PHIL 201STUDY GUIDE: LESSON 18Arguments for the Existence of GodLesson Overview:In this lesson, we arrive at 1 of the most important questions of the course for Christians: Do we have good reasons to believe that God exists? Today, many are claiming that there is no evidence for God’s existence and those who believe in God are just deluding themselves. However, this lesson will show that some very interesting arguments have been developed throughout the history of philosophy that demonstrate that the theist is within his epistemic rights in believing in God. While the case is not 100% certain (few things are in philosophy), it is certainly reasonable in the absence of any contrary evidence tohold that God exists as the best explanation for certain effects we observe in creation.Tasks:View and take notes of the presentation: “Arguments for God’s Existence.”Ontological (controversial)Cosmologicial – God is the best explaination for the existence of the universe, everything that exists needs a cause, arguing for existenece of first cause (not God), Two arguments: argument ofcontingency, calam argumentTeleological – Univerese exhibits nescions (Complexity, Order, and Purpose), Fine tuning argumentMoral – existenstence requires a GodRead “The Absurdity of Life without God” by William Lane Craig.This reading by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig is titled the “The Absurdity of Life without God.” In this powerful argument, Craig seriously considers the ramifications for us if in fact there really is no God. I assign it to my students on campus and they always tell me it is their favorite reading of the semester. I think you will really enjoy it. It is not a difficult reading and is very powerful on a personal level. While it does not prove God's existence, it does add positive epistemic evidence for the cumulative case for God as the best explanation. As you read, make sure you understand the following points and questions:- What are the 3 specific areas in which Craig argues life is absurd if there is no God or Immortality?No Meaning – If God doesn’t exist, life is meaninglessNo Value – Inconsistent in affirming values of love and brotherhood, if God doesn’t exist there is no immorality, evil goes unpunished.No Purpose – No reason to live without God- What is the atheist response to each of these areas and why does that response ultimately fail according to Craig?- face the absurdity of life and live bravely- impossible to live consistently and happily w/in such a worldview- What is the dilemma for modern man as a result of denying God’s existence?- athesitic wv is insufficient to maintain a happy and consistent lifemanaging to live happily is giving the lie to our worldview- Explain the Noble Lie.one that deceives us, tricks us, compels us beyond self interest, beyong ego, beyond family, nation, and raceinspires s to live beyong selfish interests and so acheive scoail coherecePage 1 of 7PHIL 201Read Chapter 3 of Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith, “Classical Arguments for the Existence of God.” As you do, make sure you understand the following points and questions:- The Ontological ArgumentAttempts to show that the very concept or idea of God implies His reality: that is, that one's being able to clearly conceive of God somehow implies that God actually exists (Pg 63).o Anselm’s Version of the Argument: God is the greatest possible being.God is the greatest possible being, a being than which none greater can be conceived.o Anselm’s answer to Gaunilio’s objection.The concept of God is a unique one. God , unlike islands and other finite objects, is a Necessary Being. (Pg 64).o Know Kant’s objection to it.One cannot legitimately think of "existence" as a property that an entity may or may not have, or may have in varying degrees. If existence is not a property, then it cannot be a property that adds to God's greatness. (Pg 64)o Malcolm’s Version: God as a necessary being.God is, by definition, a being who does not merely happen to exist. If God exists at all, then His existence is necessary (Pg 65).o How can the Ontological argument be used to prove atheism?All the atheist really needs is the claim that it is possible that God does not exist. With this premise the argument can be modified for atheism. (pg. 66-67)o Evans evaluation of the argument: If not rationally compelling, then what is its value? What is the moral for all the arguments?If the argument is valid, then the person who wishes to deny that God exists must claim that God's existence is impossible. (pg. 67)- The Cosmological ArgumentAttempts to infer the existence of God from the existence of the cosmos or universeo Distinctions between part/whole versions and temporal/non-temporal versions.Part/whole -versions which take as a premise the existence of the universe as a whole and those which take as their starting point the existence of some part of the universe.Temporal/Non-temporal - Presupposed that the universe had a beginning in time and those which do not. (pg. 68)o The non-temporal contingency version of the argument.No natural reason why objects in our universe exist or why there should be a universe at all. Things we see do not appear to be things which HAD to exist, t hints which exist NECESSARILY. They are all contingent: things which do exist but might no have. (pg. 69)o Three irrelevant objections to the argument.1. The universe might have always existed.2. If everything requires a cause for its existence, then God also requires a cause for his existence.3. Commits the fallacy of composition, which occurs whenever one observes that each of the members of some collection has a certain property and infers that the collection, as a whole, must have that same property. (pg. 70-71)Page 2 of 7PHIL 201o Evans’ reply to the “matter is the necessary being” objection.Someone who thinks of matter as “necessary therby implies that at least one of the features of the theistic God is actually a feature of the natural world. This is not the existence of God being denied but the existence of God as a person distinct from the univers being denied. This is a commitment to pantheism. (pg 73)o Evans’ reply to the “infinite series of causes” objection.We shall not pursue these claims further because the majority of philosophers who have defended the cosmological argument have claimed that it is sound regardless of whether the universe had a beginning.