Proof Of God | whydoweexist

Summary To The Arguments.

I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It’s easy. Just click “Edit Text” or double click me and you can start adding your own content and make changes to the font. Feel free to drag and drop me anywhere you like on your page. I’m a great place for you to tell a story and let your users know a little more about you.

Why Do We Need To Think About God's Existance?

Summery

We will go into detail about the Arguments for the proof of Existence of God. Before we start we will summarize the main points into the next two and a half pages:

Two Arguments for the Existance of God:

The OntoLogical Argument, the principal of sufficient reasons and the Kalam- Cosmological Argument.

Firstly to give a summary of session one. Last week we looked at the role of Rationality in justifying beliefs. We looked at two opposing arguments. One argument which said that you have to rationally justify your beliefs. Otherwise you go against you very nature as a rational thinking being and also that you are forfeiting your moral obligation to assess beliefs. So it important to analyze Arguments, beliefs, systems, philosophies, ideologies or doctrines by means of Rational Argument otherwise you commit yourself to an idea that has negative or detrimental consequences for humanity. We examined the counter argument- Fideism that you do not need to rationally justify your beliefs and looked at the problems with that approach- uses rationality in explaining why and strengths the former argument rather then undermining it.

In this session we looked at two Arguments for the Existence of God. The Ontological and the Kalam Cosmological. The reason we study the Ontological Argument first is that some philosophers say that the argument that there is an unlimited being, which caused a limited finite Universe depends upon this (ontological) Argument. So if the ontological argument is false any argument built upon it would be equally false. So if the Ontological argument is insufficient in itself to establish the existence of God. Then any argument based upon it or which presupposed it would be equally false. So that if it is debatable or contentious then anything built upon would be debatable.

This Argument was put forward by Saint Anselm (1033-1109) and known as the classical Ontological argument. Ontological comes from the word Ontology which means the nature of being. This is Anselms thought in the form of a prayer of how to proof the existence of God. The Argument focuses on the nature of Gods being. That once you understand what God means you must conceive that God exists. This establishes the logical necessity that God exists. In that once you understand what God means by definition you must conclude that God is a reality. Then we looked at one main critique by Kant that existence is not a predicate. For a predicate would presuppose the existence of the subject. So taking the example of a soft drink can, predicates (describing an extra quality or property) would be to say it’s a cylinder shape, holds 330m, is green in colour-then to say it also exists- this does not add any extra property or quality because its presupposed to exist already. We looked at Hartshornes elaboration on necessary and contingent existence and concluded the fact that it only attempts to establish the logical necessity of the existence of God means that it has not established the existence of God as an factual necessity. The argument is logical but does not establish the truth of its conclusion. The truth pertains only to the definition and does not cross over into reality. We cannot proceed from concepts into reality.

Then we looked at the Kalam Cosmological argument and showed how the Kalam argument for the existence of God is actually established. This is upon the principal of sufficient Reason. What we are saying is that the first fundamental thing we must understand before we develop an explanation, before we try to look for an explanation as to whether there is a God or not. We have to look at what lies behind our endeavor to establish the existence of God. That is if we think hard about it, how do we make sense of our reality. The question of the existence of God is about the reality of our own experience. What we mean by that is the reality of our own existence. We go back to the principal of sufficient reason- Every thing that begins to exist has a cause for its existence (for it could well have not existed). If you observe the Universe you find that it is made of contingent entities. In that it could well have not existed it is not factually necessary in itself. The Universe being made up of contingent entities is not in itself a necessary being. It is made of things which are destructible, corruptible etc. So for example if a jug of water is contingent and could well have not existed and everything in the Universe shares that attribute then it could have all not existed. We therefore need to ask why it does exist. The reason why we develop an explanation is that the nature of reality demands an explanation. As it is not self-explanatory we therefore have to look to a reason beyond it. The only way the Universe can be self-explanatory is if it is necessary but it is not necessary as it is made of contingent entities that could well have not existed. The fact of contingency necessities an explanation, our basic question of why there is something rather then nothing, why does anything at all exist.

Whether the conclusion is God or something else is established once the argument gets going. However the reason that it we kicked it off or put it into operation in the first place is not a question of God but to answer contingency. This is important is that this argument is not about the attributes of God or the supposed personality of God because we have not reached that conclusion. All we are saying is that this is contingent, how do we explain it? If you say it does not require a contingent existence then you are contradicting the fact of contingent existence. For example that this table, glass, tape could well have not existed and therefore requires an explanation. The fact that our reality is contingent is the fundamental fact and observed rule of the Universe. Then we went on to say lets structure this argument by making two premises and one inferance (see handout on The Kalam Cosmolological Argument)

Then the most conceptual way of putting this forward is not Thomas Aquinas’s way which is to say that everything must come back to a first cause which leads to the problem of putting the first cause on the same level as the others. So that if we can show Premise two- that the Universe began to exist i.e. had a beginning we can apply premise one to it and say that the Universe has a cause for its existence. We must note that the second premise that the Universe has a cause is not done by tracing the Universe back to a point of Origin which is the approach of Aquinas. The best way is the way William Craig argues for the Kalam argument by saying that the Universe either began to exist or it did not. Then the Kalam argument established Premise two by showing the impossibility of the opposite, that of a Universe having no origin. As then the Universe must become an actual infinite. So the Universe becomes an Actual Infinite of contingent entities if it has no Origin. Then we showed the impossibility of having this which only leads to the other conclusion. So the Kalam argument disproves the possibility of an actual infinite (i.e. beginningless) of contingent entities. As it is impossible to have this then it must have a beginning. That a beginningless Universe has no first member. Then in light of a beginningless infinite series, neither the present, nor tomorrow, nor any moment in the past could be reached. We looked at examples of Hilberts Hotel and JP Moreland. That on Premise one- the principal of sufficient reason, once you establish the need for an explanation- there is no escape from the question.

To add some notes form session 3 responding to criticisms, Mathematics deals with the abstract of an a potencial infinite whilst the Kalam argument argues that an actual infinite is impossible. The Kalam argument establishes that God is factually necessary (because the Universe exists and must have an origin) not logically necessary. So it works from the actual to the possible and not from a definition to a fact. The Kalam argument argues that there must be a cause and not the process of causation.