1. Team RS Revision 2018 Teleological and Cosmological Arguments for God’s Existence (Arguments based on observation) A posteriori arguments

2. The Teleological Argument: Aquinas, Paley, Anthropic
Telos= Greek for order/end/ purpose. Based on design/ order in the universe. Evidence of God’s existence around us said St. Paul (Romans 1). Beauty best explained by God.
St. Thomas Aquinas: 5th of 5 Ways to God’s Existence: Influenced by Aristotle’s ideas on causation. Aquinas looks at “governance of the world” where things lack knowledge but act for a purpose to achieve their best end (eg a river). Directed by knowledge/intelligence/ intelligent mind or being. Like an arrow being directed by an archer. God is the intelligent being who directs natural things to their end. A Divine Mind must move the planets. Planets cannot move on their own.
William Paley: Natural Theology (1802). Influenced by Sir Isaac Newton – world was mathematical machine- like system of simple predictable laws/rules. Paley fascinated by: human brain (millions of cells co-ordinate), eye (flexible, able), fins of fish and wings of birds (perfectly engineered), planets and seasons. Regularity=design=designer. Imagines finding a stone on a heath (which geography / erosion would explain) and then finding a watch which owing to intricacy (cogs, leavers, springs) could not be accounted for naturally. “What is true of the watch is true of the world” (Analogy of the Watch). Works even if we have not seen the watch before or it did not work perfectly or we did not know how it works. Patterns in nature = cosmic Designer = God.
The Anthropic Principle: Modern Teleological Argument. FR Tennant: The world is exactly right to create the right environment for life (The Goldilocks Effect). If the earth were closer / further from sun, this would not be possible.
Richard Swinburne: Modern philosopher of religion. There is regularity and order where a few hundred elements function according to simple laws leading to richness means existence of God probable and simplest explanation (Ockham’s razor).

3. The Cosmological Argument: Aquinas, Leibniz, Copleston
Cosmos=Greek for universe. God=explanation for the plans, sustainability, purpose of universe. God is “the ground of all Being” (Tillich).
St. Thomas Aquinas: First 3 of 5 Ways For God’s Existence. Influenced by Aristotle (newly translated at the time). Aquinas’ God more loving/personal/interactive.
Aquinas’ First Way: Motion/Change: We observe things in world are in motion/move/change. Whatever moves is moved by something else. Cannot be both mover and moved. Cannot move itself. Rejects change/motion going back for ever (infinite regress). No first mover=no subsequent movers. First mover/cause=God.
Aquinas’ Second Way: Efficient Causes: Replaces motion/change (above)with cause. Very similar to the first way. Efficient causes, chains of cause and effect,, are in the world but something cannot be its own efficient cause as it would have to exist before itself. No cause=no effect. Rejects infinite regress. No first cause=no other causes. First Cause=God.
Aquinas’ Third Way: Necessary Being and Contingency: In nature, things are generated, corrupted and contingent. They are possible to be and not to be. It is impossible for them to always exist. It is possible for things not to be. They are contingent. If everything was like that, at one time nothing existed and there would be nothing today. There must be something whose existence Necessary, not created by/ dependant on anything else, source of necessity of others. This is God, the Necessary Being. Not contingent.
In his 1948 BBC Radio Debate with Russell, Frederick Copleston further explained the 3rd Way. We depend on things like parents, food and air. Contingent beings do not contain the reasons in themselves for their existence. Reason for them is an external, existent and Necessary Being that does contain the reason for its existence. Things are gratuitous if God does not explain it.
G. Leibniz: Universe is essential good, rational and harmonious. “The best of all possible worlds.” There is a sufficient reason to explain everything in the universe. One geometry book is explained by the previous one. God (The Principle of Sufficient Reason) explains the whole.

4. David Hume’s Criticisms Of Both Arguments: 18th century
The world is more animal / vegetable than watch / knitting loom. More organic than mechanic. The watch analogy is inappropriate.
Why not many watchmakers/gods like many builders? A committee or gods or demons even?
Universes are unique. We cannot know how they are made. We have no experience of this.
Perhaps the universe has its own cause.
Order can be produced by chance (Epicurean Thesis). In Infinite time, an infinite number of particles freely moving would undergo every combination including stable one where we are living now (eg infinite monkeys in infinite time typing Shakespeare).
Cannot go from a cause to an effect greater than that needed to produce a cause. Something heavier on weighing scales not infinitely heavy. Too big a jump.
Evil: The world is a rough draft of an infant God who is abandoned it in shame. Mill points out Natural Evil murders. Kenny suggests does not lead to a good watchmaker. Voltaire (French philosopher) gave the example of 1755 Lisbon earthquake.
Cause and effect are a scientific mystery as to what happens at the precise moment.
The Fallacy of Composition: What is true for the part is not true for the whole necessarily. Bertrand Russell developed this saying that we have mothers to the human race as a whole has a mother.
Our knowledge of causes is different from our knowledge of God/ cause of the world of which we have no experience. No evidence outside experience. No experiments / observations possible. No known model/ experience to know unknowable cause. God not physical, chemical and biological cause.

5. General Criticisms Of Both Arrguments
Proving God is not like proving Loch Ness Monster – different entity.
A posteriori arguments cannot prove but only suggest. Also open to interpretation.
Science questions whether everything has a purpose. Aspects of the universe have no purpose.
Big Bang theory explains origins of universe.
There are uncaused things in the universe said Russell. Quantum Mechanics supports this.
Evolution gives alternative explanation which suggests no Design/ Designer or alternative purpose. Species develop randomly according to natural selection and there is a struggle for survival of the fittest through strife and chance. (Darwin).
Ideas of purpose all in our mind. We like to find reasons. Can things have purposes anyway? Surely only minds can? Hume said this of miracles.
Is purpose always good? Nettles. Mosquitos. Illness.
Cause and effect just a statistical correlation. Cause is not obvious/certain.
Necessary Beings do not make sense. It is necessary for a square to have 4 sides but it is not necessary the square exists.
Just because we cannot imagine infinite regress it does not mean it is not logically possible.
Much of the universe is bleak and barren. Many galaxies uninhabitable.
Just because God is the simplest explanation does not mean it is the most likely.
“The universe is just there and that is that. I do not need an explanation.” (Russell)

6. There is no design in the universe. Discuss. (Define design
There is no design in the universe. Discuss. (Define design. Disagree with the question by explaining the teleological argument from Aquinas, Paley and the Anthropic Principle. Be careful to stay on the question which is only asking about design not God. Then make link subsequently to Designer then God. Bring in critics questioning design or design according to Paley, Aquinas and Modern Science. Then make link to no God or different designer. Then conclude).
To what extent is Aquinas’ first cause argument successful in proving God exists. (Define prove and successful. Explain Aquinas’ Three Ways and call it First Cause Argument. Explain why it is successful as you go. Bring in Copleston and Leibniz to back up. Say it is not successful by making criticisms and bringing in Hume / Russell. Briefly – are other arguments more successful. Conclude).
How true is it to say that only the existence of God would provide a sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe. (Define true and sufficient explanation. Yes it is true. Use Leibniz, Aquinas and Copleston to back up. Then use critics like Hume and Russell and general criticisms to say that there are other explanations which are sufficient. Conclude).
The universe is just there. It needs no explanation. Discuss. (Define explanation. This statement was made by Russell – see notes. Explain why people disagree with this using Aquinas, Leibniz, Copleston, Paley and The Anthropic Principle. Make the point that the universe does need explanation and that many believe,, including these thinkers, that is God. Then use Russell and Hume and other critrics to state it does not need explanation off it is does that is not God. Conclude).
How convincing are teleological arguments for the existence of God? (Define convincing. Say teleological arguments are convincing going through Paley, Aquinas and The Anthropic Principle saying why they are convincing arguments for God’s existence. Then flip it, bringing in Hume and Russell to say why these arguments are not convincing as well as other criticisms. Conclude).
There must be a reason to account for the existence of the universe. Discuss. (Define reason. Say there must be a reason. Stick closely to question language when explaining teleological and cosmological arguments are that reason. Bring in Aquinas, Leibniz, Copleston and Paley. Say they equate God with the reason. Then flip it using Hume and Russell and criticisms generally to say that there are no reasons, many reasons and non scientific reasons for the existence of the universe. Conclusion).
Hume presents insurmountable challenges to a posteriori arguments for the existence of God. Discuss. (Define a posteriori and define insurmountable. Explain the teleological and cosmological arguments and their strengths . Explain Hume’s criticisms and say why the question is right. Offer criticisms of Hume. Conclude).
Discuss the view that the existence of God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. (Define explanation. Agree with the question. Explain cosmological and teleological arguments from Aquinas, Leibniz, Copleston and Paley. Bring in critics Hume and Russell and general criticisms that there are other explanations that are better and perhaps no explanation at all. Conclude with your view.