for ESSAY GURU

Proofs of God Leib Versions, slides 2-5 (These are slightly different from Palmer’s. Use these OR Palmer’s)

The Ontological Argument, ver. 1 (Anselm)

´ 1) It is possible to think a being “than which nothing greater can be conceived” –i.e. it is the most Perfect

´ 2) If the being you are thinking of exists only in thought, it is not the most perfect, because it would be more perfect to exist both in thought and in reality

´ 3) So, if you are actually thinking of “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”, this logically entails thinking of that thing as existing in reality as well as in the mind

´ 4) This being is what we call “God”

The Ontological Argument, ver. 2 (Descartes’)

´ 1) God, by definition is absolutely perfect. ´ 2) It is more perfect to exist than not to exist (you say so.) ´ 3) Therefore, to conceive of God as the most perfect is to conceive of

him as existing a priori ´ 4) Thus, to say “God does not exist” is a contradiction, and the

sentence “God exists” is necessarily true (i.e. it proves itself a priori)

Exodus 3:14: “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM [Ehyeh]

hath sent me unto you.”

Aquinas- Cosmological Argument, p 166. (Argument from ’motion’ & ’causation’)

´ 1) In the world, we observe an order of efficient causes. (A causes B, B causes C...)

´ 2) We have not observed a case in which something is the efficient cause of itself (A causes A). It is not possible actually, since then a thing would have to exist before itself, which is absurd.

´ 3) With efficient causes, it is not possible to go backward into infinity (no ‘infinite regress’).

´ 4) If you take away the cause, you take away the effect, so it is not possible to simply lack a first cause.

´ 5) But there are observable effects of motion all around us. ´ 6) Therefore, a first cause must exist (which does not move and is not caused), and

this is God.

Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

´ Thomas Aquinas gives a version of this argument that the inorganic world, where we don’t normally attribute ‘purpose’ or ‘end’:

´ 1) We see that things that lack intelligence (i.e. are not alive) act for an end (telos)

´ 2) We observe this, for instance, in the way that rocks always travel downward as long as they can, or in the way that fire always travels up as far as it can

´ 3) this is not by accident (because it always happens whenever possible), so it must be by design

´ 4) this cannot be a design belonging to the rocks and flames themselves because they lack intelligence

´ 5) therefore, they must be guided by something intelligent, like an arrow shot at its target by the archer

´ 6) Therefore, an intelligent guide must exist, and this is God

Teleological Argument, version 2

´ The “argument from design”, or the “argument from analogy”

´ Suppose you were walking along the beach of an uninhabited island, and you find a watch in the sand.

´ Upon considering the watch’s intricacy, it would be absurd to suppose that it was formed by accident; it is more reasonable to assume an intelligent creator designed and produced it to serve some purpose.

´ But nature is far more intricate than an old watch.

´ Therefore, we have just as much, if not more, reason to assume a creator of nature.