Arguments Concerning
the Existence of God (Gods?)
Clark Wolf
Director of Bioethics
Iowa State University
jwcwolf@iastate.edu
Argument for Analysis
“Either God wants to abolish evil, and
cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If
he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If
he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.
If God can abolish evil, and God really
wants to do it, why is there evil in the
world?” – Epicurus
“Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but
does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If
he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish
evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the
world?” – Epicurus
1) If there is a God, there is a being who is omnipotent and all
loving (omnibenevolent).
2) If God is all loving, then God wants to eliminate evil.
3) If God is omnipotent, then God is able to eliminate evil.
4) If God wants to do something, then God does it.
5) there is evil in the world.
6) Either God is not omnipotent, or God is not all loving.
The Problem of Evil

"[God's] power we allow [is] infinite: Whatever he wills is
executed: But neither man nor any other animal are
happy: Therefore he does not will their happiness. His
wisdom is infinite: He is never mistaken in choosing the
means to any end: But the course of nature tends not to
human or animal felicity: Therefore it is not established
for that purpose. Through the whole compass of human
knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and
infallible than these. In what respect, then, do his
benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and
mercy of men?“ -David Hume
The Problem of Evil
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
God is Omnipotent, omniscient, and
omnibenevolent, who wants only what is right
and who does what He wants.
If omniscient, He knows about evil.
If omnipotent, He can eliminate evil.
If omnibenevolent, He wants to eliminate evil.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, there is no God.
The Problem of Evil:

“The problem of reconciling human suffering with the
existence of a God who loves, is only insoluble so long
as we attach a trivial meaning to the word "love", and
look on things as if man were the centre of them. Man is
not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man.
Man does not exist for his own sake. "Thou hast created
all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were
created." We were made not primarily that we may love
God (though we were made for that too) but that God
may love us, that we may become objects in which the
divine love may rest "well pleased".”
― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
The Problem of Evil
“Somewhere in the world, a man has abducted a little girl.
Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this
kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in
a few hours or days at most. Such is the confidence we can
draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion
human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl’s
parents believe– as you believe– that an all-powerful and allloving God is watching over them and their family. Are they
right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?
No. The entirety of atheism is contained in this response.
-Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, p. 50-51
Problem of Evil: Solutions?

Free will?
Evil not from God but from a different source?
Perfect God might create imperfect worlds?
Evil doesn’t actually exist– just the appearance of
evil. (Mystery- God works in mysterious ways.)
Evil is God’s way to test us.

Problems:








Natural evils
Guilty bystander problem
Is it possible that horrors we seem to see are mere apparent
horrors?
Does it make sense to “test” infants and children with pain and
horror?
Dostoievski: The Grand Inquisitor
What is Ivan’s point with the stories of
horrors of human cruelty?
 Why is the suffering of children especially
significant?
 What is the point of “The Grand Inquisitor?”
 If God created humanity knowing that many
people are weak and unable to “pass the
test,” should God instead have avoided the
whole mess? Or made people (most people)
stronger and better?

Problem of Evil:
1) If God exists, then there exists a being
who is all powerful, all knowing, all good.
(All-PKG being)
2) If an All PKG being existed, there would
not be evil.
3) There is evil.
4) Therefore God does not exist.
Note: The argument is valid.
Problem of Evil
Defense of Premises:
1)
2)
3)
Premise 1: Sometimes said to be a definition of God.
Premise 2: An all PKG being would know how, want to,
and be able to eliminate evil.
Premise 3: Categories of wrongs to be considered:
1)
2)
Human wrongs (does this still leave the ‘bystander’ problem,
and perhaps Ivan’s problem of “unforgivable” wrongs?)
“Natural” wrongs.
Problem of Evil:
Premise 1:

One might take the argument to show that
if there is a God, then god is not all-PKG.

That this is not meaningless may be
sufficient to show that premise 1 is not
“true by definition.” (E. Sober p. 101)
Problem of Evil:

Premise 2: Theodicy: A reconciliation of
God as all-PKG with the existence of evil.
Strategies:
1) Soul-building evils– evils make us better
people.
2) Free will
3) Mystery
Is “mystery” a solution?
The Problem of Evil
Premise 3: Is there evil?
Strategies:
1) Evil is an illusion…?
2) Evil is balanced out by the greater
goods?
3)
Argument for Analysis:
People’s religious beliefs entirely depend on where they were
born. People born in Hindu families are likely to be Hindu;
people born in Christian families are likely to be Christian;
people born in Muslim Families are likely to be Muslim. So your
religious beliefs are not the result of evidence, they are entirely
contingent on the circumstances of your upbringing. Two things
follow from this: First, it should raise doubt about whether your
cherished beliefs are as important as you believe they are,
regardless of the importance they may seem to have for you. If
they depend entirely on an arbitrary fact about you, and would
have been different otherwise, then there is a sense in which
your cherished beliefs are themselves arbitrary. Second, it can’t
be that God, if there is a God who is good and just, would
condemn or save people because of arbitrary facts about
themselves, over which they have no control. We don’t chose
our parents; no more do we chose our religious beliefs.
Argument for Analysis:
People’s religious beliefs entirely depend on where they were born. People born in Hindu families
are likely to be Hindu; people born in Christian families are likely to be Christian; people born in
Muslim Families are likely to be Muslim. So your religious beliefs are not the result of evidence,
they are entirely contingent on the circumstances of your upbringing. Two things follow from this:
First, it should raise doubt about whether your cherished beliefs are as important as you believe
they are, regardless of the importance they may seem to have for you. If they depend entirely on
an arbitrary fact about you, and would have been different otherwise, then there is a sense in which
your cherished beliefs are themselves arbitrary. Second, it can’t be that God, if there is a God who
is good and just, would condemn or save people because of arbitrary facts about themselves, over
which they have no control. We don’t chose our parents; no more do we chose our religious
beliefs.
1) People’s religious beliefs depend on arbitrary facts about themselves.
2) If a person’s beliefs depend on something that is arbitrary, then those beliefs are
unjustified.
3) Peop[le’s religious beliefs are unjustified.
1) People’s religious beliefs depend on arbitrary facts about themselves.
2) A just God would not punish or reward people for what is arbitrary.
3) A just God would not punish or reward people depending on their beliefs.
Al-Ghazali

1058-1111

Tus, Persia

Undertook to defend
religious belief against
“philosophical errors.”

Works show familiarity and
affinity with skeptical
tradition, but Al-Ghazali was
not, in the end, a skeptic.
Argument for Analysis:
You’d better believe in God. Atheists take a
horrible chance, since their disbelief involves a
serious risk: if they are wrong, they will burn
forever in Hell! And what benefit do they get even
if they’re right? When they die they’d never even
get confirmation that their beliefs were true, since
they’d just be gone: “nothing,” as Epicurus says.
And as for believers, if they’re wrong they won’t
suffer any bad consequences from being wrong:
once again, they’ll just be gone. But if they’re
right, their reward will be eternal life and bliss.
Obviously, belief in God is a better alternative than
either atheism or agnosticism.
Argument for Analysis:
You’d better believe in God. Atheists take a horrible chance, since their
disbelief involves a serious risk: if they are wrong, they will burn forever in Hell!
And what benefit do they get even if they’re right? When they die they’d never
even get confirmation that their beliefs were true, since they’d just be gone:
Nothing, as Epicurus says. And as for believers, if they’re wrong they won’t
suffer any bad consequences from being wrong: once again, they’ll just be
gone. But if they’re right, their reward will be eternal life and bliss. Obviously,
belief in God is a better alternative than either atheism or agnosticism.
1) If you believe in God and you’re right, your reward will be eternal bliss.
2) If you believe in God and you’re wrong, your disadvantage will be
insignificant.
3) If you don’t believe in God and you’re right, your advantage will be
insignificant.
4) If you don’t believe in God and you’re wrong, your disadvantage will be
eternal torment.
5) Therefore, it’s better (more rational) to believe in God than not to believe in
God.
Argument for Analysis:
Expected value for believing G versus ~G:
Let p be the probability that God exists.
So (1-p) is the probability that God does not exist.
EV(Believe G) = p∞ + (1-p)-a = ∞
EV(~Believe G) = p-∞ + (1-p)b = -∞
∞ ˃ -∞ so EV(Believe G) > EV(~Believe G)
no matter what the values of p, a, and b.
Conclusion: You should Believe G.
Pascal's Wager:

"Either God is, or He is
not. But to which view
shall we be inclined?
Reason cannot decide
this question. Infinite
chaos separates us. At
the far end of this infinite
distance a coin is being
spun which will come
down heads or tails. How
will you wager?”

Pascal, Penses.
Blaise Pascal, 1623-1662
Pascal’s Wager:
Belief state 
Believe in God
Don’t Believe in God
State of the World
.
God Exists
God Doesn’t Exist
Pascal’s Wager:
Belief state 
Believe in God
Don’t Believe in God
God Exists
Eternal Bliss
(Infinite Gain)
Eternal Punishment
(Infinite Loss)
God Doesn’t Exist
A false belief. So what?
(Finite Loss)
True Belief. Well good
for you!
(Finite gain)
State of the World
Pascal’s Wager:
Belief state 
Believe in God
Don’t Believe in God
God Exists
Eternal Bliss
(Infinite Gain)
Eternal Punishment
(Infinite Loss)
God Doesn’t Exist
A false belief. So what?
(Finite Loss)
True Belief. Well good
for you!
(Finite gain)
State of the World
Pascal’s Wager: Problems

Many Gods Problem:
Which God should I
believe in?

Non-Epistemic
Reasons Problem:
The reasons for belief
offered by Pascal are
“reasons for belief,” but
provide no evidence
that the belief is true.

Causing Belief: Can
we cause ourselves
to believe what we
don’t?

God’s perspective:
Would a good God
reward such selfdelusion?
Argument for Analysis
If you found a beautiful gold watch on the beach, you wouldn’t
assume that it had simply arisen as the result of random natural
processes. Because it is a complex coherent object with
integrated working parts, it makes much more sense to think
that it was intentionally created by someone. But the universe,
the world and the things in it are also beautiful and complex,
made up of integral interworking parts, governed by well
ordered natural laws. Objects that are the result of random,
unintentional processes don’t have these properties: they are
un-ordered and more chaotic than coherent. When we find a
complex ordered system, it makes more sense to assume that
it was intentionally created than to assume that it arose without
conscious intentions. So it makes more sense to assume that
the world and the universe were created by someone, whose
conscious intentions define its structure. The only being
capable of such creation is God. Therefore, there must be a
God: God exists.

If you found a beautiful gold watch on the beach, you wouldn’t assume that it had simply arisen as the result
of random natural processes. Because it is a complex coherent object with integrated working parts, it makes
much more sense to think that it was intentionally created by someone. But the universe, the world and the
things in it are also beautiful and complex, made up of integral interworking parts, governed by well ordered
natural laws. Objects that are the result of random, unintentional processes don’t have these properties: they
are un-ordered and more chaotic than coherent. When we find a complex ordered system, it makes more
sense to assume that it was intentionally created than to assume that it arose without conscious intentions.
So it makes more sense to assume that the world and the universe were created by someone, whose
conscious intentions define its structure. The only being capable of such creation is God. Therefore, there
must be a God: God exists.

Teleological Argument for the Existence of God: (Argument from Design)
1) <Intentionally created objects> have the following properties: <beauty,
order, complex interworking parts, …>
2) Objects that are not intentionally created do not have these properties
3) <The universe and objects we find in it> have < beauty, order, complex
interworking parts…>
4) So <the universe and objects in it> must have been intentionally created.
5) If the universe was intentionally created, then there must be a creator.
6) The only creator capable of creating a universe would be God.
7) Therefore, there must be a God. (God exists)
Q: What kind of argument is this? Is it valid or invalid? Rationally
persuasive or not?

Teleological Argument for the Existence of God: (Argument from Design)
1) <Intentionally created objects> have the following properties: <beauty,
order, complex interworking parts, …>
2) Objects that are not intentionally created do not have these properties
3) <The universe and objects we find in it> have < beauty, order, complex
interworking parts…>
4) So <the universe and objects in it> must have been intentionally created.
5) If the universe was intentionally created, then there must be a creator.
6) The only creator capable of creating a universe would be God.
7) Therefore, there must be a God. (God exists)

What kind of argument?


Analogical argument
Inference to the best explanation
Analogical Argument:
1) Object A has properties (a,b,c,d, and e)
2) Object B has properties (a,b,c, and d.)
3) Therefore, (probably) object B has property e.
Ex:
1) Mice are mammals, and they get cancer when
exposed to our product.
2) People are also mammals.
3) Therefore (probably) people will get cancer if
they are exposed to our product.
Argument from Design as an
Analogical Argument:
1) A watch has (beauty, complex
interworking parts, and was intentionally
created by a ‘maker.)
2) The universe/world has (beauty, complex
interworking parts.)
3) Therefore (probably) the universe/world
has a ‘maker.’
Abductive argument:
1) The world/universe has (beauty, integrity,
complex interworking parts).
2) The best explanation for this is that the
world/universe was intentionally created
by a maker.
3) Therefore, there must be a maker (God)
who intentionally created the
world/universe.
Argument from Analysis:
To believe something in the absence of any evidence
that it is true is just foolish. Where we have no
evidence, we should suspend belief: neither believe
nor disbelieve. In fact, to believe in the absence of
evidence is immoral: people rely on others’ beliefs,
but a person who believes without evidence can’t be
relied on. But to believe “on faith” just is to believe in
the absence of any evidence. Since there is no
evidence that God exists, belief in God is a matter of
faith, not a matter of reason and evidence. Therefore,
it is immoral to believe in God.
Argument from Analysis:
To believe something in the absence of any evidence that it is true is just foolish.
Where we have no evidence, we should suspend belief: neither believe nor
disbelieve. In fact, to believe in the absence of evidence is immoral: people rely on
others’ beliefs, but a person who believes without evidence can’t be relied on. But to
believe “on faith” just is to believe in the absence of any evidence. Since there is no
evidence that God exists, belief in God is a matter of faith, not a matter of reason and
evidence. Therefore, it is immoral to believe in God.
1) It is foolish and immoral to believe something in the absence of evidence that it is
true.
2) There is no evidence that God exists.
3) Therefore, to believe in God is foolish and immoral.
Problems:
Premise 1: Is the argument for premise 1 convincing? James will argue that there
are sometimes excellent reasons to believe things even when evidence is
incomplete.
Premise 2: Many believe that there is evidence that God exists. Some even regard
the evidence to be conclusive. So the argument would at best apply to people
whose belief is based on no evidence at all.
Argument for Analysis
If you found a beautiful gold watch on the beach, you wouldn’t
assume that it had simply arisen as the result of random natural
processes. Because it is a complex coherent object with
integrated working parts, it makes much more sense to think
that it was intentionally created by someone. But the universe,
the world and the things in it are also beautiful and complex,
made up of integral interworking parts, governed by well
ordered natural laws. Objects that are the result of random,
unintentional processes don’t have these properties: they are
un-ordered and more chaotic than coherent. When we find a
complex ordered system, it makes more sense to assume that
it was intentionally created than to assume that it arose without
conscious intentions. So it makes more sense to assume that
the world and the universe were created by someone, whose
conscious intentions define its structure. The only being
capable of such creation is God. Therefore, there must be a
God: God exists.

If you found a beautiful gold watch on the beach, you wouldn’t assume that it had simply arisen as the result
of random natural processes. Because it is a complex coherent object with integrated working parts, it makes
much more sense to think that it was intentionally created by someone. But the universe, the world and the
things in it are also beautiful and complex, made up of integral interworking parts, governed by well ordered
natural laws. Objects that are the result of random, unintentional processes don’t have these properties: they
are un-ordered and more chaotic than coherent. When we find a complex ordered system, it makes more
sense to assume that it was intentionally created than to assume that it arose without conscious intentions.
So it makes more sense to assume that the world and the universe were created by someone, whose
conscious intentions define its structure. The only being capable of such creation is God. Therefore, there
must be a God: God exists.

Teleological Argument for the Existence of God: (Argument from Design)
1) <Intentionally created objects> have the following properties: <beauty,
order, complex interworking parts, …>
2) Objects that are not intentionally created do not have these properties
3) <The universe and objects we find in it> have < beauty, order, complex
interworking parts…>
4) So <the universe and objects in it> must have been intentionally created.
5) If the universe was intentionally created, then there must be a creator.
6) The only creator capable of creating a universe would be God.
7) Therefore, there must be a God. (God exists)
Q: What kind of argument is this? Is it valid or invalid? Rationally
persuasive or not?

Teleological Argument for the Existence of God: (Argument from Design)
1) <Intentionally created objects> have the following properties: <beauty,
order, complex interworking parts, …>
2) Objects that are not intentionally created do not have these properties
3) <The universe and objects we find in it> have < beauty, order, complex
interworking parts…>
4) So <the universe and objects in it> must have been intentionally created.
5) If the universe was intentionally created, then there must be a creator.
6) The only creator capable of creating a universe would be God.
7) Therefore, there must be a God. (God exists)

What kind of argument?


Analogical argument
Inference to the best explanation
Analogical Argument:
1) Object A has properties (a,b,c,d, and e)
2) Object B has properties (a,b,c,d.)
3) Therefore, (probably) object B has property e.
Ex:
1) Mice are mammals, and they get cancer when
exposed to our product.
2) People are also mammals.
3) Therefore (probably) people will get cancer if
they are exposed to our product.
Argument from Design as an
Analogical Argument:
1) A watch has (beauty, complex
interworking parts, and was intentionally
created by a ‘maker.)
2) The universe/world has (beauty, complex
interworking parts.)
3) Therefore (probably) the universe/world
has a ‘maker.’
Abductive argument:
1) The world/universe has (beauty, integrity,
complex interworking parts).
2) The best explanation for this is that the
world/universe was intentionally created
by a maker.
3) Therefore, there must be a maker (God)
who intentionally created the
world/universe.
MATERIALS FROM THE READINGS ON ARGUMENTS
CONCERNING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD:
Descartes
 Aquinas
 James
 Dostoievski

Descartes:
Methodological Doubt to God

Descartes Project: Set knowledge on a
firm foundation.

Problem: We seem to be uncertain about
most things we think we know.
DESCARTES: Meditations on
First Philosophy

"Cogito Ergo Sum." (I think therefore I am.)

How far will this get us?
Descartes has argued that the proposition "I
exist." is self evident. But is it powerful enough
that it can support my knowledge of the external
world? Can this help me out of the vat?
DESCARTES: Meditations on
First Philosophy

Descartes and Skepticism: if we can find a
foundation for our belief system which is both
1) self evidently true, and
2) sufficiently powerful to enable us to deduce
that our perceptual beliefs are true, THEN we
could escape the skeptical argument. Is there
such a foundation?
DESCARTES: Meditations on
First Philosophy

"Cogito Ergo Sum." (I think therefore I am.)

Question: What is this thing (ME) whom we know to exist?
Am I my body? Not in the demon world, where I still exist...

I am a thing that thinks. That's all I know for sure.
“I am something that doubts, affirms, understands, denies, wills,
refuses, imagines and senses.”

In fact, what I know is that I am a thing that has ideas.
DESCARTES: Meditations on
First Philosophy

MEDITATION THREE: Concerning the Existence of
God

Method: Descartes has established that he exists as a
thinking thing. In the third meditation he undertakes to
examine the ideas that he finds in his mind, and to
consider their origin. "But here I must inquire particularly
into those ideas that I believe to be derived from things
existing outside of me." If he can deduce that these
ideas do nor originate in him, then he may conclude that
there is something external that is the origin of these
ideas.
Descartes on God:

“Thus there remains… the idea of God. I must consider
whether there is anything in this idea which could not have
originated from me. I understand by the name “God” a
certain substance that is infinite, independent, supremely
intelligent, supremely powerful, and that created me along
with everything else that exists– if anything else exists.
Indeed, all these are such that, the m ore carefully I focus
my attention on them, the less possible it seems they could
have arisen from myself alone. Thus, from what has been
said, I must conclude that God necessarily exists.”

-Meditation 3, p. 500.
Descartes on God:
Argument from the Perfect Idea of an Infinite Being:
1) I have an idea of God which is the idea of a substance
that is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, and
supremely powerful. [III.p. 500]
2) As a finite and imperfect being, I cannot be the cause
of a perfect idea of an infinite substance.
3) Only an infinite and perfect being could be the cause
of such an idea.
4) Therefore, there exists an infinite and perfect being
who is the cause of my idea.
“Since in all other matters I have become accustomed to
distinguish existence from essence, I easily convince
myself that it can even be separated from God’s
essence, and hence that God can be thought of as notexisting. But nevertheless, it is obvious to anyone who
pays close attention that existence can no more be
separated from God’s essence than having three sides
can be separated from the essence of a triangle, or that
the idea of a valley can be separated from the idea of a
mountain. Thus it is no less contradictory to think of God
(that is, a supremely perfect being) as lacking existence
(that is, lacking some perfection) than it is to think of a
mountain without a valley.”

Meditation 5, pp. 507-8
DESCARTES: Meditations on
First Philosophy

Ontological Argument: (Meditation Five)
1) I have an idea of God.
2) The idea of God is the idea of a being that
has all perfections.
3) 'Existence' is a perfection. [That is, what
exists in reality is more perfect than what exists
only in the imagination.]
4) Therefore a being that has all perfections
must have 'existence.'
5) God exists.
DESCARTES: Meditations on
First Philosophy

Anselm's Version of the Ontological Argument:
1) I have an idea of God.
2) The idea of God is the idea of the greatest conceivable being.
3) A being that exists in reality as well as in the mind (in
imagination) is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4) Suppose that the Greatest Conceivable Being exists only in the
mind but not in reality.
5) Then we can conceive of a being that is even greater: one who
exists in reality as well as in the mind.
6) Then we can conceive of a being greater than the greatest
conceivable being-- but that would be a contradiction!
7) Therefore it is not the case that the greatest conceivable being
exists only in the mind but not in reality.
8) Therefore the greatest conceivable being exists in reality as well
as in the mind.
9) Therefore God exists.
DESCARTES: Meditations on
First Philosophy

Some Further Steps:
1) If there is a perfect being, then the evil
demon hypothesis is false.
2) Therefore my senses give me true
information about the world.
3) Therefore skepticism is false.
DESCARTES: Meditations on
First Philosophy

Final Issues in Cartesian Epistemology:

Does Descartes have a satisfactory response to the
skeptic? Unless one is satisfied with the proof of the
existence of God, one may conclude that Descartes has
escaped the skeptical conclusion only because he
accepted a bad argument. Few believe that any of the
philosophical arguments for God's existence is
conclusive; indeed James assumes that his listeners and
readers will already have recognized that the evidence
for the existence of God is inconclusive.
Next: Aquinas, James, and
Others on God

Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove the Existence of
God

James: The Will To Believe

Other arguments and issues.
Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove the
Existence of God

1225-1274

Summa Theologica
Summa Contra Gentiles

The First Three Ways:
Cosmological Argument

Number One: From Motion:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Things are in motion.
Nothing can move itself.
Every object in motion had a mover.
There cannot be an infinite regress of movers.
So the first object in motion needed a mover.
This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called
God.
The First Three Ways:
Cosmological Argument

Number Two: From Efficient Causes:
1) There exist things that are caused by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself.
3) There cannot be an endless string of objects
causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore there must be an uncaused first cause
called God.
First Three Ways:
Cosmological Argument
Contingent Being: A being that could
possibly not-exist.
Example: All non-existent things
(unicorns, manticores, Santa Clause…)
are contingent. Some existent things
(probably all of us?) are contingent as
well)
First Three Ways:
Cosmological Argument
Necessary Being: A being that can’t possibly
not-exist.
Example? Aquinas takes himself to have
shown that there must be a necessary being,
but he thinks God is the only one. Anselm and
Descartes also argue that existence is part of
the essence of God, which is a way to say that
God’s existence is necessary.
First Three Ways:
Cosmological Argument
Third Way: from Contingent and Necessary Being
1) Every being that exists is either “explained by
another” (contingent) or “explained by itself”
(necessary).
2) Not every being can be “explained by another”
(contingent).
3) Therefore, there exists a necessary being that
accounts for (explains) its own existence.
Third Way: From the Contingent and the
Necessary (An alternative interpretation)
1) A contingent being exists.
2) This contingent being has a cause of its existence.
3) The cause of its existence is something other than itself.
4) What causes this contingent being must be a set that
contains either only contingent beings or at least one
necessary being.
5) A set that contains only contingent beings cannot cause this
contingent being to exist.
6) Therefore, what causes this contingent being to exist must
be a set that contains at least one necessary being.
7) Therefore, at least one necessary being exists.
Credit to: http://agencyandresponsibility.typepad.com/phil_101/2012/07/aquinas-and-the-five-ways.html
New Life for the Cosmological
Argument?

William Lane Craig
Craig, William Lane. 1994.
Reasonable Faith. Wheaton:
Moody Press
William Lane Craig:
Kalam Cosmological Argument:
Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:
1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual
infinite by successive addition:
1) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
2) The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive
addition.
3) Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
Craig, William Lane (1994). Reasonable Faith. Wheaton: Moody Press.
William Lane Craig:
Kalam Cosmological Argument:
The cosmological argument is usually
criticized for ascribing to God a property
that is earlier asserted as an impossibility.
Can Craig respond to the objection that his
argument is self-refuting?
Fourth Way: From Gradations
Compare Descartes Mountain/Valley
example?
“Perfections” come in degree, just as other
properties come in degrees.
Fourth Way: From Gradations
1) “Being” and other “good” qualities come in degrees.
2) For each such quality, there must be a maximum: the
thing that possesses more of that quality than any other
thing.
2) The maximum of any genus (kind of thing) is the
cause of all other members in that genus.
3) There must be a thing which is to all beings the cause
of their <being,goodness, other good and perfectible
qualities>.
4) This would be a Being perfect in respect to all of these
qualities.
5) Such a being would be God.
6) God exist.
Fourth Way: From Gradations
1) “Being” and other “good” qualities come in degrees.
2) For each such quality, there must be a maximum: the thing that
possesses more of that quality than any other thing.
2) The maximum of any genus (kind of thing) is the cause of all other
members in that genus.
(Do we know that there is a perfect exemplar of each perfection? In
what sense is the maximal exemplar the cause?)
3) There must be a thing which is to all beings the cause of their
<being,goodness, other good and perfectible qualities>.
(A single being? Why not many?)
4) This would be a Being perfect in respect to all of these qualities.
5) Such a being would be God.
6) God exist.
Fifth Way: Argument from Design
Teleological Argument
1) Things in the world move toward their “end,”
or telos. (It is evident that we see things in the
world acting always, or nearly always, in the
same way so as to obtain the same result.
2) They must do this designedly.
3) There must be a designer (endowed with
knowledge and intelligence) who directs them
toward their telos.
Fifth Way: Argument from Design
Teleological Argument
Problems?
1) This is an argument for the best explanation,
and there are other available explanations. (Are
any of them more likely?
2) Are things truly directed teleologically, or
does it just seem so? (Contemporary sciences
avoid teleological explanations– “skyhooks.”
William James

1842-1910

American Philosopher &
Psychologist
James: The Will to Believe




James addresses a different problem: The
problem of rational belief.
James’s question is whether it is every rationally
permissible to believe something when there is
a dearth of evidence for it.
James takes it for granted that evidence for the
existence of God is insufficient to make belief a
requirement of rationality, but argues for the
weaker claim that belief is permissible– that is,
that disbelief is not a requirement of rationality.
The kind of argument offered is similar to
Pascal’s Wager
William James’s
Will to Believe

Some Jamesian Terms:









hypothesis,
Live hypothesis,
Dead hypothesis,
Option,
Forced option
Avoidable option,
Momentus option
Trivial option.
Genuine Option: Living, forced, and momentus.
William James’s
Will to Believe

Doxastic Voluntarism: The theory that belief
can be commanded by the will: we can aquire
a belief that P (for example, a belief that God
exists) simply by willing to believe that P.

Question: Is James committed to doxastic
voluntarism? Is Pascal? [The answer is no but
you need to be able to explain why not!]
William James’s
Will to Believe

Principles of [Dis]Belief:

1) If there is inadequate evidence that P is true,
then it is irrational to believe P. [Clifford, Huxley]

2) James: Under certain circumstances, we may
be justified in believing P even if there is
inadequate evidence that P is true.
William James’s
Will to Believe
What circumstances? When are we justified in
believing P even if there is inadequate evidence?



P is a live hypothesis,
Choice between P and ~P is a forced option
The choice between P and ~P is momentus, not trivial.
William James’s
Will to Believe

"Our passional nature not only lawfully may,
but must, decide an option between
propositions, whenever it is a genuine option
that cannot by its nature be decided on
intellectual grounds; for to say, under such
circumstances, "Don't decide, but leave the
question open," is itself a passional decision, - just like deciding yes or no, -- and is attended
with the same risk of losing the truth."

James
William James’s
Will to Believe
James View:
Sometimes we must believe even where the evidence is
inadequate.
We have two epistemic goals: (i) Gain truth, and (ii)
Avoid falsehood. It is only because we have both aims
that our epistemic situation is interesting: If we simply
wanted to gain truth, we could believe everything. If we
only wanted to avoid falsehood, we could believe
nothing.
But given that we have both aims, James concludes that
"a rule which would absolutely prevent me from
acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of
truth were really there, would be an irrational rule.
William James’s
Will to Believe

The "Religious Hypothesis: Is the option to believe
in God live? Forced? Momentus?

“We stand on a mountain pass in the midst of
whirling snow and blinding mist, through which we
get glimpses now and then of paths which may be
deceptive. If we stand still we shall be frozen to
death. If we take the wrong road we shall be dashed
to pieces. We do not certainly know whether there is
any right one. What must we do? ‘Be strong and of a
good courage. Act for the best, hope for the best,
and take what comes. . . . If death ends all, we
cannot meet death better.’” --James
William James’s
Will to Believe
Upshot:
1) James’s argument does not show that
God exists, but (if it works) it shows that
belief in God is not irrational, even if it
requires a “leap of faith.”
2) Do the objections that we raised to
Pascal’s Wager apply to James’s
argument?
Argument for Analysis
“Either God wants to abolish evil, and
cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If
he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If
he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.
If God can abolish evil, and God really
wants to do it, why is there evil in the
world?” – Epicurus
“Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but
does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If
he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish
evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the
world?” – Epicurus
1) If there is a God, there is a being who is omnipotent and all
loving (omnibenevolent).
2) If God is all loving, then God wants to eliminate evil.
3) If God is omnipotent, then God is able to eliminate evil.
4) If God wants to do something, then God does it.
5) there is evil in the world.
6) Either God is not omnipotent, or God is not all loving.
The Problem of Evil

"[God's] power we allow [is] infinite: Whatever he wills is
executed: But neither man nor any other animal are
happy: Therefore he does not will their happiness. His
wisdom is infinite: He is never mistaken in choosing the
means to any end: But the course of nature tends not to
human or animal felicity: Therefore it is not established
for that purpose. Through the whole compass of human
knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and
infallible than these. In what respect, then, do his
benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and
mercy of men?“ -David Hume
The Problem of Evil
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
God is Omnipotent, omniscient, and
omnibenevolent, who wants only what is right
and who does what He wants.
If omniscient, He knows about evil.
If omnipotent, He can eliminate evil.
If omnibenevolent, He wants to eliminate evil.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, there is no God.
The Problem of Evil:

“The problem of reconciling human suffering with the
existence of a God who loves, is only insoluble so long
as we attach a trivial meaning to the word "love", and
look on things as if man were the centre of them. Man is
not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man.
Man does not exist for his own sake. "Thou hast created
all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were
created." We were made not primarily that we may love
God (though we were made for that too) but that God
may love us, that we may become objects in which the
divine love may rest "well pleased".”
― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
The Problem of Evil
“Somewhere in the world, a man has abducted a little girl.
Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this
kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in
a few hours or days at most. Such is the confidence we can
draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion
human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl’s
parents believe– as you believe– that an all-powerful and allloving God is watching over them and their family. Are they
right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?
No. The entirety of atheism is contained in this response.
-Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, p. 50-51
Problem of Evil: Solutions?

Free will?
Evil not from God but from a different source?
Perfect God might create imperfect worlds?
Evil doesn’t actually exist– just the appearance of
evil. (Mystery- God works in mysterious ways.)
Evil is God’s way to test us.

Problems:








Natural evils
Guilty bystander problem
Is it possible that horrors we seem to see are mere apparent
horrors?
Does it make sense to “test” infants and children with pain and
horror?
Dostoievski: The Grand Inquisitor
What is Ivan’s point with the stories of
horrors of human cruelty?
 Why is the suffering of children especially
significant?
 What is the point of “The Grand Inquisitor?”
 If God created humanity knowing that many
people are weak and unable to “pass the
test,” should God instead have avoided the
whole mess? Or made people (most people)
stronger and better?

Problem of Evil:
1) If God exists, then there exists a being
who is all powerful, all knowing, all good.
(All-PKG being)
2) If an All PKG being existed, there would
not be evil.
3) There is evil.
4) Therefore God does not exist.
Note: The argument is valid.
Problem of Evil
Defense of Premises:
1)
2)
3)
Premise 1: Sometimes said to be a definition of God.
Premise 2: An all PKG being would know how, want to,
and be able to eliminate evil.
Premise 3: Categories of wrongs to be considered:
1)
2)
Human wrongs (does this still leave the ‘bystander’ problem,
and perhaps Ivan’s problem of “unforgivable” wrongs?)
“Natural” wrongs.
Problem of Evil:
Premise 1:

One might take the argument to show that
if there is a God, then god is not all-PKG.

That this is not meaningless may be
sufficient to show that premise 1 is not
“true by definition.” (E. Sober p. 101)
Problem of Evil:

Premise 2: Theodicy: A reconciliation of
God as all-PKG with the existence of evil.
Strategies:
1) Soul-building evils– evils make us better
people.
2) Free will
3) Mystery
Is “mystery” a solution?
The Problem of Evil
Premise 3: Is there evil?
Strategies:
1) Evil is an illusion…?
2) Evil is balanced out by the greater
goods?
3)