![objections there seems to be a contradiction between the second premise (nothing is self-caused) and the conclusion (there is an uncaused First Cause why can’t there be an infinite regress? in what way can we call this First Cause “God”? what kind of sense does it make to apply a concept with temporal attributes (cause) to something that exists outside of time (what was there before the universe is like asking “what is north of the north pole?” [stephen hawking])](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/914-25459/85/9-14-6-320.jpg)
9-14
- 1. 9-14
- 2. arguments for God arguments from reason a priori ontological a posteriori cosmological teleological arguments from faith argument from religious experience
- 3. attributes of God omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent God is not like us no reason to worship no reason to even designate as “God”
- 4. cosmological argument a posteriori argument comes in two forms argument from causation argument from contingency relies on the existence of something outside the system
- 5. first cause aquinas’ “second way” looks something like: 1) there are things that exist that are caused 2) nothing can be self-caused 3) there cannot be an infinte regress of causes hence, there exists some uncaused First Cause then the conclusion is used in another argument: 1) there exists some First Cause 2) By the word ‘God’ we mean “First Cause” hence, God exists
- 6. objections there seems to be a contradiction between the second premise (nothing is self-caused) and the conclusion (there is an uncaused First Cause why can’t there be an infinite regress? in what way can we call this First Cause “God”? what kind of sense does it make to apply a concept with temporal attributes (cause) to something that exists outside of time (what was there before the universe is like asking “what is north of the north pole?” [stephen hawking])
- 7. contingency aquinas’ “third way” looks something like: 1) everything that exists is either necessary or contingent 2) not every being can be contingent hence, there is some necessary Being further, this is God
- 8. objections why can’t the universe itself be the necessary thing? how does this give us “God”?
- 9. teleological argument a posteriori argument is an argument “from design” argument goes something like this: 1) human artifacts show evidence of design 2) the universe is analogous to an artifact hence, the universe is a product of design conclusion becomes premise in another argument: 1) the universe is a product of design 2) products of design require a designer hence, there is a designer of the universe
- 10. objections there is not enough similarity for the analogy to work cannot argue from the parts to the whole we learn about artifacts requiring a designer based upon multiple experiences which we are able to compare, but there is only one universe, and, hence, we are unable to compare one against our experience of several our attempt at this reasoning results in a god who is very un-godlike; the analogy is strongest when God is most like us remove infinity (cause should be proportionate to the effects, and the effects are clearly finite) remove perfection (we can only deliver perfection of creation by assuming that the “faults” we see are merely apparent because of our finite reasoning) remove unity (there is no reason there must be only one designer) remove immortality (men are mortal and must, necessarily, reproduce to continue the species) might as well make “god” completely human-like, and then we have no reason for worship at all