Download The Cosmological Argument

INTRODUCTION TO HEBREW SCRIPTURES:
GENESIS 1:1-2
REVIEW: ULTIMATE QUESTIONS:
1.
Origin:
Where did we come from?
2.
Identity:
What are we? Who are we?
3.
Meaning:
Why are we here?
4.
Morality:
How should we live?
5.
Destiny:
Where are we going?
6.
Evil:
What’s gone wrong with the
world?
7.
Hope:
What can be done to fix the
problems of the world?
TEMPLATE COPYRIGHT 2005
WWW.BRAINYBETTY.COM
5/23/2017
2
NATURAL THEOLOGY:
• Witness of Creation
• Witness of Human Design
• Witness of Conscience
• Witness of God-ward Longings
• Witness of Consequences
General
MeaningRevelation Salvation Significance Peace
Cosmological
Answered
Prayer
Experiences
Innate Idea
Teleological
Ontological
Conscience
Existential
God
Arguments
Moral Law
Existential Need
Obj. Beauty
Cross-cultural
Awareness
Evidences
Big Bang:
Morals:
Anthropic Principle
Objective Values
Specified Complexity
Objective Duties
Irreducible Complexity
Altruistic Acts
5/23/2017
TEMPLATE COPYRIGHT 2005
WWW.BRAINYBETTY.COM
4
WHAT IS A SYLLOGISM:
ANYTHING LOGICAL MAY BE EXPRESSED IN
SYLLOGISTIC FORM. A SYLLOGISM INVOLVES
THREE ASPECTS:
1. A Major Premise: All mortals things will die.
2. A Minor Premise: All men are mortal.
3. A Conclusion: All men will die.
REVIEW: WHAT IS A WORLDVIEW?
• A worldview is a habituated way of seeing and doing.
• A worldview is the “big” picture that directs our daily
decisions and behavior.
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:
A CAUSE AT THE BEGINNING. THE UNIVERSE HAD A
BEGINNING CAUSED BY SOMETHING BEYOND THE UNIVERSE
(VERTICAL ARGUMENT):
1.
The universe had a beginning.
2.
Anything that had a beginning must have
been caused by something (someone) else
(Out of nothing, nothing comes)
3.
Therefore the universe was caused by
something (someone) else.
THE COSMOLOGICAL KALAM ARGUMENT:
TIME CANNOT GO BACK INTO THE PAST FOREVER, FOR IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE TO PASS THROUGH AN ACTUAL INFINITE NUMBER OF
MOMENTS. IF SO, THEN TIME MUST HAVE HAD A BEGINNING. IF THE
WORLD NEVER HAD A BEGINNING, THEN WE COULD NOT HAVE
REACHED NOW. BUT WE HAVE REACHED NOW, SO TIME MUST HAVE
BEGUN AT A PARTICULAR POINT AND PROCEEDED TODAY.
THEREFORE, THE WORLD IS AS A FINITE EVENT AFTER ALL AND
NEEDS A CAUSE FOR ITS BEGINNINGS.
1 . Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its
coming into being.
2.
The universe began to exist.
3.
Therefore, the universe has a cause for its
coming into being.
THE COSMOLOGICAL KALAM ARGUMENT:
THIS ARGUMENT WAS FORMULATED BY THE ARAB PHILOSOPHERS OF THE MIDDLE
AGES AND EMPLOYED BY BONAVENTURE (1217-1274). THE CONTEMPORARY
CHRISTIAN THINKER WILLIAM LANE CRAIG HAS WIDELY PUBLISHED ON IT.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed.
If an infinite number of moments had to elapse before today, then
today would never have come.
But today has come.
Therefore, an infinite number of moments have not elapsed before
today (i.e., the universe had a beginning).
But whatever has a beginning is caused by something else.
Hence, there must be a Cause (Creator) of the universe.
ANSELM’S COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:
FROM GOODNESS TO GOD:
• 1.
Good things exist.
• 2.
The cause of this goodness is either one or many.
• 3.
But it can’t be many, for then there would be no way to compare
their goodness, for all things would be equally good. But some
things are better than others.
• 4.
Therefore, one Supreme Good (God) causes the goodness in all
things.
THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:
SINCE THE UNIVERSE IS EXCEEDINGLY MORE COMPLEX IN ITS
OPERATION, THERE MUST BE A MAKER OF THE UNIVERSE
(E.G., PSALM 19:1-6; ACTS 14:15-18).
1. All designs imply a designer.
2. There is a great design in the universe.
3. Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the
universe.
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:
A CAUSE TO CONTINUE EXISTING. SOMETHING NOT ONLY
CAUSED THE WORLD TO COME INTO BEING (GEN. 1:1) BUT
SOMETHING CAUSES IT TO CONTINUE TO BE (CF. COL. 1:17:
1. Every part of the universe is
dependent.
2. If every part of universe is dependent,
then the whole universe must also be
dependent.
3. Therefore, the whole universe is
dependent for existence right now on
some Independent Being.
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:
“THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT SEEKS TO SHOW THAT ONCE
WE GRASP THE CONCEPT OF GOD AS THE GREATEST
CONCEIVABLE BEING, THEN IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT GOD
MUST EXIST.” ~ J. P. MORELAND & WILLIAM L. CRAIG
1. God is by definition an absolutely
perfect being.
2. But existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore, God must exist.
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:
ANSELM’S ARGUMENT (AN A PRIORI ARGUMENT; REDUCTIO ARGUMENT;
ASSUME THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU TRYING TO PROVE AND SO A SELFCONTRADICTION OCCURS). GOD = THAT THAN WHICH A GREATER
CANNOT BE CONCEIVED. ARGUMENT FROM PROSLOGION 2 BY ST.
ANSELM
1.
God exists in the mind but not in reality.
2.
Real existence (as well as mental) is greater than mental existence alone.
3.
God’s existence in reality is conceivable.
4.
If God had real existence he would be greater than he is (from 1 & 2)
5.
It is conceivable that there is a being greater than (from 3 & 4).
6.
It is conceivable that there is a being greater than the being than which is
none greater can be conceived (this is self-contradictory)
7.
Therefore, step 1 is false (i.e., it is false that God exists in the understanding
but not in reality.
8.
God exists in reality.
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:
THE PERFECT BEING. THE MERE CONCEPT OF GOD AS AN ABSOLUTELY PERFECT
BEING DEMANDS THAT HE EXIST. IT ARGUES FROM THE IDEA OF GOD TO THE
EXISTENCE OF GOD. IF GOD DID NOT EXIST, THEN HE WOULD BE LACKING ONE
PERFECTION, NAMELY, EXISTENCE. BUT IF GOD LACKED ANY PERFECTION, THEN HE
WOULD NOT BE ABSOLUTELY PERFECT. BUT GOD IS BY DEFINITION AN ABSOLUTELY
PERFECT BEING.
1. God is by definition an absolutely perfect
being.
2. But existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore, God must exist.
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:
THE NECESSARY BEING. THE VERY CONCEPT OF A NECESSARY BEING
DEMANDS ITS EXISTENCE. FOR THE VERY IDEA OF A NECESSARY BEING
DEMANDS THAT IT MUST EXIST. FOR IF IT DID NOT EXIST, THEN IT WOULD
NOT BE A NECESSARY EXISTENCE.
1.
2.
3.
If God exists, we must conceive of Him as a
Necessary Being.
But by definition, a Necessary Being cannot
exist.
Therefore, if a Necessary Being can, then it
must, exist.
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:
GOD’S EXISTENCE IN REALITY IS CONCEIVABLE
.
ALVIN PLANTINGA USES MODAL LOGIC (S5) WHEREBY THIS PROOF IS
LOGICALLY COGENT. MODAL LOGIC IS A STANDARD SYSTEM OF LOGIC BY
CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHERS.
1. It is possible that there be a
maximally perfect being
(assumption).
2. It is necessary that there be a
maximally perfect being (result).
THE MORAL LAW ARGUMENT:
THE ROOTS OF MORAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD ARE FOUND IN ROMANS 2:12-15
IN WHICH HUMANITY IS SAID TO STAND UNEXCUSED SINCE THERE IS “A LAW
WRITTEN ON THEIR HEARTS.” MORAL LAWS DON’T DESCRIBE WHAT IS,
THEY PRESCRIBE WHAT OUGHT TO BE.
1. Moral laws imply a Moral Law
Giver.
2. There is an objective moral law.
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law
Giver.
BEAUTY:
•
Beauty implies a mind of Beauty.
•
There is objective beauty.
•
Therefore, there is an objective
Mind of beauty.
The Standard of Validity
In the same way..
How had I got this idea of
beauty and ugliness?
A
man does not call a line
crooked unless he has
some idea of a straight line.
What was I comparing
object X with when I called it
ugly?
Straight Line = Standard
THE RELIGIOUS NEED ARGUMENT:
IS THE DESIRE TO BELIEVE IN GOD AN ILLUSION, HUMAN WISHES, PURELY
PSYCHOLOGICAL, OR IS IT FACTUAL? THE DESIRE FOR GOD DOES EXIST,
NOT AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL WISH, BUT FROM REAL EXISTENTIAL NEED.
THIS IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
1. Human beings really need God.
2. What humans really need,
probably really exists.
3. Therefore, God really exists.
SAKE OF CLARIFICATION:
1.
THIS ARGUMENT DOES NOT MEAN EVERYONE GETS WHAT
THEY WANT (E.G., I NEED A RED LAMBORGHINI);
2.
THIS ARGUMENT DOES NOT MEAN EVERYTHING GETS WHAT
THEY NEED (FOOD AND WATER DURING A FAMINE);
3.
RATHER, THIS ARGUMENT IS DECLARING THAT WHAT WE
ACTUALLY NEED, REALLY EXISTS (E.G., WATER, FOOD,
OXYGEN, ETC.).
1. Human beings really need God.
2. What humans really need, probably
really exists.
3. Therefore, God really exists.
EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST PREMISE THAT EVERYONE NEEDS
GOD-CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: BERTRAND RUSSELL
“Even when one feels nearest to other
people, something in one seems
obstinately to belong to God…-at
least that is how I should express it
if I thought there was a God. It is
odd, isn’t? I care passionately for
this world and many things and
people in it, and yet …what is it all?”
There must be something more
important one feels, though I don’t
believe there is.”
~ Bertrand Russell, Letter to Lady Ottoline
1872-1970, Bertrand Russell
CONSIDER ATHEIST WALTER KAUFMANN:
“Religion is rooted in man’s aspiration to transcend
himself….Whether he worships idols or strives to perfect
himself,
man is the God-intoxicated ape.”
~Critique of Religion and Philosophy, 355, 359.
~Walter Kaufmann
1871-1947, Walter Kaufmann
JEAN PAUL SARTRE
“I need God …. I reached
out for religion, I longed
for it, it was the remedy.
Had it been denied me, I
would have invented it
myself.”
Jean Paul Sartre
(Words, 102, 97).
1905-1980 Jean Paul Sartre
EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST PREMISE THAT EVERYONE
NEEDS GOD-CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: SIGMUND FREUD
“Freud stated that religion is an
“illusion,” but—
He admitted, “it would be very nice if
there were a God….”
He admitted “a sense of man’s
insignificance or impotence in the
face of the universe.”
He referred to “our God Logos
[reason]…” So, here he substitutes
a personal God for “reason.”
Why the need for any “god”?
~ Sigmund Freud
(The
Future of an illusion, 52, 88).
1905-1980 Jean Paul Sartre
He denied a theistic God,
but – He affirmed a
humanist religion.
In fact, he used the name
“God for his object of
devotion to the whole of
humanity.
~ The legacy of Erich Fromm
(Psychoanalysis and
Religion, 49, 54, 87).
Erich Fromm, 1900-1980
VICTOR FRANKL: ALL SEEK GOD
“Man has always stood in an
intentional relation to
transcendence, even if only
on an unconscious level.”
If understood correctly, all men
seek the “Unconscious
God.”
(~ Victor Frankl, The Unconscious God).
1905-1997 Victor Frankl
WILLIAM JAMES:
“In a general way, then on the
whole… our testing of religion by
practical common sense and the
empirical method, leave it in
possession of its towering place
in history…. Let us be saints,
then, if we can, whether or not
we succeed visibly and
temporally”
~ James, The Variety of Religious
Experience, 290.
William James, 1842-1910
NIETZSCHE:
“God is dead. God remains dead.
And we have killed him. How
shall we, the murderers, of all
murderers, comfort ourselves?”
~ “The Madman” in Gay
Science,125.
Friedrich Nietzsche, 1844-1900
NIETZSCHE:
“I hold up before myself the images
of Dante and Spinoza, who were
better at accepting the lot of
solitude. Of course, their way of
thinking, compared to mine was
one which made solitude
bearable; and in the end, for all
those who somehow still had a
‘God’ for company…. My life now
consists in the wish that it might
be otherwise…. And that
somebody might make my
‘truths’ appear incredible to
me…”
~ Letter to Overbeck, 7/2/1865.
Friedrich Nietzsche, 1844-1900
“Thou lightening-shrouded
one! Unknown one! Speak.
What wilt thou, unknowngod?... Do come back With
all thy tortures! To the last
of all that are lonely, Oh,
come back!... And my
heart’s final flame-Flares up
for thee! Oh, come back,
My unknown god! My pain!
My last-happiness!”
~ Thus Spoke Zarathrusta, part Four, “the
Magician”,
Friedrich Nietzsche, 1844-1900
ALBERT CAMUS:
“For anyone who is alone,
without God and without
a master, the weight of
days is dreadful”
~ The Fall, 133.
Albert Camus, 1913-1960
EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST PREMISE THAT EVERYONE
NEEDS GOD-CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: ALBERT CAMUS:
“Despite the fact that there is
no God, at least the Church
must be built”
~ The Rebel, 147.
Albert Camus, 1913-1960
JOHN DEWEY:
“Here are all the elements for a
religious faith that shall not be
confined to sect, class, or race.
Such as faith has always been
implicitly the common faith of
mankind. It remains to make it
explicit and militant.
~ A Common Faith, 87.
John Dewey, 1859-1952
CONSIDER THIS QUOTE:
The following is from the cover of
Time Magazine, European edition
from 1978:
“God is dead; Marx is dead, and I am
not feeling too well either.”
CONSIDER THIS QUOTE:
Atheists speak of ‘loyalty,’ ‘devotion’ and
‘love’ of the truth. But these terms make
proper sense only when used of persons.
“The joy and wonder which men feel in the
search for truth is the same kind of feeling
we know best when there is real
communication between two finite minds”
~ Elton Trueblood, Philosophy of Religion,
115.
THE ARGUMENT FROM JOY:
CREATURES ARE NOT BORN WITH DESIRES UNLESS
SATISFACTION FOR THOSE DESIRES EXISTS. A BABY FEELS
HUNGER; FOOD CAN SATISFY.
1.
2.
3.
Every natural innate desire has a real object
that can fulfill it.
Human beings have a natural, innate desire
for immortality.
Therefore, there must be an immortal life
after death.
TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT:
DEPENDENCE STRATEGY:
• 1. If I raise doubt whether (b), I must grant (a) is true.
• 2. But if I grant (a), then (b) [this is the embedded
transcendental argument].
• 3. So if I raise a doubt whether (b), I must grant (b)
is true.
INNATE IDEA ARGUMENT:
KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS INNATE
• 1.
All people have some knowledge of God.
• This knowledge is constitutive to the human framework.
• 2.
The mind perceives certain things to be true without proof
and without instruction.
• There is no instruction or use of senses needed to have
some knowledge of God…it is intrinsic knowledge (e.g., the
deaf/blind know possess within themselves some
knowledge of God) within man.
• 3.
Related to the Moral Law argument in that there is this
sense of dependence and accountability to a being higher
than themselves which exists in the minds of all people.
APPLYING THE INNATE ARGUMENT USING THE:
DEPENDENCE STRATEGY FOR GOD’S
EXISTENCE:
• 1.
If I raise doubt whether (b) I have an idea of God, I must
grant that (a) that I recognize that I doubt.
• 2.
If (a) that I recognize that I doubt, then (b) I have an idea of
God.
• 3.
So if I raise a doubt whether (b) I have an idea of
God, I must grant (b) that I have an idea of God.
ANOTHER LOOK AT THE INNATE ARGUMENT:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
We have ideas of many things.
These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us.
One of the ideas we have is the idea of God-an infinite, all-perfect being.
This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know
ourselves to be limited and imperfect and no effect can be greater than its
cause.
Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which
has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God.
But only God himself has those qualities.
Therefore, God Himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him.
Therefore God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES:
1. A miracle is an event whose only adequate
explanation is the extraordinary and direct
intervention of God.
2. There are numerous well-attested miracles.
3. Therefore, there are numerous events whose only
adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct
intervention of God.
4. Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM CONSCIOUSNESS:
1.
We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility
means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.
2.
Either this intelligible universe and finite mind so well suited to
grasp it are the products of intelligence or blind chance.
3.
Blind chance cannot be the source of our intelligence.
4.
Therefore, this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well
suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.
ARGUMENT FROM RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE:
1. Many people of different eras and of widely different
cultures claim to have had an experience of the
“divine.”
2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have
been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of
their own experience.
3. Therefore, there exists a “divine” reality which many
people of different eras and of widely different cultures
have experienced.
ARGUMENT FROM COMMON CONSENT:
1. Belief in God—that Being to whom reverence and
worship are properly due—is common to almost all
people every era.
2. Either the vast majority of people have been wrong
about this most profound element of their lives or they
have not.
3. It is most plausible to believe that they have not.
4. Therefore, it is most plausible to believe that God
exists.
PASCAL’S WAGER:
THIS IS NOT A PROOF FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE BUT IS HELPFUL IN
CONSIDERING GOD IN THE “ABSENCE” OR “LACK” OR PROOF:
As originally proposed by Pascal, the Wager assumes
that logical reasoning by itself cannot decide for or
against God’s existence; there seems to be good reasons
on both sides. Now since reason cannot decide for sure,
and since the question is of such importance that we
must decide somehow, then we must “wager” if we
cannot prove. And so, we are asked: Where are you
going to place your bet?
PASCAL’S WAGER:
If you place your bet with God, you lose nothing, even if
it turns out that God does not exist. But if you place it
against God and you are wrong and God does not exist,
you lose everything; think about it: God, eternity &
heaven with those who did wager correctly. “Let us
assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything, if
you lose, you lose everything.”
“If there is a God of infinite goodness, and he justly
deserves my allegiance and faith, I risk doing the
greater injustice by not acknowledging Him.”
CLOSING: CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: BY
DAVID HUME:
• When we analyze our thoughts or ideas, however compounded
or sublime, we always find, that they resolve themselves into
such simple ideas as were copied from a precedent feeling or
sentiment. Even those ideas, which, at first view, seem the
most wide of this origin, are found, upon a nearer scrutiny, to be
derived from it. The idea of God, as meaning an infinitely
intelligent, wise, and good Being, arises from reflecting on the
operations of our own mind, and augmenting, without limit,
those qualities of goodness and wisdom. ~ Enquiry concerning
Human Understanding 2. Of the Origin of Ideas.6.