Phil 1000 Two weeks on God, with Professor Bradley Monton

Why do people believe in God? from Michael Shermer, How We Believe Good design/natural beauty of universe (29%) Experience of God in everyday life (21%) Belief in God is comforting; gives meaning to life (10%) The Bible says so (10%)

Faith/need to believe in something (8%) Raised to believe in God (7%) God answers prayers (6%) Without God there would be no morality (4%)

What’s the definition of “God”? A standard philosophical definition: God is omnipotent omniscient onmibenevolent But consider Pascal: “The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, not the God of the philosophers.”

There are puzzles about each. Can God make a stone so heavy he can’t lift it? If we have free will, how can God know what we’re going to do? What if there’s no best universe?

Three classic arguments for and one argument against the existence of God The ontological argument The cosmological argument The argument from design The problem of evil

The Ontological Argument This is an a priori argument for the existence of God. It’s not based on experience. The cosmological argument and the argument from design are a posteriori arguments -- they are based on experience.

Premise 1: God is the being than which nothing greater can be conceived. Premise 2: If a being exists in the understanding alone (and not in reality), then a being which is greater than it can be conceived. Conclusion: God does not exist in the understanding alone -- God exists in reality.

Gaunilo’s Objections Note that Gaunilo believes in God -- he’s critiquing the argument, not the conclusion. Gaunilo presents an argument by analogy: he presents a bad argument with ostensibly the same structure as Anselm’s argument.

Premise 1: Kokomo is the island than which no greater island can be conceived. Premise 2: If an island exists in the understanding alone (and not in reality), then an island which is greater than it can be conceived. Conclusion: Kokomo does not exist in the understanding alone -- Kokomo exists in reality.

Kant’s Objection The ontological argument treats existence as a property -- it’s one of the properties that’s needed for maximal greatness. But Kant says that that’s the wrong way to think of existence.

Another Objection The ontological argument implicitly assumes it’s possible for God to exist. But suppose that’s not possible; suppose that the very concept of God is self- contradictory. Then it would follow from the premises of the argument that God exists … but it would also follow that God doesn’t exist.

Next time…