Philosophy of Religion (natural theology) It is not religion, it’s philosophy. Uses reason alone to consider whether religious claims are believable or unbelievable __ Does God exist?

What is God God = df ‘a single divine being that has all of the following properties: a) All-Powerful b) All-knowing c) Perfectly Good d) Eternal e) First Cause and Creator of all good things.’

Does God Exist?

The Cosmological Argument P1: All events have a cause P2: The chain of causes cannot go on for ever P3: From P1 –P2, there must be some first Cause P4: The first cause would not have limits, so it would be all-powerful, all-knowing, etc P5: P4 Is the definition of God ----------------------------------------------------------- C: God exists

Objections 1. Why can’t the causes go back forever? 2. Why should we conclude that the first cause meets the description of God?

Descartes’ Ontological Argument P1: I find in my head a number of ideas. P2: The concept of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being (all knowing, all powerful, perfectly Good) P3: Clearly this idea cannot come from me or anything that I have experiences in this world, since both me and the objects in the world are not perfect. P4: A Supremely Perfect being is the only possible cause of my idea of it, so it must exist. ------------------------------------------------------------- C: God exists

St. Anselm’s Ontological argument P1: God is ‘that which than nothing greater can be conceived.’ (all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly good) P2: Ideas that are also things that exist in the real world are better than ideas that exist in our imagination only P3: If God only existed in my imagination, then there could be something greater than the idea of God, namely a God that does exist. P4: But, there cannot be anything greater than God (see premise 1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- C: So God must exist.

Kant’s Objection “Existence is not a property.” Anselm claims that existence-in-reality is a ‘better making property.’ But, actually, existence or no existence in reality does not affect an idea. For Example, take the idea of $100. Whether you have an actual $100 or not, the idea remains the same. To say that the $100 actually exists, is merely to affirm that the idea matches something in reality. To say that it does not exist, is simply to deny that it matches in reality.

The Design Argument P1: All well built machines were made by intelligent beings P2: The universe is much like a well built machine ______________________________________ C: The Universe probably was made by an intelligent being, namely God.

David Hume’s Objections It is not so clear that the universe is like a machine Even if the universe has a designer we can’t say anything about what that designer is like, or even if there is only one, so why call it “God”?

The Watchmaker P1: Something as a complex as a watch could not have come to be by accident. Someone had to have made that thing for a clear purpose. P2: Living organisms are even more complicated than watches (look how well they fit their environment!). C: So, living organism must have been designed for a clear purpose too

Charles Darwin The Theory of Evolution through natural selection Origin of the Species 1859 Organisms change Some changes are better suited to the environment and some are not Organisms that are well adapted to their environment live and pass on their genes. Organisms that are not well-adapted die off The Organisms that live on produce little versions of themselves. Given millions and even billions years the changes brought about by this process will quite dramatic

The Argument from Experience P1: Many people claim to have experienced the reality of God, even to have a relationship with God P2: Many of these are very sensible, sane, trustworthy people P3: We should trust something if many sane, sensible, and trustworthy people attest to it C: God exists

Objections We can be very mistaken about what we think we perceive People have a tremendous capacity to fool themselves

The Problem of Evil (Pain & Suffering) P1: God is said to be all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly loving and good P2: God must know about all pain and suffering P3: God could prevent all pain and suffering P4: God would want to prevent all pain and suffering P5: There is a ton of pain and suffering ----------------------------------------------------- C: There is probably no God

Defending God from the Problem of Evil There is a difference between a defense and theodicy: a defense is a possible reason why God permits evil; whereas, a theodicy is a claim to actually know that reason. Defense 1: Pain is necessary as part of the body’s warning system. Defense 2: God allows evil to exist, in order to bring about a greater good. Defense 3: Suffering is punishment for sin.

The Free Will Defense P1: In order to create true human persons, God had to create people with free will P2: People with Free Will sometimes cause pain and suffering P3: God then, could not eliminating suffering and pain without taking way free will. P4: But a world without free will would not have love, and thus be worse than a world with free will C: So, God must allow pain, suffering, and evil

Expanding the Free Will Defense What about natural evils? Somehow human actions cause all the natural evils. Natural evils are the work of “The Devil” and his demons.

The Moral Character Defense P1: The Purpose of human life is to develop into a mature, virtuous, moral person. P2: If God put us in a “perfect” world, with no struggle, pain, and loss, we would never develop into what we should be. C: So we need pain and suffering to become what we are meant to be

Objection to the Moral Character argument What about people, and other beings, that cannot be improved through their pain and suffering? Babies? Severely Cognitively impaired people, non-human animals?

God is not all-powerful Harold Kushner When bad things happen to Good People Either God could prevent all this pain suffering, and chooses not to, or God cannot prevent it. If God chooses not to, God is not all-loving If God cannot, God is not all-powerful I cannot accept that God is not all-loving So, God must not be all powerful