class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide .title[ # Philosophy of Religion ] .date[ ### MSA 2025 ] --- class: center, middle Can we construct an argument whose conclusion is that God exists... ...with premises that _do not presuppose this conclusion_? --- ## Theistics arguments 1. Ontological argument 2. Cosmological arguments 3. Pragmatic argument 4. Design argument 5. Fine-tuning argument ## Anti-theistic arguments 6. The Problem of Evil 7. Divine Hiddenness --- ### Ontological Argument, by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) 1. God is something of which nothing greater can be thought. 2. God exists as an idea in the mind. 3. Something that exists both as an idea in the mind and in reality is, all else being equal, greater than something that exists _only_ as an idea in the mind. 4. If God existed only as an idea in the mind, then God would not be something of which nothing greater can be thought. 5. Therefore, since God is indeed something of which nothing greater can be thought, it must be false that God exists _only_ as an idea in the mind. 6. Therefore, God must exist both as an idea in the mind and in reality. 7. Therefore, God exists in reality. Discuss with your group: - Is this a good argument? Does the conclusion follow from the premises? Are all premises true? - What objections can be offered to this argument? --- # Objection: Gaunilo of Marmoutier 1. _A piland_ is an island of which no greater island can be thought. 2. _A piland_ exists as an idea in the mind. 3. Something that exists both as an idea in the mind and in reality is, all else being equal, greater than something that exists _only_ as an idea in the mind. 4. If _a piland_ existed _only_ as an idea in the mind, then _a piland_ would not be an island of which no greater island can be thought. 5. Therefore, since _a piland_ is indeed something of which nothing greater can be thought, it must be false that _a piland_ exists _only_ as an idea in the mind. 6. Therefore, _a piland_ must exist as an idea in the mind and in reality. 7. Therefore, _a piland_ exists in reality. Gaunilo's objection: If we follow Anselm's reasoning, we could infer the existence of things __that obviously do not exist!__ How can we respond to this objection? --- # Response to Gaunilo's objection Response: Premises (1) and (2) of Gaunilo's argument are incoherent. An island of which no greater island can be thought _is not conceivable_. - The qualities that make an island great are not the sort of qualities that admit a conceptual maximum. - For many qualities an island has, they have no maximum: size, length of beaches, number of coconut trees, etc. - Notice that this applies to _any physical object_. - However, God has properties that admit a conceptual maximum: - All-knowing: God knows everything. - All-powerful: God can do anything logically possible. - All-good: God only does morally good actions. --- # Cosmological arguments Cosmological arguments are a family of arguments that have the following pattern: - They state facts about the _world_ (universe, cosmos). - They use those facts to infer the existence of a being (generally identified with God). The idea is that some facts of the universe _require_ or _strongly suggest_ the existence of God (because God seems _necessary_ for these facts to have happened). Some proponents of cosmological arguments include: Plato, Aristotle, Ibn Sina, Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz, Descartes. --- ## Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways (1225-1274) .pull-left[ ### First way 1. Some things move. 2. Nothing can move itself. 3. Therefore, everything has to be put into motion by something else. 4. The chain of moved-mover things cannot go on infinitely. 5. Therefore, there has to be a first _unmoved_ mover: God. ] .pull-right[ ### Second way 1. The world contains instances of efficient causation. 2. Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself. 3. Therefore, every efficient cause seems to have a prior cause. 4. But we cannot have an infinite regress of efficient causes. 5. Therefore, there must be a first efficient cause: God. ] - Objections to these arguments? Come up with one for each! --- # Some objections to the first and second ways ### 1. The arguments are self-defeating > (2) Nothing can move (change) itself. <br> (2) Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself. Objection: Wouldn't this apply to God too? If so, then someone else must be the efficient cause of God. How to respond to this objection? -- Possible replies: - Well... _that someone else_ would be God. - God is an _unmoved_ mover: God can be thought of a being that in unchanging and eternal. - These premises apply only to things in nature. God works _outside_ nature, which allows for the possibility that he might not need to be caused by other previous events. --- ### 2. Some events are spontaneous > (3) Everything has to be put into motion by something else. <br> (3) Every efficient cause seems to have a prior cause. Objection: It might be said that some events are not the effect of a previous cause, like the Big Bang. Our scientific theories break down at times before the Big Bang, so it doesn't make sense to talk about causes occurring prior to it. How to respond to this objection? -- Response: The fact that an event cannot be adequately described with our best theories does not mean it didn't occur. Rather, it makes sense to think that _all_ natural events are caused, including the Big Bang. If so, then all events have a prior cause, even the Big Bang. --- class: medium-font .pull-left.w60[ ### 3. We could conceive infinite causal chains > (4) The chain of moved-mover things cannot go on infinitely. <br> (4) We cannot have an infinite regress of efficient causes. Objection: Perhaps this chain of events could go on infinitely (it is not contradictory to think so). ] .pull-right.w40[ <img src="assets/dominoes-falling.jpg" alt="" width="500"/> ] How to respond to this objection? -- Response: Suppose the chain of moved-mover or cause-effect is infinitely long in the past. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, for any isolated system, entropy increases over time. For our purposes, we can think of this law as stating that any system goes from _a more organized state_ to a _less organized state_, or from energy concentrated in certain places to energy evenly dispersed. Now, if the universe had always existed, then all systems would be in their _maximum unorganized state_. In other words, __everything would have cooled by now__, and energy would be evenly distributed. But since this has not occurred, the chain of moved-mover or cause-effect cannot be infinitely long. --- # Pascal's Wager (1670) .pull-left.w35[ <img src="assets/pascal.jpg" alt="" width="500"/> ] .pull-right.w60[ > <mark-red>Yes, but you must bet. It is not voluntary; you are already involved</mark-red>. Which will you choose then? Look: since you must choose, let us see which is the less profitable option. (...) Let us weigh up the gain and the loss in choosing heads, that God exists. Let us figure out the two results: <mark-blue style="animation-delay: 2s;">if you win, you win everything, and if you lose, you lose nothing. So bet that he exists, without any hesitation</mark-blue>. ] --- # Pascal's Wager .pull-left.w40[ <img src="assets/pascal-wager.png" alt="" width="500"/> ] .pull-right.w55[ - Two potential __actions__: - Believe in God or do not believe in God - Two possible __states of affairs__: - God exists or he does not. - Four possible __consequences__ of the actions, given states of affairs. - If you bet that God exists and he does, "_you win everything_." If you bet that God exists and he doesn't, "_you lose nothing_." ] What should a rational agent do? --- ### Design: William Paley (1743-1805) > In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever... But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be enquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch, as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first? .pull-left.w50.center[ <img src="assets/paley-rock.jpg" alt="" width="350"/> ] .pull-right.w50.center[ <img src="assets/paley-watch.jpg" alt="" width="350"/> ] --- .pull-left.w50[ .center[ ### Rock <img src="assets/paley-rock.jpg" alt="" width="300"/> ] - Simple object with no apparent function. - Natural laws combined elements to create the rock. - Natural forces drove the rock to its resting place. ] .pull-right.w50[ .center[ ### Watch <img src="assets/paley-watch.jpg" alt="" width="300"/> ] - Complex object with a complex function (telling the time). - Someone created and designed this watch. - Someone placed this watch here (it didn't just appear by itself). ] -- .center[__While the rock doesn't necessarily have a designer, the watch does.__] --- .pull-left.w33[ ### Watch <img src="assets/paley-watch.jpg" alt="" width="300"/> ] .pull-left.w33[ ### Eye <img src="assets/paley-eye.jpg" alt="" width="300"/> ] .pull-right.w33[ ### Heart <img src="assets/paley-heart.jpg" alt="" width="300"/> ] - Just as the watch is a complex object with a complex function, the eye and heart are also complex objects with complex functions. - Eye: Allows organisms to be sensitive to light. - Heart: Pumps blood. - Since the watch is the result of _intelligent design_ (a watchmaker), __a good explanation__ of the existence of the eye and heart (as well as all complex biological organisms) is that an _intelligent designer_ created it (God). --- # Watchmaker argument 1. Things in nature have a complex function. 2. There are many ways to explain (1): (a) random chance, (b) natural processes, or (c) intentional design. 3. _What best explains_ (1) is (c) intentional design. 4. Therefore, things in nature have a complex function because they were intentionally designed with that function. 5. If things in nature were intentionally designed with a function, then there has to be an _intelligent designer_. 6. Therefore, there has to be an _intelligent designer_: God. Objections? --- # Arguments by inference to the best explanation 1. Thing A exhibits property P. 2. There are many ways to explain this. 3. Of all possible ways to explain it, there is one which is the best explanation. 4. Therefore, the best explanation for thing A having property P is the _correct_ explanation of the fact that thing A has property P. --- # Objection: Natural selection Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection seems to provide a _better explanation_ of the observed purpose of organisms in nature. .pull-left.w35[ <img src="assets/natural-selection.jpg" alt="" height="300"/> ] .pull-right.w60[ - There is competition between organisms for survival and reproduction. - More offspring are produced than can possibly survive. - There is variation of traits within organisms. - Different traits confer different rates of survival and reproduction. - Traits can be passed from generation to generation. ] --- # Explaining the eye's complexity Fact to be explained: The human eye exhibits complexity and purpose. - __Intelligent designer explanation__: An intelligent agent conceived every part of the human eye, and arrange matter so that it could allow organisms to be sensitive to light. - __Natural Selection explanation__: The eye's complexity and purpose is a result of natural selection. Organisms with sensitivity to light survived more frequently than organisms without it. Due to slight errors in gene-copying (mutation), variations were introduced, and some of them enhanced the eye's function. Only those organisms with advantageous variations survived, leading to the complexity of the human eye. --- # Fine-tuned universe? Observation: Our universe seems _fine-tuned_ for life. .pull-left.w60[ > The expansion rate of the universe is represented by the cosmological constant Λ. If Λ were slighter greater, there would be no energy sources, such as stars. If it were slightly less, the Big Bang would have quickly led to a Big Crunch in which the universe collapsed back onto itself. For life to be possible, Λ cannot vary more than one part in 1053 (Collins 2003) ] .pull-right.w40[ <img src="assets/fine-tuning-1.jpg" alt="" width="350"/> ] --- # Fine-tuned universe? .pull-left.w60[ > Life depends on, among other things, a balance of carbon and oxygen in the universe. If the strong nuclear force were different by 0.4%, there would not be enough of one or the other for life to exist (Oberhummer, Csótó, and Schlattl 2000). Varying this constant either way “would destroy almost all carbon or almost all oxygen in every star” (Barrow 2002, 155). ] .pull-right.w40[ <img src="assets/fine-tuning-2.jpg" alt="" width="350"/> ] --- # Fine-tuned universe? .pull-left.w60[ > Many examples of fine-tuning have to do with star formation. Stars are important since life requires a variety of elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Stars contain the only known mechanism for producing large quantities of these elements and are therefore necessary for life. Lee Smolin estimates that when all of the fine-tuning examples are considered, the chance of stars existing in the universe is 1 in 10²²⁹. ] .pull-right.w40[ <img src="assets/fine-tuning-3.jpg" alt="" width="350"/> ] --- # Fine-tuned universe. .pull-left.w40[ <img src="assets/fine-tuning-4.jpg" alt="" width="350"/> ] .pull-right.w60[ What does it mean to say that our universe is _fine-tuned_ for life? - The universe supports life. - This fact depends on fundamental laws of nature: - Strength of gravity. - Strength of strong nuclear force. - Difference between massess of quarks. - Strength of weak force. - Global cosmic energy density. - Initial entropy of the universe. - ... - If these fundamental laws were slightly different, the universe would not have supported life. ] --- # The Fine-Tuning Argument 1. Our universe seems fine-tuned for life. 2. There are many ways to explain (1): (a) random chance, (b) natural processes, or (c) intentional fine-tuning. 3. What best explains (1) is (c) intentional fine-tuning. 4. Therefore, our universe seems fine-tuned for life because it was intentionally fine-tuned for life. 5. If our universe was intentionally fined-tuned for life, then there has to be a _fine-tuner_. 6. Therefore, there has to be a _fine-tuner_: God. This argument qualifies as a _design_ or _teleological_ argument, since it tries to show that God is the ultimate designer of the universe, who fine-tuned it for life. --- # Objections to fine tuning .pull-left.w40[ <img src="assets/multiverse.png" alt="" width="350"/> ] .pull-right.w60[ __The mutiverse:__ Our universe is actually one out of many universes, most of them radically different from our own. Imagine: It is surprising to win the lottery if you bought just one ticket, but _it is not surprising if you buy a million tickets_. Responses to this objection: - There's no _independent evidence_ for the existence of the multiverse. - This is an instance of the _inverse gamble fallacy_. ] --- # Problem of Evil 1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. 2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. 3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. 4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. 5. Evil exists. 6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil. 7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.