theme 1 - existence of God old

Question 1

Briefly explain Aquinas’ first way to prove the existence of God.

Answer 1

• Aquinas states that everything in the universe is in motion (changing state).
• However, for things to change state, there must be an external factor, e.g for ice to become water, the external force would be high temperature for it to melt.
• This is called the ‘efficient cause’.
• Aquinas states “whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.”
• He argues an efficient cause must have changed state due to a previous efficient cause.
• However, existence proves that these efficient causes cannot go back forever and that there must be a finite number, as infinite regress cannot exist.
• Aquinas states going all the way back to the first efficient cause is called the ‘first changer’.
• Therefore, the first changer must be God.
• Aquinas gives his analogy using the example of wood and fire - a piece of wood has the potential to change state from being cold to hot, however, it needs an efficient cause such as another piece of wood on fire. This piece of wood must also have changed state by another piece of wood. This chain of changes of state cannot go on forever (infinite regress), therefore, there must have been a first changer - God

Question 2

Briefly explain Aquinas’ second way to prove the existence of God.

Answer 2

• Observation of the universe shows that everything is subject to the law of cause and effect.
• Nothing can cause itself, as it is logically impossible.
• Moreover, the chain of cause and effect cannot go on forever, as infinite regress doesn’t exist.
• Therefore, there must be a first uncaused cause, who Aquinas calls God.
• Aquinas gives an example of a series dominos falling.
• Each domino cannot fall down of its accord, as it needs another domino to fall on it.
• This is called an ‘intermediate cause’.
• Furthermore, the series of falling dominos cannot have started itself, as it needs something to push the first domino.
• This is called an ‘ultimate cause’.
• In this analogy, the pusher of the first domino is God (ultimate cause) and the proceeding falling dominos represent all the intermediate causes and effects.

Question 3

Briefly explain Aquinas’ third way to prove the existence of God.

Answer 3

• Aquinas observed that the world consists of contingent people (people who rely on people).
• Existing contingently means you were created and you will, eventually, cease to exist.
• Aquinas argues that as a contingent being, you exist now, but there was a time before when you didn’t exist and there will be a time, in the future, when you won’t exist.
• Therefore, if everything in the universe is a contingent being, it is impossible for us to come from nothing.
• It would be a logical necessity that there’d be a time when there were no contingent beings.
• “Therefore, if everything cannot be, then at one time, there was nothing in existence.”
• Aquinas then argues that if there was a time when there were no contingent beings, then no contingent beings would exist, as being contingent cannot come from nothing.
• “If at one time, nothing was in existence, it would be impossible for anything to have began to exist.”
• However, contingent beings exist, therefore, there must be a ‘necessary being’ capable of bringing contingent beings into existence.
• This necessary being must be God.

Question 4

State the four points of the Kalam argument

Answer 4

1) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause for its existence.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe MUST have a cause for its existence.
4) Since no scientific explanation can provide an account of the cause of the universe, the cause must be personal creator, which is God – therefore, God exists.

Question 5

Outline Craig’s defence of point two.

Answer 5

• Craig argues that actual infinity cannot exist, as it is impossible.
• He attempts to prove this by giving an ‘analogy of the library’.
• He asks us to imagine a library with an actual infinite number of red books and an actual infinite number of black books.
• The library must contain as many red books, as there are total books in the library, logically.
• However, this is impossible because there cannot be as many red books as there are total books, when there is also a set of black books.
• Therefore, this ‘library analogy’ illustrates that actual infinites cannot exist in reality, as the concept is impossible.

Question 6

Explain Hume’s first criticism of the cosmological argument (Fallacy of composition)

Answer 6

• Hume believed everything in the universe has a cause.
• However, just because everything IN the universe has a cause, does not mean that the universe ITSELF has a cause.
• This is known as the fallacy of composition which means applying something we know to something we don’t.
• For instance, we know everything in the universe follows the rule of cause and effect, therefore, we can apply the same rule to the creation of the universe.
• However, we do not know and, therefore, cannot apply it like this.
• Russell, a philosopher states that “Just because every human has a mother, does not mean the whole of humanity has a mother.”
• Hume further states that perhaps the rule of cause and effect does not apply to the creation of the universe, therefore the universe does not need a cause (God).
• Perhaps, the universe has an infinite number of causes.
• The Oscillating Universe Theory states that the universe had an infinite series of expansions and contractions.

Question 7

Explain Hume’s second criticism of the cosmological argument (Meaningfulness)

Answer 7

• Hume argued that humanity can only knowledge about the things we have direct experience of.
• This means that humanity cannot possibly know who or what created the universe, because we have no direct experience of the creation of the world.
• Therefore, for Hume, we cannot even consider the possibility of knowing anything about who or what created the universe.
• Kant, a German philosopher, also accepted this point and stated that the inductive cosmological arguments “have no meaning at all” because of this.

Question 8

Explain Hume’s third criticism of the cosmological argument (Evidence objection)

Answer 8

• Hume argued the cosmological argument doesn’t have enough evidence to support that God caused the universe, as it doesn’t empirically (a-posteriori) prove that God exists; instead it is just a logical guess.
• He accepts that everything IN the universe has a cause, however the rest is logical guesswork.
• For instance, Aquinas argued that “a chain of causes cannot go back an infinite number of time”, which is only a logical deduction, not an empirical or provable fact.
• Therefore, he argues, this is the same when cosmological argument states “the first causer must be a God”.

Question 8

Explain Hume’s fourth criticism of the cosmological argument (Which God?)

Answer 8

• Hume finally argues that even if he could accept God is the cause of the universe, there is no evidence as to what sort of God created the universe.
• Aquinas and Craig wanted to illustrate the ‘God of classical Theism’ - the God with attributes of omnibenevolence etc, however, the cosmological argument does not illustrate such a God.

Question 9

Explain Aquinas’ Teleological Argument (Design Qua Regularity).

Answer 9

• This is the fifth of Aquinas’ five ways to prove the existence of God, from his book ‘Summa Theologica’.
• Aquinas observed that all final purposes in universe seem to have been very carefully designed to support development and growth of human life.
• For instance (Aquinas’ example), it rains so we can have enough to drink and seasons change, so that we can grow food.
• Therefore, Aquinas’ argument is that non-intelligent entities in the universe act in a way to support human life. However, they cannot choose to produce this support for human life, thus it requires an intelligent being to bring this final purpose.
• Aquinas states that “whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it is directed by some intelligent being.”
• He further used an analogy and stated “an arrow is directed towards a target by an archer; just as an intelligent being exists whom directs/orders all-natural things.”
• This means that nature cannot direct itself to support human life, it too needs someone to direct it.

Question 10

Explain Paley’s Teleological Argument (Design Qua Purpose).

Answer 10

• Paley wrote this argument in his book ‘Natural Theology’.
• This is the most famous teleological argument and is known as the ‘watch analogy’ - Design Qua Purpose.
• Paley put forward his argument in the form of an analogy - if we were to come across a stone, whilst out walking, we could conclude it was formed as a result of random natural events.
• However, if we were to come across a watch, we could not come to the same conclusion, as the watch has a set of complex parts that are fitted together for the specific purpose of telling the time.
• Therefore, it cannot have come into existence by just chance and the watch had a designer.
• Paley states we would even have to come to this conclusion, even if we didn’t know what the watch was for.
• Extending his analogy to the world, he argues, like the watch, the world is complex and also appears to have been designed with the specific purpose.
• For instance, supporting the development and growth of human life.
• Therefore, just like the watch, our world must also have a designer - God.
• Paley furthered his analogy to illustrate the same point.
• He uses the example of the eye and the way in which it is adapted for sight. Its various parts cooperate in complex ways to produce sight. He believed that the eye was designed for the specific purpose of seeing.
• Therefore, this complex design suggests an intelligent designer - God.
• Paley then discussed the design of human teeth.
• He states, “At birth, every part of the human mouth is perfectly formed but the design is so perfect that nature does not permit teeth to be formed until a time when the baby has usually finished his dependence upon the mother’s milk.”
• Such evidence of complex design for specific purposes, Paley argued, could only be the result of an ‘intelligent designing creator’, which for Paley, was God.

Question 11

Explain Tennant’s Teleological Argument - Anthropic Principle.

Answer 11

• Anthropic means ‘related to being human’.
• Tennant believed that there must be a an intelligent designer behind the universe. This is because the chances of the Big Bang and Evolution creating a stable universe are so remote.
• For example, Martin Rees calculated the chances of a stable universe occurring from a random Big Bang was equivalent of a marksman hitting a one-inch target from twenty billion light years away.
• Therefore, Tennant believes the universe would be in chaos if there was no intelligent designer.

He highlighted three Anthropic principles =
- Intelligent Order = the universe is so stable that it can be empirically analysed and fixed laws of nature can be deduced e.g. Newton’s Law of Motion.
- Sustained life = the stable, natural world around us provides precisely the right things needed to sustain human life e.g the water cycle.
- Intelligent progression = the universe is so stable that humanity has been able to develop, to such an extent, that it can even observe and analyse the universe it exists in.
- These Anthropic principles clearly illustrate that the universe is not in chaos, but is a stable entity.
- As the changes of a random Big Bang and Evolution creating this are remote; it is clear evidence that the universes must be the result of an intelligent designer - God. Therefore, God must exist.

Question 12

Explain Tennant’s Teleological Argument - Aesthetic Principle.

Answer 12

• Tennant states that humans possess the ability to appreciate the beauty of their surroundings and also to enjoy beauty in various ways (art, landscapes, music etc).
• Only humanity has this appreciation, however, this is not a survival instinct.
• Darwin’s evolution theory states that humans developed from the ‘survival of fittest’.
• Therefore, Tennant argues that “Beauty seems to be superfluous and has little survival value.” He argues that this appreciation of beauty must have been designed in humanity from another source, other than evolution.
• This source, according to Tennant, must be an intelligent designer – God. This is because an omnibenevolent God not only wanted us to live + understand the stable universe, but also enjoy it. Therefore, God exists.

Question 13

Explain Hume’s first criticism of the teleological argument (Problem with analogies).

Answer 13

• Hume criticises the use of human based analogies to demonstrate the fact that the universe is designed.
• Just because a house is complex and needs a designer doesn’t mean the complex universe also needs a designer.
• This is because the house and the universe are too different to draw any similarities between them.
• Therefore, Hume believes, comparing the universe to ha human construction is completely wrong because you’re not comparing like with like.
• Hume suggests the universe demonstrates greater similarities to living organisms within nature than human constructions.
• He states “Does not a plant…which springs from vegetation bear a stronger resemblance to the world than does a machine.”
• Hume further says that living organisms don’t need a human designer and only need natural things to make them grow (sunlight, water etc).
• Therefore, if the world is like a living organism, it does not need a designer as it formed naturally.

Question 14

Explain Hume’s second criticism of the teleological argument (Lack of desgin.

Answer 14

• Hume argued the teleological argument depends on the assumption that there is design in the universe.
• In fact, the universe might be in chaos, meaning there is no need for a designer God.
• The ‘Epicurean Hypothesis’ states that the current so-called order in the universe is nothing more than the current random configuration of atoms. These atoms randomly re-organise infinitely - sometimes in an ordered way and sometimes in chaos.
• Therefore, our universe may appear designed, however, this is only the result of random atom movement and will not stay like this.
• Robert Devaney discovered a Quantum Mechanics theory called the ‘chaos theory’.
• The chaos theory states that atomic particles move around randomly; there is no order, and therefore no design in their movement, so much so that even scientists aren’t able to create a formula that predicts atomic particle movement.
• Therefore, if there is no pattern, there is no need for a designer and, therefore, no need for a God.

Question 15

Explain Hume’s third criticism of the teleological argument (More than one God).

Answer 15

• Hume argued that if we are going to use human analogies (houses/watches), it is more usual for manufactured goods to be designed and made by people; not one.
• Hume uses the example of a ship this time + argues that it takes many hands to build a ship.
• He argues that if you are going to compare the design of the universe to manufactured goods (ships/watches), this would suggest many Gods made the universe and not just one.
• Therefore, this criticism makes the assumption that the teleological argument is correct to suggest the universe was designed. However, what Hume is saying is it doesn’t prove the existence of God.
• Therefore, the human analogies used to illustrate the existence of a designer God shows there is a designer of the universe, however, it suggests there have been multiple designers and not the single designer – God.

Question 16

Explain Hume’s fourth criticism of the teleological argument (Absent designer).

Answer 16

• Hume adds that after a ship/house has been completed, the designer moves on to other projects.
• Therefore, if we use the analogies of ships/houses to prove the existence of a designer God, we must assume the same of him – that he has moved on to build other universes elsewhere.
• Hume further suggests that human designers die, so the analogy here is that maybe the designer God has done the same.
• The idea that God designed the universe, but is no longer present is called ‘Deism’.
• This again shows a designer of the universe existed, but either God is no longer or he has died.

Question 17

Outline the modern scientific criticism - Big Bang Theory.

Answer 17

• This is a scientific argument for the development of the universe and argued that the universe originated approximately 13.7 billion years ago from the violent explosions of matter.
• The universe was formed as this matter expanded. Galaxies with their solar systems, suns and planet gradually form. The universe continues to expand and new galaxies etc are formed even today.
• It is believed that Edwin Hubble is the creator of the Big Bang Theory.
• Stephen Hawking gives a mathematical explanation for the universe existing with a Big Band.
• He states that “The Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the law of physics, it is not necessary to create a God.”
• Therefore, the Big Bang is a scientific theory that the universe formed naturally through the laws of science.
• Therefore, there is no need for a causer God to have started the universe.

Question 18

Outline the modern scientific criticism - Theory of evolution.

Answer 18

• Charles Darwin discovered this process and found that members of a species whose characteristics best enabled them to survive, in their environment, went on to breed and survive.
• This is called ‘survival of the fittest’.
• This means that whenever an advantageous characteristic appeared, through a mutation, those animals who had displayed a natural advantage.
• E.g first fish that had an eye survived but those without an eye gradually died out as they were weaker.
• Therefore, our world was not designed by God to perfectly fit humans but instead our species are better adapted to this world and, therefore, survived and dominated it.
• Darwin, therefore, illustrated that ‘a God’ had nothing to do with the design of the Earth; it is just the result of random evolution.
• Evolution can be seen as a powerful argument as it has empirical evidence to back it.
• For example, Darwin spoke about random mutations causing evolutionary developments and argued that random mutations can occur, to create evolutionary changes because of random mistakes in our DNA molecules.

Question 19

State part 1 of St. Anselm’s argument

Answer 19

• The argument starts with a premise that God is “That Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived.” (God is the Greatest)
• Anslem states that even the fool (non-believer) can understand this premise.
• Then he asks the question, “Is it greater for something to just exist in the mind (in intellectu) or in reality (re) as well?”
• In this question, Anselm is stating that everyone would agree that, things that exist in reality as well as in the mind are GREATER than things just in the mind.
• He presents the argument in 3 premises =
  1. God is the greatest.
  2. It is greater to exist in re and in intellectu rather than just in intellectu.
  3. Therefore, God must exist in re and exists.
• So, Anselm would argue that even a fool would have to accept that a God in reality and the mind is greater than just a God in the mind.
• Therefore, God must exist in reality, as well as the mind and because the fool would have to agree with all the premises, they cannot now deny the conclusion.

Question 20

State part 2 of St. Anselm’s argument

Answer 20

• For Anselm, proofing that God just exists meant nothing as that would generalise him and so he wanted to prove that God is a necessary being (an eternal being) as opposed to humans who are continent beings (a being that will die)
• Anselm again stated that God is the greatest.
• A necessary being is greater than a contingent being.
• Therefore, for God to be the greatest, he must also be a necessary being.
• Anselm believed necessity was a unique feature of God because only God can be defined as the greatest.
• Therefore, Anselm proved that God exists and is also a necessary being.

Question 21

State Descartes’ ontological argument

Answer 21

• Descartes was born in 1598 and was the first of two developers of the ontological argument.
• He was famous for saying “I think therefore I am” and his development of the argument is taken from his book, ‘Meditation 5’.
• He begins his argument with the first premise that “God is a supremely perfect being”, followed by the second premise, in which eh states that there are certain qualities an object must have, or it would not be that object.
• He called these qualities ‘predicates’ and gave two examples of predicates an object must have to make it that object.
• In his first example of a triangle, he states that an angle has three sides that join together and add up to 180 degrees. He further states that the predicates will stay the same, even if we do not know or believe in a triangle.
• His second example is of mountains and valleys, in which he states that mountains have an up slope and valleys have a down slope. Once again, he states that the precoats will stay the same, even if we do not know or believe in mountains and valleys.
• Descartes applies the premise that all objects have predicates to the premise that “God is a supremely perfect being” and that every object has predicates that make it what it is.
• Therefore, one of the predicates of a supremely perfect being must be existence, because if he didn’t exist, he wouldn’t be perfect.
• Therefore, God must exist, even if we do not know or believe in God.

Question 22

State Malcolm’s ontological argument

Answer 22

• Malcolm, an American philosopher, built on Saint Anselm’s second argument in Proslogian 3, defining God as “an absolutely unlimited being.” He argued that God, being unlimited, cannot have a shape or be bound by existence, as this implies limits.
• Malcolm posits that if God exists, His existence must be necessary, not just possible, since ‘possible’ beings are limited by other factors. Humans are ‘possible beings,’ dependent on other entities, which limits them. Consequently, God, as an unlimited being, must be necessary if He exists.
• Malcolm further explains that if God does not exist, His existence is impossible since an unlimited being cannot be created or brought into existence. He concludes that God’s nature as an unlimited being means God must be necessary, and hence, God must exist.
• God is an absolutely unlimited being.
• If God exists, He must be necessary because otherwise, He would be limited.
• If God doesn’t exist, His existence is impossible because creation would limit Him.

Question 23

State Gaunilo’s criticism of the ontological argument

Answer 23

• Gaunilo of Marmoutier wrote a response to Saint Anselm, called ‘On behalf of the fool’.
• Gaunilo argued that Anselm’s ontological argument was deductively ridiculous. He stated that it is absurd to claim anything imagined to be ‘the greatest’ must also exist in reality.
• In his example of an island, he states that if someone described to you the ‘greatest island’ they had created in their mind, it must exist because it would not be the greatest island, if it did not exist + you would be a fool to believe them.
• Using Anselm’s logic, he further states which is greater - the island created in his mind (in intellectu) or the island in his mind and reality (in re) = clearly it is the island in mind and reality.
• Gaunilo is reducing Anselm’s logic to absurdity, called ‘reductio ad absurdum’ in Latin + states Anselm’s logic is clearly absurd.
• Gaunilo states because the two arguments have the same logical form, they must stand or fall together. As the example of the island is clearly absurd, so must Anselm’s argument about God.
• Anselm replied to Gaunilo + claimed his island criticism does not stand up, because an island has no ‘Intrinsic Maximum’ (no agreed standard of greatness).
• However, God, by definition, is the greatest + therefore, only God can be described as the greatest, not anything else, such as the island.

Question 24

State Kant's first criticism (existence is not a predicate) of the ontological argument

Answer 24

- Descartes argued every object has certain predicates that make it that object. Kant agreed, but added that existence is not a predicate of anything. - This is because the predicates of something do not alter the fact if it exists or not. - Kant used the example of 100 coins (thalers) + asked a friend to write down all the predicates of them. - He then stated that 100 thalers existed + asked his friend if that would change any of the predicates he had written. - The friend sad ‘no’ because whether the thalers existed or not did not matter. - Therefore, Kant criticises that ‘One of the many predicates of a supremely perfect being must be existence, because if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be supremely perfect.’ - Kant argued that a supremely perfect being may have several predicates, but one of them is not existence.

Question 25

State Kant's second criticism (analytical criticism) of the ontological argument

Answer 25

- All the ontological arguments depend on us accepting the definitions of the nature of God (greatest, supremely perfect, absolutely unlimited), as analytical statements (definition doesn’t need proving with empirical evidence). - Anselm, Descartes + Malcolm were religious + already believing in God. - However, this was not enough and Kant argued they needed to prove the definitions they gave.