Arguments for the Existence of God II

Design and Ontological Arguments

Ontological Arguments

An Ontological Argument argues from some fact about the concept of God to the reality of God, or the necessary existence of God.

The most famous version of the Ontological Argument is due to Anselm.

Teleological Arguments

• A Teleological Argument argues from the fact that the universe appears to be well ordered or seems to have a purpose, to the conclusion that the universe must either have a designer or a purpose.

• These are sometimes called arguments from design, or ‘Design Arguments’

We will start with these….

Design ArgumentsA model design argument:

1. The clock has many different parts that must be well ordered if it keeps time.

2. The clock does keep time.

3. The clock’s order cannot be accidental.

4. Therefore the clock must be designed

5. If there is a design, then there is a designer-------------------------------------------------

6. So, the clock designer must exist.

Comments on the Clock-maker argument

a) Is there any meaningful difference between making a clock and making a universe?

b) More that one clock maker is possible, so are teams of clockmakers.

c) Not all clocks are good clocks.

Are these worries for the design argument for God?

A Theistic Design Argument [TDA]1. The universe contains many parts that are complex

yet well ordered and suggest that they have a special purpose.

2. It is impossible for this sort of order to appear accidentally.

3. If the universe shows evidence of complex design which could not be accidental, then there must be a designer. Thus, there is a designer.

4. If there is a designer, then that designer must comprehend the universe, God is such a being-----------------------------------------------------------------

5. Therefore God exists and designed the universe.

Comments on TDA

a) Premise 2 is a very strong claim. It maintains the IMPOSSIBILITY that order could exist without a designer. Is this true?

b) Even if the argument to the existence of a designer goes through, does that argument support the further conclusion that God is the designer?

Revised-TDA1. The universe contains many parts that are complex

yet well ordered and suggest that they have a special purpose.

2. There is a low probability that this sort of order would appear accidentally.

3. If the universe shows evidence of complex design which could not be accidental, then there must be a designer.

4. Thus, there is a high probability that there is a designer.

5. If there is a designer, then that designer must comprehend the universe, God is such a being-----------------------------------------------------------------

6. Therefore, there is a high probability that God exists and designed the universe.

Comments on R-TDA

The Revised argument softens the key premise of the argument.

The argument is still deductive, but the truth of premise 2 is now an empirical matter.

How can we determine the probability that the universe would be otherwise???

Probability worries…Probability is a function of frequency relative to a

total class of events.• If there is one universe, then the probability of

the universe being THIS way is 1.00• If there are many universes, then we need to

know what they are like in order to determine probability

• If there are an infinite number of universes, then all possible universes could come to be.

• Does it make sense to say that X is improbable if you don’t know the probability of the alternatives?

A Prima Facie Reply to R-TDASuppose that you play powerball. The Odds of

winning the jackpot are:

1 in 146,107,962.00

A jackpot is an improbable event. It requires that a random process yield a special and well ordered set of numbers.

If MY TICKET WINS, then a special event has occurred – a jackpot.

The Jackpot reply1. The POWERBALL drawing result contains many parts

that are complex yet well ordered.2. There is a low probability that this sort of order would

appear accidentally.3. If there is a JACKPOT, this cannot be accidental. Only

a fixed lottery would produce a JACKPOT.(Or JACKPOTS are far more likely if the lottery is fixed.)

4. Thus, there is a high probability that the POWERBALL is fixed.

5. If the POWERBALL is fixed, the fixer must control POWERBALL, Charles Strutt (head of the MSLA) controls POWERBALL-----------------------------------------------------------------

6. Therefore, there is a high probability that Charles Strutt fixed the POWERBALL drawing

Lottery II

Obviously lotteries don’t work THAT way.

No matter how hard it gets to win a lottery, you never NEED to fix the lottery in order for a Jackpot to be possible.

Lottery III

WHO IS CHARLES STRUTT Anyway?

1988 - present. Executive DirectorMulti-State Lottery Association4400 NW Urbandale Drive, Urbandale, Iowa 50322Phone 515-453-1400; Fax 515-453-1420; E-mail charles@MUSL.com.

Other Facts:

1. “wrote the prospectus and handled SEC filings for a movie to be called "Flesh Twister”. ”

2. “got an autograph from Larry (of the Three Stooges). ”

3. “did a little legal work for a rock band called Luxury. One of their biggest hits was "The Stupidist Thing." ”

ROCK ON CHARLIE STRUTTS

<http://www.musl.com/Chuck/chuck.htm>

Hume’s Worries about TDAHume also thought about a version of the

Design Argument and had several worries:1. Can we know that there is only one

designer and not many?2. Any designer would be a complex and well

ordered entity, who designed the designer?3. Is our world a ‘rough draft’? Are there other

copies of THIS design. Is our universe a school project?

…etc…

Final Remarks on TDA• According to TDA undesigned order is

impossible and any order necessitates a designer but this is too strong.

• According to R-TDA undesigned order is improbable and the presence of order makes a designer probable. But the lottery example suggests that order can randomly emerge.

• A fixed lottery would also be orderly, but why assume that the more complex theory is correct?

• Remember Ockham’s Razor!!!

Ontological Argument

The original aim of the ontological argument was to convince non-christians that the Christian God was real.

Someone would explain God to a person and then once they understood the idea of God….

WHAM! The ontological Argument

Anselm’s Ontological Argument

1. We can think of a Being greater than any other being. (Greatest Possible Being –GPB)

2. We all know that existence in reality is superior to existence in the mind alone.

3. If a being exists only in the mind, then there is a greater being.

4. Therefore the GPB must exist in reality, not just in the mind.

5. The concept of God, is the concept of the greatest possible being.--------------------------------------------------------------

6. Thus, God is the GPB and exists in reality.

Comments on the Ontological Argument

Is it Valid?

- Gaunillo’s Reply – The Perfect Island

- Anselm’s Response

- Assumes God exists

- Uses Grammar to decide a substantive issue???

Comments on the Ontological Argument II

Is it Sound?

Premise (2) – Greater to exist in reality?

-- Assumes Degrees of Being?

-- Is existence A property of things?

Ontological Argument:Another Version

1. God is the most perfect being2. It is more perfect to exist than to not exist3. If God lacked existence then God would

not be God (by 1)4. Thus, To understand ‘God’ is to

understand that God must exist.5. To deny that God Exists is a

contradiction.6. Therefore, God Exists (Necessarily)

Kant’s ReplyWhat is the difference between saying:a) I have $100, and b) I have$100 that exist?

-- Nothing.

Therefore you say nothing about God if you say ‘God Exists’ and you take nothing away if you say ‘God’ without ‘exists’.

The proper conclusion to the Ontological Argument:

If God exists, then God Exists necessarily(not… God exists (necessarily)).

Recap of Proofs of God…

1) The Experiential Argument – assumes that causes are determined by their effects.

2) The Cosmological Argument – cannot block a brute-fact account

Recap continued…

3) The Design Argument – depends on premises about probability that need more support

4) The Ontological Argument – the conclusion is really conditional, not necessary.

Other Options

If we cannot provide a definitive argument that God exists, then what arguments might decide the issue of Theism?

Argument for the Rationality of Theism (Pascal’s Wager)

Argument for the Irrationality of Theism (The Problem of Evil)

The Rationality of Theism

Pascal’s Wager

and

The Problem of Evil

Rational Choice Arguments

A ‘Rational Choice’ Argument claims that its conclusion is preferable, maximizing, or optimizing relative to some goal AND according to the principles of human rationality.

Examples include: Economic rationality arguments (pricing, purchasing, interest rates, etc.), Some Moral Arguments, Game theory applications.

A Simple Rational Choice Argument

You want to fill your gas tank within one hour and for the lowest possible cost.

You can go to gas station A, which will cost $45 and take 63 minutes.

Or, you can go to gas station B which will cost $50 and take 55 minutes.

Which should you do?

Absolute Restrictions…

What if the time limit were absolute?

Suppose you needed the gas so that you could go catch a flight, and if you leave more than 60 minutes from now you will miss the flight?

In that case this goal sets an absolute restriction upon your choice.

Relative Value issues

Which is more important?

- Saving $5 at the cost of 3 lost minutes

- Saving 5 minutes at the cost of $5

If you value money then you will sacrifice time for money. If you value time, then you will sacrifice money for time.

Expected Utility

In general rational choice arguments seek to present one possible choice (out of many) as maximizing expected utility (the amount of net gain) from the choice.

Often we lack information, but we need to make choices anyway– this is called ‘decision under uncertainty’

FYI: You know how this works if you have ever seen Deal or no Deal.

PASCAL’s WAGER

Rational Choice Arguments need to be thought of relative to the choices we are considering.

Blaise Pascal (a famous mathematician and philosopher) saw the issue of Theism vs. Atheism as a rational choice problem, along the lines of a bet or wager.

A simple wager…

Which is the best bet?

A) Risk $1 with 1 chance in 10 of winning $10

B) Risk $1 with 1 chance in 100 of winning $500

C) Risk $5 with 1 chance in 10 of winning $100

What is the expected utility?

Figure out the payoffs for all possible outcomes then sum the outcomes to determine expected utility (EU).

For Bet A: Risk $1 with 1 chance in 10 of winning $10

EU (A) = (1/10 x $9) + (9/10 x -$1) = $0

The Best Bet…

IF I don’t bet I keep my ‘risk’ amount, if I bet my expected return could be lower or higher than that amount.

A) Risk $1 with 1 chance in 10 of winning $10

EU(A) = $0 [Return = -$1]

There is no way that (A) is the best bet!

Is B the Best bet?

B) Risk $1 with 1 chance in 100 of winning $500

EU(B) = (1/100 x $499) + (99/100 x -1)=$4

[Return = +3 over not playing]

Is C the Best Bet

C) Risk $5 with 1 chance in 10 of winning $100

EU (C) = (1/10 x $95) + (9/10 x -$5) = $5

[Return = +$0 over not playing]

The best bet is B

B) Risk $1 with 1 chance in 100 of winning $500

EU(B) = (1/100 x $499) + (99/100 x -1)=$4

[Return = +3 over not playing]

(B) is the only bet worth taking, even though you have the lowest chance of winning!!!

Pascal’s Wager I

Pascal Assumes that we want to maximize the value of our choices about what to do and what to believe.

He thinks the issue is a simple binary choice: Believe in God or Deny God

Pascal’s Wager II CHOICE

FACT

BELIVE IN GOD

DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD

GOD EXISTS True Belief and infinite reward in afterlife

False belief and infinite torment in afterlife

GOD DOESN’T EXIST

False belief but you waste time/money and restrict conduct during life

True belief. You save time/money during life and you pursue all desires alike.

How to decide?

Pascal accepts that you control your choice but not the facts.

If you don’t know which fact obtains then you should choose the CHOICE with the best overall outcome…

For Pascal, the best Choice is theism.

How to Decide IIThe reasoning is simple:

• If God Exists, the belief yields infinite benefit and finite loss (time/money) while non-belief yields infinite loss and finite gain.

• If God doesn’t exist, then belief yields only finite loss while non-belief yields only finite gain

• Believe = (infinite gain-finite loss) [Positive return]

• Don’t Believe = (finite gain-infinite loss) [Negative return]

Criticisms of Pascal’s Wager1. No way to assess the relative probability

of ‘the facts’. Knowing them would change outcomes.

2. Is the key assumption (infinite reward/loss) correct? How could we know?

3. Revised Wager? What if God forgives non-belief? Does non-belief become the rational choice?

A deeper problem?Voluntarism about belief…

Pascal assumes that we can decide what to believe and what not to believe.

-Is this true? (Can you believe that you are a rabbit?)

-Perhaps we can choose to expose ourselves to reasons, and reason controls belief?

…except many have read Pascal and rejected theism.

Theism and MoralityMany theists argue that objective morality requires

God. [No God, no source of morality for all]

Some argue that life only has a purpose if God is real.

Others still argue that God must exist otherwise there is no justice.

The MAIN POINT is that theists tend to see God as contributing to the moral order of the universe.

But what about EVIL?

• Where does evil come from?

• Why is there suffering in the world?

• Why do people die, get sick, and feel pain?

…and more importantly, if God enhances the moral order, why doesn’t he do something about EVIL??

Try to stop EVIL!

The Problem of Evil (1)

Classical Theists assume:A) God is omnipotent B) God is omnibenevolentC) God is omniscient…Given A - C, God has the power and

knowledge required to eliminate Evil in the universe.

BUT, we still seem to find evil in the universe!

Problem of Evil (2): The Logical Problem of EvilThe Logical Problem of Evil (LPoE) is this:1. If God is omnipotent, all good and all knowing

then God can and must prevent unnecessary suffering and harm

2. Suffering and harm occur3. Therefore, God either chooses to allow evil or

cannot prevent evil4. If the former, then God is not all good5. If the later, God is not all powerful6. Thus, God does not exist (as conceived)

Logical Problem of Evil (cont.)

The consequence is that either (a) our conception of God is wrong or (b) we cannot recognize suffering, harm, and evil, or (c) God cannot exist

If (a) then God might not be the sort of being worth believing in.

If (b) then we cannot tell if God is good or evil, which means that our conception of God is wrong (thus (a))

If (c) then we should deny theism.

A Prima Facie Reply to the LPoE

American Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has suggested that free-will explains why there is evil.

Human morality assumes free-will. If God created us with free-will then God cannot prevent human evil that results from free actions. Thus, we create evil, not God.

A quick reply (or three) to the Free-will defense

• Assumes free-will. There are good reasons to think free-will is an illusion.

• Free-will is incompatible with divine omniscience (if God knows what you will do before you do it, are you free?)

• If God made us free, isn’t God still responsible for what we do?

The Evidential Problem of Evil…

This is a rational choice version of the PoE

The fact is that evil and suffering exist

We face a choice: should we be theists or not?

LOOK OUT! BIG EVIL TORNADO!!!

Evidential Problem of Evil (2)If we allow that there are ways to make God’s

existence logically compatible with the presence of suffering, then we face a rational choice problem

(A) Accept Theism; and a complex background story

(B) Reject Theism; with no further assumptions.

If there is no God, then evil does not need a special explanation. This, many argue, seems far more plausible on its face.

Evidential Problem of Evil (3)

Theists traditionally supplement their thesis with a THEODICY that helps to explain why people suffer even though God could have prevented

it…

Theodicy Continued

Examples (after Rauhut):a) Its all part of a big plan that is good

(Leibniz)b) We are being Punishedc) Suffering builds characterd) Limits of human knowledge (we can’t see

it, but…)e) Contrast (need evil to see good)f) The active devilg) Test of faith

FOR MONDAY: START ETHICS

READ RAUHUT CH. 8

READ MILL Reading from Syllabus

Also Plato Euthyphro

<http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html>