Arguments for the Existence of God

Philosophy of Religion

ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

All the arguments for the existence of God will present problems and will not provide absolute proof of the existence of God. The key point is whether they show God to be reasonable or even probable. Can it be accepted logically that God exists? Is theism a reasonable option?

Concept of God:

There are two ways which we can gain knowledge of God: through revelation or through reason. This has led to some people drawing a distinction between the God of the Bible and the God of Philosophy. Each method emphasises certain characteristics of God.

Revealed theology is the attempt to understand God through revelation i.e. through scripture. Revealed theology gives us a view of God as…

The Only God- In the opening books of the Bible, Yahweh is the only true God, the God of

Israel- The first commandment states that we should worship only one God- Bible also rules out possibility of other gods several centuries later- God is universal and worshipped by all, not just Jews

The Creator- God created the world- In the Old Testament God regularly intervened, but afterwards became

increasingly absent- God is outside of space and time

A Personal God- God created humans in his image- Has human attributes and personal qualities- Old Testament emphasises righteousness- New Testament emphasises positive and compassionate qualities- God is Love

A Holy God- Sets God apart from everything- A unique and supreme power should be worshipped- God has spiritual and moral perfection- Power to overcome our sins

Natural theology attempts to understand God through human reason. Natural theology gives us a view of God as…

Omnipotent- God is able to do anything and his power his limitless- But some philosophers question this power e.g. Aquinas lists 20 things God

cannot do i.e. change the laws of maths- Aquinas argued that God can only do what is logically possible

Omniscient- Perfect knowledge- Can God know what is logically impossible, e.g. can God know a round square,

or is God’s knowledge propositional, i.e. God knows the truth of things?- Practical knowledge – knowing how to do things

Benevolent


- Perfectly good – full of passion and love, based on righteousness- Abstractness is greater than the personal aspect of God- God’s goodness is the source of all good- What about the problem of evil?

Immutable- God is not subject to change and is eternal- God is incorporeal i.e. does not have a body, does not have parts- God is perfect so no need to change- Attributes cannot be separated – all aspects of the same thing i.e. God’s

nature

What are the advantages and disadvantages of an anthropomorphic view of God?

Able to identify with him for personal connections Easier to make up a picture of him Makes him more real and less abstract Easier to understand him Settle fear of unknown He can understand us and has a more personal interest in us We are supposedly created in the image of God× If he is so human, why is he so special× Linked with human flaws and limitations× Offensive to religious people× Devalues God× Takes away awe of God

The ‘via negativa’:

The apophatic way An attempt to understand God Associated with the 6th century Christian mystic Psuedo-Dionysius Represents the line of thought that God is so mysterious and different from us and

anything we can experience, that we can never fully understand what he is like We should appreciate the otherness and mystery of God Drawing a distinction between God and humanity, and not trying to limit God, who

transcends any particular religion or culture In order to know what God is, we have to rule out what God is not By only speaking about God in negatives we can say that God is invisible,

immortal, timeless and incorporeal Brian Davies criticises this approach by claiming that it will lead us nowhere in

terms of our attempt to understand God We can only reach a correct conclusion by process of elimination if we start with a

fixed number of options and there is no one to verify whether we are right The method only works if you understand what you are describing in the first

place

The Presumption of Atheism:

Anthony Flew argued that the demonstration of God’s existence was essential The burden of proof lies with the theists to demonstrate that there are rational

and empirical grounds for believing in God Such proofs are clearly a task for natural theology In the absence of any such proof atheism is the only reasonable default position


Compared this to the way that the legal system presumes that someone is innocent until proven guiltily

Flew argued that religion “dies a death of a thousand qualifications” as it is constantly altering God’s characteristics to fit God in with the world

In order to accept there is a God, we need to have knowledge of God, which comes from proof rather than from belief

We must presume atheism and we cannot believe in God until proof is given

A priori and a posteriori arguments:

A priori arguments (deductive arguments), are those which rely on the processes of logic to prove a point. You do not need to have any particular experiences or provide any evidence, in order to make the proof; the proof can be made solely through the logic of the argument.

A posteriori arguments (inductive arguments), are those which depend on some kind of evidence to support them. They are derived from experience, they come after experience. These sorts of arguments look at the world, experience X and state that therefore Y must be true. A posteriori arguments for the existence of God include the cosmological design, and moral arguments, as well as the arguments from religious experience.

Can God’s existence be demonstrated through argument?

For an atheist, even if an argument is sound, this will not change his or her opinion about God’s existence. However, there is more to religious belief than just agreeing to a set of statements; religious belief goes beyond reason and involves commitment to a new way of looking at the world and of behaviour. Faith in God seems to demand an element of uncertainty and a willingness to take risks in spite of an absence of concrete proof. Christians might argue that experiences recorded in the Bible, e.g. that of Jesus’s life and resurrection, are proof but others do not accept these examples as proof.

Believers often point out that God must remain partially hidden from the world, in order to maintain epistemic distance, which is a distance of knowledge or awareness of God. Only with this epistemic distance, is it possible for humans to have genuine free will to exercise faith and moral judgements. If God’s existence were undeniable, faith would mean nothing, and people would have no choice but to believe.

Most writers who have attempted to show the existence of God through reasoned argument have recognised that their arguments do not constitute incontrovertible proof. However, what they do try to show is that belief in God is reasonable and even probable, as it can be accepted logically that God exists.

Cosmological arguments for the existence of God:

The basis of the cosmological argument is that the universe cannot account for its own existence. The argument states that there must be a reason for the existence of the universe and this has to be something which is not part of the physical world of time and space.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

The fact that the universe exists is proof that there is a God There may have been a starting point, but not necessarily God The existence of the universe can be explained scientifically


There is no explanation The world has existed infinitely

Aristotle’s concept of the Prime Mover:

In ‘Physics’ Aristotle argued that1. Everything is in motion and undergoing change2. It is not possible to imagine a beginning or end of motion3. There must be an eternal mover creating the eternal motion4. This Mover must be Unmoved, otherwise something is causing its movement5. This is ‘God’ – the Unmoved Mover or the Prime Mover

“There must be a Mover, which moves them all without being moved, eternal and a substance and actual.”

The Prime Mover is- Eternal – the source of eternal motion; incapable of not being eternal, because

anything less than eternal is changing and imperfect- Independent – exists necessarily and does not depend on anything else for its

existence- Non-material – could not be made of any kind of matter or material, because

such things can be acted upon and can change- A substance – a spiritual, intellectual but non-material substance- Perfect – everything wants to imitate perfection and is drawn towards it- Unchanging – perfection cannot change- Actual – perfection has no potentiality and so it actual- A person – it has intelligence which is the essence of personhood; its activity

has to be purely spiritual and intellectual, that is thought; the only thought that God has is about God

- The Final Cause of the Universe – the ultimate good towards which everything is moving; it causes movement by drawing everything towards itself, as the object of desire and love

- Transcendent and impersonal – has no plan for us and cannot act in our physical world

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274):

Cosmological arguments made up the first three of Aquinas’ ‘Five Ways’. A key goal for Aquinas was to show how faith and reason could work alongside each other. Aquinas based his cosmological arguments on the two assumptions that the universe exists and that there must be a reason why.

1. The First Way – The Unmoved Mover- Here, Aquinas concentrated on the existence of change or motion in the world- Everything which is in motion or changing has to be put into motion or

changed by something else- Things stay the same unless some force acts upon them to make them move- The sequence of one thing moving another could not be infinite- Therefore there must have been an Unmoved Mover to set the whole thing off- God sustains the universe – the continued changes and movements are

because of the continued existence of a mover- “The existence of God can be proved in five ways. The first and more manifest

way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to


that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”

2. The Second Way – The Uncaused Causer- Concentrates on the concept of cause- Every effect has a cause and nothing can be the cause of itself- Infinite regress is impossible- Therefore there must have been a First Cause “which we call God”- Concentrates on the Aristotelian idea of efficient cause, which is the agent

which makes something happen- “The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of

sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.”

3. The Third Way – Contingency- The world consists of contingent beings, which are beings that begin and end,

and which are dependent on something else for their existence- Everything in the physical world is contingent, depending on external factors

for its existence- Contingency includes dependence on something having brought them into

existence in the first place and on outside factors for the continuation of their existence

- There is some other being, capable of brining other things into existence but being independent of everything else

- This being is necessary, is not caused and depends on nothing else to continue to exist


- This necessary being is God- “The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find

in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence – which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.”

Criticisms of Aquinas’ argument:

× There is no reason why the cause and effect chain cannot be infinite so we do not have to look for a beginning and a time when it must have started- BUT, e.g. Leibniz, argued that even if everything moved the next thing in an

infinite chain, there would still need to be an explanation of the whole chain’s existence

× Anthony Kenny argued against the idea that actual x can only be brought about by what is actual x, for example, Aquinas argued that for a stick to become hot, this has to be caused by actual heat, whereas Kenny argues that it could be caused by friction – “it is not dead men who commit murders.”

× The whole cosmological argument depends on the idea that nothing can cause itself, but then it is self-contradictory to postulate God as an uncaused causer, doing exactly what it just claimed was impossible- BUT Aquinas responded saying that this makes the mistake of considering God

to be a ‘thing’ like other objects in the universe, whereas God is not an object but differently entirely – God is unique and exists in a unique kind of way

× Just because there is evidence to suggest that everything in the universe is contingent does not necessarily mean that the universe as a whole is contingent – some scientific theories suggest that matter or energy may be eternal- BUT these suggestions are still being explored by scientists and questions

about the possible eternity of matter remain unanswered× Hume argued that logically the cosmological argument need not lead to one first

cause but there could be a variety of different causes, and that there is no logical reason to link this to the Christian God

× Fallacy of composition- It is overstepping the rules of logic to move from individual causes of

individual components of the universe to the assumption that the totality has a cause

The Kalam argument in Islam:


The Kalam argument focusses on a beginning of time and rejects the idea of infinitya) P1: Whatever comes into being must have a causeb) P2: The universe came into beingc) C1: The universe must have a caused) C2: This cause is God/Allah

Al-Ghazali argued that there must have been a real point at which the universe began, rather than an infinite regress, because although infinity is a mathematical concept, it cannot exist in actuality

The universe must have had a cause, because there must have been a time when it began to exist, and everything that begins to exist must have a cause to make it come into existence

“It is an axiom of reason that all that comes to be must have a cause to bring it about. The world has come to be. Ergo the world must have a cause to bring it about.”

If the universe could not have existed infinitely, then there must have been a time when the universe did not exist

There was once the possibility of a universe coming into existence or a universe not coming into existence, and there must have been something to have made the choice between the two possibilities

There must be some personal, intelligent agency to choose that the universe should exist, and this personal intelligent agent must exist outside of space and time

Some argue that there cannot be an infinite number of days before today, otherwise we would have never reached today, so there must have been a starting point

× The argument misunderstands the nature of infinity and that infinity has to exist in actuality even if we cannot imagine it

× The universe could just have begun at random, without any conscious choice made by an agent

× Even if the argument is accepted it does not provide evidence for the existence of a God with all the qualities and characteristics that theists claim God has

× The argument is self-contradictory, since it denies the possibility of infinity existing in actuality, but uses this as part of an argument to demonstrate the actual existence of an infinite God

William Lane Craig:

Argued in favour of the Kalam argument Explained the view that an infinite regress could not exist in reality, using the

example of a library with an infinite number of books- If one of the books were loaned out, the library would still have to contain an

infinite number- If every other book were to be taken away, the shelves would still have to be

full- “Suppose we add an infinity of infinite collections to the library… is there

actually not one more single volume in the entire collection than before?” Thus he forms the argument that the earth cannot have existed infinitely

a) P1: An actual infinite cannot existb) P2: An infinite temporal regress is an actual infinite rather than a potential

infinityc) C: Infinite temporal regress cannot exist


A series involving temporal addition cannot be actually infinite Time in the future is potentially infinite

Leibniz and the principle of sufficient reason:

Leibniz argued that even if the universe has always existed, this still does not give us an explanation of why it exists

Everything has to have a sufficient reason, even if we do not know what these reasons are

A full explanation of something includes not just an explanation of how it works but also how it came to exist

The sufficient reason of the universe is God× Fallacy of composition

- David Hume argued that we could not logically move from the idea that everything in the universe has a reason, to say that the universe as a whole must have a reason

- Bertrand Russell similarly said that just because every human being has a mother doesn’t mean that the human species as a whole has a mother

× Hume argued that we can imagine something coming into existence without a cause as this is not an incoherent idea- BUT just because you could imagine something existing without a cause, it

does not follow that in reality it could exist without a cause- For example, Elizabeth Anscombe gave the example that we can imagine a

rabbit which had no parents and just existed, but obviously this would not be an actual possibility just because we could imagine it

Debate between Russell and Copleston:

The BBC Third Programme in 1948 brought together Frederick Copleston (a Jesuit priest and philosopher) and Bertrand Russell (an atheist philosopher) to debate live on radio some of the issues regarding the existence of God

Copleston argued the case for theism while Russell took an atheist/agnostic position

They agreed on the definition of God as a supreme and personal being, who is distinct from the world and creator of the world

The problem of God’s existence is considered to be one of great importance because if God does not exist then human beings and their history have no purpose other than the purpose they choose to give themselves or is imposed upon them

Copleston argued that, unless one accepts the existence of a first cause, there is no explanation for the existence of the universe at all- Without such an explanation, the universe is “gratuitous”- Quoted Jean-Paul Sartre: “Everything is gratuitous, this garden, this city and

myself. When you suddenly realize it, it makes you feel sick and everything begins to drift… that’s nausea.” (‘Nausea’)

- No object of experience contains within itself alone the reason of its existence, so there must be a reason external to itself, which is an existent being

- There can be no absolute values without God Copleston: “if there is a contingent being then there is a necessary being.”

- Each object in the universe is dependent on the existence of other things and relies for its existence on “a reason external to itself”

- Since nothing in the world contains the reason for its own existence, there must be an external explanation, something outside the objects in the


universe which accounts for their existence and for the existence of the universe as a whole

- There must be “a being which contains within itself the reason for its own existence”

- It is meaningful to talk of a “necessary being” whose essence involves existence

Russell refused to accept the notion of a necessary being as one that cannot be thought of not existing- Russell argued that the word ‘necessary’ can only be applied to analytic

propositions as opposed to synthetic propositions- An analytic statement is true by definition whereas a synthetic statement

needs to be verified by observation or experience- The only grounds on which one could consider a being as necessary is if there

was a being whose existence is self-contradictory to deny- It does not make sense to talk of a God as ‘necessary’

Copleston considered that our knowledge of the existence of God is a posteriori- He also thought that an adequate explanation is ultimately a total explanation,

one to which nothing further can be added – a sufficient reason (Leibniz)- Every existent thing must have a sufficient reason for its existence- “God is his own sufficient reason; and he is not the cause of himself. By

sufficient reason in the full sense I mean an explanation adequate for the existence of some particular being.”

- Copleston also argued that you cannot have an infinite series of contingent beings, because if you add contingent beings to infinity, you still get contingent beings and no necessary beings

- Thus an infinite series will be as unable to cause itself as one contingent being Russell believed that the existence of the universe is just brute fact

- The universe’s existence does not demand an explanation- He argued that Copleston was guilty of the fallacy of composition, that is he

was assuming that as everything in the world has cause, then the world as whole needs a cause: “the concept of cause is not applicable to the total”

- “Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn’t a mother – that’s a different logical sphere.”

- The concept of the universe as a whole having a cause is meaningless- Russell also claimed that scientists were discovering “first causes which

haven’t in themselves got causes”, undermining the whole notion of everything having to have a sufficient reason

Russell rejected the need to find an explanation for the existence of the universe- “I should say that the universe is just there, that’s all.”- Russell saw the argument for a cause of the universe as having little meaning

or significance- He established it as a “question that has no meaning”- Copleston’s view of Russell’s position was to suggest that Russell was denying

the importance of the argument- “If one refuses even to sit down at the chess-board and make a move, one

cannot, of course, be checkmated.”

Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument:

Why must there be a link between cause and effect?- Assume a chain of cause and effect


- No way of establishing the principle of causality Why must the universe have a cause?

- If God is his own cause, then why can’t the universe be its own cause? Why can’t there be an infinite series of causes?

- Human inclination that drives us to seek a first cause rather than accept the possibility of infinity

We can’t infer the cause of the universe from the cause of things within the universe without observing it?- We can only know what causes something to happen if we have repeatedly

observed it- There can be no inferences made about a cause of the universe since we have

had no experience of observing causes of other universes We can’t infer the cause of the universe from the cause of things within the

universe by assuming that a characteristic of parts of the universe is also a characteristic of the whole- Cannot make the same assumptions about the totality of a thing as we can

about its component parts- Speaking about causes only makes sense in regard to things in the world, not

its totality- BUT sometimes a totality can have the same character as its part e.g. a wall

made of bricks is a brick wall- If all the contingent parts of the universe failed to exist at once, the universe

itself as the totality of these parts, would cease to exist, which shows the universe is contingent and therefore requires an explanation

Why must there be a being whose existence is necessary- No proposition about existence can be logically necessary, as we can only

realise the existence of things by experience- “All existential propositions are synthetic.”- Can either have relations of ideas or matters of fact- Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent so

there is no being whose non-existence implies a contradiction- Idea of necessary existence is flawed

How can you argue that this being corresponds with the Christian God- Like causes resemble like effects- We should not postulate more than is necessary to account for the given

effect- Since the universe is finite, it would prove only that its creator would have to

be powerful and wise enough to create it, but not infinitely powerful, wise or good

Hume intended to show that the argument does not provide any justified reason to believe in God, rather than to prove that there is no God – therefore the result of Hume’s critique is not atheism as much as agnosticism

Will science be the end of the cosmological argument?

Recently, subatomic physics has suggested that things can exist without a cause and that motion does not have to be the result of a mover

Investigations in quantum physics suggest that electrons can pass in and out of existence without any apparent cause- BUT some would argue that there seems to be no cause because of our limited

understanding, rather than that such things are causeless in reality


Peter Atkins, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford, dismissed the cosmological argument for the existence of God- “There is of course one big, cosmically big, seemingly real question: Where did

it all come from? Here we see most sharply the distinction between the methods. Religion adopts the adipose answer: God made it – for reasons that will forever remain inscrutable until, perhaps, we become one with Him (that is, until we are dead). Such an answer, while intrinsically absurd and evil in its implications, appears to satisfy those for whom God is a significant part of their existence. Science, in contrast, is steadily and strenuously working toward a comprehensible explanation. Witness the extraordinary progress that has been made since the development of general relativity at the beginning of the twentieth century. Though difficult, and still incomplete, there is no reason to believe that the great problem, how the universe came into being, and what it is, will not be solved; we can safely presume that the solution will be comprehensible to human minds. Moreover, that understanding will be achieved this side of the grave.” (Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 18, Number 2, 1998).

Lawrence Krauss – A Universe from Nothing- The universe sprang from nothing- Empty space is unstable- Universe started in nothing and will end in nothing- Makes us uncomfortable but the “universe doesn’t exit to make us happy”

Strengths of the cosmological argument:

A posteriori- Draws upon experience of the world being complex- Have experience of chains of cause and effect

No other feasible explanation- Need a necessary being to bring all contingent things into existence

Consistent- Combines both reason and revelation- Confirms what is revealed through faith

Agrees with science- On need for cause of the world- Can be in line with the Big Bang

Meaningful- Presence of God gives us purpose

God is the ‘simplest’ explanation for the existence of the universe- Ockham’s razor: “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity”- The simplest explanation is the most viable/likely answer- Swinburne: “If we can explain the many bits of the universe by one simple

being which keeps them in existence, we should do so – even if we cannot explain the existence of that simple being.”

Weaknesses of the cosmological argument:

Not fully a posteriori- No experience of God- Only have experience of the physical world

Inductive leap- Jumps from the existence of a necessary being to existence of God- Makes assumptions about things beyond our limited experience


- Reaches a conclusion that is beyond the evidence available Fallacy of composition

- Just because everything in the universe has a cause, does not mean that the universe as a whole has a cause

Contradictory- Says that everything needs a cause but then what caused God

World is just brute fact Biased

- Starts from a position of faith

Design arguments for the existence of God:

Design arguments for God’s existence are often known as ‘teleological’ arguments. Teleological comes from the Greek word telos meaning ‘tail’ or ‘end’ or ‘purpose’. The ends are important – they are the goal or purpose, and are used in order to draw one’s conclusions. Design arguments propose that the universe displays features of design and order, which point to an intelligent designer, which is God. Teleological arguments appeal to our aesthetic sense, and so have an emotional pull as well as an appeal to logic, accounting for its enduring attractiveness.

1. The universe displays order, purpose and regularity2. The complexity of the universe shows evidence of design3. Order, beauty and complexity do not arise by blind chance4. Such design implies an intelligent designer5. The designer of the universe is God and so God exists

Aquinas’ design argument:

The Fifth Way from “the governance of the world” Design qua regularity – order and regularity in the universe suggest a designer Design qua purpose – the parts of the universe fit together for some purpose Nature seems to have an order and a purpose to it Nothing inanimate is purposeful without the aid of a “guiding hand”, as inanimate

objects could not have ordered themselves as they do not have any intelligence with which to make plans or patterns

God is a “guiding hand” for the non-intelligent beings that act in an ordered way “The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things

which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”

William Paley (1743 – 1805):

Trained for Anglican priesthood and graduated from Christ’s College Cambridge in 1763

‘Natural Theology’ published in 1802 By referring to natural world one could understand the nature of God The analogy between the World and the Watch

- Argued that the mechanism of the universe could be compared to the mechanism of a manufactured object such as a watch


- Features of the watcho The watch is complex because it has several parts, which interact with

each other and have responsibilities towards each othero Given these responsibilities, the watch can be said to have a total purpose

– to tell the timeo Person who found the watch would conclude that someone must have

made the watch rather than the watch occurring by chanceo We do not have to see the watch being made to realise there must have

been a makero “This mechanism being observed, the inference we think is inevitable, that

the watch must have a maker.”- Features of the world

o Looking at a watch is similar to looking at the worldo The world works so well that it must have been intricately designed and

things in the world seem to act for individuated purposeo The world is complex, as there are billions of species of animals and plants

in the world, and the world is ordered, as we can see that there are distinct o The world itself is even more impressive than a watch in its workingso “… the contrivances of nature surpass the contrivances of art, in the

complexity, subtility, and curiosity of the mechanism”- The use of analogy

o By analogy we can say that the world has a total purpose and that the world must have been designed

o Both the world and the watch display features of order and complexityo By proportioning the causes to the effects, we can see that the world-

maker must be that much more impressive than the watch-maker, because the world is so complex and so ordered

o The creator of the world could conceivably be so powerful that it is reasonable to attach the term ‘God’ to him

o Revealed theology backs up this claim that the maker of the world is God – Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

o “It is nonsense to say that a watch came about by chance or has always existed, then it is equally nonsensical to say that the ‘universe’ came about by chance or has always existed.”

The conclusion is not invalidated if the world doesn’t work perfectly- The watch doesn’t have to work perfectly to infer that it has a designer- Just because something goes wrong, it doesn’t mean that God is imperfect or

that God does not exist- The world could be made perfectly but still go wrong, just as a watch does- Pre-emptive argument against the problem of evil

The conclusion is not invalidated if we don’t understand all the parts of the watch- Merely shows that we are less competent than the designer- Just because we do not understand all the parts of the world does not mean

that our conclusion about there being a designer is invalid- We are inside the world and therefore our knowledge of the world is limited- We do not have the Archimedean perspective required

Not only is everything clearly designed but it is designed for a purpose and designed to an infinite degree of care- Design qua purpose – everything is designed for a purpose by a “designing

creator”


- Design qua regularity – the regularity of the universe provided further evidence for a creator God

- Paley points to the intricacy of animals and humans and indicates that there is evidence of craft and skill even on the smallest scale

- Uses the example of the human eye to illustrate the idea that everything has been put together in a particular way in order for it to fulfil a purpose: “there is precisely the same proof that the eye was made for vision, as there is that the telescope was made for assisting it”

- Thought that the design of an eye was a convincing argument against atheism Evidence not only of intelligent design but also of God’s care

- “The hinges in the wings of an earwig, and the joints of its antennae, are as highly wrought, as if the Creator had nothing else to finish. We see no signs of diminution of care by the multiplicity of objects, or of distraction of thought by variety. We have no reason to fear, therefore, our being forgotten, or overlooked or neglected.”

“It is a happy world after all. The air, earth, the water, teem with delighted existence. In a spring noon, or a summer evening, on whichever side I turn my eyes, myriads of happy beings crowd upon my view… A bee amongst the flowers in spring, is one of the cheerfullest objects that can be looked upon. Its life appears to be all enjoyment; so busy, and so pleased… If we look to what the waters produce, shoals of the fry of fish frequent the margins of rivers, of lakes, and of the sea itself. These are so happy, that they know not what to do with themselves.”- Very optimistic in attempt to demonstrate the goodness of the world’s

designer from the happiness of the world’s inhabitants- Recognises that there is suffering but argues that this does not affect our

judgement of the goodness of our deity as there is more happiness than misery in the world: “Happiness is the rule: misery is the exception.”

- BUT Arthur Schopenhauer argues that misery always outweighs happiness- “The pleasure in this world, it has been said, outweighs the pain; or at any

rate, there is an even balance between the two. If the reader wishes to see shortly whether this statement is true, let him compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other.”

- Schopenhauer uses the example of one animal which is happy enjoying the experience of eating and the other one is unhappy because it is being eaten, but the experience of the animal being eaten is a far more extreme pain than the mild pleasure of eating

- “we generally find pleasure to be not nearly so pleasant as we expected, and pain very much more painful”

- For Paley, pleasure predominates over pain, while for Schopenhauer pain predominates over pleasure

- It is only by radically downplaying the existence of pain and torment in our world that Paley can so fervently contend that the designer of the world is good

The design argument is more like a hymn of praise than a philosophical proof, and this is why atheists are rarely if ever brought to conversion by it, for they do not share the same providential view of the world- Design argument is an ecstatic expression of religious belief- Misconceived as an attempt to justify that belief or to convince unbelievers- Presentations of the design argument are profound and moving- A sense of wonder and amazement in face of the complexity and beauty of

nature


The argument responds to the intuitive human assumption that all things are explicable

The more we observe about the world, the stronger the argument Paley’s argument is supported by revealed theology (Christian) Paley emphasises God’s position as unique and outside the universe Paley confirms that the world has specific purpose, even if we don’t know it× There could be multiple creators of the world, whereas Paley automatically

assumes that there is the one and only God× The creator of the universe could be flawed, limited or talentless, as the world is

far from perfect× Given the existence of evil and suffering, the only God that we are left with is an

immoral and malevolent designer, and therefore not worthy of human devotion

Kant:

Kant argued that our ideas about order, design and causality come from the way that we perceive the world around us

Our minds like to put things in order, and to see patterns and sequences Perhaps the order in the world is something that we impose on it, when we

perceive it, rather than something that is objectively there Thought that the teleological and the cosmological arguments were essentially

linked, because both arguments ultimately depend on the idea that God is necessarily existent

These arguments assume that there is a God who “necessarily exists” by definition and Kant did not think that this was sound reasoning

Anthony Flew:

Refers to John Wisdom’s Parable of the Gardener:- Two explorers in a jungle come across a clearing which has the appearance of

being tended; one believes that there is a gardener and the other disagrees- After an exhaustive series of tests, the gardener has not been revealed- The believer continues to maintain that a gardener tends the plot – an

invisible, intangible and inaudible gardener- The sceptic is not convinced- Appearance of order may lead to assumption of a gardener i.e. God

Wisdom’s point- Wisdom’s point is that although two people can be presented with exactly the

same empirical evidence they can draw completely different conclusions- One person sees the garden as neglected, the other as cared for by a

gardener- In the same way the atheist sees the universe as a place without God (they

may point to natural disasters, to terrible injustices, to pointless suffering); but the believer points to the order and beauty of the world and sees this as evidence of the work of divine intelligence

- Influence of preconceptions on the believer and the sceptic means that there is nothing, no experiment or observation, that could verify and confirm either of their conclusions

- Wittgenstein: “The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy man”

- The difference between the believer and the non-believer is something like a difference in response to the world in which we find ourselves


Flew: “Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even no gardener at all?”- At every stage the believer qualifies the hypothesis that God exists even in

the light of contrary evidence- Flew refers to this as the “death by a thousand qualifications”- “What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof

of the love of, or of the existence of, God?”- Believes that religious statements are meaningless

× Hare argued that religious language cannot make factual claims because religious beliefs are bliks, a way in which experience is interpreted- Bliks are “modes of cognition” and have significant importance to the way one

orders their life- Bliks are “ways of regarding the world which are in principle neither verifiable

or falsifiable”- Whatever experience you have you will still believe/interpret in the same way

e.g. the parable of the Gardener- No experience can count as evidence against a blik as the blik in question

determines how experiences are understood and therefore what they are considered to be evidence for

- Uses the example of the lunatic who is convinced that all university dons want to murder him, and will accept nothing as evidence against his conviction

- Religious belief is such a blik – evidence that seems persuasive to a sceptic has no effect on the believer and why believers find evidence of God where sceptics see nothing of the sort

F. R. Tennant (1866 – 1957):

Tennant was one of the first people to put forward a version of the design argument which included reference to and acceptance of the theory of evolution. According to Tennant, evolution is entirely consistent with design arguments, because of the way in which evolution itself seems to have a purpose. Evolution has a purpose, and is both created and guided by an intelligent God: “the multitude of interwoven adaptations by which the world is constituted a theatre of life, intelligence, and morality, cannot reasonably be regarded as an outcome of mechanism, or of blind formative power, or aught but purposive intelligence.” Tennant believed that evidence supporting the theory of evolution was also further evidence of the existence of God.

The anthropic principle:

The world seems set up to provide for human life: “the loaded dice” The argument that the natural laws of the universe have been ‘fine-tuned’ to

allow human life to exist The way in which the universe seems to be structured so that it was inevitable

that life would develop Every one of the coincidences inherent in the fundamental laws of nature and the

specific relationships between different physical phenomena is necessary for life and for consciousness

If the laws of nature were even slightly different, human life (and other forms of life) could not have happened

The fact that we are here against all the odds is evidence of the existence of a God who had fine-tuned the universe deliberately so that we could exist

Discoveries in science have strengthened the theist’s case for God’s existence


- Paul Davies has maintained that if the strength of the initial event had varied by one part in 1060 then there would have been no Big Bang

- Roger Penrose, in ‘The Emperor’s New Mind’, calculates the statistical improbability of the fine-tuning of the existence of the universe as 1 in 10 billion multiplied by 123

- There needs to be a precise balance in the values of constants that govern gravitational force and the weak nuclear force in every atom – without this there would be no expansion of the universe and no formation of stars or planets

- Stars must been formed, and within them carbon atoms (essential component of organic matter) created from the fusion of hydrogen and helium atoms

- A life-containing planet needs to be at a precise distance from the Sun in order to have just enough light and heat to maintain life once it has emerged

- There must have been the development of self-replicating DNA and there must take place the same random mutations that led to the natural selection of mammals and eventually the emergence of our ancestors on the African plains

When we consider all the physical conditions that the universe had to possess for humans to evolve then, as Russell Stannard puts it, “there seems to be a conspiracy to fix the conditions”

Three versions of the anthropic principle- The weak anthropic principle

o Given that we are here, the universe must have the properties and coincidences necessary for us to exist

o Gives no insight into why the universe is this way- The participatory anthropic principle

o The universe would not exist unless there were observers to see ito BUT there is evidence that the universe existed long before humans and

continues to exist in parts where we cannot observe- The strong anthropic principle

o It is somehow necessary for the universe to have these special properties and coincidences

o The universe was constructed and could not have come into existence in any other way

o It was inevitable that human life should have come about, given the structure of the universe

× The weak anthropic principle does not tell us anything but simply states the obvious

× There could be an infinite number of universes existing and so we happen to live in one which is suited to life but have no access to the others so life was bound to happen given infinite possibilities

× The argument seems to give humanity a special status which is unwarranted – if the universe was structured differently, dung beetles would not be here either, so the argument could equally well be made that the universe is designed for the existence of dung beetles or even for the existence of cancer

× It might be highly unlikely that the structure of the universe allows for our existence, but everything that ever happens is highly unlikely, when considered alongside all the other possibilities of what might have happened instead – simply the random effect of chance

The aesthetic design argument:


Tennant argued for the existence of an intelligent God who designed the universe in the basis of beauty of the world

Beauty cannot be explained away by Darwinist ideas World contains so much beauty, which is not necessary for life, but enhances life Beauty has “little survival value” and is “a biologically superfluous

accompaniment of the cosmic process” The natural world is full of beauty on a scale which humans can never copy The beauty of the natural world provides evidence for the existence of God

because there is no scientific explanation to account for beauty There is no reason for there to be so much beauty in the world, unless it is put

there by God, for the purposes of human enjoyment and for God himself to enjoy when he looks at his creation

BUT beauty is not an absolute quality – ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ BUT beauty is a value-judgement and cannot be said to exist objectively

Richard Swinburne’s design argument:

Argument from probability (building a cumulative case for theism)- The sheer complexity and providential nature of the universe makes it highly

unlikely that the universe would just happen to be the way it is- The more probable reason for order in the universe is design rather than

random chance- Its probability is raised by such things as the existence of the universe, its

order, the existence of consciousness, human opportunities to do good, the pattern of history, evidence of miracles and religious experience

- In the light of this evidence, theism is more probable than not- “The simple hypothesis of theism leads us to expect all the phenomena that I

have been describing with some reasonable degree of probability. God being omnipotent is able to produce a world orderly in these respects. And he has a good reason to choose to do so: a world containing human persons is a good thing… God being perfectly good, is generous. He wants to share.”

- It is a universe where humans are designed to occupy the highest position and the natural laws function so as to make this possible and so that humans can meaningfully contribute to its development and maintenance

- “Like a good parent, a generous God has reason for not fostering on us a certain fixed measure of knowledge and control, but rather giving us a choice of whether to grow in knowledge and control.”

- “It is because it provides for us these opportunities for humans that God has a reason to create a world governed by the natural laws of the kind we find. Of course God has a reason to make many other things, and I would hesitate to say that one could be certain that he would make such a world. But clearly it is the sort of thing that there is some significant probability that he will make.”

Card Shuffling analogy- Swinburne also uses an analogy to explain his theory; he gives the example of

the random drawing of 10 cards from 10 decks of cards. If each card drawn were the ace of hearts you would not put this down to luck or chance! You would expect the ‘game’ to have been fixed in some way. In exactly the same way, the laws governing the universe have been ‘fixed’ by an intelligent creator.

Scientific discoveries provide good grounds for belief in God “… not merely are there enormous numbers of things, but they all behave in the

same way. The same laws of nature govern the most distant galaxies we can


observe through our telescopes as operate on earth, and the same laws govern the earliest events in time to which we can infer as operate today. Or, as I prefer to put it, every object, however distant in time and space from ourselves, has the same powers and the same liabilities to exercise those powers as do the electrons and protons from which our own bodies are made. If there is no cause of this, it would be a most extraordinary coincidence – too extraordinary for any rational person to believe.”

It stretches our credibility if we are asked to believe that the regularity of the laws of physics is just a coincidence and it would be far simpler and more rational to conclude that these laws must exist because of a divine intelligence

Other possibilities depend on us accepting the occurrence of very unlikely coincidences, which require just as much of a ‘leap of faith’ as belief in God requires

Swinburne is impressed not only by the laws of physics themselves but by the fact that these laws are easy for humans to observe, as these laws have important consequences for us e.g. we can observe that objects fall when dropped and we can use this knowledge to avoid accidents

God gives us the freedom to make choices for ourselves and for other people, as well as giving us the freedom to decide how much knowledge we want to have and gives us the ability to make advances in science and technology

“Paley’s book is devoted to showing how well built in all their intricate detail are animals and humans, and so to concluding that they must have had God as their maker. The analogy of animals to complex machines seems to me correct, and its conclusion justified.”

Polkinghorne- God chose to create a universe governed by science- As our knowledge of science grows, so too will our knowledge of God

Hume’s criticisms of design arguments:

‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’ Criticised ideas of design 27 years before Paley wrote on the idea of design Pre-empted some of the findings of Darwin

- Suggest that things, e.g. animals, have to adapt in order to survive- “I would fain know how an animal could subsist, unless its parts were so

adjusted.” The analogy between man-made objects (i.e. a watch) and the world is weak

- Characteristics of purpose and design might be obvious in a watch, but are not nearly as obvious in the world

- Little similarity between the world and man-made machines- The universe resembles more an animal or a vegetable than it does a

mechanism Order in the world does not necessarily mean that someone must have had the

idea of the design – order may not have come about because of an intelligent idea Order is a necessary part of the world’s existence

- If the world were chaotic it would not survive- This self-sustaining order could have come about by chance

There is no reason to suggest that the creator of the world is the Christian God- The cause of the world is hidden from us and its cause should be proportional

to the effect it produces


- Example of a pair of scales with one end hidden from view, the end we can see contains a weight we know and we can also see that the other end outweighs but we have no means of knowing by how much

- We cannot infer with any confidence that the hidden end contains 100kg or a tonne or an infinite weight

- The world is finite and imperfect so there is no need to assume that there must be a perfect infinite God behind it

- We cannot legitimately assign attributes or characteristics to the designer- “When we infer any particular cause from an effect, we must proportion the

one to the other, and can never be allowed to ascribe to the cause any qualities, but what are exactly sufficient to produce the effect.”

There is no reason to assume that the world was made by just one God- Other possibilities are equally likely- Could have been a team of Gods or even a team of demons- Could have been an old or senile God- “Why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?”

The universe is unique- With no experience of any other way that things have been we cannot say

what our universe is like or what it could have been like- We do not know how worlds are usually made or what degree of order to

expect- We have no other standards, i.e. other worlds, by which to judge the order in

the world “Allowing, therefore, the gods to be the authors of the existence or order of the

universe; it follows, that they possess that precise degree of power, intelligence, and benevolence, which appears in their workmanship, but nothing farther can ever be proved, except we call in the assistance of exaggeration and flattery to supply the defects of argument and reasoning.”- Beyond reason to worship and adore a divine being- Can only draw conclusions from what we can reasonably know- Fairer to say an intelligent designer is more powerful than humans rather than

infinitely powerful “A man who follows [the hypothesis of design] is able, perhaps, to assert or

conjecture that the universe sometime arose from something like a designer, but beyond that position he cannot ascertain one single circumstance, and is left… the utmost licence of fancy and hypothesis.”

J. S. Mill’s criticisms of design arguments:

If we look at the world and the rules which govern it, we see cruelty, violence and unnecessary suffering

If the world has been deliberately designed, then it indicates something very different from a loving creator God

Living things inflict cruelty on each other and seem to be designed for that purpose- Many animals have special features to enable them to be efficient killers e.g.

sharp claws and teeth- “Killing, the most criminal act recognised by human laws, Nature does once to

every being that lives…”- “In sober truth, nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for

doing to one another are nature’s every-day performances.”


- “Everything, in short, which the worst men commit against life or property, is perpetrated on a large scale by natural agents.”

Nature itself causes suffering through natural disasters- “A single hurricane destroys the hopes of a season; a flight of locusts, or an

inundation, desolates a district; a trifling chemical change in an edible root starves a million people.”

If there is a God who created and designed the world, then it must be a God who wants his creation to be miserable

It does not make sense to use the world as evidence of the existence of a good God and we cannot want to worship a God who would design such a world

If God designed the world, this indicates a cruel God who wants creatures to suffer

Richard Dawkins:

Modern Darwinist: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

Darwinism- Darwin introduced the idea of evolution and natural selection, which provide

convincing arguments for atheism- Over many different generations, species evolved as the offspring with the

stronger characteristics, which led to a greater chance of survival, lived for longer and were able to produce more offspring to continue the strong characteristics while the weaker traits became extinct

- Complexity was one of the characteristics which led to a greater chance of survival, and so more and more complex plants and animals were formed, with different characteristics to suit different habitats

- Natural selection provides an alternative explanation, and seemingly more plausible explanation, for the complexity and suitability for purpose of the world

Dawkins argues that religion is an excuse not to investigate scientifically as theists assume that there are inexplicable elements to the world and satisfied with attributing the lack of any explanation to God, which discourages them from investigating further until they find the truth

The Blind Watchmaker (book titled to immediately challenge Paley’s famous analogy)- “Paley’s genius” was his passion for nature – “He had a proper reverence for

the complexity of the living world, and he saw that it demands a very special kind of explanation. The only thing he got wrong… was the explanation itself.”

- Paley talks about a “divine watchmaker”- As scientists come closer to an understanding of how everything works, there

is less and less need to resort to God to explain things- The discovery of DNA provides an explanation for the existence of humanity- Natural selection is an alternative designer- Nature evolves by itself and “gives an illusion of design without a designer”- Not a bleak idea as faces up to the truth- We can create our own purpose, like Sartre: “existence precedes essence”- “the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics albeit deployed

in a very special way"- “Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin

discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind


and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.”

River out of Eden- No fundamental and deep distinction between living and non-living material- “life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information”- DNA can explain the most fundamental causes of life- Nature is neither cruel nor caring, just indifferent

Science has proved itself to be more than just another theory because its principles can be put into practice and shown to work, whereas beliefs about God cannot be tested at all and are therefore worthless- “Airplanes built by scientific principles work… airplanes built to tribal

mythological specifications don’t.”× Dawkins assumes that the universe is a brute fact, but this assumption cannot be

proven true× Hume suggested that there are many possibilities for the existence of the

universe, but we cannot know which is true× The probability of the universe being a brute fact will always remain only a

probability, as other possibilities have not been shown to be impossible× Randomness is not something which can be demonstrated and so it is impossible

to prove that something has happened by chance× Ian Barbour – if Dawkins objects to religious belief setting limitations on scientific

discovery, then he should not allow science to dictate the usefulness of religion× Alister McGrath – the point of view put forward by Paley in his teleological

argument is not typical of most Christian thought today, so Dawkins is criticising an approach that is more than two hundred years out of date, and if Christians were to criticise the science of two hundred years ago, they would probably be able to find fault with that too

× Williams: “DNA exhibits too much ‘design work’ to be the product of mere chance.”

Intelligent design:

Scientific view on design- A modern formulation of the teleological argument- A theistic science- Certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an

intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection- Presents an alternative to natural selection, so rejected by both atheists and

mainstream scientists Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is

able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof- Intelligent design has claimed that certain features of the universe we find

ourselves in ourselves are best explained by an intelligent cause- Intelligent design does not identify or name the intelligence behind it, however

merely states that one must exist- The term was first created in 1987 by the US Supreme Court in the landmark

case of Edwards vs. Aguillard which ruled that creation could not be legally required to be taught in schools alongside evolution

The consensus amongst the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science


- The US National Academy of Sciences justifies this by saying that “creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.”

Paul Davies- Fine-tuning – Paul Davies – everything is so finely tuned for human existence

which points towards an intelligent designer- “If nature is so ‘clever’ as to exploit mechanisms that amaze us with their

ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of intelligent design behind the universe? If the world’s finest minds can unravel only with difficult the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance?”

Michael Behe, a professor of biochemestry- Irreducible complexity – the systems in nature are so complex that you cannot

take away any one part and keep it functioning, so must have been designed- Specified complexity – complex designs with a special purpose- Behe defined an irreducibly complex system as one being “composed of

several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functionally”

- This apparently proves that modern life forms could not have evolved naturally

- However, nearly all of the examples Behe provides have been rebuked by science, and were based on misunderstandings of the systems in question

- In the 2005 District Court trial Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, where Behe gave evidence, the court found that “Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.”

- However, despite the obvious failure of the argument it continues to be used by proponents of intelligent design and creationism

- Many take the example of haemoglobin, which is said to be such a complex molecule that it cannot have come about through chance alone, and is apparently irreducibly complex

- The Darwinist’s explanation is that there is a smooth path from simplicity to complexity that can be traced through the history of life, and haemoglobin molecules can be traced back to much simpler replicating molecules which gained a greater and greater complexity through natural selection

× Pseudo-science – ‘dressed up’ or ‘pretend’ science× Scientists coming up with a religious theory× Not all scientific theories are proven× Vague on who designer is – less specific× Lack of evidence so shunned by mainstream scientists

Arguments from morality to God:

The moral argument moves from the existence of morality to the existence of God. It concludes that there must be a God since there is morality. We also have feelings of moral obligation which point to our accountability to a divine law-giver.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804):

A priori argument for the existence of God even though he was working from our experience of moral obligation


Infers the existence of God from the empirical evidence of the psychological phenomenon of human morality- “two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing awe, the starry heavens

above me and the moral law within me”- We all have an innate moral sense within us- He based his view on our common experience of a sense of duty- We know, in ourselves, what is right, we know where our duty lies and what

we ought to do- We have this experience of the universe as a place where morality is

important, we know what food is, and we know that it should be rewarded- This innate sense of a moral structure for the universe points to the existence

of a God who can ensure justice- “It is morally necessary to assume the existence of God.”

Kant’s moral argument1. A good will, or a person with right moral intentions, seeks to bring about the

Highest Good, the summum bonum, the perfect state of affairs2. “Ought implies can”, so because we know that we ought to aim for the Highest

Good, it follows that is must be achievable, i.e. there is “a necessity connected with duty as a requisite to presuppose the possibility of this highest good; and as this is possible only on condition of the eixstence of God… it is morally necessary to assume the existence of God”

3. Although the realisation of the Highest Good has to be a possibility, it is not within our power as humans to achieve it, because, although we can strive towards virtue in our thought and conduct, we cannot ensure that happiness is added to virtue to make the perfect state of affairs

4. Therefore, there must be a rational moral being, who, as creator and rule of the world, has the power to bring moral worth and happiness together: “the existence is postulated of a cause of the whole of nature, itself distinct from nature, which contains the ground of the exact coincidence of happiness with morality”

5. As this reward for happiness clearly does not happen in this life, where the good sometimes have lives of tragedy and the wicked prosper, it must be attained in eternity

Rejected all other arguments for the existence of God, because of their ultimate dependence on the idea that God is necessarily existent- These other arguments are theoretical arguments- The existence of God is not something we can know through the powers of

reason, as reason only works for the world of sense experience, but God’s existence is beyond the grasp of the five senses

Kant distinguished between the phenomenal and noumenal world- The phenomenal world is our physical world but God belongs to the noumenal- All experience is mediated though time and space and what the world is really

like, independent of our experience, is unknowable- We cannot argue from this world to the next

Kant proposed a practical argument- There are strong practical reasons for believing in God even if God’s existence

cannot be proved- By postulating the existence of God and an afterlife we are giving ourselves

strong practical reasons for being moral- Makes our lives and moral duties worthwhile and meaningful- God is a postulate of practical reason

Humans are rational, autonomous, moral decision makers


- As human beings we experience ourselves as autonomous decision-makers, and an action is only a matter of morality if this action is one that has been freely chosen

- God is not a divine lawgiver but God wills the moral law which we discover through reason

Morality is a matter of doing one’s moral duty- The only intrinsically good reason for moral action is the “good will”- The Categorical Imperative – the right thing to do has to be applicable

universally- Reason is the basis of morality- Happiness should not be the motive of action even though the result of doing

your duty may be a state of happiness Did not believe that God’s existence could be proved but could be established

through faith- Reasoned that it made rational and logical sense to postulate the existence of

God from our experience of the nature of morality- Mackie: Kant “suggests that moral reasoning can achieve what speculative

reasoning cannot, and that the existence of a god… can be defended as being necessarily presupposed in moral consciousness.”

Basic premise is that humanity ought to strive towards moral perfection- Assumes that the universe is fair and that the summum bonum is achievable- These assumptions are effectively faith claims as they cannot be proved- If you hold that the universe is fair and if the summum bonum is achievable

then life after death and God become necessary postulates- If the assumptions are rejected then so are the postulates

Moral statements are prescriptive so ought implies can- Ought implies can: “we ought to endeavour to promote the highest good,

which must, therefore, be possible”- But, Kant observed that in this life the virtuous are not always rewarded with

happiness- Therefore, our opportunity to achieve the highest good must extend beyond

this life and we need the help of God to achieve it- It is beyond humans to ensure we are truly rewarded for our virtue- “Therefore the existence is postulated of a cause of the whole of nature, itself

distinct from nature, which contains the ground of the exact coincidence of happiness with morality…”

- BUT we cannot argue that just because we ought to aim for the highest Good that there is something that can bring it about

The summum bonum (highest good) was the goal of the Categorical Imperative- Must take the highest good as a supreme end- The summum bonum represents the combination of virtue and happiness- Doing one’s moral duty and achieving a state of happiness- An average level of virtue is not enough so we are obliged to aim for the

highest standard possible- True virtue should be rewarded with happiness- Virtue is rewarded with happiness- All humans should aspire to achieve the summum bonum- “The highest good is possible in the world only on the supposition of a

Supreme Being having a causality corresponding to the moral character”- If the summum bonum was not achievable then moral behaviour is

meaningless Kant speaks of God as one of three postulates of pure practical reason


- Postulate means to suggest or assume the existence, fact or truth of something as a basis for reasoning, discussion or belief

- “A need of pure practical reason, on the other hand, is based on a duty to make the highest good the object of my will so as to promote it with all my strength. In doing so, I must presuppose its possibility and also its conditions, which are God, freedom, and immortality.”

- Freedom – if we feel obliged to fulfil a certain duty, we must have the freedom to fulfil it

- Immortality – we cannot achieve the highest good in this life and it is illogical to aim for something we cannot achieve and therefore we must achieve the highest good in an afterlife

- God – humans do not have the power by themselves to bring about the highest good and so we need God in order reward virtue with happiness

Does not assume the existence of God as basis It ensures a sense of justice, where virtue is rewarded, thus avoiding

demoralisation He acknowledges that the existence of God cannot be proved and only that to

postulate it provides the best explanation for our sense of morality× Criticisms of the summum bonum

- Just because we aim to achieve it does not mean that it is possible- We cannot assume that there is a God to help us achieve it- If we are rewarded it does not mean that we are being rewarded by God- Attempting to achieve the summum bonum will promote good whether we

achieve it or not- The goodness of the attempt to achieve it is not undermined if the summum

bonum is not achieved- You do not need a belief in God to act morally and do good- A simple belief in God does not tell us how to be moral

× Even if one accepts Kant’s claim that God is a postulate of pure practical reason that does not help an individual to solve a moral problem or dilemma

× J.L. Mackie: “Even if, as Kant argues elsewhere, ‘ought’ implies ‘can’, the thesis that we ought to promote the highest good implies only that we can seek to promote it, and perhaps, since rational seeking could not be completely fruitless, that we can to some extent actually promote it. But this does not require that the full realisation of the highest good should be possible.”

× Kant’s argument is circular as he argues that we have a sense of aiming for the highest good, which only exist if there is a God, so God exists, which means we have a sense of aiming for the highest good – Can we suppose that the existence of God follows from the fact that we ought to aim for something which can only exist if there is a God?

× Michael Palmer: Kant’s moral argument “looks suspiciously like trying to keep your cake and eat it.”- Kant rejects other arguments for God’s existence which he called “theoretical

arguments”- But his argument still seems similar to the arguments that he rejects

× The concept of an objective moral law is an assumption in response to the idea that morality is set down by God- Cultural relativism says that morals are influenced by different societies- Emotivism says that emotions are personal to each person so we cannot

generalise- Evolution may show that the characteristics of kindness has evolved as an

advantage


- The extent to which a person has a moral obligation is debatable and even if they do, there is no reason that this obligation is to God

- It may be argued that there is no objective moral law and therefore there is not independent moral law-giver

× Utilitarianism- Kant contradicts himself as he says that we should do our duty without reward

but the summum bonum is a kind of reward- Utilitarians see happiness as being achievable in this life

× Virtue ethics- Eudaimonia is the ultimate end in life- Aristotle argued that happiness is not always guaranteed- Happiness is a possibility but does not have to be achieved in the life or in the

afterlife- Even if it cannot be achieved moral behaviour is still meaningful- Morals are for the best interest of people

× Premise that “ought implies can” is false - Usually we assume that we ought to do only things which are possible but it

could make sense to aim towards something, even if it is not ultimately achievable, as it could be worthwhile to make efforts in the right direction

- Brian Davies argues that it would not be meaningless to tell a not very able child “you ought to learn French” even if fluency is not a possibility

- Kant jumps from “it ought to be possible” to “therefore it is possible”- John Hick argues that Kant has moved from the idea of logical possibility to the

assumption of actuality – just because something is possible does not mean that it will ever actually happen

× Davies asks why we have to postulate the behind the moral law there must be a Christian God when there could be other possibilities, e.g. law-giving could be done by a whole group of angels- The amount of power and knowledge require to enable people to achieve the

summum bonum is not necessarily the same as omnipotence and omniscience- This power is greater than what humans have, not necessarily unlimited power- “Why cannot a top-ranking angel do the job...? Why not a pantheon of very

clever, Kantian-minded angels?”× Sigmund Freud suggest that our sense of right and wrong is just the internalised

voice of our parents or society, our conscience is an inner policeman and the internalised voice of parents and society

× Bertrand Russell argued the humanist case for morality, rejecting the idea that there is any sort of supernatural deity and objecting to the idea that morality must be the result of a divine law-giver- Instead our morality is the result of humanity seeking to promote the

satisfaction of desire for the majority of people, and our moral codes exist for the wellbeing of society and consequently for the individuals in it, rather than being the result of any outside cause

- Bertrand Russell points out that much evil has been done in the name of religion (the Crusades, the persecution of the Jews, the martyrdoms of so-called heretics) and that true morality lies in the opposite direction from religion

× James Rachel argued that the whole concept of a God who is the object of worship goes against morality, because worship requires the submission of one’s own moral freedom and a being who requires worship, and therefore the loss of moral freedom, is therefore not worthy of worship


Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801 – 1890):

An Anglican that converted to Catholicism and became a Cardinal When we do something wrong we feel ashamed, we feel guilty and we feel

responsible- This implies that there is one before whom we feel ashamed, guilty and

responsible- We cannot say that we are ashamed before the community because we feel

guilty even when no-one does or can know of what we have done- “If, as is the case, we feel responsibility, are ashamed, are frightened at

transgressing the voice of conscience, this implies there is One to whom we are responsible, before whom we are ashamed, whose claim upon us we fear….If the cause of these emotions does not belong to this visible world, the Object to which [our] perception is directed must be Supernatural and Divine.”

Humans have a conscience and it is the duty of each individual to inform their conscience directly, but it is the existence of the faculty of conscience that points to God as the divine author of this faculty- Conscience is the voice of God, the voice that guides our behavior and

produces feelings of guilt and shame- Conscience is an “awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one’s conduct

together with the urge to prefer right over wrong”- “Conscience is the aboriginal vicar of Christ.”- “Conscience is a law of the mind… a messenger of him, who both in nature

and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives.”

- “Thus conscience is a connecting principle between the creature and his Creator; and the firmest hold of theological truths is gained by the habits of personal religion.”

Counterfeit conscience- Many are guilty of having a fake conscience shaped by society- The term conscience has been misunderstood and is used to defend any

personal choice- But true conscience is a “stern monitor” and is nothing to do with our own

selfish desires× Raises problems for God if God is making us perform immoral actions× What happens if you do not believe in God or you cannot hear God’s voice?× What happens to human free will if God is constantly telling us what to do?× Frequency of moral mistakes made when conscience is followed invalidates the

claim that it is God’s voice because God surely cannot make mistakes- We have to build up a significantly sensitive conscience to hear God’s voice

clearly- The more we pray and are in relationship with God, the more able we are to

hear his voice

Sigmund Freud (1856 – 1939):

Our sense of duty and moral awareness can be explained by socialisation Our moral awareness cannot be of divine origin because of the differing opinions

on ethical issues as if it were, morality would be absolute and we would all come to the same conclusions

The human psyche is made up of three parts- The Id – our basic instincts and primitive desires


- The Ego – developed personality which comes from understanding the external world

- The Super-ego – the unconscious internalised voice of society The super-ego can be divided into two parts

- The ego-ideal which represents the rewarding parent and gives us feelings of pride and satisfaction

- The conscience which represents the punishing parents and gives us feelings of guilt and discomfort

Conscience is the product of the unconscious mind, the super-ego- It “…observes the ego, gives it orders, judges it and threatens it with

punishment, exactly like the parents whose place it has taken”- Our conscience is a moral policeman developed during childhood- Conscience is little more than the inherited traditions of the community and

family in which one is brought up and which lives in one’s superego for the rest of one’s life

Thomas Aquinas’ 4th Way:

The argument from degree Observed a gradation of quality in everything If things have different degrees of goodness, there is a supreme perfection to

which these things approximate1. We experience things in the world that are noble, true and good2. These things must take their reality from things which are more noble, true

and good3. To avoid infinite regression there must be something which is most noble, true

and good4. This being all men call “God”

For any given quality there must be a perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured and these perfections are contained in God

God causes the goodness in all things BUT Aquinas assumes that the world is good, that the being who created the

world is God, and that there is no such things as infinite regression “The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings

there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.”

H.P. Owen:

The existence of objective moral laws suggests that there is a divine law-giver who wrote these laws

“It is impossible to think of a command without also thinking of a commander.” “A clear choice faces us. Either we take moral claims to be self-explanatory

modes of impersonal existence or we explain them in terms of a personal God.”


Since commands and laws do not write themselves, they must either be brute facts or put there by God

We need an explanation for these laws and they must have been put there by God

Dom Trethowan:

Rejected the use of logic to establish God’s existence Interpreted morality as a religious experience which points towards God When we make a moral decision we choose between possible courses of action

and a sense of obligation guides us to make a choice The value instilled by God in his creation (the sanctity of life) explains the sense of

obligation that we feel “We have value because we received it from a source of value. That is what I

mean, for a start, by God. that is why the demand upon us to develop ourselves is an absolute unconditional command.”

An objective moral law is “far from being self-explanatory” Moral laws can only be explained by the existence of a metaphysical theistic

being If one believes in an intelligent and purposive God one has a reason to believe in

a non-human lawgiver BUT morals do not only make sense if one is obedient to a personal, law-giving

being as some laws just need to be logically obeyed, e.g. do not pick on someone bigger than you so you don’t get hurt, such laws have more to do with logic and self-preservation than morals

Peter Geach:

“One obviously relevant sort of reply to a question ‘Why shouldn’t I’ is an appeal to something the questioner wants and cannot get if he does so-and-so. I maintain that only such a reply is relevant and rational.”

The reason for doing an action is human interest, not to satisfy a non-human law-giver

If someone already believes in God, the fact of a moral law is to be expected, to give people an objective standard in deciding what action to take, but one cannot argue the other way from the fact there is such a standard to belief in God

The Euthyphro Dilemma:

First proposed in Plato’s ‘Euthyphro’ dialogue, challenging the divine command theory: “Is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved?”

Bertrand Russell reformulated the Euthyphro Dilemma: “Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?”

It is good because God commands it (divine command theory)- God is the ultimate source of moral authority- Moves from a belief in the existence of God to ethical theories- Actions are good because God said so rather than being good in themselves,

which make moral codes meaningless- No sound reasoning for thinking some actions are better than others, except

for the arbitrary whim of God- Certain moral actions could have been deemed otherwise immoral had God

willed it


- Saying God is good becomes meaningless - reduces God’s goodness to his power, capable of enforcing his commands

- Moral goodness implies moral choice but in this case God cannot choose wrong since if he choose something it must be right

- William Alston: “since the standards of moral goodness are set by divine commands, to say that God is morally good is just to say that he obeys his own commands… that God practices what he preaches, whatever that might be…”

- C.S. Lewis: “if good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God Himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the ‘righteous Lord’.”

- If God commands things arbitrarily, then why worship Him? God could have commanded what we now see as bad as good.

- Leibniz: “… in saying that things are not good by any rule of goodness, but merely the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realising 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 doing exactly the contrary? Where will be his justice and his wisdom if he has only a certain despotic power, if arbitrary will take the place of reasonableness.”

God commands it because it is good- God is no longer necessary for an ethical system to work- God is subordinate to a higher law and creates rules on pre-existing morals so

there is a higher standard than God- God is no longer omnipotent since he cannot alter the separate set of morals- God becomes a law-transmitter rather than a law-giver, so can have morality

without God- Good is based on God’s nature but does not come from God- Richard Price: “It may seem that this is setting up something distinct from

God, which is independent of him, and equally eternal and necessary.”- Hugo Grotius: “What we have been saying [about the natural law] would have

a degree of validity even if we should conceded that which cannot be conceded without the utmost wickedness, that there is no God, or that the affairs of men are of no concern to him.”

Challenges to the Moral Argument:

Virtue ethics- Develop virtues yourself- No external influence- Can achieve Eudaimonia in this life- Do not need an afterlife

Utilitarianism- Base actions on consequences as motives are not important- Act solely for welfare of others- Don’t need heaven or God to make actions meaningful- Mill: “He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right

whether his motive be duty or hope of being paid for his trouble; he who betrays the friend that trusts him, is guilty of a crime, even if his object be to serve another friend to whom he is under greater obligations.”

- It is a mistake to confuse the standards for right action with a consideration of our motives to perform a right action


- Scrutiny of motives or intentions will show that almost all good behaviour proceeds from questionable intentions

- In our moral analyse we should ignore matter of intention James Rachels’ argument from moral autonomy against God

- If any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship- No being could possibly be a fitting object of worship, since worship requires

the abandonment of one’s role as an autonomous moral agent- Therefore, there cannot be any being who is God

Bertrand Russell- Moral codes exist for the wellbeing of society- Not the result of any outside cause, i.e. God- Much evil has been done in the name of religion, e.g. burning of ‘witches’- True morality lies in the opposite direction of religion

Joseph Fletcher- Attacks concept of objective moral law because he looks to consequences- If law is truly objective there is no room for consequences- As soon a s we take into consideration the consequences the law ceases to be

objectively binding Richard Dawkins

- Evolutionary process that ensures the best fit between the individual and his environment extends to cultural characteristics as well as physical ones

- Cultural evolution – the evolutionary process is both physical and cultural- The conscience is like a safety mechanism that restricts behaviour and

prevents needless suffering- Natural origins of morality come from genetic tendencies to be altruistic –

genetic kinship, reciprocal altruism, reputation and advertisingo Deriving our moral sense from Darwinian origino Discredits the view that goodness is incompatible with the ‘selfish gene’o Selfish describes the genes that are strong enough to survive – survive “at

the expense of their rivals”o Selfishness lies within the gene but does not characterise the organism

itselfo “There are circumstances… in which genes ensure their own selfish

survival by influencing organisms to behave altruistically.” Moral relativism

- There are no objective moral laws- Cultural relativism – moral laws relate to culture and society so moral

obligation is defined in terms of social approval or disapproval Nietzsche

- “God is dead!”- The idea of God is no more and with it goes all the claims to absolute values,

truth and goodness- Humans have to create their own values- “morality is the herd-instinct in the individual”- People follow religion and morality in order to fit in, but this isn’t a good thing

Ontological arguments for the existence of God:

Ontology is the branch of philosophy that explores the concept of existence and what it means to exist. The Greek word ontos means ‘reality’ or ‘actuality’. Ontological arguments are a priori arguments aiming to prove the reality of God, by arguing that God exists necessarily.


St. Anselm (1033-1109):

Archbishop of Canterbury and a Benedictine monk Theology is “faith seeking understanding” Published the ‘Proslogion’ which established the ontological argument, aiming to

show that the existence of God was a logical necessity Even to suggest that there is no God requires the concept of God Anselm has assumed that if something is logically necessary then it must also be

factually necessary Responding to Psalms 14: “The fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God’.” Anselm’s first ontological argument in Proslogion 2

1. God is “than that which nothing greater can be thought”2. Everyone can understand this definition, even atheists3. The greatest thought must have an equivalent reality, because something that

exists in reality is greater than something that exists just in the mind4. If the idea is in understanding alone, then something can be thought of that is

greater and so God is no longer the greatest thing one can think of, which is a contradiction

5. A God that only existed in our minds would be inferior to a real God and God cannot be inferior to anything in any way

6. In order for God to be the greatest thought, God must exist7. Therefore God exists.

“Thus even the fool is compelled to grant something greater than which cannot be thought exists in thought, because he understands what he hears, and whatever is understood exists in thought.”

“But clearly that than which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist in the understanding alone. For if it is actually in the understanding alone, it can be thought of as existing also in reality, and this is greater. Therefore, if that than which a greater cannot be thought is in the understanding alone, this same thing than which a greater cannot be thought is that than which a greater can be thought. But obviously this is impossible. Without doubt, therefore, there exists, both in the understanding and in reality, something than which a greater cannot be thought.”

“For no one who understands what God is can think that God does not exist… For God is that than which a greater cannot be thought, and whoever understands this rightly must understand that he exists in a way that he cannot be non-existent even in thought. He, therefore, who understands that God thus exists cannot think of him as non-existent.”

Anselm’s second ontological argument in Proslogion 31. God is unique – cannot be thought of as an object alongside others2. God’s existence cannot be a matter of chance3. It is impossible to conceive of God as not existing4. God’s existence is necessary rather than contingent5. If God were a contingent being, he would not be the greatest since we could

imagine him not existing6. Because God is unsurpassable in every way, God must have necessary

existence7. Therefore God exists necessarily8. God cannot fail to exist

Claiming that the statement ‘God exists’ is an analytic statement BUT first we have to accept Anselm’s original definition BUT just because an argument is logical does not mean that it is true


BUT proves nothing to non-believers in God

Gaunilo:

Benedictine monk who plays devil’s advocate to criticise argument and Anselm’s logic but ultimately shares Anselm’s belief in God

Replies “on behalf of the fool” Argument is fallacious as you can use the same reasoning to prove the existence

of entities that clearly don’t exist Gaunilo raises the problem of a perfect island

- With Anselm’s definition Gaunilo can prove the existence of a perfect island and all sorts of things

- Since it is perfect, Gaunilo argued that Anselm was saying that it must exist, since part of the perfection Anselm was arguing about included existence, the island must exist

- Otherwise even the grottiest island was better than the imaginary one- But clearly there is no such perfect island

Something in the mind does not have to exist in reality We cannot bring something into existence just by defining it as superlative Technically God’s reality cannot be conceived at all because it is beyond human

thought and understanding Anselm’s reply was that he was not arguing about temporal, contingent things

(such as islands, which are rooted in time and space), but of “the greatest thing that can be thought”

Islands have no ‘intrinsic maximum’ – a notional island can always be bettered

René Descartes:

Descartes’ Ontological Argument:1. The idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being2. A supremely perfect being has all perfections3. Existence is a perfection4. God exists

Existence is a necessary predicate of God It would illogical to believe that God had every possible perfection, but then to say

that he did not exist Descartes presented God as a supreme being containing all perfections and to be

a perfect being God must exist Descartes, similarly to Anselm, leads us to a situation whereby disagreeing with

him would cause a contradiction If God does not exist he cannot be the supremely perfect being that Descartes

defines him as, contradicting Descartes’ initial definition of God Compares idea of God with a triangle – idea of God has a natural unity to it

- It is impossible to have a triangle without having its three sides and angles- In the same way it is impossible to have God without recognising that he must

exist- The non-existence of God is inconceivable- “Existence can no more be separated from the essence of God than can its

having three angles equal to two right angles he separated from the essence of a triangle, or the idea of a mountain from the idea of a valley.”

× Kant’s criticisms of Descartes- We do not have to accept that the statement ‘God does not exist’ is self-

contradictory


- It is wrong to suggest that you are enquiring open-mindedly into God’s existence and then introduce the concept of existence as a necessary part of your description of God

- All existential (to do with existence) propositions are synthetic; in other words, we have to use our senses to verify that something exists and that the concept of God contains the predicate of existence

- Existence is not a predicate or quality of a thing. In other words, it is not good enough to simply say ‘God exists’; for this statement to be true it has to be shown that God exists

Norman Malcolm (1911-1990):

Malcolm agreed with Kant in his belief that existence is not a predicate but he also agreed with Anselm that existence must be necessary

In order to be God, God must have necessary existence, because God either exists or does not1. If God does not exist today, then he never can and never will – his existence

must be impossible2. If God does exist, then he must exist necessarily3. God’s existence is therefore either impossible or necessary4. God’s existence is not impossible as it is not logically contradictory to have a

concept of a God who exists – it is an idea that we can entertain without any logical absurdity

5. Therefore, given that God’s existence is not impossible, it must be necessary. So, God exists necessarily

‘The groundlessness of religious belief’:- God’s existence is part of the groundlessness of belief; it is a given and there

is no need for empirical evidence Our lives are often based on mere acceptance of fundamental beliefs on the basis of no evidence and these beliefs are held in the same way religious belief is held

- We live within a framework, and although we may test our beliefs within this framework, the framework itself is not put to the test

- Wittgenstein: “whenever we test anything we are already presupposing something that is not tested”

- This framework is not questioned but accepted subconsciously- A framework “does not rise or fall on the basis of evidence or grounds: it is

‘groundless’.”- “religion is groundless”- “Within the framework of each system there is criticism, explanation,

justification. But we should not expect that there might be some sort of rational justification of the framework itself.”

- Some things we have to accept without grounds, e.g. the law of induction, we cannot prove it but scientists still use it

- Belief in God requires no proof- “Religion is a form of life; it is language embedded in action… Science is

another. Neither stands in need of justification, the one no more than the other.”

Acknowledged that his argument would not convince atheists but felt that it was still worthwhile as the believer would understand God’s necessary existence

BUT there are things that do not exist that are not contradictory or impossible BUT it is not illogical to say that God might exist BUT just because something is logical does not mean it is true


Alvin Plantinga (1932- ):

Presents a modern restatement of the ontological argument in ‘The Nature of Necessity’, wanting to prove that the existence of God is logically necessary

Modal logic- What is, what cannot fail to be and what cannot possibly be- Consideration of what could exist or could occur in a possible world out of an

infinite number of possibilities- An object or being may exist in some possible world and not others

Defined God as a being of “maximal greatness”- Such a being would have to exist necessarily, rather than contingently- This being fits in with Descartes’ idea of perfection and Anselm’s description of

a being “that than which nothing greater can be thought” Things can have different degrees of greatness, i.e. something has a greater

degree of greatness in a world in which it exists than in a world in which it does not exist

Aims to show that saying ‘God does not exist in the actual world’ is a contradiction- There is a possible world in which God exists- In order for God to be a maximally great being, he must exist in all possible

worlds and the actual world- Otherwise, there could be a being with a greater degree of greatness than God

in another possible world- So to be the greatest possible being he must exist in every possible world

Argument1. A being of maximal greatness would have to exist necessarily2. A being of maximal greatness cannot be contingent because it would have to

depend on other factors for its existence and so would not be maximally great3. Planting says that a maximally great being’s existence in a possible world is

either necessary or impossible (only two choices)4. A maximally great being’s existence is only impossible if it is self-contradictory5. A maximally great being’s existence is not impossible because God can only

not exist if he is a contradiction or is impossible in a possible world6. The existence of a maximally great being is not impossible in an infinite

number of possible worlds and therefore is necessary in all worlds, including ours

A being can only have maximum greatness if it has maximum excellence in every possible world so God’s non-existence is impossible

BUT the choice is not limited to possible or necessary, there is a potential to exist, even though he either exists or not

BUT the concept of no maximality could be used to prove that God does not exist following Plantinga’s logic

BUT Plantinga assumes that there is a greatest possible being and that there are a number of possible worlds

BUT he assumes that something is greater in the actual world in which it exists than in a world it doesn’t exist

BUT he assumes that God must exist in all possible worlds to be the greatest possible being

Leibniz:

Impossible to think of God as lacking any perfection Need to ensure that concept of God is logical and is not contradictory


Omits the possibility that the idea of God is incoherent or is self-contradictory – therefore Descartes must prove that the idea of God does not contradict itself and then run his argument from there

Need to insure that all predicates or characteristics are compatible with each other

God is a coherent idea and so following the argument God exists

Immanuel Kant:

Existence is not a predicate A predicate is a property of something Existence tells us nothing more about the being Existence is the thing that all other qualities rely on God cannot be logically necessary as you cannot jump from a definition to reality When we say something ‘exists’ we mean that the concept, with all its

characteristics, has been actualised, that there is at least one example of something with these characteristics in real life

When we are thinking of God we are thinking of a concept Whether or not this concept is actualised is an issue, but not an issue that can be

resolved simply by adding existence to the different predicates we ascribe to the concept

Saying something exists is making a judgement on its reality Argument

- If you have a triangle- Then it must have three angles and three sides- To have a triangle without three angles involves a contradiction- But if you do not have the triangle, you do not have its three angles either

Similarly- If you accept that there is a God, it is logical to accept also that his existence

is necessary- But you do not have to accept that there is a God

Statements about existence are synthetic and definitions are analytic The angles and sides of a triangle are necessary because they are part of the

definition of a triangle but say nothing about the actual existence of a triangle Existence is not an extra quality, it is just a way of saying that there is the thing

itself, with all the qualities already given BUT perhaps necessary existences a predicate, but it can only be predicated of

God BUT Malcolm argues that you can either have a triangle or not, but you simply

cannot have no God, so the two situations are not exactly parallel- The necessity of having a triangle having three angles is a logical necessity,

disagreeing would involve a contradiction- But it is not factually necessary for there to be a triangle at all- Kant dismissed logical necessity but Malcolm suggests that Anselm was

concerned with factual necessity – that it is impossible for things to be as they are if God did not exist, and therefore that it is actually not possible for there to be no God

- You cannot not have God

Thomas Aquinas:

Argument has a “transitional error” as moves from a definition to reality without any empirical evidence


Need an a posteriori approach to find out about God Questions that the definition of God provided is universally accepted

- “Perhaps not everyone who hears the name ‘God’ understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this name ‘God’ is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands what the name signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally.”

Definition does not tell us that God exists in reality but that when we think of God we have to think of him as existing

There has to be more than just a definition to show the existence of God It is necessary to provide firm evidence, rather than just argument, and this

evidence was, he hope, explained in his Five Ways God’s existence cannot be regarded as self-evident It is impossible to have a mental concept of the non-existence of truth because it

is a contradiction in terms but it is not impossible to have a mental concept of the non-existence of God

Although we can approach an understanding and awareness of God, God will always remain unknowable to the finite human mind

It is impossible to have such a clear understanding of God

David Hume:

Rejects concept of a necessary being arguing that nothing can be logically necessary

Things have to be proven empirically “To reflect on anything simply and to reflect on it as existent are nothing different

from each other” Thinking about God does not prove his existence – question of existence is distinct Thinking of an object as existing is the same thing as thinking about an object Existence does not add any characteristics to the concept Whatever you think of as existing, you can also think of as not existing The question of whether an object actually exists in reality is distinct “Nothing is demonstrable unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing that

is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction.”

Bertrand Russell:

Anselm uses the world ‘exist’ incorrectly Existence cannot be a predicate The ontological argument only adds to our description of God but does not show

that he actually exists If it were we could argue all sorts of things into existence E.g. Men exist – Santa Claus is a man – Santa Claus exists Cannot claim knowledge of a perfect being with no experience of it or experience

of any sort of perfection

Gottlob Frege (1848-1925):

Distinguishes between first and second order predicates First order predicates tell us something about the nature of something e.g. ‘the

horses are brown’ Second order predicates tell us about concepts, e.g. ‘the horses are numerous’


Frege criticises Anselm and Descartes for using existence as a first order predicate when it should actually be second order

Keith Ward:

“The attraction of the ontological argument is that it expresses the extreme limit of the human attempt to probe the rational structure of reality… Its success lies in its demonstration that God is either existent or impossible; that, if a perfect being is possible, then it necessarily exists.”

Once you concede that you understand the idea of God you are committed to his existence

Arguments for the Existence of God

Documents

personal god god

knowledge of god

things god

god bible

image of god

worshipped god

god of philosophy

god of israel