philosophy

David Hume's Design Argument

• Cleanthes is the advocate for the design argument: “The order and arrangement of nature, the intricate adjustment of things to their purposes, the plain use and intended purpose of every part and organ of a plant or animal… all these announce in the clearest language an intelligent cause or author” (part 4).

• Like effects prove like causes – the basis for empirical arguments.

– (Similar effects have similar causes.)

– If there are two different effects that are similar then we can infer that the causes are also similar.

– Water quenches my thirst and gatorade quenches my thirst; therefore drinking gatorade seems to be a similar cause as drinking water.

1. A house has an architect.

1. The universe has a designer.

– Cleanthes claims that the universe and a house have similar effects, therefore they have similar causes.

Objections to Design Argument

• Philo claims that Cleanthes argument has the following negative consequences:

1. In our experiences with the universe we have not experienced infinity; hence the cause of the universe cannot be infinite.

2. Nature contains many imperfections such as illnesses, natural disasters, etc. So we cannot attribute perfection to the cause of the universe.

• It is possible that there could be more than one designer; that is, the existence of a well- designed universe is consistent with multiple designers.

• Let us concede that the universe is designed, the following three scenarios are all just as plausible:

1. This world was only the first rough attempt of some infant god, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his poor performance.

2. This universe is the work of some dependent, inferior god, whose superiors hold it up for ridicule.

3. This universe was produced by some god in his old age and near-senility, and ever since his death the world has continued without further guidance, activated by the first shove he gave to it and the active force that he built into it.

The Argument from a First Cause

• This argument presents us with a divine being of classical theism.

• God’s attributes include:

– All-powerful

– All-knowing

– All-loving

– Eternal

– Infinite

– Necessarily exists (which implies that it is impossible for God to not exist) – if God necessarily exists, then this is the explanation for God’s existence.

• The argument stated:

1. Either the universe has always existed for an infinite amount of time without cause or there is an ultimate cause for the universe.

2. It is incoherent to suggest that the universe could exist uncaused.

3. Therefore there must be a necessary ultimate cause for the universe.

• To claim that the universe could exist without a cause is absurd because we are suggesting that there is not a reason for the existence of the universe.

– The universe is uncaused.

• Objections to the argument from a first cause:

– If God necessarily exists, then to conceive of God’s non-existence is incoherent; take the following two statements

1. God does not exist.

2. 2 + 2 = 5

– (1) is coherent whereas (2) is incoherent: if God necessarily exists, then (1) should not be possible.

• Other objections 1. Perhaps matter itself is necessary and needs no

explanation for its existence.

2. An eternal universe needs no explanation for its existence, because cause implies a previous time. If the universe is eternal there was no previous time to the existence of the universe.

The Ontological Argument

1. God, by definition is a perfect being.

2. It is better to exist than not to exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

• Both premises (1) and (2) seem correct.

• First objection: Overload Objection

1. Sally, by definition is a perfect unicorn.

2. It is better to exist than not to exist.

3. Therefore, Sally exists.

• The Overload Objection suggests that our argument for Sally the Unicorn’s existence works if the ontological argument works.

• Hence, if the ontological argument is correct then the universe is overloaded with entities like Sally

– The biggest problem with the Overload Objection is that there may not be any agreement on the definition of a perfect unicorn

– Whereas there is a general consensus about the definition for a perfect being.

• Second objection: premise (1) is ambiguous:

– Does ‘God’ pick out an actual being or is ‘God’ simply referring to the concept of ‘God’?

• Third objection: existence is not a predicate

– Existence is not a property that objects have

– We distinguish between concrete objects and abstract objects.

– Concrete objects: your right hand; the chair you are sitting on, etc.

– Abstract objects: the number five; the color red, etc.

– Is God a concrete object or abstract object?

– Asserting that something exists implies that we are discussing an abstract object. (The concept of God.)

– Even if God does exist, existence cannot be a property.

• Objection 4: the existence of God is not necessary.

– It is logically possible that God exists.

– It is logically possible that God does not exist.