PHIL DICUSSION

Module 5 Discussion: Teleological and Cosmological Argument

Module 5's discussion questions will focus on the content of our textbook's Chapter 4 Section 4.0-4.2 and 4.4-4.5.

Early and continuing participation in these ongoing online "class discussions" is expected throughout the entire duration of each Module. I strongly recommend reading and contributing to these discussions on at least three days a week, every week.

This discussion forum will close at the end of Module 5, after which time no additional discussion posts may be submitted.

Discussion Question A

Theistic Arguments: With respect to the teleological argument, cosmological argument or Pascal's wager, which do you believe is the best argument to show that God exists? Carefully explain your reasoning, and please reference concepts from the text when applicable.

Discussion Question B

Problem of Evil: In its classic form, the problem of evil is an argument against the existence of God as traditionally understood. Consider the following version of the argument as rendered by Lawhead:

1. God is perfectly good (omnibenevolent).

2. God is all-knowing (omniscient).

3. God is is all-powerful (omnipotent).

4. Evil exists.

5. If God exists and is a being who is good, all-knowing, and all-powerful, then there would be no evil in the world.

6. Therefore, God does not exist.

Of the different solutions presented in the Module, which one is most compelling? Or is the argument ultimately sound? Carefully explain your reasoning, and please reference concepts from the text when applicable.

Instructions

1. First, respond to EACH of the two Module 5 Discussion Questions presented above (both questions A & B).

2. Then, provide additional subsequent follow-up responses to posts submitted by others (your fellow students, and/or myself) in BOTH of the subsequent discussion threads that will begin to develop and unfold as this Module proceeds.

Chapter can be found here: https://online.vitalsource.com/reader/books/9781260132519/epubcfi/6/2[%3Bvnd.vst.idref%3DCover]!/4/2/2/2%4051:1

Email login: [email protected]

Password: Pepsi531!

Reply to 2 peer’s responses of 150 words each

Peer 1: Emily Champion

The cosmological argument more argues that anything caused has to be caused by something else. So, everything we know is caused by God, but it doesn’t tell us what caused God to be. The teleological argument argues that everything has a creator and a purpose, but much in life can’t be explained. I believe Pascal’s wager is the best argument of God’s existence. It argues that sometimes a leap of faith is the reason to believe. The creation of God can’t be scientifically explained, many believe in God because they have faith in him. The phrase, “faith over fear,” is we must have faith than fear.

“Aquinas & the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course Philosophy #10.” YouTube, CrashCourse, 11 Apr. 2016, https://youtu.be/TgisehuGOyY. Accessed 27 Oct. 2021.

“Indiana Jones & Pascal's Wager: Crash Course Philosophy #15.” YouTube, CrashCourse, 23 May 2016, https://youtu.be/S93jMOqF-oE. Accessed 27 Oct. 2021.

“Intelligent Design: Crash Course Philosophy #11.” YouTube, CrashCourse, 25 Apr. 2016, https://youtu.be/7e9v_fsZB6A. Accessed 27 Oct. 2021.

Peer 2: Wes Porter

Discussion Question A

The teleological argument presents the best case for God out of the three. Pascal’s wager makes a good argument for believing in God based on the risk/reward factor and the cosmological argument makes sense for identifying the root cause of the universe, but neither make as valid of a direct case for divine intervention as the teleological argument. Pascal’s wager simply says that we “should” believe in God for the simple reason that if we don’t, the risk we’re taking is too great. If we believe in God, our reward will be eternal life, if not, we suffer eternal damnation. We prosper for the simple sake of belief, and lose nothing if God doesn’t exist. This does a good job of making us want to believe, but not a good job of proving God exists. The Cosmological argument stems from the fact that the universe exists, and therefore should have a root cause that started it all. The problem with this argument is that even though God is a viable option for the starter of the universe, God certainly isn’t the only imaginable cause. The teleological argument makes the best case for a divine hand in the creation of the universe. Evidence of design shows that must be a designer’s hand at work, therefore the best case for a God. In William Lawhead’s words, “evidence of design implies a designer” (Lawhead, 2018, p. 332).

Discussion Question B

At first, I thought that the Greater goods defense was the weakest because its correlation between the necessity for evil to bring about better events seemed far-fetched and reaching. The free will and natural order defenses, however, seem to build upon each other in a way that promotes disbelief. The free will defense offers a handsome approach to evil in stating that God created us to have unfettered free will so that the evil in the world could be matched and bettered by good, but then relies heavily on the natural order defense to cover the subject of natural evil in the form of natural disasters. The compounding of both defenses creates a deck of cards effect for me, if neither is strong enough to stand on their own, neither can be right. The Greater goods defense then makes the best case to explain evil as a tool through which beauty, kindness, and goodness are delivered.

Lawhead, W. (2018). The Philosophical Journey: An Interactive Approach (7th Edition).      

McGraw-Hill Higher Education (US). https://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781260132519