Philosophy: Does God exist?

objections to pascal's wager (and rebuttals)

1) My beliefs aren't under my control - If you don't believe it is because of your passions -- reason mandates it/ doxastic voluntarism 2) What if its another God that's not the Christian God that exists? --> why must be only believe in the Christian God? 3) probability that God exists is not 1/2

Objections to intelligent design argument (and rebuttals)

1) Never seen a watch made/ miracle happen - ignorance shouldn't sway anyone 2) The world is imperfect - doesn't need a perfect machine in order for it to have been designed 3) There are useless bits -not all parts need to function or contribute to show that there was a maker 4) The universe had to be someway - It isn't sufficient to account for the watch to point out it is one of a number of possible physical configurations 5) Not God, but a principle of order - what could such a principle be other than the intelligence of the designer? 6) You are not expert - the observer of the watch know enough to know what he knows

objections to free will defense

1) not all evils are result of human free will ( natural disasters) 2) Why didn't God create people with free wills, yet who would always choose right

fallacy of ambiguity

A fallacy that occurs when the meanings of terms or phrases are changed (intentionally or unintentionally) within the argument, or when our attention is purposely (or accidentally) diverted from the issue at hand These fallacies occur when a shift in phrase or meaning is used in two different ways (someone misinterprets a word or phrase)

A priori argument

An argument in which the conclusion is derived independently of experience Arguments that have truth from reason alone An argument that does not depend on experience of the world (Example: Ontological Arguments)

ontological argument

Anselm An argument for God's existence that God is absolutely perfect and hence necessary being and thus, must exist.

Ontological argument

Anselm The case put forward that God is greater than anything else peo-ple can think of, and thus he must exist. A God who exists is more perfect than one that is imagined, therefore the very definition of God proves that God must exist. argument for the existence of God without reference to empirical evidence (sensations, experience, etc.)

Van Inwagen

As the generations passed, [humans] separated themselves from God —into the worship of false gods,. . . inter-tribal warfare,. . . private murder, slavery, and rape. . . . When human beings had become like this, God look out over a ruined world. . . . [H]e set in motion a rescue operation. He put into operation a plan designed to restore separated humanity to union with himself. . For human beings to cooperate with God in this rescue operation, they must know that they need to be rescued. They must know what it means to to be separated from him Free will ≠ Determinism. Against compatibilism. If we didnt know bad and the world was all good we would have no reason to cooperate with God The Consequence Argument The Powers of Rational Beings: Freedom of the Will

Kelemen

Children are intuitive theists. Children treat objects and behaviors as existing for a purpose. Children see not only the biological, but also the non-biological world in teleological terms. Imaginary friends show that children have the ability to symbolically represent and reason about immaterial individuals. Children's assignments of purpose to nature relate to their ideas concerning intentional nonhuman causation. Conceptual prerequisites: • 1) mental representation of abstract agent • Children can represent imaginary companions • 2) ability to attribute mental states to that agent • Children can pass false belief test yet treat god as all-knowing (by 5 years) • 3) ability to attribute design intentions to agents • children adopt a design-based teleological stance around age 6. • People had worried that children categorize on basis of shared shape, not shared function. But that was due to poor experimental design.

deductive argument

Conclusion follows necessarily from the premises(reasons) it usually moves from a general premise to a specific Argument that draws a conclusion from premises on the grounds that to deny the conclusion would contradict the premises Provides logically conclusive support for its conclusion, and is either valid or invalid, sound or unsound

inductive argument

Creating a case by providing specific examples and drawing a conclusion based on the evidence they provide When the conclusion supports the premises and If the premises are true then the conclusion is likely to be true but it could possibly be false also. And inductive can never be sound or valid goes from specific to general

Anselm's ontological argument:

God = Something that which nothing greater can be thought (STWNG) 1) even fool understands concept STWNG 2) to understand a concept --> must exist in mind 3) STWNG exists in mind 4) anything that exists in mind can be thought to exist in reality 5) STWNG can be thought to exist in reality 6) existence in reality is greater than existence in mind 7) if STWNG existed only in the the mind, then it would be STWsomethingGCBT (which is not STWNG) --> contradictory 8) therefore, STWNGCBT must exist in reality

Paley

Intelligent design argument --> watch found on ground vs. stone found on ground. How did they get here? take a closer look at the watch. Has many complicated parts that work together to give us the time. Complex and material + shape suits function. If one part was off, we wouldn't be able to see the time. The watch must have had a maker. Earth--> nature so perfect and runs efficiently that someone had to design nature this way. This person is God. teleological argument

Dennett

Is religion good or bad? Good intentions but bad outcomes? We should study religion scientifically atheists are not worried about investigation of their views, practices, reasons. The religious often are. This is a problem. Want to know if 1) religion provides net benefits 2) these would be ruined by study Each has its adherents and skeptics: 1) Religion is going to dominate 2) Religion is over, the world will be secular 3) Religion as benign fan-dom 4) Religion as a dirty secret 5) Judgment day arrives and the believers are saved Along with domestication of animals and plants was domestication of memes of folk religion: religion memes had stewards in religious officoals. Kleptocrats maintained power by • (1) disarming the people and arming the elite; • 2) make masses happy redistributing resources; • 3) promote happiness by maintaining order; or • 4) construct an ideology/religion justifying the kleptocracy • Dennett suggests religion is in cahoots with the kleptocracy of rulers, maintaining power by (4)

Freud

Man's "self regard" calls for consolation, his curiosity demands answers. • Thus man humanizes nature: evil takes a face. • makes us less anxious • we know how to deal with other beings. It parallels our position as infants with respect to our father Wish fulfillment makes us attribute natural forces the character of father. • We still long for the father to • 1) exorcise the terrors of nature; • 2) reconcile men to Fate; • 3) compensate them for privations of civilization. Religious ideas are illusions, wish-fulfillments. The strength of the wishes gives the ideas strength. • Illusion: not an error; a mistake derived from wishes. Not necessarily false. • All religious doctrines are illusions and unprovable. Also irrefutable, though contrary to much else we believe. Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires. contrast with pascal

intelligent design argument

Paley if we look around us in the natural world, everything seems to be suited to the function it performs, almost as if it were designed The universe is too ordered + complicated / couldn't be been random / there is a reason why the world was created, so it has a purpose / things with a purpose must have had a designer / this is God

A posteriori argument

Relies on empirical evidence Argument based on experience. An argument that can be known only through experience, inductive reasoning. rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. (In the a posteriori argument at least one premise must be based on some fact about the world. An argument that does depend on experience of the world (Example: Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument)

Argument from evil

The argument from evil (or problem of evil) is the argument that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God would not allow any—or certain kinds of—evil or suffering to occur. 1) there exists a vast amount of evil in the world 2) if there were a God, then there would not exist vast amounts of evil 3) therefore, there is no God valid (modus tollens argument ) and sound God: a) omnipotent: can do anything within boundaries of logic b) morally perfect: could not possibly do something wrong c) omniscient?: all knowing Support for premise 2: moral perfection --> desire for world without evil omnipotence--> ability to create such a world so, our world should not have evil, unless there is another reason.

cosmological argument

The argument that there must be a First Cause of the universe, and this is God There is a chain of "movers" that causes another thing to happen. It proves there must be a god because there can't be an infinite regress. There must be a first cause. 1) There is change in the world 2) All change must have a cause 3) Nothing can be cause of its own change 4) Therefore, all change is caused by something else 5) If series of causes is infinite, then there is no first cause 6) In causal series, it is the first cause that is responsible for initiating the entire sequence 7) Therefore, the casual series cannot be infinite 8) Therefore, there must be a first, uncaused cause of all change, and this is God

unsound argument

a deductive argument that is invalid, has one or more false premises, or both

invalid argument

a deductive argument where it is possible for the conclusion to be false even if all the premises are true

valid argument

an argument whose structure connects its reasons to its conclusions in a reliable manner

meme

an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation. According to dennett: religion is like a meme (idea) that spread and evolves throughout the years and thats why its loved so much because its malleable

teleological argument

argument from function/purpose Premise 1: Whatever is designed has a designer An argument that attempts to "prove" that God exists because of the intricacy and "design" of nature. A philosophical case for the existence of God, which is also called the design argument. It has two principle steps, firstly from our observation of the world around us, we may conclude that there is an order or design in nature. Secondly if there is a design, then there must be a designer, whom we identify as 'God.' William Paley and the analogy of the watch is an example.

Pascal's wager

believing god exists is preferable over not believing an argument that it is in one's best interests to believe in God because of the possibility of reward and punishment (believe in God not for his existence but for one's self-interest) humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (luxuries) (1) It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist. (2) If one believes in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or nothing. (3) If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing. (4) It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or nothing. Therefore: (5) It is better to believe in the Christian God than it is not to believe in the Christian God. (6) If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow that course of action and irrational to follow the other. Therefore: (7) It is rational to believe in the Christian God and irrational not to believe in the Christian God.

sound argument

contains two things: a valid argument and all its premises must be true. Its conclusion also must be accepted.

Free will defense

defense against argument from evil God has to allow the existence of some evil in order to preserve human free will claims that evil that exists results from people's misuse of their free will - it is better for God to create people with free will who sometimes use it badly than it is to not create free willed people at all God allows us to make our own decisions about whether or not to do evil, that is why there is evil

William James

founder of functionalism; studied how humans use perception to function in our environment Main thesis: "We have a right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis live enough to tempt our will" Hypothesis: any proposition put up for consideration • Hypotheses may be live or dead. (a realtional, not intrinsic property) • Live: appears as a real possibility to the thinker; measured by willingness to act • Options: decision between hypotheses • Living v dead: Both hypotheses are live • Forced v avoidable: forced offer no option but to accept or reject; a real dilemma • Momentous v trivial: momentous presents a unique opportunity, real or irreversible stakes • Genuine options are forced, momentous, living. The idea that we can choose to believe is not just silly, it is vile If religion is a live possibility for you and the religious hypothesis is true: • 1) it is momentous: we gain or lose a vital good • 2) it is forced: we cannot escape by refusing to decide (for if it is true, we lose by not believing or by not deciding) So skepticism is an assumption of risk. So refusing to believe is succumbing to a passion. • 3) if there were gods, we would do them a personal disservice by refusing to consider them. • For these reasons, James argues, he cannot refuse to believe.

W.K Clifford

it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. He was an evidentialist by saying that it is wrong for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. He gives the examples of the shipowner and the island Commission. Knowledge= justified true belief A belief isn't a private affair: beliefs influence society, are influenced by society. It is our duty as humans to question our beliefs and make sure they are well-grounded. Considers this as applied to religion; Should question religious belief too.

infinite regression

less rational theory, everything has always been in motion (perpetual motion machine) never stops, model of atheist Literally means to go back forever. Regarding the first cause argument it means everything is caused by something without exception therefore there is no start to the chain of causation; no uncaused causer

doxastic voluntarism

people have voluntary control over their beliefs

reductio ad absurdum

structure of Anselm's ontological argument Proving a conclusion by proving the opposite is false and inevitably it will lead to contradiction

theodicy vs defense

theodicy - claims that something is true defense - just shows a possibility

Guanilo's response to Anselm

wrote Defense of the Fool invalid conclusion: an imagined perfect island doesn't exist ( argument from parallel reasoning) Everything humans are able to experience through the senses is constantly changing and imperfect therefore it is impossible for us to conceive anything that is perfect The absurdity of being able to generate really existent objects using only a priori arguments