Foundational Metaphysical Inquiries – CUET PG Philosophy – Notes

Proofs for the Existence of God

The philosophical quest to provide rational justification for the belief in a divine being has led to the development of several classical arguments. These arguments are broadly categorized based on their methodology. A priori arguments proceed from reason and definitions alone, independent of experience. In contrast, a posteriori arguments are based on empirical evidence and observations about the world. Understanding this distinction is crucial for analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of each proof.

The Ontological Argument

The ontological argument is unique because it is purely a priori. It attempts to prove God’s existence by analyzing the very concept or definition of God. It argues that once we correctly understand what God is, we must logically conclude that God exists.

Anselm of Canterbury’s Argument:

St. Anselm, in his 11th-century work Proslogion, presented the classic formulation of the ontological argument. His reasoning is subtle and proceeds as follows:

1. God is defined as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” This is a conceptual definition that even an atheist (whom Anselm calls “the fool”) can understand.
2. This concept, “that than which nothing greater can be conceived,” exists at least in the mind or understanding.
3. A crucial distinction is made between existing only in the mind and existing in reality as well. Anselm posits that it is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind.
4. Suppose this greatest conceivable being exists only in the mind. In that case, we could conceive of an even greater being: one that exists in reality.
5. This leads to a contradiction. We would be able to conceive of something greater than “that than which nothing greater can be conceived,” which is logically impossible.
6. Therefore, the initial assumption (that God exists only in the mind) must be false. God must exist not only in the mind but also in reality.

Definition: God is the greatest conceivable being →→ It’s greater to exist in reality than just in the mind → If God only exists in the mind, a greater being is conceivable (one in reality) → This contradicts the definition → Therefore, God must exist in reality.

René Descartes’ Argument:

Descartes offered a slightly different version based on his idea of “clear and distinct perceptions.” He argued that God is a supremely perfect being. His argument can be structured as follows:

• I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e., a being that possesses all perfections.
• Existence is a perfection. To lack existence would be to lack a perfection.
• Just as the idea of a triangle necessarily includes the property of its angles summing to 180 degrees, the idea of a supremely perfect being necessarily includes the perfection of existence.
• Therefore, a supremely perfect being (God) must exist.

Criticisms of the Ontological Argument:

The ontological argument has faced powerful criticisms since its inception.

Gaunilo’s “Lost Island” Objection: A contemporary of Anselm, the monk Gaunilo, argued by parody. He asked us to imagine the “most perfect island” conceivable. Following Anselm’s logic, if this island existed only in the mind, it would not be the most perfect island, as an island existing in reality would be more perfect. Therefore, the most perfect island must exist. Gaunilo argued this is absurd; we cannot simply define things into existence. Anselm’s reply was that the argument only applies to a necessary being like God, not a contingent object like an island.

Immanuel Kant’s Critique: Kant’s objection is widely considered the most damaging. He argued that “existence is not a predicate.” A predicate is a property that adds to the concept of a subject. For example, if we say “the rose is red,” the predicate “red” adds a property to our concept of the rose. Kant argued that when we say something “exists,” we are not adding a new property to its concept. Rather, we are positing that the concept is instantiated in the world. He used the famous example of 100 thalers (coins):

The concept of 100 thalers in my mind is identical whether they are real or merely possible. The real 100 thalers do not contain any more properties than the possible 100 thalers. The “existence” simply means that the concept has an object corresponding to it in reality. Therefore, one cannot build existence into a definition as if it were just another property like omnipotence or omniscience.

The Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument. It begins with an empirical observation about the world-such as the existence of motion, causation, or contingent beings-and reasons backward to the conclusion that there must be an ultimate, uncaused cause or a necessary being, which is identified as God.

Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways:

In his Summa Theologica, Aquinas presented five arguments for God’s existence.

The first three are forms of the cosmological argument:

1. The Argument from Motion (The Unmoved Mover): We observe things in the world are in motion (changing from potentiality to actuality). Whatever is in motion is put into motion by something else. This chain of movers cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently no other mover. Therefore, there must be a first mover that is not moved by anything else. This, Aquinas says, is God.
2. The Argument from Causation (The First Cause): We observe a series of efficient causes in the world. Nothing can be the cause of itself. This chain of causes cannot be infinite, because every cause in the chain depends ona prior cause. If there is no first cause, there can be no intermediate causes and no final effect. But we observe effects. Therefore, there must be a first, uncaused cause. This is God.
3. The Argument from Contingency and Necessity: We observe contingent beings in the world-things that come into existence and pass away, things that could have not existed. If everything were contingent, it is possible that at some point, nothing existed. If there was a time when nothing existed, nothing could have come into existence, because something cannot come from nothing. But things do exist. Therefore, not everything can be contingent. There must be at least one necessary being, whose existence is not dependent on anything else. This necessary being is God.

Observation: Every event has a cause → An infinite chain of causes is impossible → There must be a first, uncaused cause →This uncaused cause is God.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:

A modern version of the argument, popularized by philosopher William Lane Craig, is based on Islamic medieval philosophy. It is presented as a simple syllogism:

• Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
• Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
• Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The first premise is defended as an intuitive metaphysical principle. The second premise is supported by scientific evidence like the Big Bang theory and the second law of thermodynamics, which suggest the universe had a temporal beginning.

Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument:

• The Problem of Infinite Regress: Philosophers like David Hume questioned the assertion that an infinite regress of causes is impossible. While difficult to imagine, it is not clear that it is logically contradictory. Why can’t the chain of causes stretch back infinitely in time?
• The Fallacy of Composition: This criticism, also associated with Hume and Bertrand Russell, questions the leap from parts to the whole. Even if we grant that every event *within* the universe has a cause, why must we conclude that the universe *as a whole* must have a cause? To assume so might be a logical fallacy of composition (e.g., “Every brick in this wall is small, therefore the wall is small”).
• Special Pleading: The argument concludes there is an “uncaused cause,” but the initial premise is that everything has a cause. Why is God the exception? Critics argue this is a case of special pleadingcreating an exception for one’s own position without proper justification.
• Nature of the First Cause: Even if the argument succeeds in proving a first cause, it does not establish the existence of the personal, omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God of traditional theism. The first cause could be an impersonal force or a being far different from the God of major religions.

The Teleological Argument (Argument from Design)

The teleological argument is also a posteriori. It argues from the evidence of order, complexity, purpose, and apparent design (*telos* in Greek means ‘end’ or ‘purpose’) in the universe to the existence of an intelligent designer.

William Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy:

The most famous version comes from William Paley. He asks us to imagine walking on a heath and finding a stone. We might attribute its presence to natural causes. However, if we found a watch, we would not come to the same conclusion. The watch’s intricate parts are precisely arranged to perform a function (telling time). This complexity and purpose could not have arisen by chance; it clearly implies the existence of an intelligent watchmaker. Paley then argues that the universe, and particularly biological organisms like the human eye, are far more complex and purposefully arranged than a watch. Therefore, by analogy, the universe must have a grand designer, which is God.

The Fine-Tuning Argument:

A modern variant of the teleological argument is the “fine-tuning” argument. It points to the fact that many fundamental physical constants of the universe (e.g., the strength of gravity, the mass of a proton, the cosmological constant) are set at values that fall within an extraordinarily narrow range required for the existence of complex life. If any of these constants were even slightly different, the universe would be sterile. The argument posits that this “fine-tuning” is far more likely to be the result of intelligent design than of random chance.

Criticisms of the Teleological Argument:

David Hume’s Critique: Hume offered several powerful objections before Paley even wrote his version.

• Weak Analogy: Hume argued the analogy between the universe and a man-made object like a watch is weak. The universe is a unique case and is more like a vegetable or an animal (a selforganizing system) than a machine.
• A Unique Case: We know watches are designed because we have experience of them being made. We have no experience of universe-making, so we cannot infer a universe-maker.
• Alternative Explanations: The apparent order in the universe could be the result of chance or some unknown natural principles, not necessarily a designer. Given infinite time, any combination of particles could eventually occur.

Charles Darwin and Evolution: Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection delivered a major blow to the biological version of the design argument. It provided a powerful, naturalistic mechanism to explain the appearance of design in living organisms without invoking a designer. The process of random mutation and non-random natural selection, acting over vast periods, can account for the complexity and adaptation of life.

The Anthropic Principle: This principle is a response to the finetuning argument. The Weak Anthropic Principle states that it is not surprising that we observe a universe fine-tuned for life, because if it were not fine-tuned, we would not be here to observe it. It is a selection effect. The Strong Anthropic Principle suggests the universe must have properties that allow life to develop, but this is a much more controversial philosophical claim.

The Moral Argument

The moral argument moves from the existence of objective morality to the existence of God as the source or foundation of that morality.

Immanuel Kant’s Argument:

Kant, who rejected the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments, put forward a moral argument not as a proof, but as a “postulate of practical reason.” He argued that the rational moral agent must strive to achieve the summum bonum, or the “highest good,” which is the perfect union of virtue and happiness. However, in our experience, being virtuous does not guarantee happiness. To make moral striving rational, we must postulate the existence of God and an afterlife, where God can ensure that virtue is ultimately rewarded with happiness.

Modern Formulations:

A common modern version, advanced by thinkers like C.S. Lewis and William Lane Craig, takes the form of a syllogism:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. (For example, “torturing a child for fun” is objectively wrong, not just a matter of opinion).
3. Therefore, God exists.

Objective Morality exists → Objective values require a transcendent foundation → Without God, morality is subjective or an illusion→ Therefore, God must exist as the foundation for objective morality.

Criticisms of the Moral Argument:

The Euthyphro Dilemma: This classic problem, from Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro, poses a challenge: “Is something pious because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is pious?” Adapted for monotheism: “Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?”

• If morality is good simply because God commands it (Divine Command Theory), then morality becomes arbitrary. God could have commanded cruelty, and it would be good.
• If God commands something because it is *already* good, then goodness is a standard independent of God, and God is not the ultimate source of morality.

Secular Ethical Theories: The first premise of the modern argument is heavily contested. There are numerous secular ethical systems (e.g., Utilitarianism, Kantian Deontology, Virtue Ethics) that attempt to ground objective morality in reason, human nature, or well-being, without any reference to a divine being.