kittyinthedark
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 10,887
This is my blue book from my last philosophy exam. I think it may be of service in this thread (at least for getting my point across anyways!
) In case you care, I received an A for it, so I know that it's not a *total* piece of shit.
Proofs of God's Existence
Three main arguments for the existence of God have been discussed by scholastic philosophers for hundreds of years: the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments. Many believe that these arguments are highly persuasive, but there is no dearth of literature positing that there are many flaws in all three. Following is a discussion of each of the arguments and the rebuttals leveled against them.
The Cosmological Argument
The main premise of the cosmological argument is that existence had to be created by some original, necessary being, an "unmoved mover" that set the universe in motion. There can be no infinite stretch backward in time; there must be a discrete starting point with one entity that is self-existent (not contingent upon anyone or anything else). Thomas Aquinas, in his "The Third Way," sets forth a fairly convincing reductio ad absurdum argument:
1) There are only contingent beings
2) That which is capable of not existing, at some point, does not exist
3) All contingent beings, at some point, do not exist, so there must be a time at which nothing would exist.
4) If there were a time at which nothing existed, nothing would exist now.
This is a contradiction, so the original premise must be false - there must be some non-contingent being that created all of existence, namely God.
Herein, however, lies the problem. The argument shows that there cannot be only contingent beings, but it does not show that there is only one necessary being, let alone the God that is traditionally worshipped. There could be a million necessary beings, and none of them might match the "proper" definition of "God."
Teleological Argument
This is often called the "design argument" and is best exemplified in Paley's "watch analogy." Paley posits that some objects and systems are clearly the product of intelligent design - for instance, if one were to find a watch on the ground and a rock on the ground, it would seem obvious that someone or something intelligent created that watch as opposed to the rock. The watch clearly serves a purpose as opposed to the rock. By analogy, Paley posits that the universe, too, must be an object of intelligent design given its complexity and intricacy
It is easy, though, to make several counterarguments to this line of thought. Hume, for instance, suggests that such an analogy is unwarranted - the universe is vastly more complex than any man-made object, and not only that, there is only one universe that we know of. What are we to compare the universe to as a watch could be compared to a rock? Further, suggesting that God's designs are similar to human designs implies that God is no more intelligent or capable than a man. And since our universe is flawed and certainly full of evil, the God who created it must be highly inept, or worse - evil. This certainly does not fit the traditional definition of God.
The Ontological Argument
The general format of the ontological argument is as follows.
1) I can conceive of the greatest possible being
2) Existence is greater than non-existence
3) Therefore, the greatest possible being must exist
Descartes and St. Anselm added further detail to this argument by suggesting the following:
1) I can conceive of the greatest possible being that exists in the mind alone
2) Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone
3) I can conceive of the greatest being that exists not only in the mind but in reality
4)This being would be greater than the greatest being from premise one
5) Therefore, the being from premise one cannot be the greatest, so the true greatest being must actually exist
These arguments do make sense on the surface, but it begs the question of why existence would be greater than non-existence. Kant found this flaw to be the most damning because it does not seem logical for "being" to be a proper predicate. It is no different to say "God is" than to say "there is a God," so it is not logical to base an argument on the notion that "being" is something that increases greatness, let alone something that can actually describe an entity. If one imagines in their head the concept of three apples, this is not different than speaking out loud about the concept of three apples that are, in fact, sitting on a table. The ontological argument seems to "define God into existence." It is like saying that a unicorn is a horned horse that exists. Just because the definition includes the existence does not make it exist.
Some try to rectify these counterarguments by suggesting that the cumulative evidence from all these arguments constitutes further "proof" of God's existence, but that seems unlikely - ten leaky buckets hold no more water than one.
) In case you care, I received an A for it, so I know that it's not a *total* piece of shit.Proofs of God's Existence
Three main arguments for the existence of God have been discussed by scholastic philosophers for hundreds of years: the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments. Many believe that these arguments are highly persuasive, but there is no dearth of literature positing that there are many flaws in all three. Following is a discussion of each of the arguments and the rebuttals leveled against them.
The Cosmological Argument
The main premise of the cosmological argument is that existence had to be created by some original, necessary being, an "unmoved mover" that set the universe in motion. There can be no infinite stretch backward in time; there must be a discrete starting point with one entity that is self-existent (not contingent upon anyone or anything else). Thomas Aquinas, in his "The Third Way," sets forth a fairly convincing reductio ad absurdum argument:
1) There are only contingent beings
2) That which is capable of not existing, at some point, does not exist
3) All contingent beings, at some point, do not exist, so there must be a time at which nothing would exist.
4) If there were a time at which nothing existed, nothing would exist now.
This is a contradiction, so the original premise must be false - there must be some non-contingent being that created all of existence, namely God.
Herein, however, lies the problem. The argument shows that there cannot be only contingent beings, but it does not show that there is only one necessary being, let alone the God that is traditionally worshipped. There could be a million necessary beings, and none of them might match the "proper" definition of "God."
Teleological Argument
This is often called the "design argument" and is best exemplified in Paley's "watch analogy." Paley posits that some objects and systems are clearly the product of intelligent design - for instance, if one were to find a watch on the ground and a rock on the ground, it would seem obvious that someone or something intelligent created that watch as opposed to the rock. The watch clearly serves a purpose as opposed to the rock. By analogy, Paley posits that the universe, too, must be an object of intelligent design given its complexity and intricacy
It is easy, though, to make several counterarguments to this line of thought. Hume, for instance, suggests that such an analogy is unwarranted - the universe is vastly more complex than any man-made object, and not only that, there is only one universe that we know of. What are we to compare the universe to as a watch could be compared to a rock? Further, suggesting that God's designs are similar to human designs implies that God is no more intelligent or capable than a man. And since our universe is flawed and certainly full of evil, the God who created it must be highly inept, or worse - evil. This certainly does not fit the traditional definition of God.
The Ontological Argument
The general format of the ontological argument is as follows.
1) I can conceive of the greatest possible being
2) Existence is greater than non-existence
3) Therefore, the greatest possible being must exist
Descartes and St. Anselm added further detail to this argument by suggesting the following:
1) I can conceive of the greatest possible being that exists in the mind alone
2) Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone
3) I can conceive of the greatest being that exists not only in the mind but in reality
4)This being would be greater than the greatest being from premise one
5) Therefore, the being from premise one cannot be the greatest, so the true greatest being must actually exist
These arguments do make sense on the surface, but it begs the question of why existence would be greater than non-existence. Kant found this flaw to be the most damning because it does not seem logical for "being" to be a proper predicate. It is no different to say "God is" than to say "there is a God," so it is not logical to base an argument on the notion that "being" is something that increases greatness, let alone something that can actually describe an entity. If one imagines in their head the concept of three apples, this is not different than speaking out loud about the concept of three apples that are, in fact, sitting on a table. The ontological argument seems to "define God into existence." It is like saying that a unicorn is a horned horse that exists. Just because the definition includes the existence does not make it exist.
Some try to rectify these counterarguments by suggesting that the cumulative evidence from all these arguments constitutes further "proof" of God's existence, but that seems unlikely - ten leaky buckets hold no more water than one.
