GodGod

A Priori ArgumentsA Priori Arguments

Classical TheismClassical Theism

Classical conception of God: God isClassical conception of God: God isOmnipotentOmnipotentOmnipresentOmnipresentOmniscientOmniscientEternalEternalTranscendentTranscendentCompassionateCompassionate

Dissident conceptionsDissident conceptions

Via negativa-- the “negative way”Via negativa-- the “negative way”We can only what God is notWe can only what God is not

DeismDeismGod created the world, but has no further God created the world, but has no further

interaction with it; no miraclesinteraction with it; no miraclesPantheismPantheism

God is everythingGod is everythingPanentheismPanentheism

God includes everythingGod includes everything

Argument from ThoughtArgument from Thought

Where do we get our concept of God?Where do we get our concept of God? It’s the concept of something perfectIt’s the concept of something perfectWe never experience perfectionWe never experience perfectionSo, the concept of God is innateSo, the concept of God is innate It must come from something perfectIt must come from something perfectSo, God must existSo, God must exist

Descartes’s PremiseDescartes’s Premise

“Now it is manifest by the natural light that there must at least be as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in its effect. For, pray, whence can the effect derive its reality, if not from its cause? And in what way can this cause communicate this reality to it, unless it possessed it in itself? And from this it follows, not only that something cannot proceed from nothing, but likewise that what is more perfect -- that is to say, which has more reality within itself -- cannot proceed from the less perfect.”

Descartes’s ArgumentDescartes’s Argument

The cause of the idea of The cause of the idea of XX must have at must have at least as much reality as least as much reality as XXWe get the idea of fire from fireWe get the idea of fire from fireWe get the idea of red from red thingsWe get the idea of red from red things

The cause of our idea of God must have at The cause of our idea of God must have at least as much reality as Godleast as much reality as God

Only God has as much reality as GodOnly God has as much reality as GodSo, our idea of God must come from GodSo, our idea of God must come from God

The Ontological ArgumentThe Ontological Argument

Augustine: God is Augustine: God is “something than which “something than which nothing more excellent or nothing more excellent or sublime exists”sublime exists”

Anselm (1033-1109): God Anselm (1033-1109): God is “that the greater than is “that the greater than which cannot be which cannot be conceived”-- the greatest conceived”-- the greatest conceivable beingconceivable being

Anselm’s ArgumentAnselm’s Argument

“Even the Fool ... is forced to agree that something, the greater than which cannot be thought, exists in the intellect, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood is in the intellect. And surely that, the greater than which cannot be thought, cannot exist in the intellect alone. For if it exists solely in the intellect, it can be thought to exist in reality, which is greater. If, then, that, the greater than which cannot be thought, exists in the intellect alone, this same being, than which a greater cannot be thought, is that than which a greater can be thought. But surely this is impossible. Therefore, there can be absolutely no doubt that something, the greater than which cannot be thought, exists both in the intellect and in reality.”

Anselm in outlineAnselm in outline

Suppose you could conceive Suppose you could conceive of God’s nonexistenceof God’s nonexistence

Then you could think of Then you could think of something greater than God-- something greater than God-- something just like God, but something just like God, but existingexisting

But nothing can be conceived But nothing can be conceived as greater than Godas greater than God

So, God’s nonexistence is So, God’s nonexistence is inconceivableinconceivable

Descartes’s Ontological ArgumentDescartes’s Ontological Argument

God has all God has all perfectionsperfections

Existence is a Existence is a perfectionperfection

So, God has So, God has existenceexistence

A Posteriori ArgumentsA Posteriori Arguments

The Cosmological ArgumentThe Cosmological Argument

Aristotle: God is the prime mover of the Aristotle: God is the prime mover of the universeuniverse

Udayana (1000):Udayana (1000):“1. Argument from effects

Things like the earth must have a cause.Because they are effects.Like a pot.”

Aquinas’s ArgumentAquinas’s Argument

““The second way is based on the nature of causation. In the observable world, causes are to be found ordered in series; we never observe, or even could observe, something causing itself, for this would mean it preceded itself, and this is impossible. Such a series of causes, however, must stop somewhere. For in all series of causes, an earlier member causes an intermediate, and the intermediate a last (whether the intermediate be one or many). If you eliminate a cause you also eliminate its effects. Therefore there can be neither a last nor an intermediate cause unless there is a first. But if the series of causes goes on to infinity, and there is no first cause, there would be neither intermediate causes nor a final effect, which is patently false. It is therefore necessary to posit a first cause, which all call 'God'.”

Aquinas’s ArgumentAquinas’s Argument

Let Let aa be the current state of the world be the current state of the world It was caused, as was its cause, etc.It was caused, as was its cause, etc. . . . <— . . . <— ee <— <— dd <— <— cc <— <— bb <— <— aaThis can’t go on to infinity, or we’d never This can’t go on to infinity, or we’d never

have reached have reached aaSo, there must be a first cause, GodSo, there must be a first cause, GodGod <— . . . <— God <— . . . <— cc <— <— bb <— <— aa

Avicenna’s ArgumentAvicenna’s Argument

Contingent:Contingent: has a has a reason for its beingreason for its being

Necessary:Necessary: has no has no reason for its beingreason for its being

God = the God = the necessary beingnecessary being

Avicenna’s ArgumentAvicenna’s Argument

Suppose there were no necessary beingSuppose there were no necessary beingEverything, including the current state of Everything, including the current state of

the world, the world, aa, would be contingent, would be contingentThere would be an infinite series:There would be an infinite series: . . . . <— . . . . <— ee <— <— dd <— <— cc <— <— bb <— <—aaBut then the conditions for But then the conditions for aa’s existence ’s existence

would never be satisfiedwould never be satisfiedSo, there is a necessary being, GodSo, there is a necessary being, God

Al-Ghazali’s ObjectionsAl-Ghazali’s Objections

Al-Ghazali (1058-1111), Al-Ghazali (1058-1111), The Incoherence of the The Incoherence of the Philosophers: Philosophers: scepticismscepticism

Why not an infinite Why not an infinite regress of reasons or regress of reasons or causes?causes?

Infinite RegressInfinite Regress

It’s not self-evident that It’s not self-evident that the world could not the world could not extend back infinitely farextend back infinitely far

Plato, Aristotle, al-Farabi, Plato, Aristotle, al-Farabi, and Avicenna thought of and Avicenna thought of some things other than some things other than God as eternalGod as eternal

Is there an argument?Is there an argument?

A Possible ArgumentA Possible Argument

Imagine the seriesImagine the series . . . . <— . . . . <— bb <— <— aa It would have to be It would have to be

necessary or contingentnecessary or contingent It consists of contingent It consists of contingent

beings, so it can’t be beings, so it can’t be necessarynecessary

But it doesn’t depend on But it doesn’t depend on anything outside itselfanything outside itself

Al-Ghazali’s ReplyAl-Ghazali’s Reply

But the series could be But the series could be necessary, even though necessary, even though every event in it is every event in it is contingentcontingent

AverroesAverroes

Averroes (ibn Rushd, Averroes (ibn Rushd, 1126-1198)1126-1198)

Harmonizes religion Harmonizes religion and philosophy, and and philosophy, and refutes al-Ghazali, in refutes al-Ghazali, in The Incoherence of The Incoherence of the Incoherencethe Incoherence

Two Kinds of CausesTwo Kinds of Causes

Efficient cause: once caused, Efficient cause: once caused, result is independent of result is independent of causecause

Dependence: result continues Dependence: result continues to depend on cause— cause to depend on cause— cause and effect are inseparableand effect are inseparable

‘‘Contingent’, ‘Necessary’Contingent’, ‘Necessary’

AmbiguousAmbiguous Contingent = having an Contingent = having an

efficient cause = having a efficient cause = having a causal explanation ORcausal explanation OR

Contingent = depending on Contingent = depending on something elsesomething else

Necessary = having no Necessary = having no causal explanation ORcausal explanation OR

Necessary = independent, Necessary = independent, self-sufficientself-sufficient

Averroes’s ArgumentAverroes’s Argument

The world of efficient The world of efficient causes:causes:

. . . <— c <— b <— a. . . <— c <— b <— a

||

G1G1

||

G2G2

||

GodGod

Leibniz (1646-1716)Leibniz (1646-1716)

Principle of Sufficient Principle of Sufficient ReasonReason: “: “Nothing happens Nothing happens without a sufficient reasonwithout a sufficient reason.”.”

So the universe— the series So the universe— the series of contingent causes— must of contingent causes— must have a sufficient reason for have a sufficient reason for its existence:its existence:

Something which is its own Something which is its own sufficient reason for existing: sufficient reason for existing: GodGod

Aquinas’s Design ArgumentAquinas’s Design Argument

All bodies obey natural laws. All bodies obeying natural laws act

toward an end. Therefore, all bodies act toward an

end. (Including those that lack awareness.)

Things lacking awareness act toward a goal only under the direction of someone aware and intelligent.

Therefore, all things lacking awareness act under the direction of someone aware and intelligent: God

Aquinas’s Design ArgumentAquinas’s Design Argument

All things lacking awareness act under the direction of someone aware and intelligent.

The universe as a whole lacks awareness.

Therefore, the universe as a whole acts under the direction of someone aware and intelligent- namely, God.

William Paley (1743-1805)William Paley (1743-1805)

Suppose you find a watchSuppose you find a watch IntricateIntricate SuccessfulSuccessful

You’d infer that it had an You’d infer that it had an intelligent makerintelligent maker

Similarly, you find the universeSimilarly, you find the universe IntricateIntricate SuccessfulSuccessful

You shoud infer it had an You shoud infer it had an intelligent maker, Godintelligent maker, God

Hume’s CriticismsHume’s Criticisms Analogy isn’t strongAnalogy isn’t strong Universe may be self-organizingUniverse may be self-organizing Taking analogy seriously:Taking analogy seriously:

God not infiniteGod not infinite God not perfectGod not perfect

Difficulties in natureDifficulties in nature Can’t compare to other universesCan’t compare to other universes Maybe earlier, botched universesMaybe earlier, botched universes Maybe made by committeeMaybe made by committee

Why machine, rather than animal Why machine, rather than animal or vegetable?or vegetable?

Hume’s ScepticismHume’s Scepticism

Variability: Many hypotheses Variability: Many hypotheses are possibleare possible

Undecidability: We have no Undecidability: We have no evidence that would let us evidence that would let us select the most probableselect the most probable

So, we cannot establish So, we cannot establish God’s existenceGod’s existence

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

Does God exist?Does God exist? Place your betPlace your bet Total uncertainty— no Total uncertainty— no

datadata What should you do?What should you do?

Pascal’s WagerPascal’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.”

Pascal’s WagerPascal’s Wager

You believeYou believe You don’t believeYou don’t believe

GodGod Heaven Heaven Hell Hell

No GodNo God Virtue Virtue NothingNothing

A bet on God can’t lose; a bet against God A bet on God can’t lose; a bet against God can’t wincan’t win

Kant’s Moral ArgumentKant’s Moral Argument

We can’t prove God’s We can’t prove God’s existence rationallyexistence rationally

But we can’t live and act But we can’t live and act except by assuming that except by assuming that God existsGod exists

Bad things happen to good Bad things happen to good people; the wicked prosperpeople; the wicked prosper

Why, then, be good?Why, then, be good?

Kant’s Moral ArgumentKant’s Moral Argument

It’s rational to be It’s rational to be moral only if it’s moral only if it’s rewardedrewarded

That doesn’t happen That doesn’t happen in this lifein this life

It must happen in It must happen in another lifeanother life

There must be an There must be an afterlife, and a just afterlife, and a just GodGod

The Problem of EvilThe Problem of Evil

If God exists, He is all good, If God exists, He is all good, all knowing, and all powerfulall knowing, and all powerful

If He is all good, He is willing If He is all good, He is willing to prevent evilto prevent evil

If He is all knowing, He knows If He is all knowing, He knows how to prevent ithow to prevent it

If He is all powerful, He can If He is all powerful, He can prevent itprevent it

But evil existsBut evil exists So, God does not existSo, God does not exist

Augustine: General ProvidenceAugustine: General Providence

We must judge universe as a We must judge universe as a whole, not part by partwhole, not part by part

Analogy: the best life is not one Analogy: the best life is not one with no adversity, but with with no adversity, but with adversity overcomeadversity overcome

It is good that there is some It is good that there is some evilevil

General providence of God: General providence of God: system of natural law underlies system of natural law underlies everything goodeverything good

Augustine: Evil as privationAugustine: Evil as privation

Plotinus (204-270): Evil is not a Plotinus (204-270): Evil is not a thing; it is the absence of goodthing; it is the absence of good

God didn’t create evil; he God didn’t create evil; he simply created things with simply created things with differing degrees of goodnessdiffering degrees of goodness

But that variety is itself goodBut that variety is itself good Whatever is, is goodWhatever is, is good

Augustine: CorruptibilityAugustine: Corruptibility

Only God is perfectOnly God is perfect To create, God had to create To create, God had to create

things that were imperfect, things that were imperfect, corruptiblecorruptible

Humans in particular are Humans in particular are corruptiblecorruptible

We have the freedom to We have the freedom to choose evilchoose evil

Augustine: Free WillAugustine: Free Will

Free will can’t explain Free will can’t explain natural evilsnatural evils

Punishment for original sin?Punishment for original sin? Who gave us the capacity Who gave us the capacity

and sometime inclination to and sometime inclination to do wrong? Goddo wrong? God

In the end, the problem is In the end, the problem is insolubleinsoluble

We cannot understand GodWe cannot understand God

Possible SolutionsPossible Solutions

Form

Matter

BuildingMan

God

Evil

Plato Gnostics Mani Avicenna

Philo

Plotinus Augustine Hinduism

Origen