Download e-group-theme-1-a-b-and-c-ao2-essays

1. “The Kalam argument is a convincing argument for God’s existence”
Firstly the Kalam argument claims that it is impossible for the universe to have an infinite past, in support of this
claim, science establishes that the Big Bang theory proves there was a start to the universe. The Big Bang theory is
supported by Red Shift discovered by Hubble, this empirical evidence indicates that everything is spreading apart
from one single point in the universe. The planets further away are receding faster due to speed of expansion of
the universe, this proves to us that there must be a start to the universe which we estimates that the start was
13.7 billion years ago. However a weakness to this argument is that the Big Bang was all natural and doesn’t need
God to start the big bang.
The Kalam argument uses the library example to explain that actual infinite doesn’t exist. A part of an infinite set
is equal to the whole of the infinite set because both the part and the whole are infinite. It says that a count of all
the even numbered books is the same as a count of all the books. However some would say the Kalam argument
misunderstands the nature of infinity and infinity has to exist even if we cannot imagine it, the human mind is
limited therefore we cannot physically comprehend infinite with our brains.
Because we can measure time, this would suggest that there was beginning of the time/universe, if the universe
was actually infinite we would not be able to measure time. This is called successive addition. Although we can
measure time, some people may question why these premises jump such a leap to the conclusion of God.
Furthermore, the Kalam argument helps the cumulative argument in order to help prove God’s existence. Putting
forward the Kalam argument with other cosmological argument all help create strong evidence for God’s
existence. In contrast, the leaky bucket analogy tell us if all buckets have a hole in them, the water will keep
passing through, this links to having lots of weak arguments and how they do not get stronger if they are put
cumulatively together.
2. “The Cosmological argument effectively demonstrates God’s existence”
The Cosmological argument uses ideas such as Aquinas’ first three ways, the Kalam argument and the
rejection of actual infinity (because something which is actually infinite does not have a beginning or an
end and nothing can be added or subtracted as shown by the library analogy –William Lane Craig) to
create a cumulative argument which outweighs the counteracting arguments such as Epicurean
hypothesis (Quantum Mechanics) to create a more persuading argument.
A successful counter-argument is the idea of the leaky bucket which is creating an argument with holes
(and contractions) which cannot hold truth as it does not offer the full support: even if you have multiple
arguments with holes (and contradictions) it still does not create a whole solid structure to persuade
with. To summarise the Cosmological argument has flaws so cannot be a sound philosophy.
The Cosmological argument is based off a posteriori premises, and evidence from experience with the
universe; the cosmological argument has a logical premise of analogies such as fire and wood to explain
actuality and potentiality (the wood cannot become actually hot without the fire which is actually hot:
wood representing the universe and fire representing God) and if fire and wood act like that, then there is
reason to assume the universe would.
However because it is based off an a posteriori, inductive evidence and not factual evidence, there is no
proof and the fallacy of composition means that parts do not necessarily represent a whole and we did
not experience the creation of the universe so analogies are unsound (although maybe logical).
The Cosmological argument relates to the idea of Occam’s razor, in which Swinburne states the simplest
idea is the most persuasive and true: in this case the creation of the universe was caused by God. To
counter argue this, Russell states that it is just as easy to say God ceases to exist as it is to say he does
exist. This is brute fact, Russell argues that the universe ‘just is’- it doesn’t need an explanation.
The Cosmological argument is also compatible with science in the way of how the universe was created,
the Big Bang theory does actually support the Cosmological argument with the evidence of Red Shift
(light moving out from an origin) scientists could trace back the origin to a singular point of the universes
creation which also rejects the idea of an actually infinite universe, but the Cosmological argument
suggests that singular point was God, not just the Big Bang (or God created the Big Bang).
However this could simply misinterpret infinity, as infinity is beyond human comprehension so it could
potentially exist. Leibniz offers further support for the cosmological argument, as he states that even if
there is an infinite chain, there would still be an explanation to the whole chains existence. Also the idea
Russell uses of Quantum Mechanics (statistics may cause things to spontaneously come into existence)
and the Epicurean hypothesis (the universe was once chaotic and over time everything fit into place by
accident and now it has order and regularity –as far as humans are aware because we have known no
different, the universe could still be chaotic).
3. ‘The teleological argument effectively demonstrates God’s existence’
The teleological argument is the idea that the world displays elements of design which has caused the
overall purpose, which shows beings working towards on end of this universe. To have a design it
suggests that we would need a designer therefore most scholars suggest the designer is God, as there is
an apparent order within the universe, as each part of the universe has a regulated behaviour.
Therefore, this argument is an effective argument for the existence of God as it provides a probability
for his existence as it is a posteriori. However, this means that it cannot provide any proof for the
existence of God, only can provide probability, as well as this, it is an inductive argument meaning that it
is based on the senses and evidence as it cannot be argued using logical definitions; limiting the
effectiveness of the argument. The probability that is provided from the argument is what it is based on,
as there is no clear definition for God.
The teleological argument also claims that because there is a benefit for life, as the universe provides all
that is necessary and more, and sustainability for human life there must have been a designer to have
created this universe. The teleological argument demonstrates God’s existence because these theories
have stood the test of time; they’ve gone through history and are still being modernized by scholars like
Tennant. He showed that recent scientific discoveries can still be explained by the existence of God, as
there must be a ‘life giving factor’ which lies at the centre of the universe. He also demonstrated that we
could imagine a chaotic universe, however the world clearly displays an order to it, which allows for the
evolution of human life. On the other hand, the epicurean hypothesis explains how the world could be
the result of random chance, and may have come about within a long period of time.
A strength of the Teleological argument is Swinburne’s theory of Ockham’s razor, which states that the
simplest explanation can sometimes be the most effective. Science simpler
Another strength of the Teleological argument is the Cumulative argument, which shows that singular
arguments are less likely to be and effect argument as the amount of flaws may be more than the
argument itself provides, whereas having multiple arguments makes the collective arguments together
more effective and can outweigh the criticisms. However, the analogy of the Leaky Bucket disproves this
argument, as it uses the example of a bucket with a hole in. As the bucket has a hole in, you place the
bucket into another bucket, but now both buckets also have a whole. You keep adding more and more
buckets but no matter how many buckets the liquid still comes through. In this analogy, the buckets
represent the arguments put together, showing that even though there are many arguments, they
cannot effectively explain God’s existence as they all have flaws.
In addition to this, Swinburne also used the probability argument. This argument proofs that God
created this world as its conditions are so perfect and right for human life they can’t have been created
by chance. This can be explained through the probability analogy. Imagine someone had been
kidnapped, and they were taken to a room and were hooked up to 10 card-dealing machines. The
kidnapper said that, for the man to survive, he needed to get the Ace of Hearts 10 times through all of
the machines. The man felt that his life was already over, but when the kidnapper turned the machines
on, all 10 of them showed the Ace of Hearts. The survivor felt that this anomaly that saved his life
required explanation as the chances were so slim, whereas the kidnapper just said that it was result of
random chance. Swinburne believes that the man would have been right to question the anomaly is
there is such a slim chance of the occurrence of the event. Random
Elliot, Cassidy and Alice
4 ‘The Cosmological Argument is convincing in the 21st Century’
The cosmological argument is convincing in the 21st century because analogies used by scholars such as St.
Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle are easy to understand in the modern world and can be relatable. This can be seen
in the analogy of fire and wood in Aquinas’ first way, Aquinas’ first way explains the idea of God through an ‘unmoved mover’ and actuality and potentiality. He says that the wood is potentially hot but needs fire to become
actually hot and in this example God is the fire and has the potential to turn things to actual. On the other hand
an opposing view to this was put forward by Kenny, he explored the idea that the fire used to symbolise God in
the analogy is irrelevant as the wood could be set on fire using friction or electric. Kenny backs this up by saying ‘it
is not a dead man who commits murder’ this backs up the point of the fire not being needed. He also said that
things can move themselves meaning that Aquinas’ first way becomes irrelevant.
Secondly, Ockham’s razor may make the Cosmological argument convincing as it is the idea of something being in
its simplest form is often the best. Richard Swinburne suggests that the cosmological argument it is the simplest
explanation of why there is something rather than nothing.
Contrastingly, the argument can be seen as contradicting as in Aquinas’ second way he says that infinity cannot
exist as there would not be a first cause. However, later in the argument, he says God is the uncaused cause
meaning that God is infinite. Therefore this argument is based on a contradiction as it does not make sense
because Aquinas is arguing that everything must have a cause but then goes on to argue that God doesn’t need a
cause.
Also, the cosmological argument isn’t necessarily convincing in the 21st century due to the increase of technology
used in science. This means that scientists are able to find more evidence to support to the Big Bang theory,
shown through red shift, which proves that the universe is expanding. Therefore, this makes the cosmological
argument less convincing as it makes humans believe that there is no need for a God. On the other hand, there
was no being around to have valid evidence ofr the cause of the Big Bang.
Furthermore, many people support the cosmological argument because it has stood the test of time. As it the
idea first arisen from the ancient Greek thinkers, Plato and Aristotle. These ideas have then been developed by
modern day philosophers, such as William Lane Craig. Therefore, this makes the cosmological argument more
convincing as it has lasted such a vast period of time, making people believe that it must be true
In Conclusion, it may convince religious believers but Atheists may not be so easily convinced.
Question 5 is missing
6. ‘The Challenges to the cosmological argument outweigh the strengths’
Many scholars argue against the cosmological argument which challenges the strengths of said
argument.
One scholar – David Hume, whom successfully challenges the Cosmological argument. Hume used
empirical objections – the knowledge from sensors - to reject causation as humanity had no experience
of how the universe itself was caused. He supported this argument using the fallacy of composition
which is to confuse the properties as a whole with the properties of the parts. Hume said that just
because something is created or caused does not provide evidence that the universe itself was actually
caused. This successfully challenges the cosmological argument because Aquinas said that everything
has a cause which is evident universally and we have a posteriori knowledge of it.
Hume uses critique of causes to also argue successfully against the cosmological argument. Hume says
that the Cosmological argument is full of contradiction as Aquinas initially stated in his second way
about causation that ‘nothing can cause itself’ which he then contradicts by saying that ‘God causes
himself’ therefore theoretically the universe could’ve potentially caused itself without reference to a
creator or omnipotent being with knowledge, intelligence and experience to create it. This is able to
successfully challenge the cosmological argument because it links to Aquinas’ third way. It shows
evidence of God being necessary rather than contingent which strongly challenges as evidentially he is
contradicting himself as Hume gives two valid arguments to weaken the arguments of Aquinas
influenced by Aristotle. Further challenges the cosmological argument as it offers an explanation to how
the universe was created through the Epicurean Hypothesis. This is the idea of a random arrangement
of atoms where initially chaotic but over long period time arranged themselves in a way to allow the
creation of the universe without reference to God – which strongly challenges the whole of the
cosmological argument.
Another way of challenging the cosmological argument is through scientific theory. The most recognised
scientific theory is the Big Bang and the discovery of Red shift. The Big Bang is described as a highly
condensed state of matter which exploded approximately 10-15 billion years ago – this is the point in
which time began. The discovery of red shift further consolidated this theory when discovered by
Hubble in 1929 when he noted that stars and galaxies further away were moving towards the red end of
spectrum indicating they were expanding further away from the point of which they began. The Big
Bang and Red Shift provides a strong challenge against the cosmological argument as it provides another
explanation than the creator being God. Science also drifted from the idea of causation and instead
showed a way of how the universe can be created by chance rather than the knowledgeable and
purposeful of the universe. This gives a sense of factuality. Science provides a strong challenge however
science can only explain how it was created just not able to explain why it was created that way. This is a
strong challenge because although science is based on evidence, these theories are always in need of
updating meaning that evidence may not always be accurate which leaves the creation of the universe
down to God.
7. The challenges to the teleological argument outweigh the strengths.
The teleological argument is an a posteriori and inductive argument meaning that the arguments for it
are based of our experience so people can relate to it and it is also based on observation, like science,
which makes it more convincing. On the other hand, Kant explains that an inductive and a posteriori
argument is a weakness because it is based on experience yet have no experience of God creating the
universe so the argument and analogies do not work, it is also an inductive argument therefore it will
never offer complete proof.
The main bases of the teleological argument are analogies that people can relate to however Hume in
his book ‘Dialogues concerning natural religion’ uses the character of Philo to argue against the use of
analogies. He explains how the builder and house analogy could lead to possibility of more than one god
as you need more than one person to build a house so maybe one than one god was needed to create
the universe, In addition this analogy proves the theory of an absent God as builders leave their working
site when they are finished building the house so there is no need for God to stay around forever. This
outweighs the teleological argument by disproving the analogies it’s based on, therefore weakens the
overall argument as analogies are the main ‘poofs’ of that argument.
One of biggest challenges to the teleological argument is science as it explains the order and regularity
that does not need god with the use of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Evolution shows how simple
organisms have developed their features through the selection of the fittest and adaptations, this
proves that complexity in the natural world does not need a divine being behind it. Some Philosophers
such as Thennant argue that there does not need to be a conflict between god and science and God
could have controlled the evolution as it was a part of Gods plan.
The teleological argument can also never prove that even if there is a designer it is a god of classical
theism, Jon Stuward Mill addresses the issue of cruelty, violence and unnecessary suffering in the world,
for example some animals have natural features which enable them to be efficient killers which points
towards an idea that natural world could have a cruel designer or no designer at all.
As a conclusion the teleological argument is also a cumulative argument which means arguments for
God outweigh argument against God. However, the leaky bucket analogy shows that although there are
many convincing arguments for God, they have holes in them and therefore do not create a strong and
convincing argument, which suggests that the teleological argument is outweighed by the challenges.
8. ‘Scientific explanations for the start of the universe are more convincing than the cosmological
argument.’
One scientific explanation for the start of the universe is ‘The Big Bang Theory’ which is a scientific
concept that says the universe was created around fourteen billion years ago when a condensed state of
matter expanded to give off gases that’s formed the universe. This is convincing because it can be
proved by ‘Red Shift’ which is the idea that the universe is still expanding as galaxies that appear red are
moving away from us. Accepting this theory means we don’t need God as an explanation or the start of
the universe or why we are here. On the contrary, the theory hasn’t been around as long as the
arguments created by philosophers like ‘Plato’ and ‘Aristotle’ from ancient Greece, it was only
developed in the 20th century and scientific explanations keep changing. It also can’t provide an
explanation why we have a universe, only how. ‘The Big Bang’ can be used to support the Cosmological
Argument as it can work hand and hand with God for an explanation for the start of the universe.
Russell’s Argument is that there is evidence to suggest there are things in the universe that are caused
but the universe as a whole isn’t. Quantum Physics says that things can cause themselves, and don’t
need a necessary being. This is a posteriori as it is based on observations in the universe. However
Quantum Physics goes against what we know about cause and effect. Both are based on experience of
science in the world, so can be used together rather than against one and other.
Hume uses Empirical Objections against the cosmological argument. He says that we haven’t
experienced the creation of the world therefore we cannot meaningfully argue about it. He also rejects
the ‘uncaused cause’ as it states things can’t cause themselves, however God was self-caused. This
philosophical argument is not convincing it can’t be proved whereas scientific explanations can,
therefore scientific arguments suggest a first cause and support the argument.
Kenny disproves Aquinas’ First Way for the cosmological argument as he says that things don’t have to
be actual to transform something from potential to actual. He says that a stick can become hot with
friction, not just fire itself. In his book ‘Five Ways’ he states ‘It Is not dead men who commit murders.’
Newton’s first law of motion states that an object at rest will stay at rest, they need to be moved with
an external influence.
Previously, God was used to explain everything that science couldn’t, however God as an explanation is
now decreasing as scientific ideas like Kenny’s are developing and proving things that God once
explained.
In conclusion, scientific explanations for the start of the universe are more convincing but don’t fully
disprove the Cosmological Argument. Nevertheless, it is God that offers a reason as to why the universe
began while science offers an explanation how.
9. ‘Scientific explanations for the order, regularity, and apparent design of the universe are more
convincing than the teleological argument’.
The teleological argument is the basis around that god designed the world. There are multiple scholars
that believe in it such as, Aquinas, Hume, Tennant and Kant. The teleological argument is inductive,
which means that the premises maybe true but the conclusion could still be false. Additionally, it is a
posteriori argument which means it based after evidence.
There are many scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe such as Darwin’s belief in
evolution. This explained how many animals have adapted to their habitat over thousands of year. This
has been proven through fossils, bones and embedded rock. This is convincing as it is a deductive
argument which means it is based on the truth. Additionally, there is the scientific belief in the big bang.
The big bang happened 13-15 million years ago and it was a huge explosion from a ball of concentrated
mass. These scientific explanations have been supported by many scholars such as Darwin, Dawkins and
Stephen Hawkins. The analogy of the leaky bucket intails that although there maybe more religious
prospects, if they are all flawed they are not stronger that scientific explanations.
However, there are many religious principles that outweigh the ideas of science, this is called cumulative
argument. This is the idea that all religious beliefs together are stronger than scientific beliefs. Many
scholars support the existence of god such as, Aquinas, Hume and Kant. The order, regularity and design
all originate from aquinas’ ideas about qua regularity nd qua design. These principles stem from his
belief that god designed everything to fit a purpose. For example, Aquinas used the analogy of ducks,
and said that ducks have webbed feet to fit a purpose to swim and that these did not come naturally.
The order of the solar system came from a scholar called Tennant and he said that the solar system has
order as it has had for millions of years. Tenant also used an analogy of birds and questioned how birds
know to lay on their eggs for warmth. He then evidently provided an explanation that this was due to
regularity through design of god. Also a scholar called Kenny explained also there is a principle called
ockams razor which entailed that simplest explanations are usually the best. This links to the design
argument because it is more probable that things in the universe were designed to fit a purpose rather
than it have been to chance.
Lucy,Lydia,Lucinda.