PHL220: Arguments for the Existence of God
Interlude: Some of the Arguments for the Existence of God
Some Leading Arguments
Consider: which of these would you call rationalist arguments,
and which if any would you consider empiricist arguments?
- Descartes' Argument: similar to the ontological argument
but uses a principle of sufficient reason for ideas.
- Ontological Argument: God is by definition a being that
must exist. (See Anselm quote below.)
- Pascal's Wager: better to believe than not, regardless of
whether God exists. (See Pascal quote below.)
- Design argument (or Teleological Argument): the world is
so well ordered it must have a designer.
- Anthropomorphic Argument: it is unlikely the world could
be such that we exist, so it must have be designed such that we
exist.
Anselm's Ontological Argument (quoted from Proslogion translation at:
http://www3.baylor.edu:80/~Scott_Moore/Anselm/Proslogion.html)
Therefore, Lord, you who give knowledge of the faith, give me as
much knowledge as you know to be fitting for me, because you are
as we believe and that which we believe. And indeed we believe you
are something greater than which cannot be thought. Or is there no
such kind of thing, for "the fool said in his heart, 'there is no
God'" (Ps. 13:1, 52:1)? But certainly that same fool, having heard
what I just said, "something greater than which cannot be
thought," understands what he heard, and what he understands is in
his thought, even if he does not think it exists. For it is one
thing for something to exist in a person's thought and quite
another for the person to think that thing exists. For when a
painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he has that picture in
his thought, but he does not yet think it exists, because he has
not done it yet. Once he has painted it he has it in his thought
and thinks it exists because he has done it. Thus even the fool is
compelled to grant that something greater than which cannot be
thought exists in thought, because he understands what he hears,
and whatever is understood exists in thought. And certainly that
greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in
thought, for if it exists only in thought it could also be thought
of as existing in reality as well, which is greater. If,
therefore, that than which greater cannot be thought exists in
thought alone, then that than which greater cannot be thought
turns out to be that than which something greater actually can
bethought, but that is obviously impossible. Therefore something
than which greater cannot be thought undoubtedly exists both in
thought and in reality.
Pascal's Wager (Trotter translation, section 233; available
at: http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/pensees/pensees.html)
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are
embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must
choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things
to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your
reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your
nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no
more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must
of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your
happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God
is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all;
if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation
that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may
perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk
of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of
one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain,
you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of
playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play,
not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an
equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and
happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of
chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be
right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly,
being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three
at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for
you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to
gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to
gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss,
and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; where-ever the
infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss
against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give
all. And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason
to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as
likely to happen as the loss of nothingness.
Design Argument
A nice selection from Paley's formulation is available at: http://www-phil.tamu.ed\
u/~gary/intro/paper.paley.html.