The Argument for the Existence of God: A Philosophical and Theoretical Discussion

Transcription

1 The Argument for the Existence of God: A Philosophical and Theoretical Discussion Kathryn Collins Faculty of Humanities Miles College (Alabama) kathryncollinsb4386@yahoo.com Abstract Is there any god? Probably it is a long controversial topic around the world. Your belief in the existence of God has enormous implications on your views of life, humanity, morality, and destiny. In this essay, the existence of God has described logically and philosophically. The criticism or the argument against or for the existence of God also described briefly, which also made the topic more effective and important towards the goal of this writings. This essay described the philosophers thoughts one after another. That make this essay more important to the controversial mind. Keywords: God; Existence; Philosophy; Argument; Criticism. Vol-1, No-2, February,

2 International Journal for Empirical Education and Research 1. Introduction The existence of God is a subject of debate in the philosophy of religion, popular culture, and philosophy. [1] A wide variety of arguments for and against the existence of God can be categorized as metaphysical, logical, empirical, or subjective. In philosophical terms, the notion of the existence of God involves the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ontology (study of the nature of being, existence, or reality) and the theory of value. 2. Argument for the Existence of God The Western tradition of philosophical discussion of the existence of God began with Plato and Aristotle, who made arguments that would now be categorized as cosmological. Other arguments for the existence of God have been proposed by St. Anselm, who formulated the first ontological argument; René Descartes, who said that the existence of a benevolent God is logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful; and Immanuel Kant, who argued that the existence of God can be deduced from the existence of goods. [2] Philosophers who have provided arguments against the existence of God include David Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, and Bertrand Russell. Arguments for the existence of God come in many different forms; some draw on history, some on science, some on personal experience, and some on philosophy. The primary focus of this site is the philosophical arguments the ontological argument, the first cause argument, the argument from design, and the moral argument. Each of these arguments, if successful, supports a certain conception of God: the ontological argument, for instance, is an argument for the existence of a perfect being; the first cause argument is an argument for the existence of an eternal Creator; the argument from design is an argument for the existence of Creator with a special interest in humanity; the moral argument is an argument for a moral authority. Each of the arguments, if successful, then, so supports a specific religion to the extent that its conception of God matches that supported by the argument Empirical Arguments Argument from Beauty One form of the argument from beauty is that the elegance of the laws of physics, which have been empirically discovered, or the elegant laws of mathematics, which are abstract but which have empirically proven to be useful, is evidence of a creator deity who has arranged these things to be beautiful and not ugly. ISSN Online: ISSN Print:

3 The Argument for the Existence of God: A Philosophical and Theoretical Discussion Argument from Consciousness The argument from consciousness claims that human consciousness cannot be explained by the physical mechanisms of the human body and brain, therefore asserting there must be non-physical aspects to human consciousness. This is held as indirect evidence of God, given that notions about souls and the afterlife in Christianity and Islam would be consistent with such a claim. Critics point out that non-physical aspects of consciousness could exist in a universe without any gods; for example, some religions that believe in reincarnation are compatible with atheism, monotheism, and polytheism. The notion of the soul was created before modern understanding of neural networks and the physiology of the brain. After decades of detailed experimentation and testing how the mind works, cognitive science has yet to find any aspects of human thought or emotion that require non-physical explanations, though many aspects of both mental illness and healthy functioning of the brain have yet to be explained in detail. It could be said that the modern research program of cognitive science both assumes physicalism and provides empirical support for that assumption. The hard problem of consciousness remains as to whether different people subjectively experience the world in the same way for example, that the colour blue looks the same inside the minds of different people, though this is a philosophical problem with both physical and nonphysical explanations Deductive arguments The Ontological Argument The first purported proof of the existence of God is the ontological argument. The ontological argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the laws of logic alone. It dates back to St Anselm, an eleventh century philosopher-theologian and archbishop of Canterbury but was also used by the French philosopher René Descartes. It argues that once we mentally grasp the concept of God we can see that God s nonexistence is impossible. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a perfect being that could not possibly fail to exist. Whatever is contained in a clear and distinct idea of a thing must be predicated of that thing; but a clear and distinct idea of an absolutely perfect Being contains the idea of actual existence; therefore, since we have the idea of an absolutely perfect Being such a Being must really exist. [3] The ontological argument is an argument for God s existence based entirely on reason. According to this argument, there is no need to go out looking for physical evidence of God s existence; we can work out that he exists just by thinking about it. Philosophers call such arguments a priori arguments. Copyright 2018 Seagull Publications

4 International Journal for Empirical Education and Research There clearly are certain claims that we can tell are false without even having to look into them to find out. The claim to have made a four-sided triangle, and the claim to be over six feet tall but less than five, for example, are both claims that are obviously false. We know that triangles have three sides. We know that being over six feet tall means being over five feet tall too. No one that understands what the words in these claims mean would think that they might be true. There s no need to spend time looking for four-sided triangles or tall short people in order to know that there aren t any. The ontological argument claims that the idea that God doesn t exist is just as absurd as the idea that a foursided triangle does. According to the ontological argument, we can tell that the claim that God doesn t exist is false without having to look into it in any detail. Just as knowing what triangle means makes it obvious that a four-sided triangle is impossible, the argument suggests, knowing what God means makes it obvious that God s non-existence is impossible. The claim that God does not exist is self-contradictory The Definition of God Includes Perfection There are many things that something would have to be in order to be properly called God. For instance, it would have to be all-powerful, because a part of what God means is all-powerful. To call something that isn t all-powerful God would be like calling a shape that doesn t have three sides a triangle; to anyone who understands the words involved it just wouldn t make sense. Another part of what God mean is perfect ; something can t properly be called God unless it is perfect. This is the key idea behind the ontological argument God is That Than Which No Greater Can Be Conceived If something is perfect, then it couldn t possibly be better than it is; there can t be anything better than perfection. This means that if a thing is perfect then it is impossible to imagine it being better than it is; there is nothing better than it is to imagine. If we think of God as being perfect and perfection, remember, is part of the concept of God then we must therefore think of God as a being that cannot be imagined to be better than he is. As St Anselm, the inventor of the ontological argument, put it, God is that than which no greater can be conceived. It is therefore impossible to conceive either of there being anything greater than God or of it being possible to imagine God being better than he already is Atheists Are Therefore Confused If we were to think of God as not existing, though, then we would be able to imagine him being better than he is; we would be able to imagine him existing, and a God that exists is clearly better than a God that ISSN Online: ISSN Print:

5 The Argument for the Existence of God: A Philosophical and Theoretical Discussion 88 doesn t. To think of God as not existing, then, is to think of God as being imperfect, because a God that doesn t exist could be better than he is. The idea of an imperfect God, though, we have already said, is just as absurd as the idea of a four-sided triangle; perfect is part of what God means, just as three-sided is part of what triangle means. As the idea that God doesn t exist implies his imperfection, therefore, the idea that God doesn t exist is just as absurd, just as obviously false, as the idea that a four-sided triangle does. God s non-existence is therefore impossible What the Ontological Argument Proves Whether this argument is successful is controversial. There are a number of objections to the ontological argument, which many, though not all, accept as decisive. If the ontological argument is successful, then it must be the case that God, God meaning perfect being, exists. This would establish a lot of what the monotheistic religions say about God to be true if God is perfect then he is also omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, etc., just as the monotheistic religions say but not all of it. It would show that there exists a God that is perfect in every way, but it would not demonstrate much about the relationship between that God and us. The remaining arguments, in contrast, if they are successful, tell us less about what God is like but more about how he relates to us. The first of them is the first cause argument, which seeks to establish the existence of a Creator The First Cause Argument/Cosmological Argument The second purported proof of the existence of God is the first cause argument, also called the cosmological argument. The first cause argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe exists. The universe came into existence at a point in the distant past. Nothing can come into existence, though, unless there is something to bring it into existence; nothing comes from nothing. There must therefore be some being outside of the universe that caused the universe to exist. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a Creator that transcends time, that has neither beginning nor end. The first cause argument tells us that the second of these is not possible, that the past cannot stretch back into infinity but rather must have a beginning. The argument then proceeds by suggesting that if the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence. This being outside the universe, this Creator, the first cause argument tells us, is God. Copyright 2018 Seagull Publications

6 International Journal for Empirical Education and Research It s Impossible to Traverse an Infinite Series If I told you that I had just counted down from infinity to zero, starting with infinity minus zero and carrying on until I reached infinite minus infinity, i.e zero, then you would know that this claim is false. Just as it is impossible to count up from zero to infinity, so it is impossible to count down from infinity to zero. If I had started counting down from infinity and kept going, then I would still be counting to this day; I would not have finished. My claim to have counted down from infinity to zero must be false. This is because it is impossible to traverse an infinite series The Past Therefore Cannot be Infinite The idea that the universe has an infinite past is just as problematic as the idea that I have just counted down from infinity. If the universe had an infinite past, then time would have had to count down from infinity to reach time zero, the present, and so would not have reached it. The fact that we have reached the present therefore shows that the past is not infinite but finite. The universe has a beginning. This claim, of course, has been confirmed by modern science, who trace the universe back to a point of origin in the big bang. The past cannot go back forever, then; the universe must have a beginning. The next question is whether something caused this beginning, or whether the universe just popped into existence out of nothing. We all know, though, that nothing that begins to exist does so without a cause; nothing comes from nothing. For something to come into existence there must be something else that already exists that can bring it into existence. The fact that the universe began to exist therefore implies that something brought it into existence, that the universe has a Creator The First Cause Must be Uncreated, Eternal If this Creator were a being like the universe, a being that exists in time and so that came into existence, then it too would have to have been created by something. Nothing comes from nothing, not even God. This tells us that the ultimate cause of the universe must never have come into existence; the ultimate Creator must be a being that exists outside of time, an eternal being with neither beginning nor end. (For a more detailed defence of this argument, see William Lane Craig s The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe.) What the First Cause Argument Proves There are several objections to the first cause argument, but if it is successful then it establishes the existence of a Creator that transcends time. Combined with the ontological argument, this would give us proof that there is a perfect, necessary, and eternal Creator. ISSN Online: ISSN Print:

7 The Argument for the Existence of God: A Philosophical and Theoretical Discussion 90 This would not quite be the same as proving all that Christianity and the other monotheistic religions teach about God, but it would be close. It would tell us that God exists, and what he is like, and that he created the universe. It would not, however, tell us why he created the universe or what we ought to do about it. The final two arguments speak more about God s purpose in Creation, and so at least hold out the hope of completing this picture. The first of these two arguments are the argument from design Inductive arguments Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning. Another class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the existence of God present a fairly large probability though not absolute certainty. A number of obscure points, they say, always remain; an act of faith is required to dismiss these difficulties. This view is maintained, among others, by the Scottish statesman Arthur Balfour in his book The Foundations of Belief (1895). The opinions set forth in this work was adopted in France by Ferdinand Brunetière, the editor of the Revue des deux Mondes. Many orthodox Protestants express themselves in the same manner, as, for instance, Dr. E. Dennert, President of the Kepler Society, in his work Ist Gott tot? 2.5. The Argument from Design/The teleological argument The third purported proof of the existence of God is the argument from design, also called the teleological argument. The argument from design seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe is ordered. The universe could have been different from the way that it is in many ways. It could have had different laws of physics; it could have had a different arrangement of planets and stars; it could have begun with a more powerful or a weaker big bang. The vast majority of these possible universes would not have allowed for the existence of life, so we are very fortunate indeed to have a universe that does. On an atheistic world-view, there is no way to explain this good fortune; the atheist must put this down to chance. On the view that God exists, though, we can explain why the universe is the way that it is; it is because God created the universe with beings like us in mind. This argument, if it is successful, strongly suggests the existence of a Creator that takes an interest in humanity The Universe Might Have Been Other Than It Is Assume that modern science is correct in saying that the universe began with a big bang, that the universe came into existence with an explosion that sent pieces of matter flying in all directions at an enormous rate. Copyright 2018 Seagull Publications

8 International Journal for Empirical Education and Research The big bang might have been other than it was; it might have involved more or less matter, or have involved a larger or a smaller explosion, for example. That the big bang occurred as it did was crucial for the development of life, because the rate of expansion of the universe, i.e. the speed at which the pieces of matter flew apart, had to fall within certain limits if life was to develop. Had the rate of expansion been too slow, then gravity would have pulled all of the matter back together again in a big crunch; there wouldn t have been enough time for life to emerge. Had the rate of expansion been too fast, then gravity wouldn t have had a chance to pull any of the pieces of matter together, and planets, stars and even gases wouldn t have been able to form; there wouldn t have been anything for life to emerge on. The rate of expansion following the big bang, of course, was just right to allow life to develop; if it weren t then we wouldn t be here now Had the Big Bang Been Different, the Universe Probably Wouldn t Contain Life That this was the case, though, was either an extraordinary fluke, or was intended by the big bang s Creator. Had the rate of expansion been even fractionally slower one part in a million million then the big bang would have been followed by a big crunch before life could have developed. Had the rate of expansion been even fractionally faster one part in a million then stars and planets could not have formed. It is highly unlikely that a random big bang would be such as to allow life to develop, and therefore highly unlikely, according to the argument from design, that the big bang from which our universe was formed happened at random. The fact that the universe is fit for life requires explanation, and an appeal to chance is no explanation at all. It is far more likely that the universe was initiated by a being that intended to create a universe that could support life. The fine-tuning of the universe for life can only be explained with reference to a Creator, as the result of intelligent design Other Examples of Fine-Tuning The rate of the expansion of the universe following the big bang is just one instance of apparent design in the universe; other examples, like the strength of the weak force, the strength of the strong force, and isotropy, abound (for explanations and further examples see William Lane Craig s The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle). Each example makes it less likely that the universe was created at random and more likely that it was designed by a Creator that takes an interest in humanity. Once all of this evidence is taken into account, the ISSN Online: ISSN Print:

9 The Argument for the Existence of God: A Philosophical and Theoretical Discussion 92 argument from design concludes, there can be no question as to whether the universe just happens to be fit for life or whether it was deliberately created that way; the universe clearly exhibits the marks of intelligent design What the Argument from Design Proves As with the other arguments, there are a number of objections to the argument from design. If it is successful, however, then together with the ontological argument and the first cause argument it gives us proof that there is a perfect, necessary, and eternal Creator whose purpose in creating the universe was to bring about life. This would include most of the important elements of Christian theism; it would tell us that God exists, and what he is like, and that he created the universe with life in mind. It would not, however, tell us much about how we ought to respond. The final argument, the moral argument, seeks to do this by demonstrating God s authority and so showing that we ought to seek to live our lives in accordance with his plan The Moral Argument The fourth purported proof of the existence of God is the moral argument. The moral argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that there are moral laws. Moral laws have the form of commands; they tell us what to do. Commands can t exist without a commander though, so who is it that commands us to behave morally? To answer this, we only need to look at the authoritative nature of morality. Commands are only as authoritative as is the one that commands them; a command of a ruler carries more authority than a command of a citizen. Moral commands, though, have ultimate authority; they are to be obeyed under all circumstances. Their authority transcends all human authority, and they must therefore have been commanded by a being whose authority transcends all human authority. The existence of moral laws, the argument concludes, thus demonstrates the existence of a being that is greater than any of us and that rules over all creation Morality Consists of a Set of Commands Moral facts aren t like that. The fact that we ought to do something about the problem of famine isn t a fact about the way that the world is, it s a fact about the way that the world ought to be. There is nothing out there in the physical world that makes moral facts true. This is because moral facts aren t descriptive, they re prescriptive; moral facts have the form of commands. Copyright 2018 Seagull Publications

10 International Journal for Empirical Education and Research Commands Imply a Commander There are some things that can t exist unless something else exists along with them. There can t be something that is being carried unless there is something else that is carrying it. There can t be something that is popular unless there are lots of people that like it. Commands are like this; commands can t exist without something else existing that commanded them. The moral argument seeks to exploit this fact; If moral facts are a kind a command, the moral argument asks, then who commanded morality? To answer this question, the moral argument suggests that we look at the importance of morality Morality is Ultimately Authoritative Morality is of over-riding importance. If someone morally ought to do something, then this over-rules any other consideration that might come into play. It might be in my best interests not to give any money to charity, but morally I ought to, so all things considered I ought to. It might be in my best interests to pretend that I m too busy to see my in-laws on Wednesday so that I can watch the game, but morally I ought not, so all things considered I ought not. If someone has one reason to do one thing, but morally ought to do another thing, then all things considered they ought to do the other thing. Morality over-rules everything. Morality has ultimate authority Ultimately Authoritative Commands Imply an Ultimately Authoritative Commander Commands, though, are only as authoritative as the person that commands them. If I were to command everyone to pay extra tax so that we could spend more money on the police force, then no one would have to do so. I just don t have the authority to issue that command. If the government were to command everyone to pay extra tax so that we could spend more money on the police force, though, then that would be different, because it does have that authority. As morality has more authority than any human person or institution, the moral argument suggests, morality can t have been commanded by any human person or institution. As morality has ultimate authority, as morality over-rules everything, morality must have been commanded by someone who has authority over everything. The existence of morality thus points us to a being that is greater than any of us and that rules over all creation What the Moral Argument Proves ISSN Online: ISSN Print:

11 The Argument for the Existence of God: A Philosophical and Theoretical Discussion 94 If the moral argument can be defended against the various objections that have been raised against it, then it proves the existence of an author of morality, of a being that has authority over and that actively rules over all creation. Together with the ontological argument, the first cause argument, and the argument from design, this would give us proof that there is a perfect, necessary, and eternal being that created the universe with life in mind and has the authority to tell us how we are to run it. The correct response to this would be to seek God s will and to practice it The Argument from Religious Experience The argument from religious experience is the argument that personal religious experiences can prove God s existence to those that have them. One can only perceive that which exists, and so God must exist because there are those that have experienced him. While religious experiences themselves can only constitute direct evidence of God s existence for those fortunate enough to have them, the fact that there are many people who testify to having had such experiences constitutes indirect evidence of God s existence even to those who have not had such experiences themselves The Argument from Miracles The argument from miracles is the argument that the occurrence of miracles demonstrates both the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. If the Bible is to be believed, then Jesus ministry was accompanied by frequent miraculous signs that his claims and his teachings were endorsed by God the Father. His resurrection from the dead was, of course, the greatest of these, and is still taken by many today to be a solid foundation for their faith. Miracles typically involve the suspension of the natural operation of the universe as some supernatural event occurs. That can only happen, of course, given the existence of some supernatural being Psychological aspects Several authors have offered psychological or sociological explanations for belief in the existence of God. Psychologists observe that the majority of humans often ask existential questions such as "why we are here" and whether life has purpose. Some psychologists have posited that religious beliefs may recruit cognitive mechanisms in order to satisfy these questions. William James emphasized the inner religious struggle between melancholy and happiness, and pointed to trance as a cognitive mechanism. Sigmund Freud stressed fear and pain, the need for a powerful parental figure, the obsessional nature of ritual, and the hypnotic state a community can induce as contributing factors to the psychology of religion. Copyright 2018 Seagull Publications

12 International Journal for Empirical Education and Research Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained (2002), based in part on his anthropological field work, treats belief in God as the result of the brain's tendency towards agency detection. Boyer suggests that, because of evolutionary pressures, humans err on the side of attributing agency where there isn't any. In Boyer's view, belief in supernatural entities spreads and becomes culturally fixed because of their memorability. The concept of "minimally counterintuitive" beings that differ from the ordinary in a small number of ways (such as being invisible, able to fly, or having access to strategic and otherwise secret information) leave a lasting impression that spreads through word-of-mouth. Scott Atran's In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion (2002) makes a similar argument and adds examination of the socially coordinating aspects of shared belief. In Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion, Todd Tremlin follows Boyer in arguing that universal human cognitive process naturally produces the concept of the supernatural. Tremlin contends that an agency detection device (ADD) and a theory of mind module (ToMM) lead humans to suspect an agent behind every event. Natural events for which there is no obvious agent may be attributed to God. 3. Aquinas' Five Ways Unmoved Mover: The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover. [3] First Cause: Aquinas' argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused. [3] Necessary Being: The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God. [3] Argument from Degree: Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness. Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness. [3] ISSN Online: ISSN Print:

13 The Argument for the Existence of God: A Philosophical and Theoretical Discussion 96 Teleological argument: The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God. [3] 4. Objections/Criticisms 4.1. Objections to the Ontological Argument The ontological argument is, roughly, the argument that God, being that than which no greater can be conceived, must exist, for if he did not then it would be possible to conceive of an existent God, which would be greater than that than which no greater can be conceived, which is absurd. The ontological argument is the most maligned of the arguments described on this site. It has critics representing all theological positions, including the classical theist Aquinas, the non-classical theist Kant, and the atheist Hume. Few now defend the ontological argument, but it has not been abandoned altogether Gaunilo s Objection to the Ontological Argument: The Perfect Island The earliest critic of the ontological argument was a contemporary of Anselm s, the monk Gaunilo of Marmoutier. Gaunilo did not identify any specific fault with the argument, but argued that there must be something wrong with it, because if there is not then we can use its logic to prove things that we have no reason to believe to be true. For instance, Gaunilo argued, it is possible to construct an argument with exactly the same form as the ontological argument, that purports to prove the existence of the perfect island: the perfect island must exist, for if it did not then it would be possible to conceive of an island greater than that island than which no greater can be conceived, which is absurd. If the ontological argument works, then, according to Gaunilo, the argument for the existence of the perfect island works too. The two arguments have the same logical form, and so they stand or fall together. The argument for the existence of the perfect island, though, is clearly spurious; we have no reason to believe that the perfect island exists. Gaunilo s argument must be rejected. Unless the theist can point to some relevant difference between his argument for the existence of God and Gaunilo s argument for the existence of the perfect island, then, then he will have to abandon the ontological argument for the existence of God Responses to Gaunilo Gaunilo s objection to the ontological argument has been criticised on several grounds. One problem with it concerns the idea of a perfect island. A perfect island, presumably, is one with an abundance of lush palm Copyright 2018 Seagull Publications

14 International Journal for Empirical Education and Research trees and pristine beaches. The more of these an island has, the better it is. There is, however, no intrinsic maximum number of trees or beaches that an island could have; for any island that can be imagined, there is another, greater island, with one more palm tree and one more beach. There is, then, no island than which no greater island can be conceived. The concept of the perfect island is incoherent; there can be no such thing. The concept of a perfect God, on the other hand is not incoherent. Power, knowledge, and the other qualities of God all have upper limits which when reached cannot be passed. There is, then, a difference between Gaunilo s argument for the existence of the perfect island and Anselm s argument for the existence of God that advocates of the ontological argument can cite as a reason for rejecting the former without committing themselves to also rejecting the latter Kant s Objection to the Ontological Argument: Existence is not a Predicate The most influential criticism of the ontological argument is that of Immanuel Kant. Kant thought that because the ontological argument rests on the judgement that a God that exists is greater than a God that does not, it rests on a confusion. According to Kant, existence is not a predicate, a property that a thing can either possess or lack. When people assert that God exists they are not saying that there is a God and he possesses the property of existence. If that were the case, then when people assert that God does not exist they would be saying that there is a God and he lacks the property of existence, i.e., they would be both affirming and denying God s existence in the same breath. Rather, suggests Kant, to say that something exists is to say that the concept of that thing is exemplified in the world. Existence, then, is not a matter of a thing possessing a property, existence, but of a concept corresponding to something in the world. To see this more clearly, suppose that we give a complete description of an object, of its size, its weight, its colour, 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 colour, 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. If Kant is correct in his view that existence is not a property of objects, then it is impossible to compare a God that exists to a God that does not. On Kant s view a God that exists and a God that does not are qualitatively identical. A God that exists is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. A God that does not exist is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. Both are the same. If this is right, then Anselm s claim that ISSN Online: ISSN Print:

15 The Argument for the Existence of God: A Philosophical and Theoretical Discussion 98 an existent God is greater than a non-existent God is false neither is greater than the other in which case the ontological argument fails Responses to Kant Kant s criticism of the ontological argument is widely accepted, but there have been a few dissenting voices. Some have insisted that asserting that an object exists can change the way that we conceive of it. If, having read about Socrates in the works of Plato, I discover that he is a real historical figure, i.e. that he exists, then this extra information will change the way that I think about him. Similarly, it is suggested, to say that God is not a mere figment of believers imaginations, but actually exists, is to add something to the concept of God. Perhaps, then, Anselm s comparison between a God that exists and a God that does not is possible, and the ontological argument survives Kant s criticism. Whatever you make of the ontological argument, the other arguments for the existence of God are independent of it Objections to the First Cause Argument The first cause argument is the argument that everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause, that the universe has a beginning of its existence, and that the universe therefore has a cause. This cause, unless it too has a cause, must be without a beginning; it must be eternal. If successful, this argument proves the existence of an uncreated Creator Who Created God? Critics of the first cause argument often try to rebut it by asking a question:who created God? This question is supposed to present the theist with a dilemma. If the theist concedes that God does have a creator, then isn t it God s creator that we should should be worshipping rather than God? And who created God s creator? The danger of an infinite regress of creators, each postulated in order to explain the existence of that subsequent to it, looms. If there is an infinite regress of creators, though, then there is no first creator, no ultimate cause of the universe, no God. Perhaps, then, the theist should maintain that God doesn t have a creator, that he is an uncaused cause. If uncaused existence is possible, though, then there is no need to postulate a God that created the universe; if uncaused existence is possible, then the universe could be uncaused. Copyright 2018 Seagull Publications

16 International Journal for Empirical Education and Research However, the theist answers the question Who created God? then, what he says will undermine the first cause argument, and he will be forced to abandon it. So, at least, runs this common objection to first cause argument Responses This objection is much less powerful than it first appears. In fact, it rests on a simple misunderstanding of the first cause argument. If the first cause argument were the argument that everything has a cause, and that the universe therefore has a cause, and therefore that God exists, then the question Who created God? would indeed present the theist with a problem. That, though, is not the argument. The first cause argument is the argument that everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause, that the universe has a beginning of its existence, and that the universe therefore has a cause of its existence. The theist can therefore confidently answer the question Who created God?, "No one created God", without fear of compromising the first cause argument. The theist s position is that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. If something comes into existence, then there must be something else able to bring it into existence. Nothing comes from nothing. God, though, unlike the universe, did not begin to exist. God is eternal. He exists outside of time, and has neither beginning nor end. The theist can therefore admit that uncaused existence is possible in the case of God, without being forced to admit that uncaused existence is possible in the case of the universe. God and the universe are two entirely different sorts of thing Not Everything Has a Cause A second line of attack on the first cause argument is to deny that everything that has a beginning has a cause. In fact, scientists have observed some events that have no apparent cause, that appear to be entirely random. Subatomic particles behave very strangely indeed. This, it is sometimes suggested, confirms that it is possible that the universe, strange though it may seem, came into existence without any cause of its doing so Responses It is important to remember that much science is provisional. What may seem to be an uncaused event may be an event the cause of which is unobserved. We should therefore not be too hasty in agreeing that uncaused ISSN Online: ISSN Print:

17 The Argument for the Existence of God: A Philosophical and Theoretical Discussion 100 events are possible on the basis of observations of subatomic particles. Just as important, however, is the fact that the apparent randomness of the behaviour of subatomic particles is not also found in larger structures. Randomness, if randomness there be, is confined to the microscopic. The behaviour of everything else can, at least in principle, be explained. The first cause argument is an argument from the mere fact that a temporal universe exists to the existence of an eternal creator of it Objections to the Moral Argument The moral argument takes the existence of objective moral facts to be evidence for the existence of God. Morality consists of a set of commands, and there must therefore be someone who issued those commands. Further, moral considerations always outweigh non-moral considerations, and whoever commanded morality must therefore have authority over everything else Moral Scepticism One response to the moral argument is the sceptical objection, the denial that there is any such thing as morality. It might be suggested that morality is a tool invented by the powerful and inculcated into the masses in order to keep them in control, that there are no real limits on what we can and cannot do, but that it is in the interests of those who run society for us to think that there are. However it is put, this objection holds that the theist cannot argue from moral truths to God, because there are no moral truths from which to argue Response I have no idea what to say to people who think along these lines. I find this view incomprehensible. I strongly suspect that most people who say these kinds of things know better; that what they deny with their lips they know in their hearts to be true. Some acts are wrong; few things are more obvious than this. The existence of morality is most obvious when we suffer by its being violated. When we are wronged, we quickly feel the moral imbalance. Those who cannot see this, who genuinely lack a sense of morality, are usually taken to suffer from a psychological disorder; they are called sociopaths. I confess that I do not know how to persuade such people that the world is not morally void, but thankfully they are in the minority; most people do recognise that there is such a thing as morality Evolutionary Ethics Copyright 2018 Seagull Publications

18 International Journal for Empirical Education and Research A more comprehensible attempt to refute the moral argument suggests that a naturalistic explanation of morality can be given by the theory of evolution. Given a world in which the resources necessary to support life are scarce and danger is all around us, people will have to compete to survive. Those that compete well will survive and reproduce more people like them; those that compete poorly will disappear. Groups of people that cooperate are more likely to survive and reproduce than are groups of people that do not. Natural selection, then, will favour those forms of behaviour that we call moral, because they have survival value. Over time, this process will lead to a moral instinct in human beings, a natural propensity to act well Responses However plausible this explanation may be for some elements of morality, there are other elements of morality that cannot be explained in this way. Altruistic behaviour, by definition, is not in one s own interests. The extreme of altruism giving up one s life in order that others might live cannot be the result of conditioning through natural selection. Those who give up their lives for others are eliminated from the gene pool. Extreme self-sacrifice is a trait that natural selection not only does not encourage but should even eliminate from society. The selfish are more likely to survive and reproduce than are the selfless. Even the foremost advocate of evolution theory, Richard Dawkins, recognises this. In the Selfish Gene, he writes: My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true... Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. [Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press (1989), p3] What is more, even if it were possible to explain our moral instincts using evolution, this would not explain morality so much as explain those instincts away. We tend to believe that we are subject to moral obligations, that we ought to act in certain ways. An evolutionary explanation of those beliefs would entirely undermine them; it would tell us why we have those beliefs but it would give us no reason to think that they are true. ISSN Online: ISSN Print:

19 The Argument for the Existence of God: A Philosophical and Theoretical Discussion 102 In fact, it would do the opposite; it would explain why we have those beliefs even though there is no such thing as morality. The evolutionary objection to the moral argument is the sceptical objection in a different guise. If we believe that there really are moral principles that bind us and other people, then this appeal to evolution will not satisfy us Objections to the Argument from Design The argument from design is the argument that the fitness of the universe for life is evidence that it was created with life in mind. This is one of the most popular arguments for God s existence and is still hotly debated today Darwin s Theory of Evolution Atheists often reject the argument from design as having been refuted by Darwin. Perhaps once, when we understood the world little, they sometimes suggest, it was plausible to think that the appearance of design in nature was a good reason to believe in God, but now we know better. We can now explain how complex organisms came about, and why the universe so closely matches the needs of its inhabitants, in terms of Darwin s theory of evolution. Complex organisms evolved over time, and the universe was not designed to fit life, but rather life evolved to fit the universe. With the advent of the theory of evolution, it is claimed, we no longer need to invoke God to explain the order of the natural world Responses to Darwinists This objection is fine as far as it goes. Some early design arguments did take the order and complexity of biological systems such as the eye and invoke God as an explanation of them. The theory of evolution can now explain how simple organisms developed into the complex beings that we see around us, and indeed are ourselves. It may be, then, that these arguments are no longer compelling. (For more on this, see Can Evolution Explain Our Origins?) The theory of evolution, though, even if it is accepted, can only explain so much. In order for evolutionary processes to get going, a specific set of conditions must hold: there must be a universe with certain natural laws, there must be an environment capable of supporting some primitive form of life, and there must be organisms that are able to reproduce, for example. Copyright 2018 Seagull Publications

20 International Journal for Empirical Education and Research Evolution cannot explain how the circumstances necessary for evolution to take hold came about, because until they came about there could be no evolution. Many design arguments, including that described on this site, find design in phenomena that the theory of evolution cannot explain, such as the circumstances of the big bang. Such arguments are immune to the objection that they have been rendered obsolete by Darwinism The Weak Anthropic Principle Another objection to the argument from design rests on what scientists call the weak anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is the principle that in order for the universe to be observed it must be such as to permit the existence of observers, and that there is therefore no need to explain why we observe the universe to be fit for habitation. If the universe were unfit for habitation, atheists suggest, then there would be no observers, and so the universe would not be observed to be unfit for habitation. All observations of universes must therefore be observations of universes fit for habitation. There is no need to explain why we observe the universe to be fit for habitation; we could not possibly observe it to be otherwise Response This objection rests on a simple misunderstanding of the argument from design. The argument from design does not take the fact that we observe the universe to be fit for habitation as its starting point, and seek to explain what we observe. Rather, it takes as its starting point the fact that it is possible for us to be here to make observations at all. A story is told to illustrate the fallacy behind this objection to the argument from design: A man is taken blindfolded before a firing-squad. A hundred trained marksmen aim their rifles at him, and, on the signal, they shoot. The man hears the shots, and for a moment is surprised. Bullets travel faster than the speed of sound, he reasons. With a hundred bullets flying towards his head, he should be killed before he hears anything. He can only have heard the shots because every marksman has missed. Then he sees things a little more clearly. Had the bullets been on target, he would not have heard a thing, because he would have been killed instantly. The only observation that he could possibly make is of the marksmen missing. There is therefore no mystery about the marksmen missing, nothing that needs to be explained. Of course, there is a mystery about the marksmen missing. It is not surprising that, given that the man observes something, what he observes is that the marksmen have missed; it is surprising, however, that he is ISSN Online: ISSN Print: