Traditional arguments on the existence of God

The question of how to argue logically and rationally for the existence of God has
occupied the minds of philosophers and theologians for centuries. There are thus
rational arguments or proofs that have been formulated in support of Gods existence .
these are: cosmological, Teleological, Ontological ( moral (Kant)

Cosmological argument.

Comes from the idea that since the universe exists, it must have been caused by
something beyond itself. It is also called the argument of the first cause, every effect
has a cause. Another way of putting it is that it says the world has a beginning in
time and is also limited in space. The origins of this argument can be traced long
back during the times of Plato, Aristostle ,,Aquinas… (this argument is a posteriori,
inductive ,synthetic.. that means to establish its truth we must look for evidence….)

-Everything that exist contingently has a reason for its existence /The universe
exists contingently

-There fore the universe has a reason for its existence. /If the universe has a
reason of its existence then that reason is GOD /and therefore GOD EXISTS.

Teleological Argument

This is also called argument from design. It is based on the idea that there is a hierarchy
of designs, from simple to complex and that there must be a master designer behind all
of them, Thomas A, talked of an observable order in the universe, amongst objects
that cannot be attained from the objects themselves but to an intelligent being. (Its also a
posteriori, inductive ,synthetic.. that means to establish its truth we must look for
evidence.)
Ontological argument .

This argument was a method independent of sense experience and relies on reason,
formulated by St Anselm “ God is something of which nothing greater can be
thought of or conceived. Even though his argument is not correct , it’s a stunning
peace of original thinking. This argument is a priori, analytic and deductive, it
means if its premises are true, then the proof is valid , its truth can be established
before experience. Eg, a triangle has three sides, we don’t have to see a triangle to proof
that it has three sides…

The arguments concludes that once we understand the idea of God, we ca be sure that
God exists, we don’t need evidence.There is a contradiction in this argument and that’s
why it has been criticized by many thinkers because t here is degree of assumption in this
argument.

P1.God is something than which nothing

greater can be thought of .

P2.things exist either in mind only or in

mind+reality.

P3. It is greater to exist in mind+reality than

in mind only.

So where does God exist? In the mind or in reality? We don’t know! According to the
argument of Anselm may be an assumption that God exists in the mind only.

But if God exists in the mind only,, its means something greater is likely to exist.

God exists in the mind only To exist in mind only is less =it is possible to think of a
being greater than God.
(Anselm) To exist in Mind +reality is
greater

God exists in the mind only is FALSE

The only alternative is God exists in mind and reality=God exists.

What were the arguments of Kant against these traditional ones?

It’s important to note that Kant doesn’t deny the existence of God, he only tries to say
that the traditional arguments can be proofed wrong, with this he intended to clarify
the limitations of the arguments so that their claims were not overstated. Kant’s
arguments are contained in the Transcendental Doctrine of elements in the CPR.

Teleological argument

The point of Kant against this argument is not completely negative, he accepts that the
design argument is valuable and successful at some level e.g theological level . what
reaons do we have to proof that God is the designer? Kant thinks that we don’t have
sufficient ground for judging that any attritube is absolutely Gods, no one admits the
existence of an intelligent Author of nature will have the smallest doubt that he has
proved the existence of God.

Cosmological argument

Kant says the point of infinite regress, brings about a dilemma. God seems to be a
member of the chain of natural causes or God stands entirely outside that chain .
With this he concludes that it would be difficult to think in an infinite necessary cause
for a human reason or mind.

He again says that the argument only talks about the form of the world as being
caused, it doesn’t demonstrate matter and substance of the world as being also
caused.
Kant rejected the argument since he maintained that the idea of a necessary being was
incoherent but also because our knowledge is limited to the phenomenal world of space
and time and its not possible to speculate about what may or may not exist.

If the world began in time there must have been empty time before the world began, but
in empty time no beginning or becoming is possible, it makes no sense to speak of
something coming into being in empty time.

On the other hand the if we say that the world is limited in space it must have existed in
a void of empty space,, but we know that empty space is nothing and so the world
cannot be finite and limited to space.

Ontological argument.

Kant simply reduced the size of Anselms God by telling that if something exists in our
mind, and if it also exists in reality, then by no means can we conclude that what exists
in reality is any better than what exists in our mind, what exists in reality is only an
affirmation of what exist in our mind.

He used the idea of 100 coins, he said that an idea of a pile of 100 coins that exist in my
mind and the pike of 100coins that exist in reality will have the worth. Thus adding
existence to the idea will not make it any better but will only affirm of what is.

Kant answers Anselm this way:because the ontological argument rests on the
judgement that a God that exists is greater than a God that does not, it rests on a
confusion.

According to Kant, existence is not a predicate, a property that a thing can either
possess or lack. When people assert that God exists they are not saying that there is a
God and he possesses the property of existence. If that were the case, then when people
assert that God does not exist they would be saying that there is a God and he lacks the
property of existence, i.e., they would be both affirming and denying God’s existence in
the same breath.
Rather, suggests Kant, to say that something exists is to say that the concept of
that thing is exemplified in the world. Existence, then, is not a matter of a thing
possessing a property, existence, but of a concept corresponding to something
in the world.

To see this more clearly, suppose that we give a complete description of an object, of its
size, its weight, its colour, etc. If we then add that the object exists, then in asserting that
it exists we add nothing to the concept of the object. The object is the same whether it
exists or not; it is the same size, the same weight, the same colour, etc. The fact that the
object exists, that the concept is exemplified in the world, does not change anything
about the concept. To assert that the object exists is to say something about the world,
that it contains something that matches that concept; it is not to say anything about the
object itself.
If Kant is correct in his view that existence is not a property of objects, then it is
impossible to compare a God that exists to a God that does not . On Kant’s view a
God that exists and a God that does not are qualitatively identical. A God that exists is
omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. A God that does not exist is omnipotent,
omniscient, omnipresent, etc. Both are the same. If this is right, then Anselm’s claim
that an existent God is greater than a non-existent God is false—neither is
greater than the other—in which case the ontological argument fails.

“It always remains a scandal of philosophy and universal human reason that the
existence of things outside us should have to be assumed merely on faith, and
that if it occurs to anyone to doubt it, we should be unable to answer him with
a satisfactory proof”