9-14

902 views

Published on

Published in: Spiritual, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
902
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
56
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

9-14

  1. 1. 9-14
  2. 2. arguments for God <ul><li>arguments from reason </li></ul><ul><ul><li>a priori </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ontological </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>a posteriori </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>cosmological </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>teleological </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>arguments from faith </li></ul><ul><li>argument from religious experience </li></ul>
  3. 3. attributes of God <ul><li>omnipotent </li></ul><ul><li>omniscient </li></ul><ul><li>omnibenevolent </li></ul><ul><li>God is not like us </li></ul><ul><ul><li>no reason to worship </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>no reason to even designate as “God” </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. cosmological argument <ul><li>a posteriori argument </li></ul><ul><li>comes in two forms </li></ul><ul><ul><li>argument from causation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>argument from contingency </li></ul></ul><ul><li>relies on the existence of something outside the system </li></ul>
  5. 5. first cause <ul><li>aquinas’ “second way” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>looks something like: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1) there are things that exist that are caused </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2) nothing can be self-caused </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3) there cannot be an infinte regress of causes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>hence, there exists some uncaused First Cause </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>then the conclusion is used in another argument: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>1) there exists some First Cause </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2) By the word ‘God’ we mean “First Cause” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>hence, God exists </li></ul></ul></ul>
  6. 6. objections <ul><li>there seems to be a contradiction between the second premise (nothing is self-caused) and the conclusion (there is an uncaused First Cause </li></ul><ul><li>why can’t there be an infinite regress? </li></ul><ul><li>in what way can we call this First Cause “God”? </li></ul><ul><li>what kind of sense does it make to apply a concept with temporal attributes (cause) to something that exists outside of time (what was there before the universe is like asking “what is north of the north pole?” [stephen hawking]) </li></ul>
  7. 7. contingency <ul><li>aquinas’ “third way” </li></ul><ul><li>looks something like: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1) everything that exists is either necessary or contingent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2) not every being can be contingent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>hence, there is some necessary Being </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>further, this is God </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. objections <ul><li>why can’t the universe itself be the necessary thing? </li></ul><ul><li>how does this give us “God”? </li></ul>
  9. 9. teleological argument <ul><li>a posteriori argument </li></ul><ul><li>is an argument “from design” </li></ul><ul><li>argument goes something like this: </li></ul><ul><li>1) human artifacts show evidence of design </li></ul><ul><li>2) the universe is analogous to an artifact </li></ul><ul><li>hence, the universe is a product of design </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>conclusion becomes premise in another argument: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>1) the universe is a product of design </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2) products of design require a designer </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>hence, there is a designer of the universe </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  10. 10. objections <ul><li>there is not enough similarity for the analogy to work </li></ul><ul><ul><li>cannot argue from the parts to the whole </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>we learn about artifacts requiring a designer based upon multiple experiences which we are able to compare, but there is only one universe, and, hence, we are unable to compare one against our experience of several </li></ul></ul><ul><li>our attempt at this reasoning results in a god who is very un-godlike; the analogy is strongest when God is most like us </li></ul><ul><ul><li>remove infinity (cause should be proportionate to the effects, and the effects are clearly finite) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>remove perfection (we can only deliver perfection of creation by assuming that the “faults” we see are merely apparent because of our finite reasoning) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>remove unity (there is no reason there must be only one designer) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>remove immortality (men are mortal and must, necessarily, reproduce to continue the species) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>might as well make “god” completely human-like, and then we have no reason for worship at all </li></ul></ul>

×