Philosophy - Arguments For God On Observation

Question 1

Evaluate Aquinas’ cosmological argument for God’s existence

Answer 1

1.Hume is right to challenge Aquinas’ inductive reasoning and the notion that we can understand motion and causation (way 1 and 2)
2.Hume is right to challenge Aquinas’ illogical rejection of infinite regress
3.Hume’s most compelling challenge to Aquinas’ argument is his logical leap to a necessary being (way 3) and that this must be the God of classical theism

Question 2

Critically asses Aquinas’ fifth way

Answer 2

1. Issues with his inductive method
2. Better teleological arguments like Paley’s are still fundamentally flawed
   3.Logical leap
   Nuance-Unfair to critique Aquinas in this way as he was writing to believers, trying to avoid fideism so a leap of faith is inevitable

Question 3

Paley’s teleological argument successfully defends the existence of God. Discuss

Answer 3

1. Unsound analogy
2. Logical leap
3. Challenge of chance
   Nuance-Maybe both chance and design are responsible as there are limits to science

Question 4

The world was created by chance not by God’s design. Discuss

Answer 4

1. Other explanations for complexity and purpose
2. Logical leap
3. Evolution
   Nuance-Not fair to critique these arguments as they weren’t trying to prove god but ground their faith in logic.

Question 5

To what extent does Hume successfully argue that observation does not prove the existence of God

Answer 5

1. His issues with inductive reasoning are not convincing
   2.His issues with the cosmological argument is weak
   3.His issues with the teleological argument can be critiqued

Question 6

Into for cosmological arguments

Answer 6

Cosmological arguments = God explains the origin of the universe. They use a posteriori/inductive reasoning. Aquinas-motion, causation, contingency. Also Leibniz and father Copleston. Ultimately fails.

Question 7

Into for teleological arguments

Answer 7

Teleological arguments=order and purpose in the universe suggests and intelligent designer.
Aquinas’ fifth way (13th) William Paley’s (19th)
Most common opposition is the challenge of chance but F.R Tennant (Paley’s successor) tries to incorporate this. Ultimately fails