It has been argued that this argument does not lead to the idea of God, but that it suggests that motion requires an explanation, E.g. Big Bang Theory.
The Teleological Argument, or Design Argument attempts to prove the existence of God by way of the nature, beauty and order of the world. To say the world is ‘ordered’ is to mean that it is ordered towards some end or purpose. The suggestion is that it is more plausible to suppose that the universe is so because it was created by an intelligent being in order to accomplish that purpose than it is to suppose that it is this way by chance.
These arguments were notably criticised by David Hume, who said that using an analogy can anthropomorphosise God – make him similar to humans, and also questioned why a benevolent creator who designed the world would create evil too?
The aim of these arguments is to show that God’s existence is a reasonable conclusion, and is probable rather than necessary. E.g. God is seen as a desirable explanation for motion and cause. Individually, these arguments have been criticised, but F.R Tennant has argued that the arguments have a cumulative effect – together they form a stronger case for the existence of God. Tennant used 5 arguments to prove the existence of God. These were:
- Thought corresponds the world – could have been completely chaotic
- Wildlife adapts (evolution)
- World is surprisingly well suited for life – perfect conditions for survival
- Beauty (Aesthetic argument)
- Morality
It has been argued whether any of these points prove God’s existence, as there are usually alternative explanations. A criticism of the cumulative effect is that the arguments may not necessarily prove to be stronger when used together as they all still have flaws, and if they have little impact alone, why would they have greater impact together? This approach can leave you with the ‘God of Philosophers’ rather than the ‘God of Religious Belief’.
Swinburne is said to have the humility to not seek absolute proof. His goal is to collect several weaker arguments (similar to the Cumulative effect) in order to prove that the existence of God is more probable than not. He has identified two different types of Inductive argument – P-inductive argument which makes the conclusion more probable than not, and C-inductive argument which uses even weaker arguments in order to make a more probable conclusion. Swinburne wants to accumulate a sufficient quantity of C-inductive arguments for theism, each of which will offer some support to his hypothesis, so that they will collectively constitute a good P-inductive argument, thus making the probability of the god hypothesis greater than one half. Whether he succeeds in achieving this is another matter.
Deductive arguments are a priori – involving reasoning from effect to cause, and are arguments which make the conclusions certain, as long as the premises are accepted to be true. They are based on a series of assumptions, known as premises, and ‘if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true’ – this is known as a ‘valid argument’. Deductive arguments are limited to areas of logic and mathematics, and in order to prove something a logically valid is required. Rationality or ‘reason’ is an important idea in logic and mathematics. One of the key ideas to do with proof is ‘rationality’ – that a proof will convince any reasonable person. It is logically impossible to have true premises and a false conclusion using Deductive Arguments.
The first, and best-known, Ontological Argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century A.D. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being — namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists — can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived — i.e., God — exists. The argument could be summarized as follows:
1. Everyone has the idea of God
2. This idea of God is of the greatesr possible being
3. God exists only in human minds or in reality
4. If God exists in human minds, He is not as great as a being that exists in reality
5. Therefore, God must exist in reality
However, it could be argued that the Ontological argument is not valid is it does not have true premises. Immanuel Kant argued that ‘existence is not a predicate’ – it isn’t a great making quality, and does not really ‘add’ anything to what is being described. This claim therefore means that the premise is false, making the conclusion false, and the argument invalid. Although the Ontological argument may not prove God’s existence it does give some pointers as to where a proof of his existence might lie.
It may be strange to find a proof of God’s existence based simply on what the word ‘God’ means, so it may not be possible to prove God’s existence deductively – some philosophers have said that it is not possible to prove anything deductively. Therefore, there is no deductive proof for God’s existence – some consider it to be an impossible task.
It has been argued that it does not matter whether God’s existence can be proven. The idea of Pascal’s wager is that a betting man would believe in God, because an atheist has more to lose (especially if God exists). Ockham’s razor (an idea which basically means ‘keep it simple’), would want God’s existence to either be proven or not so that we could ‘cut out’ any unnecessary belief, and deal with pure reality rather than ‘fantasy’.
Kierkegaard was a famous anti-rationalist, who said that Christianity is self-contradictory, and we believe because of faith and not reason. Using the passion argument, he said that passion is an essential feature of faith, and if God’s existence if probable or proven, people would have less faith. Kant also said ‘I had to set limits for knowledge in order to make place for faith’. Perhaps humans do not need to know everything, and therefore does it matter whether God’s existence can be proven?
There seem to be problems when trying to prove the existence of God using Inductive or Deductive proofs. Inductive proofs are seen to have un-certain conclusions, whereas Deductive proofs need for certainty can mean they are impossible to use. It is difficult to gather evidence for God’s existence, and it has been questioned whether we are able to talk about God at all because he is so different from human experiences. Proof may be impossible, due to so many difficulties with any particular proof and because of the assumptions we make in order to prove things. These assumptions are that human reason is reliable and that our language actually corresponds to the common world. If this is not the case, then how can anything be proven? But perhaps, using Kant’s argument, proof is not needed for the existence of God, because faith is more important.