Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Arguments for the Existence of
God
Firstly why should this concern us?



Firstly, if God did exist, there would be
certain important consequences
Secondly, the arguments are very
persistent – so we have to deal with them
Thirdly, as well as being persistent, the
arguments are very high profile and
generate much interest on all sides.
So what are the sides?
There are three basic views people have on the question of the existence of
God.
“I don’t believe that God exists.” –
this is called Atheism
“I believe that God does exist.” –
this is called Theism
“I am undecided on whether God exists or not.” –
this called Agnosticism
Assignment 1 - Discussion & Report
What reason(s) could someone give for each of these views?
What could change the mind of someone with each of these
views?
But perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves. How do we
know that when two people are discussion God that they share
the same idea?
1
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Assignment 2 - Discuss &
Report
Imagine the job of God is vacant. You
are going to produce an advert inviting
applications for the job. Create a
newspaper advert for the post of God.
Remember to include a job
description and necessary
qualifications.
Remember we are still not assuming that a qualified applicant
actually exists!
The Philosophers’ God
We are not discussing the God of
religious faith – not the God of
the Jews, Christians, Muslims or
any other religion.
We are concerned with the God
of philosophical definition.
In other words, that being who
has the qualities of, omniscience,
omnipresent, omnipotent, who is
eternal, perfectly good, and the
necessary being who is creator
and sustainer of the universe.
2
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
In the film “Bruce Almighty”, at no time
does Bruce believe that God does not
exist.
Bruce’s point is that as the
Supreme Being, God sucks. Bruce’s life is
unsatisfactory and, because God is allpowerful, this is all God’s fault.
It is not clear on what Bruce’s belief in
the existence of God is based. It could
be his upbringing, a religious faith or an
acceptance of one or all the arguments
for the existence of God.
Cosmological Argument for the existence of God
How would you answer the question how did you get here today?
You could say “I walked”, or “I came up the stairs” or “On the school
bus” or “By car” or even “From my mummy’s tummy”
What we are looking for is a sufficient answer to the question.
For some people, the sufficient answer to the question “Where did the
universe come from?” is – “GOD”.
Or to put it another way
“The existence of the universe is
evidence for the existence of
God.”
Basically this is the cosmological
argument.
3
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
The Cosmological Argument For The
Existence of God
The great advantage of this argument is that it begins with a
statement that nobody can seriously doubt. It begins with the
simple FACT that there is a universe.
This is an example of an argument based on sense experience. Such
arguments are called a posteriori.
Consider the following information:
• Our galaxy, the Milky Way, contains about 400 billion stars.
• The largest galaxies in the universe contain about 1000 billion stars.
• There are about 100 billion galaxies in the universe.
• The furthest parts of the universe are about 15 billion light years
away.
Have you ever wondered why all this exists? It’s perfectly possible
that nothing should exist at all. But, the fact is, the universe does
exist.
Discuss
‘Why does something exist rather than nothing?’
The cosmological argument is perhaps the simplest of all the
traditional arguments for the existence of God. It tries to show that
there is a God from the bare fact that the universe exists.
Some hugely significant thinkers in many different forms throughout
the centuries have used the argument:
4
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
• Ancient Greek philosophers
(e.g. Aristotle and Plato)
• Christian theologians (e.g. St. Thomas Aquinas,
Father Frederick Copleston)
• Jewish theologians (e.g. Maimonides)
• Islamic theologians (e.g. the Kalam argument
presented by, among others, al-Ghazali).
St Thomas Aquinas
Probably the most famous advocate of the cosmological
argument was St Thomas Aquinas (1225–74AD). He
presented five ways to prove that God existed in a book
known as Summa Theologica. Three of these explanations
were forms of the cosmological argument. We will briefly
look at one of them.
The argument from the ‘Uncaused Cause’
•
•
•
•
•
Everything we observe has a cause.
Every cause has a cause.
This cannot go back forever.
Therefore there must be an uncaused cause that isn’t caused.
The uncaused cause is ‘God’.
If we get back to you ... HOW DID YOU GET HERE?
Logic states that you did not come from nothing – only
nothing can come from nothing
Nor did you create yourself.
Your parents caused you and their parents, and so on
caused your parents. However, to fully explain your cause
you will need to go back much further than your near
relations.
5
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Even if you could trace your family line back hundreds of
years you would still have only partly explained where you
came from.
To fully answer the question – How did you get here? – you
would need to explain where all humans came from. To
then explain the cause of the human race you would then
need to find out when and how the earth came into
existence; explain the origins of our solar system;
understand the history of our galaxy, etc. Your attempt to
fully answer the question, ‘How did you get here?’ will
eventually lead you right back to the very beginning of the
universe itself.
Is this all necessary?
Well that depends on the principle of sufficient reason.
What do you consider to be a sufficient answer to the
question – “how did you get here?”
Another example
Why did the match light? Is the answer “Because I
struck it on the matchbox”, a sufficient reason?
If not then you might have to explain the chemical
reaction which took place. If this was not considered
sufficient, you could explain the physics of the event. If
this was not enough, gain we could end up with the origins
of the universe again and the creation of the physical laws!
There are two main problems with the principle of
sufficient reason.
At what point does a reason become sufficient?
 Is it really necessary to go to such extreme lengths?

6
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Assigment 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Why should we be concerned with the arguments for the
existence of God?
What three basic positions do people take on this question?
With which God are we concerned?
What are the qualities of this God?
Why is it important to be clear about this definition for
God?
The cosmological is an a posteriori argument. What does
this mean?
What is the starting point for the cosmological?
What is the principle of sufficient reason? Use and
example.
According to Aquinas, what was special about God?
Why did Aquinas believe that God was the only possible
reason for the cosmos?
Cosmo Explained

Aquinas was pointing
out that behind
everything there must
be a huge chain of
causes that goes back
and back in time.
He believed that it doesn’t
make any sense to say that
this
chain
came
from
nothing. Nothing comes from nothing.
Neither does it make any sense to say that a caused thing
can cause itself. (It would have to been caused to then
cause itself!)
7
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Also to have a causal chain going back forever makes no sense either
because that would mean there was no first cause. If there was no actual
beginning there would be nothing now! To be here now,the whole thing
must have started at some point. Aquinas believed that there must have
been something that started off the chain of cause and effect. He felt
that the only possible answer was God, the uncaused cause. Only God
fitted the bill. God was a necessary being, not a contingent being. Only
God was self-caused.
Aquinas was looking for a sufficient reason for the existence of the
universe. Of course he believes that only God could ever be a sufficient
reason. So, according to Aquinas, only God is the necessary and
sufficient reason for the existence of the universe.
Summary – The cosmological argument
√
√
√
√
√
√
Philosophers’ God - omniscient, omnipotent,
omnipresent, all good, eternal, creator, sustainer and
necessary being
A posterior - based of the observed fact that there
is a universe.
The most famous advocate of the cosmological
argument was a theologian called St Thomas Aquinas
(1225–74AD).
Aquinas believed that behind everything there is a
huge chain of causes that can be traced back to the
beginning of the universe.
He said that it doesn’t make sense to say that this
chain never ends so he concluded that there must be
an uncaused cause at the start.
The only possible uncaused cause is God.
8
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Assignment 4
1.
Why is Aquinas’ argument called the cosmological
argument for the existence of God?
2.
List some of the people that have presented a form of
the cosmological argument.
3.
Write a very short paragraph about St Thomas
Aquinas. Make sure that you mention the following
points:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
When was he alive?
What religion was he?
In how many different ways did he try to prove
that God existed?
In what book did he present these arguments for
God’s existence?
4.
What is the problem with answering the question What caused you? Make sure you try to give a full
explanation.
5.
Why did Aquinas call God the uncaused cause?
6.
Try to explain in your own words Aquinas’s argument
from the ‘uncaused cause’.
9
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
1.
2.
3.
4.
Everything has a cause.
Nothing is its own cause.
A chain of causes cannot be infinite.
There must be a ‘first uncaused
cause’.
5. God is the ‘only uncaused cause’.
Cosmo – So Far
Good arguments have a
good structure AND
true statements.
Although the Cosmological argument is based
on sense experience, it has been given a
deductive structure. In deductive arguments,
if the premises are true then the conclusion
cannot be false.
Premise
Premise
Premise
Premise
1
2
3
1
Premise 1 TRUE?
Premise 2 TRUE?
Premise 3 TRUE?
Premise 4 TRUE?
Conclusion - Does it follow?
- Based on observation
- Based on induction
– Based on deduction
and Premise 4 – Contradiction?
Premise 5 - Conclusion – Alternatives?
Premise 1
Premise 2
Premise 3
Premise 4
Conclusion -
There could be unobserved uncaused causes
Just because they are unobserved does not mean they do not exist
Why not?
Why?
Does it follow necessarily?
In Premise 3, Aquinas actual argument is that..
.
If we were to remove a first cause
from a chain of causes and effects,
then all the effects of that follow the
removed cause will also cease to be.
10
We can think of this as
something like removing a
domino from a chain of
dominoes, all those dominoes
that follow will not fall over.
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Aquinas argues that to deny a first cause is to remove a
cause from the chain of causes and effects. If that cause
were removed, then everything that follows it ought not to
be here. But the world is here, just look out the window.
Therefore there cannot be an infinite regress of causes.
Five hundred years later the German philosopher Immanuel
Kant argues that an infinite chain of causes is something
that, by definition, could never be completed.
Now if the causes that lead up to the existence of us and
the world really stretched off into an infinite past, then
there would have to be an infinity of causes occurring
before the world could come to be. But if there were an
infinity of causes stretching off into the past, they could
never be completed. In which case, the present state of
things could never come to be. But, the present state of
things has come to be. Therefore, there cannot be an
infinite chain of causes.
The Relationship between Premises 1 and 4
Many people have criticised Aquinas’ because they argue,
Premises 1 and 4 contradict each other.
Premise 1 - everything has a cause.
This is sometimes
called the schoolboy’s
criticism of Aquinas.
Premise 4 - there must be a first (uncaused) cause.
They argue that, if Premise 4 is correct, and there must be a cause
without a cause, then it is wrong to also claim that everything has a
cause. And on the other hand, if Premise 1 is correct and everything
has a cause, then it is wrong to also claim that there must be a cause
without a cause.
However other argue that this is only an apparent contradiction.
Aquinas is using an argument form called reductio ad absurdum.
11
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
The first three lines identify a problem which means we must reject
one of those premises and accept an alternative in its place.
In this argument, the problem that arises on the basis of assuming,
from Premises 1 and 2, that there is an infinite chain of causes, is that
there cannot be an infinite chain of causes (for the reasons we
mentioned above).
What this means is that we must reject one of the premises (in this
case Premise 1), and accept an alternative (Premise 4) that there is at
least one thing that is not caused - God.
The Conclusion at Line 5
Although we have said that the cosmological
argument in general, and Aquinas’ version in
particular, treats God as the first cause, it is worth
saying a little more about this. Although Aquinas
simply suggests that ‘the uncaused cause’ is a good
definition of God, we might want some other reasons
for thinking that God has to be the cause of the
universe. What kind of arguments can we give? One
argument comes from David Hume, a Scottish
philosopher:
“Whatever exists must have a cause or reason for
its existence, it being absolutely impossible for nay
thing to produce itself or be the cause of its own
existence. In mounting up, therefore, from effects to
causes, we must either go on in tracing an infinite
succession, without any ultimate cause at all, or must at
last have recourse to some ultimate cause, that is
necessarily existent: Now, that the first supposition is
absurd, may be thus proved.
In the infinite chain or succession of causes and effects,
each single effect is determined to exist by the power
12
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
and efficacy of that cause which immediately preceded;
but the eternal chain or succession, taken together, is
not determined or caused by anything: And yet it is
evident that it requires a cause or reason, as much as
any particular object which begins to exist in time. The
question is still reasonable why this particular
succession, or no succession at all. If there be no
necessarily existent being, any supposition which can be
formed is equally possible; nor is there any more
absurdity in nothing’s having existed from eternity, than
there is in that succession of cause which constitute the
universe. What was it, then, which determined something
to exist rather than nothing, and bestowed being on a
particular possibility, exclusive of the rest? External
causes, there are supposed to be none. Chance is a word
without meaning. Was it nothing? But that can produce
anything. We must, therefore, have recourse to a
necessarily existent Being, who carries the reason of his
existence in himself; and who cannot be supposed not to
exist, without an express contradiction. There is,
consequently, such a Being – that is, there is a Deity.”
(David Hume,
Religion)
Dialogues
Concerning
Natural
What does Hume mean?
Well, what Hume is getting at is that the only kind of thing that could be
the cause of the universe, the first cause as it were, is a being that relies
upon nothing for the cause of its existence, and God is the only obvious
candidate for being such a cause. The point is that Premise 1 above says
that everything must have a cause, and, as we have asserted, this means
that the universe must have a cause. But of course, anything that is the
cause of something is itself something that requires a cause, and whatever
the cause of that may be, itself will require a cause, and so on, potentially
ad infinitum.
13
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Now, if the beginning of the universe, as it seems to, marks the beginning
of all events and times, etc., then we need the cause of the universe to be
special in that it cannot itself require a further preceding cause, otherwise
there exists something which precedes the beginning of things, and this is
plainly odd. The suggestion is that the only way we can find something that
could be the first cause is to postulate that this first cause does not itself
rely on anything else for its cause. And as we have seen, this would have to
be a very special kind of cause; it would need, as Hume says, to carry the
reason for itself with itself.
The obvious candidate for this first cause is, a being with the special
characteristics required for being a cause of itself, in short God.
Assignment 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
What question does premise 1 raise?
What does the phrase “an infinite chains seems
counter-intuitive” mean?
Why does Aquinas maintain that “no infinite regress
of causes” is possible?
What was Kant’s view of infinite chains of events?
Why has Aquinas been accused of contradicting
himself?
Why is this known as the schoolboy’s criticism?
What is reduction ad absurdum?
Why do many people claim that the contradiction in
the argument is only apparent?
Which other philosopher seems to agree with
Aquinas?
What are his reasons?
14
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Objection 1: ‘If God created the Universe, who created
God?’
The most obvious objection to the idea that God
is the first cause that leads to the existence of
the universe and everything in it is to claim that
God is not a sufficient reason.
This is because - instead of asking what caused
the universe and everything in it, the question
has moved back a step to ‘what is the cause of
God?’
And then perhaps anther step back to ‘what is the cause
of the cause of God?’ etc Demonstrating the insufficiency
of God as a reason.
If this objection is upheld then the cosmological argument
becomes unconvincing.
Response
This objection misses the point of God as the first cause.
The universe and everything in it is contingent. If we took
something contingent to be the cause of the universe then
this objection would be convincing but God is not a
contingent cause of Universe but THE necessary one.
If someone caused or created God, then God would be
contingent (like the universe) and not necessary (like God)
and so wouldn’t be God at all.
It just does not make sense to ask the cause of something
that does not require a cause. This objection fails!
15
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Objection 2: Isn’t there a fallacy of composition in the
argument?
Is there an unwarranted assumption that, because things in
the universe come into existence and require a cause for
their beginning, then the universe itself must need a
cause for its coming to begin.
If this is the case, we have a fallacy of composition – a
classically duff argument.
The fallacy
of composition is to
For example,
mistakenly treat the characteristics
of the parts of something as though
they were also the characteristics of
the whole thing.
Every member of Celtic football club has two legs.
Therefore
Celtic Football club has two legs.
From this demonstration it is clear that we have no reason
to assume that what is true of the parts is also true of the
whole.
And of course, if we have no reason to believe that it is
true of the universe that it requires a cause for its
existence, then we have no reason to infer that God is that
cause. If no cause is required, then no God is needed.
16
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Response 1
One potential reply is to admit it – okay you got me! But is
that a real response?
Objection sustained!
Response 2
However if we take the example of a jigsaw puzzle, then
although again it is wrong to claim that if all the pieces are
less than an inch square, then the Jigsaw puzzle itself is
also less than an inch square. But it seems to make sense to
claim that if all of the pieces exist, then the jigsaw
puzzle itself exists.
Objection denied!
So which of these two is the cosmo most like? Celtic or
jigsaw puzzle?
What do you think? Sustained or denied? Why?
17
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Objection 3: Hume and the characteristics of necessary beings
One serious objection to the cosmological argument comes from Hume. For
Hume, by treating God as the first cause, we are postulating a necessary
being, that is, a being that is capable of being the cause of the universe
but without itself requiring a cause. For Hume, however, the nature of such
a being will be remote and difficult for us to understand. This leads Hume
to conclude that relying on such a being is a major weakness of the
cosmological argument. Hume puts it like this:
“It is pretended that the Deity is a necessarily existent being;
and this necessity of his existence is attempted to be
explained by asserting, that if we knew his whole essence or
nature, we should perceive it to be as impossible for him not to
exist, as for twice two not to be four. But it is evident that
this can never happen, while our faculties remain the same as
at present. It will still be possible for us, at any time, to
conceive the non-existence of what we formerly conceived to
exist; nor can the mind ever lie under a necessity of supposing
any object to remain always in being; in the same manner as we
lie under a necessity of always conceiving twice two to be four.
The words, therefore, ‘necessary existence’, have no meaning;
or, which is the same thing, none that is consistent.”
(Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion)
What Hume is saying here is that whatever it is that a necessary being must be, we
cannot know what those qualities are because, as contingent beings, they are
beyond our understanding.
If they are beyond our understanding, then we are not justified in
assuming that only God has them. Because we can have no idea what
those qualities are something other than God could be the cause;
perhaps even the universe itself could be the necessarily existent thing.
So, just knowing that some non-contingent thing, that is a thing which
requires no preceding cause, is required to explain the universe is not
enough for us to say that that thing has to be God.
Objection Sustained
18
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Response 1 -
Argument to Best Possible Explanation
One possible reply to this offered by Richard Swinburne is
that it is hard to see what else could function as the extra
special something needed to explain the universe. In many
ways, God not only fits the bill perfectly but is the only
game in town.
Some philosophers, notably, argue precisely along these
lines and say that although Hume may be right and we can’t
say that God is the only candidate for necessary being, we
can say that God is the most obvious cause of the universe,
that is, He may not be the only explanation, but He is the
best explanation.
What do you think?
Why?
Response 2
A more important reply though is that although Hume may
be right that we may have no idea about the
characteristics of a necessary being, the cosmological
argument is merely intended to show that God is required,
not what He is like.
The point of describing God as a ‘first cause’, as with
Aquinas’s original argument, is to identify an argumentative
space in which God can exist. If it can be shown that a
necessary being is required to explain the existence of the
universe, then the cosmological argument has achieved its
aim.
What do you think?
Why?
19
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Assignment 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Explain the objection that God is not a sufficient
reason for the existence of the universe.
How can this objection be responded to?
What is the fallacy of composition?
How is the fallacy of composition used to
challenge the cosmological argument?
To what extent are you convinced that this
challenge is successful?
How does Hume challenge the cosmological
argument?
What is Swinburne’s response to Hume?
What other response to Hume is possible?
20
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Review & Record
Make sure that you


can describe the cosmological argument accurately
know who Thomas Aquinas was, his text etc
Strengths of the argument
It is easily understood
It is based on our experience – the universe
Consistent with the observed facts
Some say best possible explanation
Weaknesses of the argument
Some say internal contradiction “all causes have causes” but “God is
uncaused”
The universe is a thing not a cause
Why does the cause have to God?
Fallacy of composition
Why does there have to be a “first cause”?
Necessary cause is beyond our understanding
Lastly
Does the cosmological argument work for you?
Why?
It may surprise you to know that, despite its weaknesses,
many people still find the cosmological argument very
appealing. It certainly raises some interesting questions
for scientists to grapple with. However, not everyone is
convinced.
21
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
The Teleological Argument for the
Existence of God
or
The Argument From Design
"in the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth,"
Gen. 1: 1
This is the second of the a posteriori arguments we are
investigating so again we are analysing and evaluating
arguments based on sense experience.
(If the argument was based on reason not sense experience
what kind or argument would we be considering?)
The Greek word “telos” means distance. “Telephone” means
speaking from a distance and “television” means seeing from a
distance.
The teleological argument depends on the observation that
the things we see in our world not only come from somewhere,
but seem to be going somewhere. There seems to be a
direction, a purpose for things. Our world is not just
random chance. We do not exist in chaos.
Do you agree?
22
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Observation:
There seems to be an order about the cosmos
In the night sky we see the planets and stars moving as if according to some
sort of order. On earth, spring and then summer are followed by winter and
so on. The organs of the body seem to be closely suited to their tasks - the
human eye for example - and so on.
The Teleological Argument is based on the reasoning that if order is
observed, then there is a design and this is evidence for a “Divine Designer”
- God.
Like the cosmological argument, this Argument from Design has been put
forward in many forms throughout history.
In the Bible, the first chapter of the book of Genesis (written about 550
BCE) describes how God, in a very ordered way, created everything and that
before creation all was chaos. In Genesis, God also described his creation as
“good”. Job satisfaction!
In Psalms 104 we find...
“You fixed the earth on its foundations, forever and ever it
shall not be shaken. From your high halls you water the
mountains, satisfying the earth with the fruit of your works.
For cattle you make the grass grow, and for people the plants
they need, to bring forth food from the earth, and wine to
cheer peoples hearts. You made the moon to mark the seasons,
the sun knows when to set. You bring on darkness and night
falls.”
Maybe not so poetic but with the same theme...
“Nature has made the hindermost parts of our
body which we sit upon most fleshy, as providing
for our ease, and making us a natural cushion.”
(H. More, An Antidote Against Atheism, 1659)
23
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Or...
“The ribs on melons were designed by a wise God so that
they can be divided up among a family at table.”
(Bernadin de St Pierre, 1715)
However, the most famous statement of the
Teleological argument is provided by the
Englishman, William Paley, (1743-1805).
In his famous watch analogy, Paley argued
that just as a watch demands an intelligent
creator, a watchmaker, similarly the human
eye also requires a designer - God.
According to Paley’s argument from analogy,
neither the watch nor a human eye could “just
happen” by chance.
“In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot
against a stone, and were asked how this stone came
to be there, I might possibly answer that, for anything I
knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever... But
suppose I found a watch... I should hardly give the same
answer... Why should not this answer serve for the watch
as well as for the stone?
For this reason, when we come to inspect the watch we
perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its
several parts are framed and put together for a purpose,
e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce
motion and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of
the day, that, if the different parts had been differently shaped
from what they are, or placed after any other manner... either no
motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none
24
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
which would have answered the use that is now served by it. This,
mechanism being observed - the inference, we think, is inevitable,
that the watch must have had a maker.., who formed it for the
purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended
its construction, and designed its use.
Nor would it weaken the conclusion that we had never seen a
watch made ... or that the watch sometimes went wrong, or that
it seldom went exactly ... or if there were a few parts of the
watch the reason for which we could not discover... in what
manner they conducted to the general effect...”
(Natural Theology - William Paley 1802)
This is an example of an argument using analogy. An analogy is a type of
argument often used by philosophers to either support or attack an
argument.
The claim of an argument from analogy is that two items share similarities
and from that, one can deduce similar conclusions from their comparison.
Paley is claiming that the watch and the human eye are similar in certain
important respects therefore a conclusion, which applies to one, can be
justifiably applied to the other.
The big question we must confront is – “Is Paley’s
analogy valid?”
When some one claims, “Life is like a box of
chocolates”, to what extent is this a convincing
analogy?
Are you convinced by Paley’s argument?
Is a watch really comparable with a human eye? Are
the two really similar in their essential details?
Obviously Paley thought so but what do you think?
25
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Those who support the teleological argument say all we have to do to
confirm the existence of God is look around us.
The inference from the watch analogy is that an eye is analogous to a
watch in requiring a designer. Furthermore, the universe and all that is
in it are far more complex than a watch, therefore the designer must
be a very powerful and sophisticated being - God.
The argument is based on induction although, like the cosmological, it
can be given a deductive formal structure.
The Argument From Design
The formal argument
P1 Without order there would be chaos.
P2 Order is always created by design and intelligence.
P3 We observe order.
_____________________
p4/C There is an intelligent creator/designer - God.
Assignment 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
In what way is the Argument from Design similar to
the cosmological argument?
What are the differences between a priori and a
posteriori arguments?
What is the history of the Argument from Design?
Why is the argument sometimes called the
Teleological argument?
Outline the basic Teleological/Design argument.
What is the title of Paley’s text?
How does Paley illustrate this argument?
What kind of argument does Paley use?
26
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
How convincing is the teleological argument?
Despite the popularity and vitality of the design argument there are flaws.
Remember arguments can be declared unreliable for two reasons.
Either the premises are untrue or there is a fault in the structure.
The design argument is an a posteriori argument. It is an inductive argument
the conclusion is not necessarily even if all the premises are true.
In an inductive argument, the conclusion could be false even with true premises.
Problems with the Design Argument
Firstly it can be applied in another context
and made to sound absurd. (Remember
reductio ad absurdum?)
“If we look at an egg we could be
struck by the fact that it is very
cleverly designed so that it will fit
exactly into an egg cup!”
Secondly as to the question above “is the analogy valid?”
Some would say “no!” It is also absurd to say that the
workings of a watch “resemble” the human eye.
According to David Hume, the human eye is more like a vegetable!
27
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
After all, a watch is mineral.
The point of this objection to the analogy is that if the analogy is weak then
the conclusion cannot be relied on. The whole argument is weakened.
What about the substantial claims of the argument? There are two..
Look carefully at premises, 2, 3 and 4.
P1 Without order there would be chaos.
P2 Order is always created by design and intelligence.
P3 We observe order.
_____________________
p4/C There is an intelligent creator/designer - God.
Objections

Can we assume that all is ordered in the universe?

Can we assume that all order is designed?
Premise 2 and 3 suffer from the problem with all a priori arguments
with an inductive basis – the claim that “all unobserved things are
like observed all things”. This can never be demonstrated!
Premise 4’s problem – why does the “designer” have to be God? No
reason given!
Premise 3 – again, some would also point out that the universe exhibits
chaos not order.
28
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Just because some one claims that order is observed does not mean
that order actually exists. Just think about it! Just because some
one sees a certain pattern in a cloud formation does not mean that …..
Is it reasonable to infer that any observed pattern/order is
patterned or ordered?
After all we all have experience of
coincidences.
Assignment 8
1 The teleological argument is an example of what kind of argument?
2 What does the teleological argument have in common with the
cosmological?
3 Explain clearly the main problems of these sorts of arguments.
4 What kind of argument did Paley use?
5 Give another example of this kind of argument.
6 List all the objections to the Teleological argument so far.
29
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
More Objections
Alternative Arguments To
Order & Design
There are alternative arguments
which seem to be just as
convincing.
Evolution
The rise of modern science has
produced a significant challenge
to
the
Design
Argument.
Darwin's work on evolution has
provided us with a competing
argument
to
Paley’s
watch
analogy. Darwin explains why plants, animals and their bits seem so
well “designed” without the need for a supernatural personal designer.
From his many observations of plants and animals on the Galapagos
Islands, Darwin postulated that it was the process of Natural
Selection which was at work rather than that of a Divine Designer.
The human eye could be explained as a product of Natural Selection
rather than God.
So not God, not chance but an explainable natural process.
This immense and wonderful universe cannot be the
result of blind chance... I feel compelled to look to a
First Cause... But then arises the doubt. Can the
mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been
developed from a mind as low as that possessed by
the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such
grand conclusions?
(Charles Darwin – the Origin of the Species)
30
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
It is important to note that
Darwin’s theory does not
disprove God. In fact some
Christians would say that
God created evolution!
What Darwin does do is that
he provides a theory which
many claim does away with
the necessity for God and so
weakens
the
Design
Argument because it takes
the same evidence and
arrives at an alternative conclusion. Some would say that
this provides a good explanation for natural order without
the need for a supernatural cause.
But remember, Darwin only attempted to explain biological
systems. There are many other systems in operation in the
universe which cannot be explained by Darwinism.
More recently, scientific research into what is known as
Chaos Theory is beginning to undermine Newton's optimistic
view of the universe as a predictable machine. It is not in
fact (we now discover) made up of building blocks obeying
'laws of nature', but of waves and impulses which seem to
operate randomly.
We are discovering that the cosmos is perhaps more chance
than design.
If a pattern does eventually emerge, could it be simply
nature's way of surviving? Those who fit into the pattern
survive, the rest perish. Who is to say that the human race is
not the survivor of a million failed worlds? If God stands
behind such a world, he is something far more mysterious
than just a “clever watchmaker”.
31
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
More Problems with the Design Argument
If we take up the theists’ invitation to look around us at the
evidence for the existence of God, some may say that there
is as much evidence for non-existence - “Where is God with
all the suffering?”
Moreover, if some of the universe seems well designed, there
is much that could do with a make-over - flood, drought,
earthquake, volcanic eruption, plague, disease, innocent
suffering and so on. Taken together they call into question
the power, wisdom and ethics of the Creator.
So the
Designer God may not be omnipotent, omniscient nor
onmibenevolent.
Humans rarely have perfect vision and many have back
problems as a result of walking upright. So maybe this was a
“prototype universe” - maybe this universe was abandoned as
a bad job or just abandoned because it was no fun any more too many repeats in the soap opera of human nature!
So even if it could be proved that there is design in our
world, who is to say as David Hume did that the Designer is
not plural, or stupid, or downright evil?
“Look round this universe... inspect a little more narrowly
these living creatures ... how hostile and destructive to each
other ... how contemptible or odious to the spectator ... a
blind nature, pouring forth from her lap without
discernment or parental care, her maim and abortive
children. If the architect had skill and good intentions, he
might have remedied all or most of these inconveniences.”
(David Hume - Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion)
32
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Assignment 9 (Revision)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Outline the basic Teleological argument.
How does Paley illustrate this argument?
What kind of argument does Paley use?
What are the main problems with the Teleological
Argument itself?
Why is Charles Darwin now an important figure in this
debate?
What are the alternative arguments to the
Teleological?
What is David Hume’s point?
What does the teleological argument establish?
What does Darwin’s theory do for the teleological
argument?
List all the objections to the design argument in this
section.
Argument from Design - Post-Scientific Version
So you might think, as many do, that Darwin has completely
destroyed the teleological argument. Not so. Many eminent
scientists are also theists. Deism, as it is called was popular
in David Hume’s day over three hundred years ago and it still
is today.
How can this be?
33
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
The Anthropic Principle
The Teleological - Science Synthesis
Most recently the Anthropic Principle or Theistic Evolution
has had its supporters. This principle states that the
Genesis picture, of a universe deliberately designed for
human beings, is confirmed by science. A universe hospitable
to humans requires so many unique circumstances that it
cannot be put down to mere random chance.
For example when the ozone layer around the earth was first
discovered, many believers acclaimed it as a further piece of
evidence of a teleological world. Who but a wise Designer
could have arranged this?
So the more the natural laws are revealed which order the
universe and allow life to exist the more evidence the theist
claim to support their position that it could only be God that
has created the physical laws which allows life to exist.
Theists point out that the odds against all the cosmological
constants being what they are is 1 in 10 to 10 125
As one philosopher puts it ...
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the
power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.
He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is
about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls
himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a
band of theologians who have been sitting there
for centuries.
Solomon
"God does not play dice with the universe”
Albert Einstein
34
"everything about the
universe tends toward
humans,
making
life
possible and sustaining
it"
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Here Einstein is expressing the Deist view that the
exactitude with which the maths fits what would be
necessary for there to be an ordered and sustainable
universe is not a result of shear chance.
1 Scientific Cosmology -
The “Big Bang” + Natural laws
e.g. Darwinian biology
2 Narrow Teleology (Paley) - examples from experience
demonstrate the existence of God
- the human eye - God the
designer
3 Broad Teleology (Tennant) -
Synthesis - examples like
the eye can be explained by
natural
causes
like
evolution/natural selection
but these natural forces
are the “ways of God”.
Conclusion
So the Teleological or Argument from Design sets out to
demonstrate that the God of the philosophers necessarily
exists because only if S/He did, would there be order in the
universe.
Has this been achieved?
Not quite. The jump from order to perceived design to Great
Designer can be challenged.
The argument merely establishes the possibility of a Designer
God.
35
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Purely scientific explanations are however incomplete and
claim that all will be revealed eventually.
The synthesis amounts to the bolting of one unconvincing
argument on to another.
The conclusion based on an inductive inference so not certain to be true.
The God of the philosophers is not necessarily the only source of order.
There are inconsistencies or contradictions between God’s nature and the
evidence e.g. suffering and omnibenevolence.
There are alternative, equally strong arguments, which do not rely on God.
Order has not been demonstrated as conclusive evidence for chance being
an important feature of the way the universe operates.
The argument from Design relies on what many would say are weak
analogies Is the eye really like a watch? Hume said that the human to
him resembled not a machine but a vegetable!
Assignment 10
1
2
3
4
5
What do the Cosmological and Teleological arguments have in
common?
What is the difference between the Cosmological and
Teleological argument?
Why, and in what way, has the Teleological had to evolve?
How successful do you think this has been? Why?
How convincing is the teleological today? Give reasons for your
answer.
36
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
37
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Arguments From Design - Video
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
What does philosophy provide in relation to the
question of the existence of God?
What are the philosophical questions that provide
a starting point?
The scientific position is usually represented by
which hypothesis?
Why do some scientists believe that there is still
room for God in their cosmology?
What is this an example of?
Dawkins says that God was understandably
necessary until who came along?
What do we have to do to find out “what is going
on”?
What model of argument is chosen first? Why?
What form of argument is the argument from
design?
What is it claimed that evolution does?
What are the modern Cosmo arguments?
How are the relative strengths of arguments
tested?
Why is it claimed that the “many universes”
arguments is not scientific?
Who survives the “simplicity test”?
Why is God “no explanation”?
What does our existence suggest?
What is the point of the “firing squad” analogy?
What is the scientific view of this?
What questions are not explained by the design
argument?
If there is no proof what should or could be a
reasonable human response?
What are claimed to be the weaknesses of
religious explanations?
What is the philosophical substance of Dawkins
“water sprite” argument?
38
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
There is No Conclusive Evidence Agnosticism
Agnosticism is a term first used in 1869 by TH Huxley to
describe his philosophical position on the existence of God.
In the twentieth century, Bertrand Russell also described
himself as an agnostic.
Anyone who decides that it may be impossible to decide
whether or not God exists might be described as an agnostic.
It is important to note is that there is a distinction between being an
agnostic and being an atheist.
The atheist argues against the existence of God, while the agnostic
argues that, after examining all the arguments, there is insufficient
evidence to decide either for or against the existence God. For these
purposes we are assuming that “knowing God exists” and “believing
that God exists” are the same thing.
So why be an agnostic?
Firstly, from looking at the cosmological and teleological arguments,
we have seen that those who argue for the existence of God (theists)
and those who argue against the existence of God (atheists) are very
skilful at countering each others’ arguments and objections.
Secondly, a failure to prove that God does exist is not proof that God
does not exist, (and vice versa).
Thirdly, both theists and atheists claim that God, by Her very nature,
is unknowable and so conclusive evidence can never exist!
The agnostic is not claiming that, since there are no obvious winners,
it is better just to sit on the fence. The agnostic is claiming that the
evidence available might be used to support or challenge both sides of
39
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
the argument and that, until evidence becomes conclusive, we should
not conclude.
It is really a question of fact and interpretation.
Think back to the human eye example in our discussion of the design
argument.
We have a fact: the human eye is perfectly fitted for the human
environment.
Both sides agree on this fact but interpret this fact as evidence
which supports their particular argument.
Intelligent design
theorists take this apparent fitness to purpose to be evidence of
God’s existence, atheists, on the other hand, take this to be a sign of
evolution and natural selection and so evidence that God does not
exist.
The agnostic point of view is that this piece of evidence is therefore
not decisive, and that to believe either way on the basis of that
evidence would be irresponsible and irrational.
Huxley’s argument could be formalised as follows:
P1 - All conclusions should be based on the strongest evidence.
P2 - The evidence for the existence and non-existence of God is
balanced equally.
P3 - Neither evidence is stronger than the other.
Therefore
Conclusion - One should remain agnostic
Assignment 11
1
2
Why did Huxley use the term agnosticism?
What is the difference between agnosticism and
atheism?
40
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
3
4
5
6
What are the main philosophical reasons for
agnosticism?
What would be an example of the formal agnostic
argument?
Why is it important to distinguish facts from
interpretation.
Give an example of this distinction.
Pascal’s Wager – Argument Against Agnosticism
This is a response to both atheism and agnosticism. Suppose that the
agnostic is right, there really is no conclusive evidence one way or the
other, and that, without conclusive evidence one way or the other, we
really should not commit ourselves to either believing that God does
exist, or that God doesn’t exist.
The French mathematician, Blaise Pascal, suggests that the lack of
conclusive evidence one way or the other is no reason for us not to
commit ourselves to believing in God.
41
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
In brief, Pascal says that given the choice between believing or not,
we should believe in God because we have the least to lose by it.
Philosophers call this argument Pascal’s Wager. Put more formally,
Pascal’s Wager looks something like this:
P1
If you believe in God and God exists, you will be
rewarded in the afterlife.
P2
If you do not believe in God and God exists, you will
be punished in the afterlife.
P3
If you do not believe in and God does not exist
there will be no reward or punishment.
P4
Clearly there is more to gain than lose from believing in God
Therefore
CO N CL US I ON - IT MAK ES S E NS E T O B E LI EV E I N G OD
The central point is to do with hedging your bets - an analogy…
God Does Exist
God Does Not exist
I believe in God
Win
£10,000,000,000,000.00
£ 0.00
I do not believe
in God
Lose
£10,000,000,000,000.00
£ 0.00
In this analogy, the potential benefits of
believing are considerably greater than not
believing. The worst that can happen to a
believer is that s/he gets no reward. However,
the worst that can happen to a non-believer is
that s/he gets in a lot of debt and the best is
that s/he gets nothing.
42
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
So, looking at it this way, Pascal’s argument is that even if there no
evidence either way on the question of God’s existence, we should still
form an opinion in favour of God’s existence since, in terms of
potential benefits, it is plainly more sensible to believe.
Is this the same as reasonable?
Objections
There are many objections to
Pascal’s Wager. Here are just
three:
1. Do those who do not believe do
so because they choose to not
believe? Surely those who do not
believe are just not convinced by
the evidence.
Pascal is not
arguing for a real belief in God
but a virtual belief in God and he
is not giving reasons for this
belief but trying to persuade us
to accept this virtual situation out of self-interest not rational
conviction.
The best we can say for Pascal’s argument is that it
provides evidence for the benefit of believing but not the
truthfulness of the belief
2. Look again at Pascal’s argument. A big claim against it is that if God
does not exist, then a life spent believing in Him is not a life wasted –
no loss. But what about the efforts that have to be put in and
restriction on life and behaviour that a belief in God entails – loss of
freedom.
3. It is not just a question of belief or non-belief in God. Which God
does one need to believe in to be sure to get the reward? Will the
wrong choice result in punishment?
43
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Clifford’s Objection to Pascal’s Wager
WK Clifford argued that we have a responsibility
to make a reasoned choice based on the evidence
alone and not on personal considerations.
Clifford, asks us to imagine the owner of a number
of passenger ships, which he knows are not in good
condition. But, because these ships in the past
have successfully completed journeys many times, the ship-owner
reasons that they will be able to do this again. Unfortunately the
ships sink and all on board are drowned.
What kind of argument and evidence did the ship-owner use?
Using this selective evidence to draw a conclusion produced
undesirable results. The ship owner has arrived at his beliefs
irresponsibly. He acted not reasonably but selfishly and irresponsibly.
For Clifford, we are in a similar position regarding the evidence for
God in that we have to form our beliefs responsibly, and forming a
belief for, or against, God on the evidence currently available would
not be responsible.
So, for the agnostic, there is no clear cut evidence one way or the
other about God’s existence, and if we are to behave responsibly
regarding the formation of our beliefs, we should abstain from belief
rather than commit ourselves on poor or inconclusive evidence.
Is the agnostic right to make these conclusions?
So what do you conclude? – Is there a rational basis for belief in
God?
44
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Assignment 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
What was Pascal’s argument?
Why did he use it?
What are the main objections to Pascal’s argument?
What form of argument did Clifford use?
What question does this type of argument raise?
What point did Clifford try to make?
Was Clifford successful?
What is your conclusion to the question –“Is there a rational
basis for belief in God?
45
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Summary
Agnostic Position
Agnostics believe that it is impossible/unreasonable/irresponsible to conclude either for or
against the existence of God – the evidence is inconclusive
Reasoning
Arguments for and against existence are equally balanced
Weak arguments for, do not demonstrate non-existence of God
Any conclusion must be justified
Strengths of agnosticism
Any conclusion should be justified
There is an openness to persuasion
Weaknesses of agnosticism – theists
Belief in God is based on faith – knowledge tests are inappropriate
Cosmo & Design arguments are convincing
Revelation and miracles are conclusive
Weaknesses of agnostic – atheists
Paradox of omnipotence demonstrates God’s existence as illogical
Existence of evil inconsistent with existence of God
God is a psycho/social projection not a reality
Conclusion
Faith too mysterious to be effective
Philosophical arguments confirm only the possibility of God
Miracles are open to various interpretations so not conclusive
God may be illogical and still exist
Evil does not disprove God, only makes belief in existence more difficult
Psycho/social theories do not disprove the existence of God
46
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
NAB Revision
47
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
LTS
48
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Look round the world: contemplate the whole and
every part of it: you will find it to be nothing but one
great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of
lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions to
a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can
trace and explain. All these various machines, and
even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each
other with an accuracy which ravishes into admiration
all men who have ever contemplated them. The
curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all
nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds,
the productions of human contrivance: of human
designs, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since,
therefore, the effects resemble each other, we are
led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the
causes also resemble; and that the Author of Nature
is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though
possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to
the grandeur of the work which he has executed. By
this argument a posteriori, and by this argument
alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity,
and his similarity to human mind and intelligence.
(Hume,
Dialogues
Religion)
Concerning
Natural
The structure of this argument is something like this:
1. The world around us resembles the artefacts of human
creation in that they both display complexity.
2. The complexity of human artefacts comes from having
been designed and made by intelligent beings (humans).
3. We have no reason to assume that what holds for human
artefacts should not hold for the world around us.
4. Therefore, the complexity in the world around us comes
from having been designed and made by an intelligent
being (God).
Claim 1 is simply a more concise statement of the thoughts
we started out with; that natural objects, like human
49
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
artefacts, display complexity. Claim 2 is also the
straightforward point that human artefacts show this
complexity because they are designed. Claim 3 is the
crucial claim of this argument from analogy. Put most
succinctly, it is the claim that like effects have like causes.
The idea is that if we see two cases where the effect is
the same, we are entitled to assume that in both cases, the
cause is the same. There are numerous examples that we
might suggest that make this seem uncontentious; if we
have two similar marks on a cloth, one of which we know is
caused by scorching, we can, with some justification,
assume that the second mark is also caused by scorching.
The reason that this claim is crucial to the argument should
be clear; it is by claiming that the complexity in human
artefacts and the complexity in natural objects are like
effects that we are able to claim like causes in both cases
and so claim God as the designer of natural objects. Claim
4, of course, is just the conclusion of the argument and
makes explicit the idea that emerges from claim 3; namely
that if human artefacts show complexity because they are
designed, then natural objects, displaying like effects and
so having like causes, are also the product of design. And of
course, the obvious point is that the only thing that could
be the intelligent designer of the world, the universe, etc.,
is God.
50
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Objections and Replies
What are we to make of the argument from analogy? David
Hume offers a range of well-known objections, and it is
widely thought that these criticisms seriously undermine
the argument from analogy. Hume’s most important
objections, which we shall examine in more detail below, are
first, that the grounds for analogy between natural object
and human artefacts is too weak to warrant the inference
that the argument from analogy makes, and second, that
even if the analogy is strong and permissible, it does not
give us the kind of God we might ordinarily think it does.
Objection 1: The Grounds for Analogy are too Weak
The main criticism is that the grounds for analogy are too
weak for us to say that the reason for the traits of design
in human artefacts has an analogous reason at the level of
the world around us. Hume puts it like this:
If we see a house, we conclude, with the
greatest certainty, that it had an architect or
builder because this is precisely that species of
effect which we have experienced to proceed
from that species of cause. But surely you will
not affirm that the universe bears such a
resemblance to a house that we can with the
same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the
analogy is here entire and perfect.
(Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion)
For Hume, the world or the universe is dissimilar enough to
human artefacts for us to think that the analogy fails.
What he means is that although we can suggest that
similarities exist, these similarities might well be
insignificant, and certainly not strong enough to provide a
basis for any argument that God exists. By way of driving
his point home, Hume extends this criticism by pointing out
51
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
that the analogy is so weak, that we can, in principle, draw
similarities between the universe and a whole range of
things:
The world plainly resembles more an animal or a
vegetable than it does a watch or a knitting
loom. Its cause, therefore, it is more probable
resembles the cause of the former. The cause
of the former is generation or vegetation. The
cause, therefore, of the world, we may infer to
be something similar or analogous to generation
or vegetation.
(Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion)
Are we to assume, then, that this provides a good argument
for thinking that the universe developed organically, in
much the same way as a vegetable? It seems that such an
argument could work in much the same way as the design
argument, by providing a ground for analogy and drawing an
inference on the basis of that. Now, if we can draw
analogies between the universe and things that are
designed on the one hand, and between the universe and
things that are not designed on the other, then why should
we think that one argument from analogy is any more
convincing than the other? It looks as though this
particular teleological argument is not too convincing.
52
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Objection 2: The Many Designers Objection
The second interesting objection from Hume is that even if
the argument from analogy is accepted, it is not clear that
it delivers the kind of God we would want. The thought is
that what we want to argue for is more that just the
existence of God. Indeed, for many people, we are trying to
argue for a particular kind of God, for example, the God of
Christian, Jewish or Muslim religions. However, by saying
that intelligent designers created human artefacts and by
analogy an intelligent designer designed the universe, we do
not automatically entitle ourselves to claim that it is this
kind of God whose existence we have proved. The best way
of pointing this out is to note this point from Hume:
A great number of men join in building a
house or ship, in rearing a city, in framing
a commonwealth; why may not several
deities combine in contriving and framing
a world?
(Hume, Dialogues
Religion)
Concerning
Natural
What Hume is quite rightly pointing out here is that by the
analogy, we have said that human artefacts are made by
intelligent designers, that is, by many humans; however, the
claim we want to make from the analogy is that the
universe is made by an intelligent designer, with particular
characteristics. As things stand, we can’t be sure that
whatever did create the universe was a single creator, let
alone a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God. Note that
this objection does not deny the possibility of a God; it
just notes that there is nothing in the argument from
analogy that allows the claim that the intelligent designer
of the universe could be the God we have in mind.
Paley’s Teleological Argument
53
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
In many ways the argument from analogy is too simplistic,
and has too many obvious weaknesses. However, there is a
development of the argument from analogy from the 19th
Century Churchman William Paley which uses many of the
same starting points, but is certainly more sophisticated
than the simple argument from analogy. A good summarising
statement of Paley’s argument is this:
[S]uppose I found a watch upon the ground, and
it should be inquired how the watch happened to
be in that place, I should hardly think … that,
for anything I knew, the watch might have
always been there. Yet why should not this
answer serve for the watch as well as for [a]
stone [that happened to be lying on the
ground]?… For this reason, and for no other;
viz., that, if the different parts had been
differently shaped from what they are, if a
different size from what they are, or placed
after any other manner, or in any order than
that in which they are placed, either no motion
at all would have been carried on in the machine,
or none which would have answered the use that
is now served by it.
(William Paley, Natural Theology)
What Paley is doing here is examining what marks the
watch as designed. The key mark of design which he
identifies is that it performs a role that we take to be
useful, that is, it keeps time. Moreover, so Paley’s
teleological argument goes, the watch could not actually
fulfil this role if it had been different in some way. This
precise fitness to fulfil a role tells us that the watch is
purposefully this way.
54
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Having noted the characteristics which indicate design,
Paley then goes on to conclude that natural objects also
have such characteristics. We shall examine this further in
a moment, but first, we must make something clear; this is
not a simple argument from analogy, despite the fact that,
superficially, it looks as though Paley is saying that the
world is like a watch. As a matter of fact, Paley’s is not
drawing an analogy, but pointing out the features of the
watch which he thinks indicate its being designed. He then
goes on to say that human artefacts are not the only things
that display these features. In short, he is identifying why
we would think that the watch is designed and then pointing
out that natural objects have these features too.
To be clear, an argument from analogy, identifies one
characteristic shared by different objects, and then
assumes on that basis, that other, related, characteristics
are shared too. Formally, the argument runs thus:
1. Human artefacts have characteristic Y.
2. Natural objects also have characteristic Y.
3. Human artefacts have characteristic Y because they
also have characteristic Z.
4. Therefore, Natural objects also have characteristic Z.
Paley’s argument, although often construed this way,
doesn’t take this form. Rather, Paley uses the watch
(whose characteristics he discusses for two chapters) to
get clear about the characteristics which designed objects
(regardless of who designed them) have. He then searches
for, and finds, these characteristics in the natural world.
Put more formally, Paley’s argument runs roughly like this:
1. Some natural objects display design-like properties
(they display a precise fitness to purpose).
2. Design-like properties are the result of intelligent
design.
3. Therefore, Natural objects are the product of design.
55
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Notice that in this argument, there is no reference to
human artefacts at all and so no analogy being drawn. This
is why, when properly construed, Paley’s argument is not a
simple analogical argument.
So, why does Paley think that natural objects also display
the kind of purposive design he identifies in the watch? A
good example comes from the natural world. Think of
something like the length of a sword-billed hummingbird’s
beak. These birds have thin beaks three or more inches
longer than their bodies and are perfectly suited to feed
on the flowers that grow in their habitat. All the flowers in
the sword-billed hummingbird’s habitat keep their nectar a
long way from the opening of their flowers and any bird
taking this nectar needs a very long, thin beak. This makes
the sword-bill’s beak perfectly suited for its purpose. In
fact, the minutest change in the length or breadth of the
sword-bill’s beak would mean that this particular
hummingbird would be unable to feed and so would soon
become extinct. This precise complexity fitted to purpose
is something we have already seen in the watch, and as
Paley points out, such a characteristic only arises through
purposive design. And of course, the final step is obvious.
We know who the designer of the watch is since we,
humankind, designed it. But we know that we did not design
the hummingbird’s beak even though it bears the hallmark
of purposive design, and of course, we have to conclude
that the only thing that could be the designer behind the
purposive design in nature is God.
56
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Objection: Evolution explains precise complexity fitted
to purpose in nature
The first point we might raise against Paley’s argument is
that it may not be so clear as Paley assumes what the role
or purpose that natural objects display is, and perhaps
more needs to be said on Paley’s part. However, the real
problem with Paley’s argument is a very famous theory:
evolution. We know that the theory of evolution suggests
that complex biological organisms (the things which Paley
thinks display purposive design) evolved gradually over
millions of years from simpler organisms through a process
of natural selection. Clearly, then, Darwin’s theory of
evolution and natural selection gives us an alternative way
to explain the phenomena (complex functionality) that leads
Paley to think that a designer has left his mark.
To see this in terms of an example, think of the
hummingbird’s beak again: the reason the sword-billed
hummingbird’s beak is so fit for purpose is that in that
habitat, it is the only one that works. Imagine that many
thousands of years ago, there were many hummingbirds
with many different lengths of beak, and many flowers of
differing lengths too. Then, because of a sudden change in
the environment, the shorter flowers died out. This meant
that only birds with long beaks who were able to get at the
nectar in the longer flowers were able to feed and survive.
The birds with shorter beaks died out, and the birds with
long beaks thrived in their specialised habitat. Thousands
of years later, when all those birds with inappropriate
beaks have died out, we come across this environment and
note that the long beaked birds fit so perfectly in this
environment that any change in the length of their beaks
would see them become extinct. Obviously, had we seen the
thousands of years of natural selection that lead to this
point, we wouldn’t see the long bird beaks as designed for
the environment, but rather as the result of weaker less
well fitted birds dying out. What this seems to do for
57
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Paley’s argument is explain complexity and fitness for
purpose without positing God as a designer. This seems to
render Paley’s teleological argument defunct.
There is, of course, a response here, often forwarded by
Intelligent Design theorists: evolution does not necessarily
contradict the idea of intelligent design, rather, it could be
the tool of an intelligent designer. For example, the reason
that hummingbird beaks are fit for their purpose is indeed
because they have evolved that way, but evolution could, in
fact, be the tool that God used to ensure that hummingbird
beaks turned out the way He intended. In effect, this does
not argue against evolution, but rather co-opts it by
claiming that it is not, in fact, random. Of course, such a
response would need to explain why there exists in nature
so many things which are either poorly designed, (eg. the
shared food/air passages in mammals) or apparently
superfluous (the human appendix). If God is an intelligent
designer who can use guided evolution to effect his
designs, why are so many of His designs apparently so
poor?
58
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
c) It is impossible to decide if God exists
Agnosticism
Anyone who decides that it may be impossible to decide
whether or not God exists might be described as an
agnostic. We shall look at why one might be an agnostic in a
moment, but first, it is important to note is that there is a
distinction between being an agnostic and being an atheist.
These two concepts are often run together, since both
agnostics and atheists seem to find themselves
uncommitted to the existence of God. However, the atheist
argues against the existence of God, while the agnostic
argues that there is insufficient evidence to decide either
for or against God. So, why be an agnostic?
It may well already be apparent from looking at the
cosmological and teleological arguments that those who
want argue for the existence of God (theists) and those
that want to argue against the existence of God (atheists)
are adept at countering each others arguments and
objections. Moreover, a failure to prove that God does not
exist is not proof that God does not exist, (and vice versa).
Even so, the agnostic is not committed to saying that since
there are no obvious winners it is better to sit on the
fence. Rather, the agnostic is best construed as saying
that the evidence available might be used to support either
sides’ argument and that, until evidence becomes decisive,
we have a responsibility not to believe in one thing or the
other. To see how this might work, think of the discussion
of the hummingbird’s beak in our discussion of the
teleological argument. It looks as though we have a bare
fact: hummingbird’s beaks are perfectly fitted to the
environment in which they live. Both sides of the debate
are able to use such evidence as support for their
preferred conclusion; intelligent design theorists take this
apparent fitness to purpose to be evidence of God’s
existence, atheists on the other hand take this to a sign of
59
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
evolution and natural selection and so evidence that God
does not exist. The agnostic has to say that this piece of
evidence does not decide the argument either way, and
that to believe either way on the basis of that would be
irresponsible.
A way of understanding the agnostic’s position in slightly
different terms comes from some examples used by the
nineteenth century mathematician, W.K. Clifford, who, to
this date offers the clearest statement of the ideas
underlying the agnostic position. For the agnostic, what is
crucial is that we arrive at beliefs responsibly. Clifford
generates a range of scenarios to illustrate the importance
of this point. In one case, he asks us to imagine the owner
of passenger ships that are not in good condition. By
reasoning that in the past the vessels have successfully
completed the journey, he decides to make another
journey. Unfortunately the ships sink and all onboard are
lost. It seems that the evidence upon which the ship owner
based his decision was not good (the problems of induction
are well known) or conclusive. However, by using this
evidence to form a decision generates undesirable results,
results which show that the ship owner has arrived at his
beliefs irresponsibly. For Clifford, we are in a similar
position regarding the evidence for God in that we have to
form our beliefs responsibly, and forming a belief for or
against God on current evidence would not be responsible.
So, for the agnostic, there is no clear cut evidence one way
or the other about God’s existence, and if we are to behave
responsibly regarding the formation of our beliefs, we will
abstain from belief rather than commit ourselves on poor
or inconclusive evidence. But is the agnostic right to make
these conclusions? Next we shall examine an argument that
suggests that we have plenty of grounds for reaching a
conclusion in the theist/atheist debate, even if the
evidence is not conclusive one way or the other.
60
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Pascal’s Wager
Suppose that the agnostic is right, there really is no
conclusive evidence one way or the other, and that without
conclusive evidence one way or the other, we really ought
not commit ourselves to either believing that God does
exist, or that God doesn’t exist. However, one argument,
from the French mathematician and theologian Blaise
Pascal, suggests that the lack of conclusive evidence one
way or the other is no reason for us not to commit
ourselves to believing in God. In brief, Pascal says that
between believing or not, we should believe in God because
we have the least to lose by it. Philosophers call this
argument Pascal’s Wager. Put more formally, Pascal’s Wager
looks something like this:
1.
If you believe in God and God exists, you will be
rewarded in the afterlife.
2.
If you do not believe in God and God exists, you
will be punished in the afterlife.
3.
If He does not exist nothing will happen to you in
the afterlife, whether or not you believed in Him (He
doesn’t exist to do anything to you in the afterlife).
4.
Clearly there is more to gain than lose from
believing in God
Therefore
5.
I T M AKES S E NS E TO BEL IE VE I N G O D
The central point is to do with hedging your bets. It may be
easier to think about this in terms of getting or incurring
financial rewards after we die. If you believe that God
exists, and God does exist, then when you die you go to
Heaven. However, if you doubt that God exists, and God
61
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
does exist, then you go to hell. Heaven means getting a
multi-billion pound pay off and spending the rest of
eternity to spend it. Hell on the other hand means incurring
a multi-billion pound debt and the rest of eternity to pay it
off. Of course, if it turns out that God does not exist, you
get nothing either way; there is no pay out in Heaven and no
debt problem in Hell. Here, then, are the potential
beneficial outcomes when you die depending on whether you
believe or not.
God Does Exist
God Does Not exist
Win
£10,000,000,000,000.00
£ 0.00
I do not believe Lose
in God
£10,000,000,000,000.00
£ 0.00
I believe in God
Clearly, the potential benefits of believing are a
considerable amount higher than not believing; the worst
that can happen to a believer is that he gets no money.
However, the worst that can happen to non-believer is that
he gets in a lot of debt and the best is that he gets
nothing. So, looking at it this way, Pascal’s argument is that
even if there no evidence either way on the question of
God’s existence, we should still form an opinion in favour of
God’s existence since, in terms of potential benefits, it is
plainly more sensible to believe.
62
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Objections
There are numerous objections to Pascal’s Wager. Here are
just three:
1. It isn’t clear that those who abstain from belief in God
do so out of some choice to not believe. Those who abstain
do so because there is no evidence from either side that
they find convinces them. To put the point in a slightly
different way, Pascal is asking people to believe in God for
reasons that seem entirely unrelated to the usual reasons
we do or don’t believe. Suppose someone tries to persuade
me that someone rich is coming to town to hand out money
by arguing that if they really are, then I will get some of
that money. This seems like completely the wrong reason
for forming such a belief. I would be better to form such a
belief on the basis of evidence concerning whether such a
person exists and whether they are travelling through this
region. The best we can say for Pascal’s argument is that it
provides evidence for the utility of believing but not the
truthfulness of the belief
2. Look again at Pascal’s argument. A big claim is that if
God does not exist, then a life spent believing in Him is not
a life wasted. However, this may not be an assumption that
Pascal is entitled to in a straightforward way. After all, is
it clear that if God doesn’t exist, we lose nothing by
believing, or gain nothing by not believing? To put things
slightly differently, how much of religious practice involves
abstinence, restraint, devotion, etc.? These are good things
in lots of respects (and not just for the purposes of
religion), but you might think that if there is no God and
‘life is more than just a read through’, so to speak, then we
might benefit from a good spell of reckless behaviour. It
might give us a more rounded view of life and enable us to
milk every last drop of experience from the short time we
are alive. If we think there is anything in this argument,
63
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
then it might well be that something is lost by believing in
God if God turns out not to exist.
3. There is a much bigger problem for Pascal’s Wager
though. It isn’t clear that the real Wager is simply between
believing or not believing. Imagine this: you spend your life
chaste and pure, and devoted yourself to God by becoming
a Franciscan Monk. You die, you find yourself heading
towards the light, thinking, ‘fantastic, the Wager has paid
off and God exists’. You then hear the following presumably
loud and booming voice ‘I am Ganesh; behold my infinite
love and wisdom. Tell me why did you choose to follow the
false belief of Jesus and God when the signs were so clear
that Hinduism is the truth?’. In such an instance, it looks as
though you followed Pascal’s Wager and came down on the
side of believing in God. However, it was not so simple and
you chose the wrong God. You have lost anyway. The point is
simple; it’s not just a choice about believing or abstaining,
but about who to believe? There are a myriad religions,
myriad Gods and so myriad ways to get it all wrong.
64
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Guide To Resources
Texts
Cosmological Arguments
Blackburn, S. (1999) Think. Oxford University Press. Ch.
Five.
(A simple introductory survey of the problem and useful
in orientating students.)
 Craig, W. L. (1980) The Cosmological Argument from
Plato to Leibniz. The Macmillan Press.
 Davies, B. (2003) An Introduction to the Philosophy of
Religion. Oxford University Press. Chapter Three.
(A very popular textbook for philosophy courses on
religious topics which students should find accessible.)
 Hume, D. (1948) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
(edited with an introduction by Norman Kemp Smith)
Social Sciences Publishers.
(Even if no other historical text is used throughout the
unit, this one should really be consulted. Hume’s
Dialogues are easy to read and often state the positions
in these arguments more clearly than modern
textbooks.)

Teleological Arguments
Blackburn, S. (1999) Think. Oxford University Press. Ch.
Five.
(A simple introductory survey of the problem and useful
in orientating students.)
 Davies, B. (2003) An Introduction to the Philosophy of
Religion. Oxford University Press. Chapter Four.
(A very popular textbook for philosophy courses on
religious topics which students should find accessible.)
 Dawkins, R. (1996) The Blind Watchmaker: Why the
Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design.
Norton Publishing.

65
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
(Dawkins is eminently readable and teachers and
lecturers will find this text useful for getting quick
summaries of why evolutionary theory can easily account
for the complexity of natural phenomenon.)
 Hume, D. (1948) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
(edited with an introduction by Norman Kemp Smith)
Social Sciences Publishers.
(Even if no other historical text is used throughout the
unit, this one should really be consulted. Hume’s
Dialogues are easy to read and often state the positions
in these arguments more clearly than modern
textbooks.)
 Manson, N. (ed.) (2003) God and Design: The
Teleological Argument and Modern Science. Routledge.
(A useful book for teachers and lecturers who want to
get some grounding in the more scientific arguments
against the cosmological argument for God’s existence.)
 Paley, W. (1963 [1802]) Natural Theology. BobbsMerrill.
(Famous statement of the teleological argument for
God’s existence, which is also accessible to students.)
Agnosticism and Pascal’s Wager
(There is very little in the way of student-friendly material
on agnosticism but teachers and lecturers may well find
something in the following books.)

Smart, J.J.C. and Haldane, J.J. (2003) Atheism and
Theism (2nd Edn). Blackwell.
(A useful book on matters in religious philosophy and
the debate between theists and atheists, but really not
useful for students.)
66
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Clifford, W.K. ‘The Ethics of Belief’ (1877), in Clifford,
W.K. (1999) The Ethics of Belief and other Essays.
Prometheus Books.
(Classical statement of agnostism. Students may find it
hard to extract the simple agnostic claims from
Clifford’s broader claims about the ethics of belief
though.)
 Pascal, B. (1966) Pensées (trans. A.J. Krailsheimer).
Penguin.

Journals
All of the following journals specialise in the Philosophy of
religion and frequently publish papers relevant to the
material taught in this module.
Disputatio Philosophica: An International Journal
Philosophy and
Faith and Philosophy
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion
Religion
The Journal of Religion
Journal of Religious Ethics
Journal of Religious Thought
Philosophy and Theology
Religious Studies
Religion
Religion and Theology
Web Resources
There are many easy to find web-resources, but the
following are to be particularly recommended for both
teachers and students.
Stanford Encylopedia (http://plato.stanford.edu)
Especially Relevant Entries:
Cosmological Argument
67
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Teleological Argument for God’s Existence
William Paley
Pascal’s Wager
Agnosticism and Atheism
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(http://www.iep.utm.edu)
Especially Relevant Entries:
Design Arguments for the Existence of God
William Paley
Pascal’s Wager
Film and Radio Resources
Films
My Night at Maud’s (Pascal’s Wager) (1969)
Inherit the Wind (Evolution and Intelligent Design)
(1960)
Radio
The Existence of God:
http://www.philosophytalk.org/ExistenceofGod.htm
Intelligent Design:
http://www.philosophytalk.org/IntelligentDesign.htm
Hume:
http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/Hume.htm
68
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
The Cosmological
Argument
1. Everything has a
cause.
2. Nothing is its own
cause.
3. A chain of causes
cannot be infinite.
4. There must be a ‘first
cause’.
69
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
5. God is the ‘first
cause’.
70
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Teleological Argument - Essay/Assessment Outline
1 Teleology =
God =
2 Type of argument =
3 Basic argument =
4 History of the argument =
5 Formal argument , PaleyÕs analogy and meaning =
6 Problems with analogies and formal argument =
7 Challenge of science - Darwin etc =.
8 Result of challenge =
9 Post-scientific synthesis =
10
Conclusion - back to the question and claim made for
the argument - God
necessary?
Type of God(s)?
View of the universe - simplicity is best - Is
God
a
simple or a complicated answer
Higher Philosophy - Unit Assessment
2004
Problems in Philosophy
Arguments for the existence of God
ÒYou can believe that God exists, but you cannot prove it.Ó
71
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
To what extent do you think the teleological argument for
the existence of God demonstrates that this point of view is
incorrect?
25
Higher Philosophy - Unit Assessment
2004
Problems in Philosophy
Arguments for the existence of God
ÒYou can believe that God exists, but you cannot prove it.Ó
To what extent do you think the teleological argument for
the existence of God demonstrates that this point of view is
incorrect?
25
Higher Philosophy - Unit Assessment
2004
Problems in Philosophy
Arguments for the existence of God
ÒYou can believe that God exists, but you cannot prove it.Ó
To what extent do you think the teleological argument for
the existence of God demonstrates that this point of view is
incorrect?
25
72
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
But, of course, that is the problem. Why should one
believe in the first place in an objective and absolute
morality? Some would answer, among other things,
that the alternative, namely, ethical relativism or
subjectivism, turns out on reflection to be
philosophically indefensible (is it not possible to be
morally mistaken?) and certainly impossible to put
into practice (can one live apart from the practice of
ideals and values?).
The big bang
In recent years scientists have proposed the theory of
the Big Bang in an attempt to explain how the universe
came about. The idea was first talked about by a Belgian
priest-scholar called Georges Lemaître in the 1920s.
However, it wasn’t really thought of as a serious
scientific idea until the mid-1960s. Two young radio
astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson,
accidentally discovered evidence that a huge
explosion must have taken place at some point in the
early history of the universe. This seemed to
confirm Lemaître’s idea that the universe exploded
into existence.
The Singularity
73
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
It is now thought that this event took place between 12
to15 billion years ago. The order of events goes something
like this:

The universe explodes into existence.

Immediately after the Big Bang the universe was
thought to be smaller than the nucleus of an atom.

A millisecond later the universe had expanded to the
size of the sun.

A few minutes after the Big Bang the first hydrogen
and helium atoms were formed.

Gradually these atoms then formed into gases which
eventually would become the stars and all matter that
we can see.
So everything that now exists in the universe could be
thought of as debris from the bang.
74
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
75
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
But what was it that exploded?
That question is difficult – some would say impossible to answer.
Here is one way of looking at this question.
Imagine squeezing everything that presently exists into a tiny, almost
unimaginably small space. This space is thought to be about a billion times
smaller than the size of a proton. Given that about 500 billion protons can
fit into the dot on this letter ‘i’, this is clearly a pretty small space!
It is so small that it has been called the ‘point of infinite density’.
Others say that just before the explosion there was nothing but energy.
What certainly didn’t happen was that two stars collided or some
molecules bumped into each other causing the explosion because the Big
Bang is thought to have created everything that exists – time, space
stuff! Some even simply say that there was nothing and then there was
something.
Many people think that this scientific theory takes away the need for a
creator God. It is suggested that everything, even time itself, began at
this point.
Bertrand Russell
Many philosophers have also challenged the cosmological
argument. As well as talking about scientific explanations
like the Big Bang, they also comment on the logic of the
argument itself. One such famous critic was the English
philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970). He made two key
criticisms.
Criticism one – What caused God?
Many people point out that the cosmological argument appears to
contradict itself. Look at the following quote from Bertrand Russell:
‘If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there
can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God …’
76
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Russell was pointing out that if you start by saying that everything needs a
cause, then maybe it’s not fair to then say, ‘everything that is except God’.
You may feel like simply asking, ‘What caused God?’
Russell was also suggesting that it’s perfectly possible that the universe
may not in fact have had a cause at all. The universe could well be eternal.
He suggested that when people say that the universe must have had a
beginning they simply lack imagination.
Criticism two – How can we ever know that the universe needs a
cause?
Russell’s most famous comment on this argument came in a radio debate
with another English philosopher, Fredrick Copleston. Russell said that we
cannot ever know the answer to questions about the origins of the
universe. The only thing that we know for sure is that the universe exists.
‘I should say that the universe is just there, and that is all’
Russell was following in the tradition of the Scottish philosopher David
Hume. Hume had said in his book Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
(published posthumously in 1777) that we have no right saying confidently
that the universe as a whole needs a cause. We can say that everything in
the universe appears to have a cause because we have observed this in our
experience. However, the creation of the universe was clearly a unique
event. It was also an event that didn’t have any observers! Because no-one
was there to watch the event unfold we simply can’t ever know whether it
needed a cause or not. Hume would have almost certainly liked Russell’s
conclusion, that all we can say is that the existence of the universe is a
brute fact.
77
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
78
Higher/Int 2 Philosophy – Metaphysics – Arguments for the Existence of God
Assume that at one time there was nothing. It is clear that nothing
can come from nothing. If, therefore, there was once nothing, even
now there would be nothing. The universe cannot therefore have
come into existence from nothing unless something brought it into
existence.
However, we know that the universe now exists. If God, or something
equivalent in terms of power, does not exist then the universe must
always have existed since, if it was not created, it could not have
come into existence of its own accord from nothing.
Try to explain in your own words what Aquinas was trying to express.
Keep your answer fairly brief.
79