PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION:

1. PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION: Introduction to significant arguments discussed & debated in philosophy of religion for… The Existence of God

2. What is a Syllogism:Anything logical may be expressed in syllogistic form. A syllogism involves three aspects: A Major Premise: All mortals things will die. A Minor Premise: All men are mortal. A Conclusion: All men will die.

3. The Cosmological Argument:A Cause at the Beginning. The universe had a beginning caused by something beyond the universe (vertical argument): The universe had a beginning. Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something (someone) else. Therefore the universe was caused by something (someone) else.

4. The Cosmological Kalam Argument:Time cannot go back into the past forever, for it is impossible to pass through an actual infinite number of moments. If so, then time must have had a beginning. If the world never had a beginning, then we could not have reached now. But we have reached now, so time must have begun at a particular point and proceeded today. Therefore, the world is as a finite event after all and needs a cause for its beginnings. 1 . Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.

5. The Cosmological Kalam Argument:This argument was formulated by the Arab philosophers of the Middle Ages and employed by Bonaventure (1217-1274). The contemporary Christian thinker William Lane Craig has widely published on it. 1. An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed. 2. If an infinite number of moments had to elapse before today, then today would never have come. 3. But today has come. 4. Therefore, an infinite number of moments have not elapsed before today (i.e., the universe had a beginning). 5. But whatever has a beginning is caused by something else. 6. Hence, there must be a Cause (Creator) of the universe.

6. Anselm’s Cosmological Argument: From Goodness to God: • 1. Good things exist. • 2. The cause of this goodness is either one or many. • 3. But it can’t be many, for then there would be no way to compare their goodness, for all things would be equally good. But some things are better than others. • 4. Therefore, one Supreme Good (God) causes the goodness in all things.

7. The Teleological Argument:Since the universe is exceedingly more complex in its operation, there must be a Maker of the universe: All designs imply a designer. There is a great design in the universe. Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe.

8. Basic Argument from Design: 1. We can often recognize the effects of design in nature. 2. The physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. 3. We have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn’t involve intelligence. 4. In the absence of any convincing-non- design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life.

9. The Cosmological Argument:A Cause to continue existing. Something not only caused the world to come into being but something causes it to continue to be: Every part of the universe is dependent. If every part of universe is dependent, then the whole universe must also be dependent. Therefore, the whole universe is dependent for existence right now on some Independent Being.

10. The Ontological Argument:“The ontological argument seeks to show that once we grasp the concept of God as the greatest conceivable being, then it becomes clear that God must exist.” ~ J. P. Moreland & William L. Craig God is by definition an absolutely perfect being. But existence is a perfection. Therefore, God must exist.

11. The Ontological Argument:Anselm’s argument (an a priori argument; reductio argument; assume the opposite of what you trying to prove and so a self-contradiction occurs). God = that than which a greater cannot be conceived. Argument from Proslogion 2 by St. Anselm 1. God exists in the mind but not in reality. 2. Real existence (as well as mental) is greater than mental existence alone. 3. God’s existence in reality is conceivable. 4. If God had real existence he would be greater than he is (from 1 & 2) 5. It is conceivable that there is a being greater than (from 3 & 4). 6. It is conceivable that there is a being greater than the being than which is none greater can be conceived (this is self-contradictory) 7. Therefore, step 1 is false (i.e., it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. 8. God exists in reality.

12. The Ontological Argument:The perfect being. The mere concept of God as an absolutely perfect being demands that He exist. It argues from the idea of God to the existence of God. If God did not exist, then he would be lacking one perfection, namely, existence. But if God lacked any perfection, then he would not be absolutely perfect. But God is by definition an absolutely perfect being. God is by definition an absolutely perfect being. But existence is a perfection. Therefore, God must exist.

13. The Ontological Argument:The Necessary Being. The very concept of a Necessary Being demands its existence. For the very idea of a Necessary Being demands that it must exist. For if it did not exist, then it would not be a necessary existence. If God exists, we must conceive of Him as a Necessary Being. But by definition, a Necessary Being cannot exist. Therefore, if a Necessary Being can, then it must, exist.

14. The Ontological Argument:God’s existence in reality is conceivable.Alvin Plantinga uses modal logic (s5) whereby this proof is logically cogent. Modal logic is a standard system of logic by contemporary philosophers. 1. It is possible that there be a maximally perfect being (assumption). 2. It is necessary that there be a maximally perfect being (result).

15. The Moral Law Argument:Moral laws don’t describe what is, they prescribe what ought to be. Moral laws imply a Moral Law Giver. There is an objective moral law. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.

16. Consider the following quote: “The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.” Albert Einstein.

17. What is meant by Moral Absolutes? 1. Moral obligation is a duty that is good in itself. 2. It is something we ought to pursue, a duty. 3. Morality is prescriptive (an “ought”), not merely descriptive (an “is”). 4. Morality deals with what is right, as opposed to what is wrong. 5. It is an obligation, that for which a person is accountable. 6. It is demoralizing not to obey these moral absolutes.

18. What is meant by Moral Absolutes? 1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. 2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality. 3. Virtuous conduct. 4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

19. What is meant by Moral Absolutes?An absolute duty is one that is binding on all persons at all times in all places. Moral absolutists believe that a moral absolute involves three qualities: 1. Is objective (not subjective) - a duty for all persons; 2. Is eternal (not temporal) - a duty at all times; 3. Is universal (not local) - a duty for all places.

20. The Moral Law Argument: 1. Moral laws imply a Moral Law Giver. 2. There is an objective moral law. 3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.

21. Standard Reference Point Needed: “[As an atheist] my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity, p 45. Straight Line = Standard

22. We know it, but we can deny it. “It seems then we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. First, human beings all over the earth have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way. Second, they do not in fact behave in that way. The truth is, we believe in decency so much that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility.” C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity, p 21.

23. The Moral Law Argument: Hastings Rashdall 1858-1924 English Philosopher at Oxford University. Embraced (and was the first to use the term) Ideal Utilitarianism. 1858-1924, English Philosopher, Fellow at Oxford & ideal Utilitarian.

24. 1.      An absolutely perfect moral ideal exists (at least psychologically in our minds). 2.      An absolutely perfect moral law can exist only if there is an absolutely perfect moral Mind: (a) Ideas can exist only if there are minds (thoughts depend on thinkers). (b) And absolute ideas depend on an absolute Mind (not on individual [finite] minds like ours). 3.      Hence, it is rationally necessary to postulate an absolute Mind as the basis for the absolutely perfect moral idea. The Moral Law Argument by Hastings Rashdall (1858-1924): Beginning with the objectivity of the moral law, Rashdall reasons to an absolutely perfect Mind:

25. 1.     Morality is generally understood as objectively binding. 2.     Mature minds understand morality as being objectively binding (i.e., binding on all, not just some). 3.     Moral objectivity is a rationally necessary postulate (because something cannot be judged as better or worse unless there is an objective standard of comparison). 4.     Objective moral ideals are practically necessary to postulate. The Moral Law Argument by Hastings Rashdall:

26. If an objective moral law exists independent of individual minds, then it must ultimately come from a Mind that exists independently of finite minds. It is rationally necessary to postulate such a Mind in order to account for the objective existence of this moral law. The Moral Law Argument by Hastings Rashdall:

27. Moral Law Argument according to Dr. W. R. Sorley: William Ritchie Sorley 1855-1935 British Idealist; Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy in the University of Cambridge; Author of A History of British Philosophy to 1900.

28. British idealism is generally distinguished by several ideas: 1. A belief in an Absolute (a single all- encompassing reality that in some sense formed a coherent and all-inclusive system); A high view of reason as both the faculty by which the Absolute's structure is grasped and as that structure itself; 3. A rejection of a dichotomy between thought and object. Rather, reality consisting of thought-and- object together in a strongly coherent unity. The Moral Law Argument by W. R. Sorley:

29. Introduction to Sorley’s argument: 1. It depends on the objectivity of the moral law. 2. Since there exists a moral ideal prior to, superior to, and independent of all finite minds, there must be a supreme moral Mind from which this moral ideal is derived. The Moral Law Argument by W. R. Sorley:

30. 1.      There is an objective moral law that is independent of human consciousness of it and that exists in spite of human lack of conformity to it: (a) Persons are conscious of such a law beyond themselves; (b) Persons admit its validity is prior to their recognition of it; (c) Persons acknowledge its claim on them, even while not yielding to it; (d) no finite mind completely grasps its significance; (e) all finite minds together have not reached complete agreement on its meaning, nor conformity with its ideal. The Moral Law Argument by W. R. Sorley:

31. 2.     But ideas exist only in minds. 3.     Therefore, there must be a supreme Mind (beyond all finite minds) in which this objective moral law exists. The Moral Law Argument by W. R.Sorley:“

32. Moral Law Argument according to Dr. David Elton Trueblood: Popular 20th Century American Quaker & Philosopher Chaplain to both Harvard & Stanford University. Senior advisor to President David Eisenhower; close friends with President Hoover. Founder of the Yokefellow Movement Author of 33 books including the Humor of Christ, The Predicament of Modern Man, Abraham Lincoln: Theologian of American Anguish; Trustworthiness of Religious Experience

33. 1.     There must be an objective moral law; otherwise: (a) There would not be such great agreement on its meaning. (b) No real moral disagreements would ever have occurred, each person being right from his own moral perspective. (c) No moral judgment would ever have been wrong, each being subjectively right. (d) No ethical question could ever be discussed, there being no objective meaning to any ethical terms. (e) Contradictory views would both be right, since opposites could be equally correct. The Moral Law Argument by Elton Trueblood:

34. 2.     This moral law is beyond individual persons and beyond humanity as a whole: (a) It is beyond individual persons, since they often sense a conflict with it. (b) It is beyond humanity as a whole, for they collectively fall short of it and even measure the progress of the whole race by it. The Moral Law Argument by Elton Trueblood:

35. 3.     This moral law must come from a moral Legislator because: (a) A law has no meaning unless it comes from a mind; only minds emit meaning. (b) Disloyalty makes no sense unless it is to a person, yet people die in loyalty to what is morally right. (c) Truth is meaningless unless it is a meeting of mind with mind, yet people die for the truth. (d) Hence, discovery of and duty to the moral law make sense only if there is a Mind or Person behind it. 4.     Therefore, there must be a moral, personal Mind behind this moral law. The Moral Law Argument by Elton Trueblood:

36. Dr. Zagzebski is Linda is Kingfisher College Chair of the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics & George Lynn Cross Research Professor at University of Oklahoma. The Moral Law Argument by Linda Zagzebski:An argument from moral order.

37. 1. Morality is a rational enterprise. 2. Morality would not be a rational if moral skepticism were true. 3. There is much too much unresolved moral disagreement for us to suppose that moral skepticism can be avoided if human sources of moral knowledge are all that we have. 4. Therefore we must assume that there is an extra-human, divine source of moral wisdom. The Moral Law Argument by Dr. Zagzebski: Zagzebski's version is rooted in the idea that naturalism entails moral skepticism.

38. If there is no source of moral order morality will collapse. In other words, morality cease to be a sustainable enterprise. 1. It would be demoralizing not to believe there is a moral order to the universe. 2. Demoralization is morally undesirable. 3. There is a moral advantage in believing that there is a moral order in the universe. 4. Theism provides the best theory of the source of moral order. 5. Therefore there is a moral advantage in accepting theism. (Adams, Virtues of Faith, 151) . A Practical Moral Law Argument by Dr. Robert Adams

39. In essence, Douglas Drabkin argues that the moral problems and ills that would afflict humanity if there was no God give justification to pause and seriously investigate, not for the belief that there is a God, but whether one's reasons for rejecting belief in God has been carefully thought out. A Practical Moral Law Argument by Dr. Douglas Drabkin: Atheism is demoralizing.

40. 1. Morality demands that we ought to aspire to become as good as we can be. 2. If there is no source of moral order in the world, then the project of becoming as good as we can be is fraught with difficulties. 3. These difficulties would be taken away if we were assured of the truth of theism. 4. Therefore we have a moral reason for getting ourselves in a state whereby we can come to be believe in the truth of theism. (Drabkin, “A moral argument for undertaking theism”,169) The Moral Law Argument by Dr. Douglas Drabkin: Atheism is demoralizing.

41. If the Theist is wrong, this doesn’t mean the humanist is right by default. Nihilism must be considered as well. Nihilism says there is no basis for morality. If Theism is true, then we have a sound foundation for morality. a. If Theism is true, then we have an objective basis for moral values. b. If Theism is true, then we have objective moral duties. c. If Theism is true, then we have objective moral accountability. If Theism is false, then there is no sound foundation for morality. a. If Theism is false, then why think human values are special? b. If Theism is false, then where is the basis for objectivity duty? c. If Theism is false, then what is the basis for moral accountability? The Moral Law Argument by William Lane Craig in debate with Paul Kurtz titled, Goodness without God is good enough which took place at Franklin & Marshall College, Oct. 24, 2001.

42. Argument from Evil (application of Moral Law) by philosopher Dr. Ravi Zacharias: • “One of the strongest arguments against the existence of God is the presence of evil and suffering in the world. Can you not the see what is brought in through the back door in that question? Because if there’s evil, there’s good. If there’s good there has to be a moral law. If there’s a moral law there has to be a transcendent moral lawgiver. But that’s what the skeptic is trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there is no moral law giver, there’s no moral law. If there’ no moral law there’s no good. If there’s no good there’s no evil. So what’s the question, really? The strongest argument against the existence of God actually assumes God in the objection.”

43. Arguments from Beauty? • Consider this quote from Plato who was the father & fiercest critic of aesthetics, that is, the philosophy of beauty: • “Now if a man believes in the existence of beautiful things, but not of Beauty itself, and cannot follow a guide who would lead him to a knowledge of it, is he not living in a dream?"  Plato's Republic, 476c.

44. Argument from Beauty: • Beauty implies a mind of Beauty. • There is objective beauty. • Therefore, there is an objective Mind of beauty.

45. The Standard of Validity In the same way.. How had I got this idea of beauty and ugliness? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing object X with when I called it ugly? Straight Line = Standard

46. An Introduction: • Is it reasonable to believe that beauty points us to God? Or is beauty merely in the eye of the beholder? • While not discounting the possibility of a subjective aspect to beauty, subjectivity does not automatically mean the non-existence of objective beauty or that objectivity is necessarily oppositional to subjectivity. Could it be that both objective beauty and subjective beauty are co-extensive (i.e., two sides of a coin)?

47. Argument from Aesthetic Normativity for God’s Existence: 1. It appears to human beings that aesthetic normativity exists. 2. The best explanation of aesthetic normativity is that it is grounded in God. 3. Therefore God exists.

48. Argument from Universal Signatures of Beauty for God’s Existence: 1. Universal signatures of beauty exists. 2. Universal signatures have the properties of being objective. 3. The best explanation of there being universal signatures of beauty is provided by theism. 4. Therefore the existence of universal signatures of beauty provides good grounds for thinking theism is true.

49. Evidences of Aesthetic Normativity: Universal Signatures of Art: In his article, “Aesthetic Universals,” Denis Hutton contends that there are universal features of art that everyone shares. These features transcend our cultural boundaries because they are “rooted in our common humanity.”

50. Universal Signatures Include: 1. Expertise or virtuosity, namely, specialized and technical skills, are noticed in societies and are generally admired; certain individuals stand out by virtue of their talents and are honored for it.