Philo God's Existence

Front 1

St. Anselm

Back 1

The Classical Ontological Argument
• Overview: Anselm argues that we can conceive of God as “a being than which nothing greater can be thought.” reaches conclusion that God cannot be understood not to exist.
• Context: “For I do not seek to understand in order to believe; I believe in order to understand. For I also believe that 'Unless I believe, I shall not understand.'” p.176

Front 2

reality v.

Back 2

understanding
Anselm

Front 3

what allows the fool to persist in his claim that God does not exist?

Back 3

The fool is able to persist in his claim that God does not exist by thinking of God as just the word that signifies this being “that than which a greater cannot be thought”. If the fool does not understand God according to St. Anselm’s definition of God’s nature, he will be incapable of entertaining God’s existence as such in his understanding.

Front 4

guanilo

Back 4

Critique of Anselm's Argument
• overview: objections to the argument
◦ cannot reason from the existence of something in our understanding to the fact it exists in reality, would then reason that unreal objects exist

Front 5

plantinga

Back 5

The Argument Triumphant
• Utilizing the idea of the property of being maximally great
• 29) There is a possible world in which maximal greatness is instantiated
• 30) Necessarily, a being is maximally great only if it has maximal excellence in every world
• 31) Necessarily, a being has maximal excellence in every world only if it has omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection in every world
o Does not imply there are possible but nonexistent beings
• 33) If W had been actual, there is no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being
• What is impossible doesn’t vary between worlds, 33 impossible in actual world, if impossible there be such a being, there exists a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect who has these qualities essentially and exists in every possible world
• Plantinga believes this ontological argument to be valid given the premises posited
o Important questions is whether the main premise (maximal greatness is possibly instantiated) is true
o Believes it to be true and thus the argument sound
• Does this prove existence of God? Plantinga thinks not; argument can be sound without any useful sense proving God’s existence
o Not a proof, those who accept the conclusion already would also accept the first premise
o Nothing contrary to reason or irrational in accepting this premise; this argument establishes the rational acceptability of theism

Front 6

the argument triumphant

Back 6

utilizes the idea of the property of being maximally great
-there is a possible world in which maximal greatness is instantiated

Front 7

St. Bonaventure

Back 7

Conclusion
• If one posists all things produced are out of nothing; this confounds the claim the world is eternal or has been produced from eternity
• Positing the world as eternal and all things being produced out of nothing is contrary to truth and reason
• To posit world is eternal if eternity of matter is presupposed, reasonable
o Footprint as co-eternal with the foot and nonetheless coming from the foot
-support a beginning of the world and not eternal
*it is impossible for non-being to have eternal being because this is a contradiction

Front 8

• To posit world is eternal if eternity of matter is presupposed, reasonable
o Footprint as co-eternal with the foot and nonetheless coming from the foot

Back 8

st. bonaventure

Front 9

Aquinas
Summa Theologiae

Back 9

• Nothing except God can be eternal, the will of God is the cause of things
• Therefore things are necessary
• The world exists as God wills it to exist, being of world depends on will of God

Front 10

• First mover was always in same state but first movable thing was not always so because it began to be whereas it was not
o From moment movable things began to exist movement also existed

Back 10

St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa

Front 11

Thomas Aquinas
The classical cosmological argument

Back 11

deductive form of cosmo
we witness things in motion in our world
that which moves things either is moved by another thing in motion or is itself unmoved (in which case an unmoved mover exists)

Front 12

Thomas Aquinas
classical cosmological argument 2

Back 12

doesn’t try to prove God’s existence a priori, whereas Anselm’s argument did.
-Thomas doesn’t think Anselm’s argument works, that is knowing the meaning of God. Instead he goes about it a posteriori.
-Thomas explains reason cannot establish whether the world has always existed, only faith can. But philosophy can prove there is a God.
The Argument:
-First Premise: same things in the world are moved (evident to the senses)
-Second Premise: everything that is moved is moved by another.
-Third Premise: the other thing that moved the first thing is either moved or unmoved.
-Fourth Premise: one cannot regress infinitely in moved movers (2nd type of regression)
A. unmoved mover
B. thing that moves if an only if moved by another.
C. moved thing
(for Thomas this doesn’t work because no amount of movers of B can explain the movement of C. Even if the number of B’s were infinite. And so we must have a different mover.)

Front 13

Bruce Reichenbach

Back 13

Why God Provides the Best Explanation: God (the necessary being) is a being who is not only uncaused but to whom the Principle of Causation is inapplicable. The can be no scientific explanation of God’s existence, for there are no antecedent beings or scientific principles from which God’s existence follows. The Principle of Causation applies only of those things that are contingent – that is those things that if they do exist, could possibly not have existed. It is not that God’s existence is logically necessary, but that if God exists, he cannot not-exist. God is eternal and does not depend on anything for his existence. These are not reasons for his existence but his properties.

Front 14

explores the need for explanation, noting the defense given for versions of the Principles of Sufficient Reason and of Causation.
-theists have held that a variety of things require explanation
-*suggests why God provides the best explanation in the cases he considers

Back 14

Bruce Reichenbach

Front 15

the nature of explanation

Back 15

Bruce Reichenbach

Front 16

contingent

Back 16

BR
needs an explanation because although it exists, it could have not existed, and hence an explanation of why it exists rather than not is a reasonable demand

Front 17

a deductive cosmo argument from contingency

Back 17

bruce reichenbach

Front 18

William Craig
the kalam cosmo argument

Back 18

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11 Actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.13 Therefore an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the reformation of an actual infinite by successive addition.
2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.

-Example of Hilbert Hotel in defending the second premise.
-Example of the impossibility in forming an actual infinite by successive addition in defending second premise.

Front 19

william craig

Back 19

the kalam cosmo argument
-the universe had a beginning
-established by 4 arguments
-2 from philo 2 from physics
-an actual infinite cannot exist, if it could, one could not traverse it

Front 20

since the world had a beginning it was caused and the cause had to be personal

Back 20

william lane craig

Front 21

J.L Mackie

Back 21

critique of the cosmo argument
-rejects those versions that appeal to the principle of sufficient reason
-he basically rejects everything
the problem of why something exists applies to God*

Front 22

the problem for why something exists applies to God

Back 22

J.L. Mackie