
Through readings
and discussions
students will
analyze the debate
over God and
suffering.
Good Morning…Bell Ringer (Article questions…)




List 3 arguments of
Mrs. Schnapper that
tie morality to God.
How are these
arguments refuted?
What is her argument
on page 107? Why is
it flawed?
Why do we try to act
good? (pages 111113)

Agenda and
Objectives:
Through readings
and discussions
students will
analyze the debate
over God and
suffering.
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 copout?)

