COPLESTON AND RUSSELL OVERVIEW Section Point Argument/Idea Intro Clarification of terms They both agree on the definition of God as ‘A supreme being – distinct from the world and the Creator of the world’. Copleston believes that He exists (theist) Russell believes this would be impossible to prove (agnostic). The argument from contingency C – Everything in the universe is contingent, because contingent beings cannot cause themselves, there must be a necessary being who brought about their cause. R – You cannot use the term necessary for ‘beings’ it only applies to analytical statements and tautologies. The principle of sufficient reason C – The universe needs a complete explanation and God offers this. Because God is a necessary being, we don’t have to explain what caused God, therefore, ‘God created the universe as an expression of his perfect love’ is a complete explanation. R – It is a waste of time looking for a complete explanation because we won’t find one. The universe is the totality of its parts C – Everything in the universe has a cause, therefore the universe itself must have a cause. R – What is true of the parts is not always true of the whole – just because the parts of the universe have a cause, it does not automatically follow that the universe itself does – Fallacy of Composition. Religious experience suggests that there must be source, ie God C – If people report a mystical experience, there has to be a source of that experience, ie God. R – Although an experience needs a source, this could easily be a fictional source or in fact the devil instead of God. The impact of religious experience on an individual is proof of God C – The impact that religious experience has on people’s lives proves that they have experienced God. R – The impact of an experience on a person only proves that they believe the experience to be true, it does not actually prove that it is. The Argument From Contingency Religious Experience

THE ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY INTRO THE ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE CLARIFICATION OF TERMS THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON

THE UNIVERSE IS THE TOTALITY OF ITS PARTS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE SUGGESTS THAT THERE MUST BE SOURCE, IE GOD THE IMPACT OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE ON AN INDIVIDUAL IS PROOF OF GOD

They both agree on the definition of God as ‘A supreme being – distinct from the world and the Creator of the world’. Copleston believes that He exists (theist) Russell believes this would be impossible to prove (agnostic). R – You cannot use the term necessary for ‘beings’ it only applies to analytical statements and tautologies. R – It is a waste of time looking for a complete explanation because we won’t find one. C – Everything in the universe is contingent, because contingent beings cannot cause themselves, there must be a necessary being who brought about their cause. C – The universe needs a complete explanation and God offers this. Because God is a necessary being, we don’t have to explain what caused God, therefore, ‘God created the universe as an expression of his perfect love’ is a complete explanation. C – Everything in the universe has a cause, therefore the universe itself must have a cause.

R – What is true of the parts is not always true of the whole – just because the parts of the universe have a cause, it does not automatically follow that the universe itself does – Fallacy of Composition. R – Although an experience needs a source, this could easily be a fictional source or in fact the devil instead of God. R – The impact of an experience on a person only proves that they believe the experience to be true, it does not actually prove that it is. C – If people report a mystical experience, there has to be a source of that experience, ie God. C – The impact that religious experience has on people’s lives proves that they have experienced God.