Does God Exist - The ontological, cosmological and teleological argument with criticism. PDF

Preview

Summary

The ontological, cosmological and teleological argument with criticism. ...

Description

1-The ontological argument An argument from the being and nature of god as developed by St. Anselm: You have in your mind an idea of god. This idea is the idea of the greatest possible being. If god exists in the mind alone, however, and not in reality, then that would not be god. God, therefore, to be god, must exist both in the mind and in reality. Therefore, god exists. A second version of the ontological argument was later developed by Rene Descartes: My conception of god is such that he has every sort of perfection. Existence is a perfection. Therefore, god necessarily exists. The following criticism was developed by Immanuel Kant who, while believing in god, claimed that god’s existence was a matter of faith, not reason: The statement “god exists” seems that it is stating that the attribute of “existence” belongs to god like the statement “the cat is black” attributes the quality of blackness to a cat. However, existence is not really an attribute or predicate because it does not tell us anything more about the subject. Existence is not a predicate or characteristic of god, but an assumption made about the topic of discussion. It therefore cannot prove god’s existence by assuming that god must have existence. 2-The cosmological argument Also called the argument from first cause, it was developed in the middle ages by St. Thomas Aquinas who based it on the cosmology (study of the origin of the universe) of the Greek philosopher, Aristotle. Everything that exists was caused to come into existence by something other than itself. That cause was itself caused by something else, as was the previous cause, and so on back. Yet as we trace this series of causes backwards, we must eventually come to a first cause. We have only one concept that matches our idea of a first cause, itself not caused by anything. That concept is the idea of god. Therefore, god must exist since there are things in existence today. Criticism Some maintain that the argument uses circular reasoning. A circular argument is one that assumes in its premises what is to be proven. In this argument, it is assumed that there must be a first cause (god). Yet it is possible that the universe has existed for all eternity and that there was no beginning and all causal activity goes on and will go on forever. 3-The teleological argument

The version presented next was developed by the philosopher William Paley in the 19th century and tries to prove the existence of god through the evident design of the universe. Everything in nature, from the intricate design and complexity of the human body to the pollination of plants exhibits deliberate design, much like the watch. The difference is that whatever intelligence designed the universe was of far greater capacity than the human mind. This we call god. Therefore, god exists. Criticism As an empiricist, Hume demands evidence based on what we know through the observation of our senses. The world as we know is not perfect. How could an all-knowing, perfect god create a world that does not have a perfect design.? There is no empirical evidence of god’s having made and designed the world. I can deduce that a builder made a house because the building of houses has been observed in the world. No one was around to observe the creation, however, therefore we cannot deduce that it was god’s creation. 4-Pascal’s Wager Let us make a bet. I will bet that god exists, you will be that god does not exist. When we die, we will find out who wins the bet. Let’s say that you win the bet: god does not exist. What have you won? Nothing, for you will be in the same situation as i: six feet under the ground. And I have lost nothing for I am in the same situation as you. But suppose I win the bet. In this case, I have won everything, for my bet has guaranteed me eternal life. You, on the other hand, have become eternally damned because of your atheism. Therefore, the correct way to bet is obvious. To bet that god exists means nothing bad if you are wrong and everything good if you are right. But to bet that god does not exist, means nothing good if you are right and everything bad if you are wrong. Criticism Some question whether this is actually a philosophical argument or simply a kind of emotional blackmail. It seems to threaten one who refuses to believe in god rather than to actually prove god’s existence. Notice that the argument loses its persuasiveness if the traditional Christian religion’s conception of god is not the case (there is no heaven or hell)....