Philosophical Arguments about God and Religion

1. Philosophical Arguments about God and Religion

2. Bell Ringer…First things first…answer some questions • What does the word “God” mean to you? • Do you believe in a God? • If so, where does this belief come from? (If not, where does this belief come from?) • What is the purpose of (a) God? • Is God and religion the same thing? • Can the Universe exist with a God? (why/why not) • Is morality/ethics tied to the belief in a God?

3. Bell Ringer…Make a list…Why do People believe in God? • Religion includes God as part of their belief system. • Parents instill the idea. • Conclude on their own existence of a supreme being. • Life makes sense with God • Explains why humans exist • To keep things in the universe in Harmony and under control.

4. Agenda and Objectives… • Through notes and discussion, students will be able to differentiate between Theism, Deism, Atheism, and Agnosticism as well as identify the three major philosophical beliefs in supporting God’s existence.

5. Theism- the belief in a god or gods. Atheism- the absence of belief in God, or an active disbelief in God. Agnosticism- the “indecision concerning God’s existence,” or the view that the existence/non-existence of God can not be proven. Deism- affirm the existence of God, but deny that God has revealed himself as it is claimed by the monotheistic religions Evil-the intent to cause harm, “negative moral acts or thoughts that are cruel, unjust, or selfish.” Some Terms to Know…

6. Bell Ringer….Review! • Theism • Atheism • Deism • Omnipotent • Omnipresent • Omniscient • Agenda and Objective: Through notes and discussion, students will identify the Ontological Argument and its critics.

7. For many, God is omnipotent, meaning “One having unlimited power or authority.” Omniscient, “knowing everything that can be known.” And also, omnipresent, meaning “the state of being everywhere at once.” For the Existence of God

8. Ontological argument Cosmologicalargument Teleological argument Moral argument Arguments for Existence…

9. 1,2, or 3 • #1- Read and be prepare to discuss St. Anslem • #2- Read and be prepare to discuss St. Thomas Aquinas • #3- Read and be prepared to discuss William Paley

10. The Ontological Argument • Jim is a bachelor • Jim is unmarried. • I have two apples • I have two additional apples •  I have four apples.

11. The Ontological Argument • Jim is a bachelor •  Jim is unmarried. • I have two apples • I have two additional apples •  I have four apples.

12. The Ontological Argument • Jim is a bachelor •  Jim is unmarried. • I have two apples • I have two additional apples •  I have four apples. No Experience Necessary.

13. The Ontological Argument • Jim is a bachelor •  Jim is unmarried. • I have two apples • I have two additional apples •  I have four apples. A priori Necessary.

14. Bachelor = Unmarried by definition. • Jim is a bachelor •  Jim is unmarried. • I have two apples • I have two additional apples •  I have four apples. A priori Necessary. 2 + 2 = 4 by definition. f

15. Bachelor = Unmarried by definition. • Jim is a bachelor •  Jim is unmarried. (1) X is that which nothing greater can be conceived. (2) Existence in reality is better than existence in the mind. (3)  God exists in reality. A priori Necessary.

16. Bachelor = Unmarried by definition. • Jim is a bachelor •  Jim is unmarried. (1) X is that which nothing greater can be conceived. (2) Existence in reality is better than existence in the mind. (3)  X exists in reality. A priori Necessary.

17. St. Anslem The argument for the existence of God is one that doesn’t depend on premises that are grounded in experience. Central to Anselm’s argument is a distinction between two ‘kinds of existence’: 1. For a thing to exist in reality is for it to be part of reality, to really exist. 2. For a thing to exist in understanding is for someone to have an idea (concept, thought) of that thing. (like saying you have something ‘on your mind’.) he knew God’s existence by faith (faith as knowledge) The Ontological Argument

18. Argument outline • Suppose you could conceive of God’s nonexistence • Then you could think of something greater than God-- something just like God, but existing • God is “a being than which none greater can be conceived.” • But nothing can be conceived as greater than God • So, God’s nonexistence is inconceivable!

19. Another way to think of it... • Anselm in effect defines God as a perfect being • A perfect being must have all perfections– omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence... • Existence is a perfection (or so Anselm seems to say) • Therefore, God must have existence – God must exist • To deny this is self-contradictory • It would be like saying: "Triangles have three sides by definition, but there is a triangle with only two sides"

20. The form of the argument • Note that Anselm's argument is a reductio ad absurdum • It offers a proof that God exists by • – Assuming that God doesn't exist, and • – Arguing that this leads to an absurdity • This would mean: we must reject the assumption that God doesn't exist.

21. Objections • There are various classic objections to the classic argument • One tries to show that the argument is invalid • – that if we reason the same way in other cases, we get false conclusions • Another tries to show that the argument is based on a confusion about the notion of existence

22. Gaunilo, a monk who was a contemporary of St. Anselm, offered an influential reply to the ontological argument.

23. Gaunilo’s objection • We could define ‘the perfect island’ as the island than which none greater can be conceived. Then, by the same reasoning, we could ‘prove’ the existence (in reality) of such an island. • But this is absurd. So there must be some fault in Anselm’s reasoning. (Note, this doesn’t show exactly what the fault is, only that there must be one.) • A possible reply: the perfect island, unlike God, can’t be conceived to exist in reality. For any island we think of, we can think of a greater island. The perfect island is like the greatest number. • Is God really different in this respect? Perhaps the idea that God is an ‘infinite being’ is relevant here.

24. Objection 2- Immanuel Kant • claims that ‘existence is not a predicate’. • (A predicate is a word or phrase whose function is to attribute a property to things, e.g. the predicate ‘red’ attributes the property of redness.) • When we say that a thing exists, claims Kant, we do not attribute to it a new property, in addition its other properties. • According to Anselm, if God didn’t exist (in reality), then he would lack a property, existence, that contributes to greatness. But Kant says this makes no sense, because existence is not a property, like redness, that a thing can either have or lack!

25. Huh? • “To see this more clearly, suppose that we give a complete description of an object, of its size, its weight, its color, etc. If we then add that the object exists, then in asserting that it exists we add nothing to the concept of the object. The object is the same whether it exists or not; it is the same size, the same weight, the same color, etc. The fact that the object exists, that the concept is exemplified in the world, does not change anything about the concept. To assert that the object exists is to say something about the world, that it contains something that matches that concept; it is not to say anything about the object itself.”

26. Getting to the point… • If Kant believes that existence is not a property of objects, then it is impossible to compare a God that exists to a God that does not! • A God that exists and a God that does not are qualitatively identical!

27. Good Morning! • Bell Ringer… • Agenda and Objective: Through notes and survey, students will identify the Teleological argument as well as evaluated one’s rational consistency in believing in God. • What is the Cosmological argument? • What is Pascal’s wager?

28. St Thomas Aquinas Everything that exists must have a cause. The universe exists, therefore it must have a cause. This “first cause” is God. The Cosmological Argument

29. Argument’s premises • the universe exists • everything that exists has a cause • causes precede their effects • the chain of cause & effect cannot go back in time indefinitely (an infinite regress) • therefore, there must be a ‘first cause’ that is not itself an effect (ie. it has no prior cause) • since everything has a cause, this first cause must be the cause of itself (ie. it must necessarily exist) • this self-caused first cause is God • therefore, God exists

30. Flaws… • it is conceivable that the chain of cause & effect extends back into infinity. By way of contrast, consider the future… do you suppose the future has a specific ending point? • It is based on the assumption that everything has a cause. This then begs the question – if this ‘first cause’ is God, what caused God? • if one accepts the idea of a ‘first cause’ (ie. something that has always existed), it can be argued that the universe may always have existed. The regress could end with the necessary existence of the universe. It need not end with the positing of God as a ‘first cause’.

31. Variations.. • the Kalam cosmological argument ► relies on the premise that the universe has a beginning in time • the Modal cosmological argument ► is based on the premise that the universe stretches back into eternity

32. Does God exist? Place your bet Total uncertainty— no data What should you do? Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

33. Pascal’s Wager • “Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”

34. The argument… • One does not know whether God exists. • Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if God does exist. • Believing in God is of no consequence if God does not exist. • Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in God.

36. Teleological comes from the Greek word ‘telos’ – meaning ‘design’ or ‘purpose’ 1. the complexity of life on earth and the harmonious organization of living organisms exhibits evidence of intelligent design 2. a design necessitates the presence of a designer --------------------------- ∴ that designer is God The Teleological Argument

37. William Paley’s argument from design. argued that the complexity & efficiency of natural objects (ex. the eye, the brain, etc.) are evidence that they must have been purposefully designed. How else could they have come to be as they are – perfectly adapted for the purpose they serve?

38. Paley uses a watch & its maker to draw an analogy. • Just by looking at a watch and all its intricate parts working together in unison, we can tell that it was designed by a watchmaker. So, just by examining the complexity of the eye and how it suits its purpose so well (to see), it must have been designed by some sort of ‘Divine Watchmaker’ (God).

39. it assumes without justification that there is a significant resemblance between objects which occur naturally (ex. the eye) and those which have been designed by humans (ex. a watch). Is there a strong similarity between the two sufficient to make the analogy strong? Hume argued that we cannot infer from the fact that examples of order in our universe have human causes (ex. the watch) that the universe as a whole has a cause & has been designed, because the universe is unique. Therefore, because the universe is unique, we cannot rely on analogy to explain it. Critics: David Hume

40. Also… • If the world/universe was designed, who designed the designer? • the argument of design tells us little about God except God is a design-producing being. The argument doesn’t allow us to draw any conclusions as to God’s nature or character beyond that. The design argument doesn’t prove the existence of only one God, as there may be multiple designers.

41. Welcome Back! • Grab a computer, log on, an put to the side. (we’ll use them later) • Bell ringer…What are the three philosophical arguments for the existence of God? • Agenda and objective: Through notes students will identify the moral argument and through a survey students will test their consistency in their argument.

42. the scientific theory of evolutionnow provides an explanation of how complex life develops without the need for a ‘designer’. by a process of survival of the fittest explains how adaptations to environments have occurred, without needing to introduce the notion of God. Darwin

43. Kant’s Moral Argument • argued that man must assume the existence of God and life after death if he is to make sense of his desire for happiness and his moral duty. • believed that the uniting of man's desire for happiness with man's moral duty could not occur in this life or without God's power. Therefore, it is morally necessary (not rationally necessary) to assume God's existence.

44. It’s rational to be moral only if it’s rewarded That doesn’t happen in this life It must happen in another life So, there must be an afterlife, and a just God

45. The Formal Moral Argument • (1) Morality consists of a set of commands.(2) For every command there is a commander.Therefore:(3) There is a commander that commanded morality.(4) Commands only carry as much authority as does their commander.(5) Morality carries ultimate authority.Therefore:(6) The commander that commanded morality carries ultimate authority.(7) Only God carries ultimate authority.Therefore:(8) The commander that commanded morality is God.Therefore:(9) God exists.

46. 1) We ought to be morally perfect.(2) If we ought to be morally perfect, then we can be morally perfect.(3) We cannot be morally perfect unless God exists.Therefore:(4) God exists. takes the fact that there is a gap between our moral duties and what we are capable of doing to imply the existence of God. we cannot achieve moral perfection by our own strength, but we can do so with God’s help, which is available to us. God can forgive us; God can take the punishment for our sins; God can restore us to righteousness. The Perfectionist Moral Argument

47. “battleground of rational consistency” http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.php

48. The Problem of Evil: How Can an All-Good, All-Powerful God Exist and There Still Be Evil in the World?

49. What is EVIL? There are two types of evil: Moral evil: deliberately caused by humans e.g cruelty Natural evil: things which happen accidentally such as earthquakes and floods. Many people think that the existence of evil and suffering in the world shows that there is no God or if he exists, he(she) is unkind.

50. The Problem of Evil • If God exists, He is all good, all knowing, and all powerful • If He is all good, He is willing to prevent evil • If He is all knowing, He knows how to prevent it • If He is all powerful, He can prevent it • But evil exists • So, God does not exist