Chapter 1

Does God Exist?

Introduction

u A recurring question in philosophy is whether God

exists.

u Address this question by first understanding what we

mean by the word "God."
u This word has many meanings, and each yields a
different interpretation of the question "Does God
exist?"
Positions

u Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of

God

u The cosmological argument for the existence of

God
u The design argument for the existence of God
u The case for atheism: the argument from evil
Some Meanings of “God”

u The God of scripture and various traditions

u The God of the philosophers
u God as first cause, or God as designer

u God as a transcendent source of "meaning"

Ground Rules in Philosophical
Theology

u When reviewing arguments for and against the

existence of God:
u Figure out what the author means by the words in their
text.
u Determine what their argument is supposed to be.
u Decide whether the argument establishes its conclusion.

u Do not quibble with the author's terminological

choices.
u Recognize that the debate over the existence of God
is a debate over the existence of a real being with
extraordinary attributes.
u It is not a debate over the existence of an idea.
Brief Taxonomy of the
Arguments -1
A priori arguments
u All bachelors are
unmarried.
u Green is a color.
u No object can be red and
green all over at the same
time.
A posteriori arguments
u All bachelors in the U.S. are
taxed at a different rate
from married men.
u Grass is green.
u There are ripe tomatoes
that are now red all over
but were green all over
weeks earlier.
Brief Taxonomy of the
Arguments -2

u The project of natural theology is to see if God's

existence can be established by philosophical
reasoning informed by ordinary experience.

u There are two types of arguments

u A priori arguments: for example, Anselm's ontological
argument
u A posteriori arguments: for example, the cosmological
argument, the design argument, the cosmological fine-
tuning argument
Case for Atheism

u If the arguments for the existence of God are no

good, we should be agnostic rather than conclude
that God does not exist.

u To endorse atheism we need an argument for it: for

example, the argument from evil.
u A theistic argument that attempts to meet this
challenge is a theodicy.
Readings: Summary

u Anselm: Anselm argues that given God's nature, he

must exist.

u Aquinas: Aquinas offers five independent arguments

for the existence of God.
u Paley: Paley offers an argument from design for the
existence of God.
u Antony: Antony argues that there is no good reason
for the amount of suffering in the world, so we have
reason to doubt the existence of God.
Readings: Anselm - 1

u God is "something than which nothing greater can

be thought."

u The fool has thought, "There is no God."

u The fool understands that God is something of which
nothing greater can be thought.
u The fool must admit that something of which
nothing greater can be thought exists at least in his
understanding.
u Something of which a greater thing cannot be
thought cannot exist solely in understanding.
Readings: Anselm - 2

u Something that exists in the understanding can exist

in reality as well, and reality is greater than
understanding.

u If something of which a greater thing cannot be

thought exists only in understanding, then something
of which a greater thing cannot be thought is
something of which a greater thing can be thought.

u The previous sentence is impossible.

u Therefore, something of which a greater thing
cannot be thought exists both in understanding and
in reality.
Readings: Anselm - 3
 Readings: Anselm - 4

u God is a perfect being.

u So God possesses every perfection.
u Existence is a perfection.

u Therefore, God exists.

Where does this argument go wrong?

Create a logical analogy that shows why we should doubt this

argument.
Readings: Anselm - 5

Gaunilo’s perfect island

u The Island is a perfect being.
u So the Island possesses every perfection.

u Existence is a perfection.
u Therefore, the Island exists.
 Readings: Aquinas - 1

The Argument from Motion

u Nothing can move itself.
u If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion
needed a mover.
u Movement cannot go on for infinity.
u This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.
Causation of Existence
u There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
u Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
u There cannot be an endless string of objects causing other objects
to exist.
u Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God.
Are there reasons to doubt the ideas of an ‘unmoved mover’ or an
‘uncaused first cause’?
Readings: Aquinas - 2

Contingent and Necessary Objects

u Contingent beings are caused.

u Not every being can be contingent.

u There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent

beings.
u This necessary being is God.
The Argument From Degrees And Perfection
u For any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there
must be a perfect standard by which they are measured.
u These perfections are contained in God.
The Argument From Intelligent Design
u Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in
such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an
intelligent designer, God.
 Readings: Paley - 1

u If we found a watch on a heath, we would not think

that it has always been there. We would not think
this, as we would perceive that its parts had been
put together for a purpose. We would thus infer that
it had a maker.
u Just as a watch appears to have a maker, so too
does nature.
Atheist: not every intricate design needs a maker, some designs are not logical, where is God’s signature, who designed God?,
u The example of the eye.
evolutionary idea (intricate mechanisms through processes of evolution)
Theist: if you see an object, don’t think that nobody created it

How do you think an atheist would respond to this argument?

How do you think a theist would respond to this argument?
 Readings: Paley - 2

Inference to the Best

Argument by Analogy Explanation
u Living things are like u Some remarkable fact F is
watches. observed.

u Watches are the product of u The best (or perhaps the

intelligent design.
u Therefore, living things are
the product of intelligent
design.
only) explanation for F is
hypothesis H.
u Therefore H is (probably)
true.

Which is the best way to interpret Paley’s argument?

How do you think he intended to defend his idea?
Readings: Antony - 1

u Logical Argument from Suffering

1. No morally good being would allow suffering if he or she
were able to prevent it. ["No Tolerance"]
2. An omnipotent being would always be able to prevent
suffering.
3. THEREFORE, if there were a morally good, omnipotent
being, there would be no suffering.
4. There is suffering.
5. THEREFORE, there is no being who is both morally good
and omnipotent.
Readings: Antony - 2

u Evidential Argument from Suffering

1. No morally good being would fail to prevent suffering if he
or she were able to prevent it, unless he or she had a good
reason to permit it. ["No Tolerance Unless"]
2. An omnipotent being would always be able to prevent
suffering.
3. Probably, there is no good reason that a morally good,
omnipotent being could have for failing to prevent
suffering. ["No Good Reason"]
4. THEREFORE, if there were a morally good, omnipotent being,
then probably there would be no suffering.
5. There is suffering.

6. THEREFORE, probably there is no being who is both morally

good and omnipotent.
 Readings: Antony - 3

A response to Antony – A defense of suffering

u If God eliminated suffering altogether, human beings
would not need one another.
u Children would not depend on their parents for their
basic needs, since God would provide if the parents
didn’t.
u People would not depend on friends and family for
care and compassion, since we only need care and
compassion because we suffer.
u God leaves us vulnerable to suffering because some of
the most valuable human relationships are only
possible if we are vulnerable.

How do you think Antony would respond?

Discussion Questions

1. Do you believe that the existence of evil in the

world justifies atheism?
2. Do you believe that the order that appears to
be in the world justifies the belief that the world
was designed by a God?
3. Do you agree that the fact that the universe
supports life justifies theism?