Philosophy of ReligionPhilosophy of ReligionIntroduction to Philosophy Introduction to Philosophy

PHIL200PHIL200

Is the Belief n God Rationally Is the Belief n God Rationally JustifiedJustified

Can We Reach God by reasonCan We Reach God by reason Two types of knowledgeTwo types of knowledge

a prioria priori and and a posterioria posteriori

a posterioria posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence. on experience or empirical evidence. The Cosmological Argument ( The Cosmological Argument ( a posteriori)a posteriori)

A priori knowledge or justification is independent of A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experienceexperience The Ontological Argument ( The Ontological Argument ( a prioria priori))

Aristotle and PlatoAristotle and Plato

Aristotle, thoroughly analyzed Plato's Aristotle, thoroughly analyzed Plato's doctrines and formulated replacements of doctrines and formulated replacements of his own. his own.

Plato had located ultimate reality in Ideas Plato had located ultimate reality in Ideas or eternal forms, knowable only through or eternal forms, knowable only through reflection and reason. reflection and reason.

Aristotle saw ultimate reality in physical Aristotle saw ultimate reality in physical objects, knowable through experience. objects, knowable through experience.

A priori KnowledgeA priori Knowledge

Knowledge that is gained through deduction, Knowledge that is gained through deduction, and not through empirical evidence. and not through empirical evidence.

For Example, if I have two apples now, and I For Example, if I have two apples now, and I plan to add three apples, I will have five apples. plan to add three apples, I will have five apples. This is knowledge gained deductively.This is knowledge gained deductively. I did not actually need to get the three other apples I did not actually need to get the three other apples

and place them with the first two to see that I have and place them with the first two to see that I have five. To this extent, the term A Priori is valid.five. To this extent, the term A Priori is valid.

A Posteriori Knowledge A Posteriori Knowledge An a priori proposition is one that is knowable a priori and an a priori An a priori proposition is one that is knowable a priori and an a priori

argument is one the premises of which are a priori propositions. argument is one the premises of which are a priori propositions.

An a posteriori proposition is knowable a posteriori, while an a An a posteriori proposition is knowable a posteriori, while an a posteriori argument is one the premises of which are a posteriori posteriori argument is one the premises of which are a posteriori propositions. propositions.

An argument is regarded as a posteriori if it is comprised of a An argument is regarded as a posteriori if it is comprised of a combination of a priori and a posteriori premises.combination of a priori and a posteriori premises.

The a priori/a posteriori distinction has also been applied to The a priori/a posteriori distinction has also been applied to concepts. concepts.

An a priori concept is one that can be acquired independently of An a priori concept is one that can be acquired independently of experience, which may – but need not – involve its being innate, experience, which may – but need not – involve its being innate, while the acquisition of an a posteriori concept requires experience.while the acquisition of an a posteriori concept requires experience.

The Cosmological Argument The Cosmological Argument The Deductive Argument from ContingencyThe Deductive Argument from Contingency The cosmological argument begins with a fact about experience, namely, that The cosmological argument begins with a fact about experience, namely, that

something exists.something exists.

A contingent being exists. A contingent being exists.

This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.

The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself. being itself.

What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being. other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.

Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being. for the existence of a contingent being.

Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being. a non-contingent (necessary) being.

Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

Aristotle's theory of CausationAristotle's theory of Causation - - The Four CausesThe Four Causes

In the In the Posterior AnalyticsPosterior Analytics, Aristotle places , Aristotle places the following condition on proper the following condition on proper knowledge:knowledge:

We think we have knowledge of a thing We think we have knowledge of a thing only when we have grasped its cause.only when we have grasped its cause.

Aristotle's theory of Causation - Aristotle's theory of Causation - The Four The Four CausesCauses

Material: The substance which underlies Material: The substance which underlies the object the object

Formal: The shape or form which the Formal: The shape or form which the substance takes substance takes

Final: The purpose or function of the Final: The purpose or function of the object object

Efficient: The motion or action which Efficient: The motion or action which brought about the effect brought about the effect

Argument from Motion (First Mover) - Argument from Motion (First Mover) -

P1. There is Motion in the universe. P1. There is Motion in the universe.

P2. Everything which is in motion must be moved by something else. P2. Everything which is in motion must be moved by something else.

P2.1 The change from potential to actual motion can only occur in things P2.1 The change from potential to actual motion can only occur in things potentially in motion. potentially in motion.

P2.2 Only Actual things change potential motion to actual motion. P2.2 Only Actual things change potential motion to actual motion.

P2.3 It is impossible to be both potentially and actually in motion at any given P2.3 It is impossible to be both potentially and actually in motion at any given time. time.

P2.C Since, every change from potential to actual motion is caused by P2.C Since, every change from potential to actual motion is caused by something already in motion, nothing causes itself to move (P2). something already in motion, nothing causes itself to move (P2).

P3. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers. P3. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers.

C. Therefore, there must be a First Mover; and, the First Mover is God. C. Therefore, there must be a First Mover; and, the First Mover is God.

Argument from Causation (Argument from Causation (First CauseFirst Cause)-)-

P1. Every effect has an efficient cause. P1. Every effect has an efficient cause. P2. Nothing is the efficient cause of itself. P2. Nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

P3. There cannot be an infinite regression P3. There cannot be an infinite regression of efficient causes. of efficient causes.

C. Therefore, there must be a first Cause; C. Therefore, there must be a first Cause; and, the first cause is God. and, the first cause is God.

Argument from Contingency (Argument from Contingency (Argument From Argument From

NecessityNecessity))

P1. Some things exist contingently. P1. Some things exist contingently. P2. All contingent things did not exist at one time. P2. All contingent things did not exist at one time. P3. If everything were contingent, there would have been a time P3. If everything were contingent, there would have been a time

when nothing existed. when nothing existed. P4. If there were a time when nothing existed, nothing would exist P4. If there were a time when nothing existed, nothing would exist

now. now. P5. But, something does exist now. P5. But, something does exist now. C1. Therefore, there must be at least one thing which exists C1. Therefore, there must be at least one thing which exists

necessarily. necessarily. P6. All necessary entities either do or do not have an efficient P6. All necessary entities either do or do not have an efficient

cause. cause. P6.1 There cannot be an infinite regression of efficient causes. C2. P6.1 There cannot be an infinite regression of efficient causes. C2.

Therefore, there must be some necessary entity which is the First Therefore, there must be some necessary entity which is the First Cause of necessity in all other things; and, this necessary entity is Cause of necessity in all other things; and, this necessary entity is God. God.

Argument from ExcellenceArgument from Excellence

P1. Things in the universe are greater or lesser in regard P1. Things in the universe are greater or lesser in regard to their properties. to their properties.

P2. Superlative judgments depend upon comparing the P2. Superlative judgments depend upon comparing the imperfect with the perfect. imperfect with the perfect.

P2.1 There must exist something perfect in order to P2.1 There must exist something perfect in order to make comparisons. make comparisons.

P3. There must be a perfect being in order to judge P3. There must be a perfect being in order to judge different levels of being. different levels of being.

P4. Anything of the greatest quality must be the cause of P4. Anything of the greatest quality must be the cause of things with lesser quality. things with lesser quality.

C. Therefore, there must exist some greatest being C. Therefore, there must exist some greatest being which is the cause of all lesser beings. which is the cause of all lesser beings.

Argument from Harmony Argument from Harmony

P1. Material objects seem to work toward some P1. Material objects seem to work toward some end. P2. If there is an end toward which things end. P2. If there is an end toward which things work, they do not operate by chance. work, they do not operate by chance.

P3. Anything which works toward an end must P3. Anything which works toward an end must either guide itself or be guided by something either guide itself or be guided by something else. else.

P4. It is impossible for a material object to guide P4. It is impossible for a material object to guide itself. itself.

C. Therefore, there must be some intelligence C. Therefore, there must be some intelligence which guides material objects to their ends; that which guides material objects to their ends; that intelligence is God. intelligence is God.

Kalam Cosmological ArgumentKalam Cosmological Argument

The kalam cosmological argument, dates back to The kalam cosmological argument, dates back to medieval Muslim philosophers such as al-Kindi and al-medieval Muslim philosophers such as al-Kindi and al-Ghazali. It was revived in the West by William Lane Ghazali. It was revived in the West by William Lane Craig. Craig.

The kalam cosmological argument is an argument from The kalam cosmological argument is an argument from the existence of the universe to the existence of God. the existence of the universe to the existence of God.

The argument claims:The argument claims: The existence of the universe, stands in need of explanation. The existence of the universe, stands in need of explanation. The only adequate explanation, is that it was created by God.The only adequate explanation, is that it was created by God.

William Lane Craig William Lane Craig

The Kalam cosmological argument shows The Kalam cosmological argument shows that the universe began to exist.that the universe began to exist.

Anything that begins to exist must have a Anything that begins to exist must have a cause that brings it into being.cause that brings it into being.

The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentThe Kalam Cosmological Argument

The difference between the kalam The difference between the kalam cosmological argument and other forms of cosmological argument and other forms of cosmological argument is that kalam rests cosmological argument is that kalam rests on the idea that the universe has a on the idea that the universe has a beginning in time. beginning in time. It is precisely because the universe has a It is precisely because the universe has a

beginning in time that its existence stands in beginning in time that its existence stands in need of explanation. need of explanation.

The Kalam Cosmological The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentArgument

This argument has the following logical structure:This argument has the following logical structure:

P1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has P1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.a cause of its existence.

P2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.P2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.Therefore:Therefore:C1. The universe has a cause of its existence.C1. The universe has a cause of its existence.C2. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that C2. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.cause is God.

The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentThe Kalam Cosmological Argument

The first premise: The first premise: Everything that begins to exist has a cause of Everything that begins to exist has a cause of

its existence. its existence. In order to infer from this that the universe In order to infer from this that the universe

has a cause of its existence. The kalam has a cause of its existence. The kalam cosmological argument must prove that cosmological argument must prove that the past is finite. the past is finite. Modern science, they say, has established Modern science, they say, has established

that the universe began with the Big Bang.that the universe began with the Big Bang.

DiscussionDiscussion

Evaluate Thomas Aquinas, Argument from Evaluate Thomas Aquinas, Argument from Causation, Edwards Critique and Lane’s Causation, Edwards Critique and Lane’s Defense. Defense.

What is the main critic Edwards has about What is the main critic Edwards has about the argument and how does Lane the argument and how does Lane responds. responds.