3. Arguments for the existence of God

2018 ◽  
pp. 25-51
Author(s):  
Tim Bayne
Keyword(s):  
Religious Experience ◽  
Natural Theology ◽  
Cosmological Argument ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Design Argument

Is it possible to prove that God exists? There is certainly no shortage of arguments that purport to establish God’s existence, but ‘Arguments for the existence of God’ focuses on three of the most influential arguments: the cosmological argument, the design argument, and the argument from religious experience. Before examining these arguments, it first considers the very enterprise of attempting to establish God’s existence. What should we expect from an argument for God’s existence? What would it take for such an argument to be successful? The attempt to justify claims about the nature and existence of God on the basis of commonly accepted truths is known as natural theology.

Hume and Proofs for the Existence of God

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Bell
Keyword(s):  
Causal Reasoning ◽  
Ontological Argument ◽  
The Other ◽  
Cosmological Argument ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Design Argument ◽  
Theory Of Ideas ◽  
Empiricist Theory

This chapter is about Hume’s critiques of the cosmological, ontological, and design arguments for the existence of God, as proposed by Samuel Clarke and other Newtonian theologians. Clarke regarded the cosmological argument (in a form that incorporates the ontological argument) as essential to prove the uniqueness, eternity, infinity, and omnipresence of God and the design argument as essential to prove the wisdom and foresight of God. The criticisms Hume makes all depend on his empiricist theory of ideas and his revolutionary theories of causation and causal reasoning. Most of the chapter discusses these themes. The concluding section draws attention to recent research that shows two things. One is how central to Hume’s whole philosophical enterprise is his rejection of theological ideas and doctrines. The other is how this relates to his rejection of certain parts of Newtonian metaphysics.

Conceptual, Historical, and Cognitive Roots of Perfect Being Theism

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yujin Nagasawa
Keyword(s):  
Precise Definition ◽  
Cosmological Argument ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Design Argument ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter provides a precise definition of perfect being theism and compares it with alternatives such as atheism, polytheism, pantheism, and panentheism. The chapter then considers the historical and cognitive roots of perfect being theism. It argues, contrary to what is widely believed, that perfect being theism is not Anselm’s invention or an unnatural, scholarly artefact. The chapter then explains the philosophical merits of holding perfect being theism and considers the relationship between perfect being theism and prominent arguments for the existence of God, such as the cosmological argument and the design argument. It concludes with a discussion of three types of arguments against perfect being theism.

A Bayesian formulation of the kalam cosmological argument

2014 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 521-534
Author(s):  
CALUM MILLER
Keyword(s):  
Probabilistic Reasoning ◽  
Natural Theology ◽  
Cosmological Argument ◽  
Bayesian Formulation ◽  
Kalam Cosmological Argument ◽  
Kalām Cosmological Argument

AbstractThere has been a trend within natural theology to present arguments for theism deductively, such that at least one of the premises is likely to be extremely controversial. For those arguments with less controversial premises, the conclusion is usually something short of theism. On these grounds, some have employed probabilistic reasoning to revive classical arguments – to use less controversial premises in achieving a conclusion directly relevant to whether theism is true or not. Here, I formulate the kalam cosmological argument in Bayesian terms, and argue that doing so renders many objections levelled against it obsolete.

A restricted Principle of Sufficient Reason and the cosmological argument

2004 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALEXANDER R. PRUSS
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Sufficient Reason ◽  
Quantum Mechanical ◽  
Cosmological Argument ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Restricted Version ◽  
Van Inwagen ◽  
Principle Of Sufficient Reason ◽  
Peter Van Inwagen ◽  
Mechanical Phenomena

The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) says that, necessarily, every contingently true proposition has an explanation. The PSR is the most controversial premise in the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It is likely that one reason why a number of philosophers reject the PSR is that they think there are conceptual counter-examples to it. For instance, they may think, with Peter van Inwagen, that the conjunction of all contingent propositions cannot have an explanation, or they may believe that quantum mechanical phenomena cannot be explained. It may, however, be that these philosophers would be open to accepting a restricted version of the PSR as long as it was not ad hoc. I present a natural restricted version of the PSR that avoids all conceptual counter-examples, and yet that is strong enough to ground a cosmological argument. The restricted PSR says that all explainable true propositions have explanations.

Arguments for the Existence of God

2014 ◽  
pp. 700-716
Author(s):  
Brandon C. Look
Keyword(s):  
Mathematical Knowledge ◽  
Cosmological Argument ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Eternal Truths ◽  
The Status

This chapter critically discusses Leibniz’s arguments for the existence of God. It explores Leibniz’s improvements on the traditional ontological arguments of Anselm and Descartes, as well as his version of the cosmological argument and his argument from eternal truths. It is suggested that, while Leibniz’s arguments are unlikely to move a hardened atheist, they do offer important insights about the status of the existence predicate, the nature of modality, and the nature of mathematical knowledge.

Necessary Being And Some Types Of Tautology

Philosophy ◽  
1964 ◽  
Vol 39 (147) ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
P. Æ. Hutchings
Keyword(s):  
Natural Theology ◽  
Great Part ◽  
Religious Believer ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Necessary Being

Critics of the notion of Necessary Being, and critics of arguments for the existence of God, have often claimed to find flaws in the notion or the arguments, and to find flaws that are due to the presence of concealed tautologies. No theist who recalls the unfortunate ‘proof’ of St Anselm and its rejection by St Thomas would dare to claim, his hand on his heart, that tautology has never lurked like a serpent in the garden of natural theology. But the ways in which tautology and talk about God come together on occasion may or may not undermine natural theology in general. I for one am loath to abandon arguments for the existence of God, or give up talk of Necessary Being, since, unlike Professor Findlay, I am unwilling to reverence, much less to worship, a focus imaginarius and I want a real God, or none at all. One of the questions is, of course: does the religious believer want a God who must be too real to be real at all? Another question is: if one can sensibly talk of a God so real as to be Necessary, are there grounds for saying that this possible Necessary Being exists? Between them these questions cover a great part, though by no means all, of the ground of modern discussions on the matter of God.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document