Aquinas Cosmological argument in everyday language P1. If there is no first cause, there cannot be any effects. P2. But we have observed that there are effects, like observing change in the world. C: So there must be a FIRST CAUSE of change. Whatever this first cause is, let s call it God. God is, by definition, the first cause.
The problem of infinite regress Effects have causes. But not EVERYTHING can have a cause, otherwise nothing could start the process. If there was nothing to start the process (a first cause), then there would be nothing that exists (effects) E.g. the cause-effect cycle can t go back infinitely there had to be something that started it all.
Aquinas The cosmological argument is very popular: I.e. The universe couldn t have just sprung from nothing. Something had to have caused it. Therefore God exists.
Objections to Aquinas But why couldn t something come from nothing? Or why couldn t the Universe be Eternal never beginning, never ending? Why couldn t there be more than one first cause: Couldn t there be multiple Gods? Could there be a number of first things that come together to start the chain (like Summer it isn t caused by ONE thing only)
Objections to Aquinas Aquinas assumes that whatever the first cause is should be called God, but it could be the Big Bang, or a nameless abstraction that is of no religious interest.
Objections to Aquinas -- Aquinas might be thinking that any series must have a first member, like lines in the grocery store. But there are series with no first members (the series of all integers, positive and negative. This implies an infinite series of cause and effect, but no first member.) -- Begging the question: the assumption that causal series must have a first member = it can t be infinite: but that s exactly what Aquinas needs to prove.
Pascal 17 th century French thinker. Invented a barometer, mechanical calculators. Mathematician. Pascal s wager is about looking at the potential gains and losses about believing or disbelieving that God exists. His argument employs a decision theory.
Pascal It deals with benefits of believing in God; It is NOT an argument for God s existence. The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know. If God does not exist, one will lost nothing by believing in Him, while if He does exist, one will lose everything by not believing.
Pascal s on God s Incomprehensibility We know that there can be infinite things (analogous to numbers), without knowing all its properties. We can know the nature of finite, extended, and divisible things (like ourselves), without knowing the nature of infinite, non-extended, or indivisible things (which is God.) So, God s nature is incomprehensible. It is by faith that we know his existence, not by proof and argumentation.
Pascal s Wager God is, or he is not. (He exists or he doesn t.) Reason can t decide whether or not he exists, since we cannot prove the nature of things which are incomprehensible. You must wager! He says, It s not optional. You are embarked. You either choose to believe or you don t believe. Agnosticism is still a lack of belief it is choosing to believe he does not exist.
Pascal s Wager So, you can either choose to believe in God s existence, or you choose to believe he does not exist.
Stakes: If you gain, you gain all: an eternity of life and happiness. If you lose, you lose nothing.
P1. If God exists, then the benefit of believing that he exists is infinite, whereas the benefit of disbelief is at most finite.
P2. If God doesn t exist, then the benefit of believing is at most finitely negative, and the benefit of non-belief is at most finite.
P3. The expected benefit of belief in God is infinite, and the expected benefit of disbelief is at most finite. It is assumed that we should pick the option that gives us the MOST BENEFIT.
Pascal s Wager P1. If God exists, then the benefit of believing that he exists is infinite, whereas the benefit of disbelief is at most finite. P2. If God doesn t exist, then the benefit of believing is at most finite, and the benefit of non-belief is at most finite. P3. The expected benefit of belief in God is infinite, and the expected benefit of disbelief is at most finite. P4. We should choose the best benefit (e.g. possible infinite happiness in the afterlife) C Therefore, (pragmatic) rationality demands that we believe in God.
Critiquing arguments 1. Check for validity (if it is a deductive structure). 2. Check for soundness (e.g. are the premises true?). 3. Check for strong or weak sample sizes (if it is an inductive argument). 4. Check for unstated assumptions in the argument. 5. Check for unwanted or absurd consequences of an argument (i.e. assume the argument is sound). 6. Check for informal fallacies.
Objections Belief because of the Wager is cynical; God wouldn t reward cynical belief. So, you shouldn t believe JUST because it you might gain eternity of happiness in afterlife.
Objections Pascal ONLY talks about belief in God. He is assuming some belief in a Christian God. But he forgets all other religions. How can you tell which religion is the best one?
Objections If God does NOT exist, then is it really true that you lose nothing by believing in God? In this scenario, God does not exist, but you live your life as a believer. You could end up believing in a religion that creates holy wars, intolerance, etc.