Transcript Slide 1

.
PHILOSOPHERS
WHO IS GOD?
What is God?
.
Have you ever wondered whether God exists? Most people
have.
But have you wondered whether God’s existence can be
proven?
Is there evidence, I mean real hard-core scientific evidence,
that God exists?
Are there any good reasons to think that God does not
exist?
How many of you here believe that God exists?
How many of you think that God’s existence can be
proven?
The question, "Do we have any good reason to think that
God does (or does not) exist?", is equally important in
.
the Philosophy of Religion.
There are four main positions with regard to the existence
of God that one might take:
Theism - the belief that God exists.
Weak atheism - the lack of belief in any deity.
Strong atheism - the belief that no deity exists.
Agnosticism - the belief that the existence or non…….existence of God is not known or cannot be known.
Most of Philosophy of Religion involves determining which
of these positions is most rational to take. However, this
assumes that the existence of God can be debated and
proved or disproved.
The existence of God is a
. to
metaphysical question central
a branch of philosophy called the
Philosophy of Religion.
As the name implies, this area of
philosophy applies philosophical
methods to the study of a wide
variety of religious issues,
including the existence of God.
Philosophy of Religion should be
distinguished from a type of
theology called revealed
theology.
St. Thomas Aquinas
“Theos” is the Greek word for “God,”
so “Theology” literally means
.
“the study of God.”
Revealed Theology is a type of
theology that claims human
knowledge of God comes through
special revelations such as the
Bible or Qur’an or through visions
or other types of direct revelations
from God.
St. Thomas Aquinas said that
revealed theology provides
“saving knowledge” – that is,
knowledge that will result in our
salvation.
Another kind of theology, called Natural Theology, has to
do with the knowledge of God
. that is possible based on
the use of “natural” reason – that is, reason unaided by
special revelations.
St. Thomas says that this sort of theology can provide us
with some knowledge of God’s nature and can
demonstrate that God exists, but it cannot provide saving
knowledge because, after all, even devils know that God
exists.
Natural theology is sometimes called rational theology or
philosophical theology. As this last name indicates, this
kind of theology is more closely related to the Philosophy
of Religion than is revealed theology.
Both natural theology and the Philosophy of Religion they
.
solely on the use of human reason in their attempts to
discover something about the divine.
They do not assume the truth of some special revelation;
they allow only what reason can prove.
Natural Theology has as its professed object to vindicate
our belief in God, and to deal with the manifold
objections, which from a wide variety of standpoints have
been urged either against His existence or against His
infinite perfections.
Sometimes Revealed and Natural Theology overlap on
issues.
Thomas Aquinas said that if it an issue in which there is
disagreement between the.two, then faith (revealed
theology) takes precedence over reason (natural
theology).
One thing it's important to understand
is that the
.
Philosophy of Religion is far more subtle in its study of
such arguments than some critics of religion suppose.
It recognizes that religious beliefs are a complex
interaction of ideas and to suppose that a single
argument could ground them all is not only
unreasonable but contrary to the way in which we decide
questions in everyday life.
Thus the modern justification of belief is cumulative and
complaining that a particular argument fails to make the
case for the entire network of beliefs is to miss the point.
.
Indeed, although there is general agreement that the five
main arguments fail to prove the existence of God, some
philosophers of religion claim that this is not what should
be aimed at; instead, their combination makes it more
likely than not that God exists.
If we were to believe because of arguments, or even if we
could show that the existence of God were certain or
rationally justified, there would be no room left for faith.
Religious belief is to be taken. not as something that can be
proven or disproven but instead as a boundary condition
or principle through which we interpret life and our
experiences.
There must be some measure of considering the evidence
and arguments for and against and deciding on the
balance of probabilities.
It is also suggested that God would not make it
unreasonable for us to believe in Him, so there must be
some value in the proofs of His existence, whether or
not we find them convincing.
Recall that Kierkegaard
identified “subjective
truths” as those things
which I believe are true
for ME.
William James noted that
truth is what “works” for
you.
Belief is not objective
rationality (or we would
not call it “faith”); but
belief in the unseen (and
yet important to us)
things shape and give
meaning to our lives.
.
Theistical Systems
The philosophical
systems which assert
the existence of God
fall into three classes:
deism, pantheism, and
theism.
Deism teaches that God created the world, but that having
. guidance of those laws
created it, He leaves it to the
which He established at its creation, abstaining from
further interference.
He acts thus, it holds, both in regard
to the physical and moral order.
There is no such thing as a personal
providence: nor does prayer avail to
obtain His special assistance.
The externality, not to say the
remoteness, of God in relation to
the world is fundamental in this
system.
Pantheism goes to the other extreme. It denies that there
is any distinction between .God and the universe.
Nothing exists, it contends, except God.
The universe is, in fact, simply the Divine Being evolving
itself in various forms.
By this it means that they deserve a religious reverence.
Theism holds a middle position between these. Like deism,
it maintains the doctrine of .creation, affirming that finite
things are fundamentally distinct from their Infinite Maker.
But it rejects the teaching which makes God remote from
the world.
It asserts, on the contrary, that God is, and must be, ever
present to every created thing, sustaining it in existence
and conferring upon it whatever activity it possesses that "in Him we live and move and have are being."
And further, Theism says that He exercises a special and
detailed providence over the whole course of things,
interfering as He sees fit, and guiding all things to their
respective ends.
"Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you
will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and
the body more than clothing?...why do you worry about clothing? Consider the
lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you
that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Now if God
so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the
oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?” (Matt. 6:25-30)
Theistic philosophies and religion are not exclusively
. is a god-figure of sorts,
“western.” The Hindu Brahman
but certainly the ultimate reality.
NONTHEISTICAL SYSTEMS
Nontheistic philosophies, such as Buddhism and Taoism
are not overtly concerned with the issue of God’s
existence even though they have been concerned with
the nature and existence of some “ultimate reality.”
Two other forms of nontheistical philosophies are
agnosticism and atheism.
Agnosticism (from the Greek
.
words, A=not and
gnosis=knowledge) admits to
the middle ground of
uncertainty between a belief
in a God or some ultimate
reality and a rejection of
belief in a God or some
ultimate reality.
An agnostic’s identification
means that he literally “does
not know.”
The ONE THING that an Agnostic DOES KNOW
is that he DOESN’T KNOW
PURE AGNOSTICISM
LIGHT SUMMER READING FOR AN AGNOSTIC
LIVING IN COLUMBIA, SC DURING AUGUST
. Atheistic philosophies, while
claiming not to believe in
the existence of God,
nevertheless often spend
a great deal of time
devising rational proofs
designed to prove that the
theistic proofs for the
existence of God are
irrational or at least
logically unsupportable.
Q: Who died and made YOU God?
.
GOD
DID !
Go to next slide
Agnosticism & Atheism Compared
HOW CAN I KNOW GOD?
How Can we know God?
If He is ineffable or indescribable, then how is it that people have
sought to give accounts of Him within religious texts throughout
the years?
One answer is to say that we can take a negative approach and
only say what God is not.
To some (like the Jews), God is even too holy to be named; and
perhaps He is beyond human language and its limits?
Others suggest that God could be known from His effects, hence
talk of His being all-powerful, just, all knowing, as well as the
converse of these.
More recent answers include regarding religious texts as a myths,
perhaps giving timeless insights into the human condition but
often through the interpretations and context of a particular age.
But, can we honestly “know” God and His nature?
THE IDEA OF GOD
Before the emergence of the belief that the whole world is
under the sovereign control of a single being, people
often believed in a plurality of divine beings or gods, a
religious position called polytheism.
In ancient Greece and Rome, for example, the various
gods had control over different aspects of life, so that
one naturally worshipped several gods, a god of war, a
goddess of love, and so forth.
Sometimes, however, one might believe that there are a
number of gods but worship only one of them, the god of
one’s own tribe, a religious position called henotheism.
Monotheism, the belief in only one divine being, has
. change, a change he
passed through a profound
describes with the help of the expressions “up there”
and “out there.”
The god “up there” is a being located in space above us,
presumably at some definite distance from the earth, in
a region known as the heavens. He is “above all” and
outside of time, space, and the limitations of a finite
existence.
He is a “transcendent” God, and he does not take time to
bother with individual matters. He controls the world
much like an unseen puppeteer controls a marionette
on the stage.
The fundamental change from the God “up there” to the
God “out there” in the past 800 years is the change from
.
thinking of God as located at some spatial distance from
the earth to thinking of God as separate from and
independent of the world.
According to this idea, God has no location in some spot or
region of physical space.
He is a purely spiritual being, a supremely good, allpowerful, all-knowing, personal being who has created
the world, but is not a part of it.
He is separate from the world, not subject to its laws, and
yet he judges it, and guides it to its final purpose.
He is HERE “with” the world, but not “of” the world. He is
an “eminent” God.
The TRANSCENDENT GOD
Transcendent God – controls
the world from “up there” 
Eminent God – controls the
world from “out there” (here) 
Two views of
God controlling
the world
This rather majestic idea
of an eminent God was
slowly developed over
the centuries by great
western theologians
such as Augustine,
Boethius, Bonaventure,
Avicenna, Anselm,
Maimonides, and
Aquinas.
It has been the dominant
idea of God in western
civilization.
THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
According to many major theologians, God is conceived of
as a supremely good being, separate from and
independent of the world, all-powerful, all-knowing, and
the creator of the universe.
Two other features that were ascribed to God by the great
theologians are self-existent and eternal.
The dominant idea of God in western civilization, then, is
the idea of a supremely good being, creator of but
separate from and independent of the world, allpowerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient),
eternal, and self-existent.
What is it for a being to be omnipotent?
How are we to understand the
. idea of self-existence?
In what way is God thought to be separate from and
independent of the world?
What is meant when it is said that God, and God alone, is
eternal?
Only to the extent that we can answer these and similar
questions do we comprehend the central idea of God to
emerge within western civilization.
Before turning to a study of the question of the existence of
God, therefore, it is important to enrich our grasp of this
idea of God by trying to answer some of these basic
questions.
OMNIPOTENCE:
Paradox of the Stone
Does God have the
power to create a
stone so heavy that
He cannot lift it?
Is it possible that he
does or does not?
In his great work, the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas
Aquinas undertakes to explain
. what it is for God to be
omnipotent.
After pointing out that for God to be omnipotent is for God
to be able to do all things that are possible, Aquinas
carefully explains that there are two different kinds of
possibility, relative possibility and absolute
possibility, and inquires as to which kind of possibility is
meant when it is said that God’s omnipotence is the
ability to do all things that are possible. Something is a
relative possibility when it lies within the power of some
being or beings to do.
Flying by natural means, for example, is possible relative
to birds but not relative to humans.
Something is an absolute possibility, however, if it is not a
contradiction in terms.
Having explained the two different kinds of possibility,
Aquinas points out that it must be absolute possibility
.
which is meant when God’s omnipotence is explained as
the ability to do all things that are possible. For if we
meant relative possibility, our explanation would say no
more than that “God is omnipotent” means that he can
do all things that are in his power to do. And while it is
certainly true that God can do all things that are in his
power to do, it explains nothing. “God is omnipotent,”
then, means that God can do whatever does not involve
a contradiction in terms.
Does this mean that there are some things God cannot do?
In one sense it clearly does mean this. God cannot make
one and the same thing both round and square at the
same time.
The idea that God’s omnipotence does not include the
power to do something inconsistent
with any of his basic
.
attributes can help us solve what has been called the
paradox of the stone.
According to this paradox, either God has the power to
create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, or God
does not have that power.
If he does have the power to create such a stone, then
there is something God cannot do: lift the stone he can
create.
On the other hand, if God cannot create such a stone, then
there is also something he cannot do: create a stone so
heavy he cannot lift it.
In either case there is something God cannot do.
Therefore, God is not omnipotent. But……..
The solution to this puzzle is.to see that creating a stone
so heavy that God cannot lift it is doing something
inconsistent with one of God’s essential attributes—the
attribute of omnipotence.
For if there exists a stone so heavy that God lacks the
power to lift it, then God is not omnipotent.
Therefore, if God has the power to create such a stone, he
has the power to bring it about that he lacks an attribute
(omnipotence) that is essential to him.
So, the proper solution to the puzzle is to say that God
cannot create such a stone any more than he can do an
evil deed.
GOODNESS:
The Dilemma of Divine Command
In Plato’s Euthyphro, the issue concerning God’s goodness
and his commands could be expressed in a two part
question:
Is something good because God
commands it, or does God command it
because it is good?
The idea that God (and his commands) must be perfectly
good is connected to the view
that God is a being who
.
deserves unconditional gratitude, praise, and worship.
For if a being were to fall short of perfect goodness, it
would not be worthy of unreserved praise and worship.
So, God is not just a good being, his goodness is
unsurpassable.
Moreover, God doesn’t simply happen to be perfectly
good; it is his nature to be that way.
God logically could not fail to be perfectly good. It was for
this reason that God does not have the power to do evil.
To attribute such a power to God is to attribute to him the
power to cease to be the being that he necessarily is.
Being God is part of the nature or essence of the being
who is God. So, since the being who is God cannot
cease to be God, that being cannot cease to be perfectly
good.
Or can he?
Plato’s writings were in the form of dialogues, usually
between Socrates and one. or more interlocutors.
In one of these dialogues, the Euthyphro, there is a
discussion concerning whether “right” can be defined as
“that which the gods command.”
Socrates is skeptical and asks: Is conduct right because
the gods command it, or do the gods command it
because it is right?
It is one of the most famous questions in the history of
philosophy. The British philosopher Antony Flew
suggests that “one good test of a person’s aptitude for
philosophy is to discover whether he can grasp its force
and point.”
The point is this. If we accept the theological conception of
. in a dilemma. Socrates’
right and wrong, we are caught
question asks us to clarify what we mean. There are two
things we might mean, and both lead to trouble.
1. First, we might mean that conduct is right because God
commands it. For example, in Exodus 20:16, we read
that God commands us to be truthful. On this option, the
reason we should be truthful is simply that God requires
it. Apart from the divine command, truth telling is neither
good nor bad. It is God’s command that makes
truthfulness right. But this leads to trouble, for it
represents God’s commands as arbitrary. It means that
God could have given different commands just as easily.
He could have commanded us to be liars, and then lying,
.
and not truthfulness, would be right. (You may be
tempted to reply: “But God would never command us to
lie!” But why not? If he did endorse lying, God would not
be commanding us to do wrong, because his command
would make lying right.) Remember that on this view,
honesty was not right before God commanded it.
Therefore, he could have had no more reason to command
it than its opposite; and so, from a moral point of view,
his command is perfectly arbitrary.
Moreover, on this view, the doctrine of the goodness of
God is reduced to nonsense.
It is important to religious believers that God is not only allpowerful and all-knowing, but that he is also good; yet if
. and bad are defined by
we accept the idea that good
reference to God’s will, this notion is deprived of any
meaning. What could it mean to say that God’s
commands are good? If “X is good” means “X is
commanded by God,” then “God’s commands are good”
would mean only “God’s commands are commanded by
God,” an empty truism. In his Discourse on Metaphysics
(1686) Leibniz put the point clearly:
So in saying that things are not good by any rule of
goodness, but sheerly by the will of God, it seems to me
that one destroys, without realizing 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 in doing
exactly the contrary?
.
If God’s commands
could be arbitrary,
how can we say that He
is GOOD ?
Thus if we choose the first of Socrates’ two options, we are
. even the most religious
stuck with consequences that
people must find unacceptable.
2. There is a way to avoid these troublesome
consequences. We can take the second of Socrates’
options. We need not say that right conduct is right
because God commands it. Instead, we may say that
God commands right conduct because it is right. God,
who is infinitely wise, realizes that truthfulness is far
better than deceitfulness, and so he commands us to be
truthful; he sees that killing is wrong, and so he
commands us not to kill; and so on for all the
commandments.
. the troublesome
If we take this option, we avoid
consequences that plagued the first alternative. God’s
commands turn out to be not at all arbitrary; they are the
result of his wisdom in knowing what is best. And the
doctrine of the goodness of God is preserved: To say
that his commands are good means that he commands
only what, in perfect wisdom, he sees to be the best. But
this option leads to a different problem, which is equally
troublesome for the theological conception of right and
wrong: In taking this option, we have virtually abandoned
the theological conception of right and wrong.
If God knows some
things
are
good
,
(and also knows some things are evil),
we cannot say that He knows the Good
because He is Good unless we are
also willing to say that He knows the Evil
because He is Evil.
So the standard of good & evil
must exist outside of God.
If we say that God commands us to be truthful because
truthfulness is right, then we are admitting that there is
.
some standard of right and wrong that is independent of
God’s will. We are saying that God sees or recognizes
that truthfulness is right, and that is very different from
his making it right. The rightness exists prior to and
independent of God’s command, and it is the reason for
the command. Thus if we want to know why we should
be truthful, the reply “Because God commands it” will not
take us very far. We may still ask “But why does God
command it?” and the answer to that question will
provide the underlying reasons why truthfulness is a
good thing.
All this may be summarized in the following argument:
Many religious people believe that they must accept a
.
theological conception of right and wrong because it
would be impious not to do so. They feel, somehow, that
if they believe in God, they should think that right and
wrong are to be defined ultimately in terms of his will.
But this argument suggests otherwise.
It suggests that, on the contrary, the Divine Command
Theory of right and wrong itself leads to impious results,
so that a pious person should not accept it. And in fact,
some of the greatest theologians, such as St. Thomas
Aquinas (ca. 1225—1274), rejected the theory for just
this reason.
But even if. we cannot
say that “God’s commands
are good,” can we
still say that
“God is good”?
WHAT IS THE ARGUMENT?
Theologians and philosophers have developed arguments
for the existence of God, arguments which, they have
claimed, prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is a
God.
Arguments for the existence of God are commonly divided
into a posteriori arguments and a priori arguments.
An a posteriori argument depends on a principle or
premise that can be known only by means of our
experience of the world.
An a priori argument, on the other hand, purports to rest
on principles all of which can be known independently of
.
our experience of the world, by just reflecting on and
understanding them.
Of the three major arguments for the existence of God—the
Cosmological, the Design, and the Ontological—only the
last of these is entirely a priori.
In the Cosmological Argument one starts from some
simple fact about the world, such as that it contains
things which are caused to exist by other things. In the
Design Argument a somewhat more complicated fact
about the world serves as a starting point, the fact that
the world exhibits order and design. In the Ontological
Argument, however, one begins simply with a
concept of God.
Ontological Argument
This argument was first
propounded by St. Anselm,
Archbishop of Canterbury in
his Proslogion of 1077-78.
Iin the Proslogion Anselm sets
out to convince "the fool,"
that is, the person who "has
said in his heart, ‘There is
no God’ " (Psalm 14:1;
53:1).
Anselm’s argument is considered by some that he
intended it for those who were
. already theists, not
necessarily for convincing atheists. This distinction is
important because his goals for the argument tell us how
it was supposed to function: if it was meant for theists, to
provide a rational basis for already-existing faith and
hence work as a cumulative argument (as discussed
above), then we might judge it differently than if it was
supposed to prove definitively the existence of God.
Anselm himself wrote:
“I have written the following treatise [as] ... one who
seeks to understand what he believes...”
Given this context, we can now look at the argument itself.
. definition of God entails His
In basic form, it states that the
existence. For example:
P1: God is the greatest possible being, one whom nothing
greater than can be conceived of;
P2: If God is just a concept and does not exist in reality then a
greater being can be conceived, one that exists both as a
concept and in reality;
C1: This being would be greater than God, contradicting P1;
C2: Therefore, God is not just a concept and must exist in
reality.
Thus the fact that we define God to be the greatest
possible being means that He must exist, or else He
.
would no longer be the greatest.
Another way to understand the argument is to distinguish
between a necessary being (that is, one that necessarily
must exist) and a contingent one (that is, one that may or
may not exist, depending on the circumstances).
According to the ontological argument, then, it would be
greater for God to exist as a necessary being than as a
contingent one.
Notice that this argument depends only on the definition,
not any facts about the world. It is perhaps for this
reason that many people find it unsatisfactory at first
glance.
Does the notion of a "greatest possible being" make
sense?
Let’s do the argument again
In presenting Anselm’s argument again, I shall use the term God in
place of the longer phrase “the being than which none greater is
possible”—wherever the term God appears we are to think of it as
simply an abbreviation of the longer phrase.
1. God exists in the understanding.
As we’ve noted, anyone who hears of the being than which none greater is possible
is, in Anselm’s view, committed to premise 1.
2. God might have existed in reality (God is a possible being).
Anselm, I think, assumes the truth of premise 2 without making it explicit in his
reasoning.
3. If something exists only in the understanding and might have
existed in reality, then it might have been greater than it is.
Statement 3 is the key idea in Anselm’s Ontological Argument. It is intended as a
general principle true of anything. Steps 1–3 constitute the basic premises of
Anselm’s Ontological Argument.
From these three items it follows, so Anselm believes, that
God exists in reality.
.
But how does Anselm propose to convince us that if we
accept 1–3 we are committed by the rules of logic to
accept his conclusion that God exists in reality?
Anselm’s procedure is to offer what is called a reductio ad
absurdum proof of his conclusion. Instead of showing
directly that the existence of God follows from1–3,
Anselm invites us to suppose that God does not exist
(that is, that the conclusion he wants to establish is
false).
Then he shows how this supposition when conjoined with
1–3 leads to an absurd result, a result that couldn’t
possibly be true because it is contradictory.
In short, with the help of 1–3,Anselm shows that the
supposition that God does not exist reduces to an
absurdity.
Since the supposition that God does not exist leads to an
absurdity, that supposition must be rejected in favor of
the conclusion that God does exist.
Does Anselm succeed in reducing the fool’s belief that God
does not exist to an absurdity?
The best way to answer this question is to follow the steps
of his argument.
4. Suppose God exists only in the. understanding.
This supposition, as we saw earlier, is Anselm’s way of expressing the
fool’s belief that God does not exist.
5. God might have been greater than he is. (2, 4, and 3)6
Step 5 follows from steps 2, 4, and 3. Since 3, if true, is true of anything, it
will be true of God. Step 3, therefore, implies that if God exists only in the
understanding and might have existed in reality, then God might have been
greater than he is. If so, then given 2 and 4, 5 must be true. For what 3
says when applied to God is that given 2 and 4 it follows that 5.
6. God is a being than which a greater is possible. (5)
Surely if God is such that he logically might have been greater, then he is
such than which a greater is possible.
We’re now in a position to appreciate Anselm’s reductio argument.
He has shown us that if we accept 1–4 we must accept 6. But 6
.
is unacceptable; it is the absurdity Anselm was after. For
replacing God in step 6 with the longer phrase it abbreviates, we
see that 6 amounts to the absurd assertion:
7. The being than which none greater is possible is a being than
which a greater is possible.
Now since 1–4 have led us to an obviously false conclusion, if we accept
Anselm’s basic premises 1–3 as true, 4, the supposition that God exists
only in the understanding, must be rejected as false. Thus we have shown
that
8. It is false that God exists only in the understanding.
But since premise 1 tells us that God does exist in the understanding, and
8 tells us that God does not exist only there, we may infer that
9. God exists in reality as well as in the understanding. (1, 8)
Defending critics of Anselm’s
.
argument:
Try to think, for example, of a
hockey player than which
none greater is possible.
How fast would he have to
skate?
How many goals would such a
player have to score in a
game?
How fast would he have to
shoot the puck?
Could this player ever fall down,
be checked, or receive a
penalty?
.
Although the phrase “The hockey player than which none
greater is possible” seems meaningful, as soon as we try
to get a clear idea of what such a being would be like, we
discover that we can’t form a coherent idea of it at all.
For we are being invited to think of some limited, finite
thing—a hockey player or an island—and then to think of
it as exhibiting unlimited, infinite perfections.
Perhaps, then, since Anselm’s reasoning applies only to
possible things, Anselm can reject its application to his
critic’s hockey player on the grounds that the hockey
player and “than which none greater is possible” is, like
the round square, an impossible thing.
Cosmological Argument
According to Plato in his dialogue the Timaeus, “...everything
that comes to be or changes must do so owing to some
cause; for nothing can come to be without a cause.”
Historically, the cosmological argument can be traced to the
writings of the Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, but
the major developments in the argument took place in the
thirteenth and in the eighteenth centuries.
In the thirteenth century St. Thomas Aquinas put forth five
distinct arguments for the existence of God, and of these,
the first three are versions of the Cosmological Argument.
The Cosmological Argument has two parts.
In the first part the effort is to. prove the existence of a
special sort of being, for example, a being that could not
have failed to exist, or a being that causes change in
other things but is itself unchanging.
In the second part of the argument the effort is to prove
that the special sort of being whose existence has been
established in the first part has, and must have, the
features—perfect goodness, omnipotence, omniscience,
and so on—which go together to make up the theistic
idea of God.
What this means, then, is that Aquinas’ first three
arguments (of five) are different versions of only the first
part of the Cosmological Argument.
St. Thomas Aquinas'
FIVE WAYS
Background:
St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) was a Dominican priest,
theologian, and philosopher. Called the Doctor Angelicus
(the Angelic Doctor,) Aquinas is considered one the
greatest Christian philosophers to have ever lived. Two
of his most famous works, the Summa Theologiae and
the Summa Contra Gentiles, are the finest examples of
his work on Christian philosophy.
First Way: (Cosmological)
Argument From Motion
St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek
philosopher Aristotle, concluded from common
observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the
planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other
object or force.
From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have
been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things
in motion.
Follow the argument this way:
.
P1: Everything that moves is moved by something else;
P2: An infinite regress (that is, going back through a chain
of movers forever) is impossible;
C: Therefore, there must exist a first mover (i.e. God).
Second Way: (Cosmological)
Causation Of Existence
This way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas
concluded that common sense observation tells us that
no object creates itself. In other words, some previous
object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately
there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE
(GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things.
The second cosmological argument proceeds similarly.
.
Follow the argument this way:
1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other
things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create
itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing
other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called
God.
The first two cosmological arguments seem much the
same but the slight distinction is that the first focuses on
.
the fact that things are moved by agents acting in the
world while the second discusses the actors causing
these things to happen.
Several criticisms have been made of Aquinas'
assumptions. Philosophers have challenged the idea
that events are linked in a "chain" from one to the next,
each resting, as it were, on those below. Another telling
objection is to ask why there could not be more than one
first cause/mover? Why could the chain not lead back to
several ultimate causes, each somehow outside the
universe? Not only that, but these two arguments could
just as easily lead to two different Gods.
Aquinas offers a third argument.
Third Way: (Cosmological)
Contingent and Necessary Objects
This way defines two types of objects in the universe:
contingent beings and necessary beings.
A contingent being is an object that cannot exist without a
necessary being causing its existence.
Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings
would ultimately necessitate a being which must exist for
all of the contingent beings to exist.
This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God.
.
Follow the argument this way:
1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) If a contingent being exists, then there must exist a
being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.
The idea here is that if everything in the universe was
contingent then there must.have been some time when
there were no contingent beings at all. In that case, how
could the universe have come into being, since
contingent beings would require a cause? This means
that there must be some necessary being, which we take
to be God.
The problem again is that Aquinas’ third argument might be
taken to imply another God, different from the other two.
Others object that matter or energy are not contingent
(although still others question this assumption), or that
the contingency could run backwards in time as far as we
like and "end" in the future.
Final Comment on the Cosmological
Argument:
.
As with the ontological argument, the cosmological
argument does not appear to be intended to convince
non-theists that they should become theists but instead
suggests the existence of God as a possibility, or an
explanation of the brute fact of the existence of the
universe.
How convincing it is depends, apart from the opinions we
might hold of the content of the argument, on whether
we feel this fact is in need of explanation or not.
Fourth Way: The Argument From
Degrees And Perfection
St. Thomas Aquinas formulated this Way from a very
interesting observation about the qualities of things. For
example one may say that of two marble sculptures one
is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects,
one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is
referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality.
From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality
(e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be a
perfect standard by which all such qualities are
measured. These perfections are contained in God.
Fifth Way: (Teleological)
Argument From Intelligent Design
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do
with the observable universe and the order of nature.
Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the
universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that
is was designed by an intelligent designer, God.
In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature
and life were designed and ordered by God, the
intelligent designer.
The Teleological Argument points to the existence of
.
purpose and order in the universe
and supposes that if
we see signs of design then there must have been a
designer.
Indeed, the word "teleology" comes from the Greek telos,
meaning "purpose", "goal", or "end."
Sometimes it is called the argument from design, or more
properly the argument for design.
A more complete explanation of St. Thomas' Fifth Way
about God as Intelligent Designer can be understood by
examining William Paley's Teleological Argument.
The basic premise, of all
. teleological arguments for
the existence of God, is that
the world exhibits an
intelligent purpose based on
experience from nature such
as its order, unity, coherency,
design, and complexity.
Hence, there must be an
intelligent designer to
account for the observed
intelligent purpose and order
that we can observe.
2. Paley's teleological argument is based on an analogy.
.
Watchmaker is to watch as God is to universe. Just as a
watch, with its intelligent design and complex function
must have been created by an intelligent maker.
A watchmaker, the universe,
with all its complexity and
greatness, must have
been created by an
intelligent and powerful
creator.
Therefore a watchmaker is
to watch as God is to
universe.
WILLIAM PALEY AND HIS WATCH.
.
If you tripped over a watch you
would assume (after
examining it) that it had been
put together by a clever
watchmaker.
Is it not reasonable to assume
the same about the world?
You could say the same about an
eye.
Except its maker is a lot
cleverer than the watchmaker.
.
Paley's Teleological Argument:
1) Human artifacts are products of intelligent design.
2) The universe resembles human artifacts.
3) Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design.
4) But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison
to human artifacts.
5) Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly
intelligent designer who created the universe.
Design Argument: we may disagree about
WHO is in charge, but somebody must be!
CRITICISMS
HUME - It depends what you look at in the world. What if
you focus on suffering and disease. Does this suggest a
designer? An incompetent designer or an evil designer?
Why only one great Designer? Hume suggests there
could be several – so not God, in the usual sense of
God.
J S MILL - Nature is ‘guilty’ of many serious crimes. If
people committed crimes like these (earthquakes etc)
they would be punished. Mill suggests that it is wrong to
think of the world as being ordered or designed.
Hume’s “EVIL DESIGNER”
RICHARD DAWKINS - Modern
Darwinian
biologist.
In
his
.
famous book The Selfish Gene (1989), he suggests that
human beings and other animals exists as gene carriers
(and not because they’re important in themselves). The
human body is a ‘gene survival suit.’ There is no order or
design = there is no God.
CHARLES DARWIN - Darwin was famous for formulating
the “theory of evolution.” Darwin said that, what looks
like order, has come about as a result of a random
process. Animals just keep adapting to the things that
happen (accidentally) in their environments. What looks
like order is just adaptation.
.
Hume:
An incompetent designer
Mill:
An unordered world
Dawkins:
Gene survival = No God
Darwin:
Adaptation = No God
After years of trying to create life in the laboratory, the scientists
finally concede that God did a better job than they every could.
The success of evolutionary theory has also provided an
. where the order we see has
alternative explanation as to
come from, with the caveat that there is apparently no
need to invoke purposive behavior to account for it. This
is not necessarily an objection against design, however,
since many theists now suggest that evolution is the
means used by God to achieve His goals.
With developments in science continually suggesting new
angles to view the argument from, as well as refinements
that point to the amount of beauty in the universe as
opposed to just design, the teleological argument
rumbles on and it perhaps once again depends on the
perspective from which it is viewed.
The Religious Experience Argument
Perhaps the most interesting argument for the existence of
God comes from the fact that very many people have
experiences they characterize as religious.
These tend to have different forms, but there is enough
common ground to list a few of them that have been
distilled as a result of work by people like William James
and David Hay.
Some common descriptions include:
. impossible) to describe.
- The experience is hard (if not
- It is a feeling of oneness with God.
- It can also be a sense of being dependent on God.
- It may sometimes call attention to a painful separation
……from God.
- It can be experienced anywhere, in everyday situations.
- It can provide insight into otherwise inaccessible truths.
- The experience tends to be transient.
There are other descriptions, of course, and the
experience itself seems to be largely personal.
The issue, then, is to explain these religious experiences in
a satisfactory way. The religious
. experience argument,
again, does not seek to prove that God exists but
instead that it is reasonable to believe that He does
because of the direct experience of Him.
Moreover, the argument gives a motive for non-believers to
also believe unless they can explain the experiences
(which they may have for themselves) in another way.
Indeed, we could say the argument is an inference to the
best explanation:
P1: People have religious experiences;
P2: The existence of God explains these experiences;
C: Therefore, God exists.
. In summary, the argument
from religious
experience does not
prove existence
definitively and depends
in good measure on
what our prior opinions
of such experiences are.
Nevertheless, it provides
an explanation for a
widespread
phenomenon.
Other Types of Argument
There are other types of arguments used to prove the
existence of God.
One commonly occurring one (used by Kant as well as
others) is the Moral Argument.
In its simplest form, it says that without God, there would
be no morality. Since human beings have some
internal sense of morality, there must be a God who
not only created the world but also instilled within
human beings a sense of right and wrong.
.
Another common argument
is the Free Will
Argument, which is
designed to fly in the
face of the notion of an
uncreated universe that
still (for some reason)
has laws (such as cause
and effect).
P1: Every event is derived from a cause determined by
.
universal laws.
P2. Human actions are undetermined.
P3: Undetermined actions do no follow universal laws and
thus must be the result of free will.
P4: But if every event has a cause, then even undetermined
events (resulting from free will) must have a cause.
P4: The cause of free will must also (by analogy) be the
cause of the universal laws.
C: Therefore God, the cause of the universal laws, must
exist as the cause of free will.
Personally, I don’t think it is a very convincing argument.
God “smites” those who do
not obey Him, because they
use their free will badly.
On the other hand (or
maybe with the same
hand), the Bible
says that the Lord
disciplines those He
loves (Hebrews 12:6).
For thought and discussion: .
If there is only one God whose existence is being “proven”
in all these arguments, why is it that there is a plurality of
religions?
If people can agree that God exists, then are all religions
equally good in their approaches to God?
We’ll discuss that after we read the handout.