An argument for the existence of God based on the nature of God’s being Saint Anselm (1033-1109CE) relied purely on reason … if we were to conceive of.

• An argument for the existence of God based on the nature of God’s being

• Saint Anselm (1033-1109CE) relied purely on reason … if we were to conceive of something that nothing greater could be conceived, that being would be God

• Starts from the position of belief in God: Credo ut Intelligam …. “I believe in order that I might understand”

• An argument for the existence of God that claims that there must be an ultimate causal explanation for why the universe as a totality exists

• St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274CE) claimed that there five proofs for the existence of God …. The two most important are …..

• Everything in the Universe is in motion

• For everything in the universe to moving there must be a “prime” mover

Everything in the universe has a cause

Stretching back through the chain of causes to the beginning leads one to God

An argument for the existence of God which claims that that the order and purpose manifest in the working of things in the universe require God

William Paley (1743-1805) compared God to a watchmaker

Pantheism

Means “all God” Alternative to

traditional monotheism

Belief that everything is God and God is everything

Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) claimed that God could not be separated from everything in the universe

Atheism

• Rejection of theism …denies the existence of God because…

lacks scientific proof the problem of evil• Adopts a moral system

designed to “realize human potentialities

• As much a statement of faith as theism

• Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)

Agnosticism

God’s existence cannot be either proved or disproved

Thomas Huxley (1825-1895), Darwin’s Bulldog, advocated the suspension of judgement given the lack of evidence

Is this possible in practice?

Pascal’s Wager

In the 17th century the mathematician Blaise Pascal formulated his infamous pragmatic argument for belief in God in Pensées. The argument runs as follows:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation)”.

Is this convincing?

Religious Belief

• William James (1842-1910) explored religion in his book “The Varieties of Religious Experience”

• Recognizes our “passional” nature …we can never be absolutely sure about anything but we desire truth

• There will inevitably be a non-intellectual, non-rational element to what we choose to believe

• Focuses on the word “option”….i. Living vs Deadii. Forced of Avoidableiii. Momentous or Trivial• Religious belief is a living, forced,

momentous option