Arguments for God’s existence

1. Arguments for God’s existence

2. Arguments for God’s existence • What are we arguing for?

3. Arguments for God’s existence • What are we arguing for? • Well, clearly God, but what that means will affect what sort of argument we use.

4. Arguments for God’s existence • What are we arguing for? • Well, clearly God, but what that means will affect what sort of argument we use. • Possibilities: • A creator • An all-knowing being • An all-powerful being • An all-good being

5. Arguments for God’s existence

6. Arguments for God’s existence • The Ontological Argument • The Cosmological Argument • Teleological Argument

7. The Ontological Argument • Saint Anselm – b. 1033 – d. 1109 C.E. • Presented the argument in his Proslogium, Chapter 2. • http://www.ccel.org/ccel/anselm/basic_works.pdf • Summary:  By (her/his/its) very nature God must exist.

8. The Ontological Argument • The Argument • God is that than which no greater can be conceived, the perfect being. • There are two kinds of Existence • Existence in the understanding (Sherlock Holmes / Pegasus) • Existence in reality (New York / blue whales) • There is the assumption that existing in reality is better than existing in understanding. For instance, if I imagine the perfect sandwich, it is all well and good if I can think of it, and thus it exists in the understanding, but it is even better if it exists in reality.

9. The Ontological Argument • The Move • Once we grant God exists in the understanding we slide to God exists in reality, because any being that only exists(u) is inferior to a being that exists(r). A being existing only in your mind seems somehow less than a being that exists both in your mind and in reality. God is not less than anything, God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. We can conceive of a God that exists in both the understanding and reality, so God exists in reality too.

10. The Ontological Argument • Alternative way to formulate the ontological argument • Combine the theological conception of God with the reductio ad absurdum method. • Reductio ad absurdum - (reduction to absurdity) • This particular type of argument can be useful when figuring out where an assumption leads you. Say you make an assumption that leads you to a contradiction. Since any assumption that leads us to a contradiction has to be false, we know our initial assumption could not be true.

11. The Ontological Argument - (alternative) • Assumption - Deny God's existence • Result - We are asserting that God, a perfect being (perfection itself), lacks something. Since anything lacking nothing is greater than anything lacking even one thing, it follows that there could be something greater than God, but that is a contradiction, because God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. Since we have a contradiction we know our initial assumption is false, therefore God must exist.

12. Problems with the Ontological Argument • We can challenge whether existence is the sort of property that a perfect being would necessarily have. • It isn't all that clear that existing in reality is in fact always better than existing in only the understanding. • It also isn't clear whether you can legitimately make the leap from talking about what you conceive to talking about reality. • Doesn't it seem weak to tell someone who argues that God doesn't exist that he/she “just isn't conceiving of God properly”?

13. Cosmological Argument • God = Primary Mover / First Cause / Independent Being • Assumption 1 - the universe had a beginning. • Assumption 2 - every event has a cause.

14. Cosmological Argument • We can trace back and find the causes of effects we see around us. In principle, it should be possible to trace such a line of causes and effects back to the beginning of the universe. • If our assumption that there was a beginning is correct, there must have been some first cause to start off this long chain of events. • Whatever that first cause is is called God. If there hadn't been some sort of first cause, there is nothing to stop us from tracing back this history of causes and effects infinitely far, but if we don't think the universe existed infinitely far into the past, then this is a problem.

15. Problems with the Cosmological Argument • What does this tell us about God?

16. Problems with the Cosmological Argument • What does this tell us about God? • Answer: Not much. It tells you God is the first cause, is the primary mover, is an independent being (that is, a being whose existence is not contingent [does not depend] on another being). You do not get that God is good, or all-powerful, or knowledgeable, or even still around. This means that while an interesting argument for God, it seems to change what we are talking about when referring to God.

17. Problems with the Cosmological Argument • Why not assume the universe had no beginning? • Two possibilities: • The universe extends infinitely far back in a long chain of cause/effect. • The universe is in some cosmic cycle with no proper beginning or end to it.

18. Problems with the Cosmological Argument • Circular arguments • For the cosmological argument the person assumes the universe had a beginning, then claiming that whatever caused that beginning is God. • This does not address why we think there should be such a beginning at all. It takes it for granted and this is circular.

19. Problems with the Cosmological Argument • Why is it for this argument we don't need to explain God's existence? • Proposing some sort of First cause that is itself uncaused contradicts a primary assumption of the cosmological argument, that every event has a cause. • Consider our second assumption, every event has a cause. If we are a good little cosmological theorist and buy this idea, why should we accept that God can be a First, Independent cause? Wouldn't we have every reason to reject that?