Home

defines God as: a perfect being, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"
argues: hold in mind an idea of a perfect being that does not exist vs. one that does exist outside the mind. Which is the greater conception of God: the one that does or does not exist? (the one that does exist)
therefore: God, the most perfect being, must necessarily exist since, defined as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", a God who does not exist does have something greater than it: namely, the very same conception of God with the added quality of existence.

Can you think of any problems with this argument?

Assumptions:

existence is greater than non-existence, existence is a perfection

Perfection is not perfect if it does not exist

definition is accurate

logically consistent thoughts (conceptions) reflect reality

existence is a quality like other qualities which can be added to something

God, by definition, is perfect: perfection is not a necessary part of the definition of other things like islands, shoes, cars…

Rene Descartes (17^th century philosopher):

defines God as: a perfect, unlimited being
argues: human mind is limited and not perfect. For a limited, imperfect human mind to imagine an unlimited, perfect being would demand the idea of such to be implanted in our minds by such a being.
therefore: God must exist, how else could we even begin to imagine such a being?

Can you think of any problems with this argument?

assumes:

definition of God is accurate

human mind is limited and imperfect

our idea of God is actually as perfect and unlimited as God really is

Both Anselm’s and Descartes’ arguments are entirely logical

problems: a logically consistent ("valid") argument can be false (a "fallacy") if any of the premises are false.

In contrast, the cosmological argument looks outside of logic, for evidence in the cosmos

Thomas Aquinas (13^th century monk):

1st proof: Observes:

there is motion in the cosmos
every motion is caused by a previous motion (like chain of falling dominoes)

therefore: for there to be any motion in the universe there must have been a first mover (who knocked down the first domino?). That "first mover" is what we know as "God".

2^nd proof: Observes:

there is a chain of cause and effect in the cosmos
every effect has a prior cause

therefore: for there to be anything in the cosmos, it must have been caused by something prior to it. That "first cause" is what we know as "God"

3^rd proof: God necessarily exists:

Ramifications of 1^st and 2^nd proofs lead, by logical conclusion, to third proof:
Since, by definition, a "first mover" and a "first cause" does not itself have a cause and is not itself moved by something other than itself, God, as first mover and first cause must, necessarily, exist given that anything else which moves and is caused does, by simple observation, exist.

Can you think of any problems with this line of argument?

Aquinas assumes:

there cannot be an infinite regress (there must have been a beginning)
that there is a linear chain of cause and effect
that the first mover and first cause must be God rather than some impersonal, natural phenomenon
definition of God is correct: "first mover", "first cause"
first mover/first cause continues to exist after it is needed (Deism)

4^th proof:

observes: there is a degree of goodness in the cosmos
therefore: there must be an ultimate standard of goodness which we know as "God"
defines God as: the measure or standard of all perfection, against which everything else is judged

Can you think of any problems with this line of argument?

Aquinas assumes:

that there is an objective, absolute goodness (rather than subjective)

John Locke (17^th century philosopher):

Similar to Aquinas (there is goodness and order in the world):

observes:

there is intelligence in the world (in human beings)
senseless matter cannot produce intelligence and consciousness

therefore: there must have been an intelligent being ("God") that produced ("created") intelligent, conscious beings such as ourselves

Can you think of any problems with this line of argument?

How does Locke define God? as intelligent and conscious (i.e., a personal being), as creator

What are Locke’s assumptions? that intelligence cannot be produced by natural, impersonal phenomena, that his definition of God’s nature is accurate

William Paley (18^th century philosopher): The Teleological argument:
(also Aquinas’ 5^th proof: "argument from design")

Teleos = "order", "purpose", "goal"

Observes: there is order in the universe, all parts work together for some ultimate purpose, there is apparent design to the cosmos
draws analogy: between objects humans create for a purpose (e.g. a watch) and the natural world: both are too complex to have occurred naturally
therefore: there must have been an intelligent designer (creator) (i.e., God)

Can you think of any problems with this line of argument?

assumptions:

analogy is sound - can analogies be used as proof? They are good tools for helping people understand your ideas but they really are poor evidence
there is actual order rather than an order just projected, imagined or perceived by the human mind
that such order, if actual, could not be explained by natural phenomena (such as "natural selection")

counter argument: there is as much chaos (if not more) in the world as there is order (Chaos Theory)

counter argument: Does not demand the designer still exists: the watch continues to exist and run even after the watchmaker dies. Someone else can wind it up and even fix it if it breaks. Maybe another god (or humans) can "wind up" the universe to keep it running and "fix it" if it breaks. Or maybe not: maybe the universe is running down and, when it breaks too much, will cease to function all together and eventually decay and cease to exist.

Non-rational reasons to believe:

Experiential (emotional) appeals to direct, personal experience of God (mystical experience, gut feeling, experience of miracles in one’s life). The gnostic does not "believe" in God, the gnostic knows there is a God.
(agnostic does not know one way or the other, is undecided)

Limitation: Does not prove God to anyone else, only to the one who has the experience.
Counter argument: How do we know it was God we experienced rather than some naturally explainable phenomena or chance event?

Pragmatism (practical) (physical?): if believing works for someone, has a positive effect in their life, that is reason enough to believe (even is the belief is not true).

Blaise Pascal (17^th century philosopher): Pascal’s Wager:

Believe "just in case" - we have nothing to lose by believing in a God who does not exist and everything to gain by believing in a God who does exist.
There is real danger of damnation if we do not believe only to discover that there is indeed a God who will punish us for wrong belief.
If there is no God there will be no one to punish us for believing wrongly that there is a God.

Pascal gives God the benefit of the doubt

How is Pascal defining God? as rewarder and punisher

What are Pascal’s assumptions?

there is an afterlife and eternal reward or punishment to be had
that right belief is rewarded and wrong belief punished
that it is the Christian god who judges us (assumes there is one god and one way to believe)

Pascal does not offer a rational proof for the existence of God. Rather, he offers a rational reason in support of such belief even without certain knowledge. He asks us to "give faith a chance" to prove itself.

Can you think of what harm might come from believing in something that might not be true?

All these arguments presuppose the existence of God, are posed by men of faith in support of faith.

Philosophical arguments will not prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt for someone who does not want to believe. But such arguments can be immense help to someone who does want to believe but lacks faith.

"Absence of proof is not proof absence"

Every such argument can be balanced by a counter argument.

Those who desire to prove God does not exist can also offer rational arguments:

Freud: God is an illusion: people create God in their own image, imagining a personal God because we are persons

Xenophanes (5^th cent. BCE Greek): if oxen and horses could talk and draw they would tell us that god is an ox or horse

Lead into next week’s topic on suffering:

The "Problem of Evil": (also cosmological):

observes: there is evil in the world
argues: If God is all powerful, all good and all loving why would there be evil and suffering in the world that God supposedly created? (c.f., the story of Job)

Can you think of a reasonable response?

Assumes:

definition of God as "all powerful", "all good" and "all loving" is correct
there is real, absolute evil in the world

Is it reasonable to base belief in God on reason? (a logical analysis):

Belief in God is reasonable as demonstrated by these arguments.
Yet other arguments against the existence of God demonstrate that it is just as reasonable to not believe - that belief in God is unreasonable.

Thus:

belief in God is both reasonable and unreasonable
For something to be both opposites is unreasonable

Thus:

it is unreasonable to base belief in God on reason and it is just as unreasonable to base lack of such belief on reason

Thus: faith is the only "reasonable" recourse for belief

(Or is it?: Assumptions? Counter arguments?)

Essay to read: My God

Assignments: Your conception of God

return to top

Created by Laura Ellen Shulman

Last updated: January 2002