(a) Outline your knowledge and understanding of either the Cosmological or the

Teleological arguments for the existence of God.

(b) “Philosophical arguments are inadequate, all you need is faith”. Discuss

A:
 Aquinas attempted to apply the philosophy of Aristotle to Christianity. – Thomism
 Found in the Summa Theologica – The Five Ways: the Unmoved Mover, the
Uncaused Causer, Possibility and Necessity, Goodness Truth and Nobility,
Telological.
 Posteriori – starting point is observation or experience of the universe (comos) not
revelation. The strength of this argument lies in the fact that its premise is drawn from
the empirical world.
 The argument is based on the question Why is there a universe? If we are not
prepared to ask this question then the argument would fail. But atheists would believe
that this question is pointless – Bertrand Russell, in a dialogue with Professor
Copleston declared that the universe is a brute fact and we should simply accept its
existence without seeking any further meaning.
 The first three ways are different variations of the Cosmological argument – the basic
argument is based on contingency: things come in to existence so something must
have caused them, things are caused to exist but they do not have to exist, there is a
chain of causes which go back to the beginning of time, there must have been a first
cause which brought the universe into existence, the first cause must have necessary
existence, God has necessary existence, therefore God is the first cause of the
contingent universe’s existence.
 The Unmoved Mover: Everything that is in motion is moved by something else,
infinite regress is impossible, therefore there must be a first mover. Aquinas was not
arguing that the universe had a beginning necessarily, his emphasis was on
dependency, i.e. God sustains the universe. So if God ceased to exist, then the
universe would also cease – therefore there must be an initiator of change whose
existence is depended upon.
 The Uncaused Causer: Here the idea of change is replaced with cause – every effect
has a cause, infinite regress is impossible, therefore there must be a first cause.
Something cannot cause itself, therefore an uncaused causer is required.
 Possibility and Necessity (contingency): some contingent beings exist, if any
contingent beings exist then a necessary being must exist, therefore a necessary being
exists, namely God. A contingent being is one that generated and then perishes – all
beings cannot be contingent since there must be a necessary being which brings all
other things into existence.
 Goodness, Truth and Nobility (Excellence): This argument follows: everything that
exists in the world is good, with varying degrees of excellence, there cannot be an
infinite scale of good. Therefore there must be something that is perfection; this is
what everyone understands to be God. Aquinas recognises that since the values of
truth, love and justice exist in the world there much be an initial source of these
values i.e. an eternal truth, love and justice. Every human being recognises these
qualities and aspires to nurture them in some way or other – Aquinas then holds with
the view that God is the source of all good. “Let us love one another since love comes
from God.” (1 John)
 Teleological: this is otherwise known as the design argument – it again is posteriori
and centres on the notion that the evidence of apparent design, beauty, cohesion and
purpose in the universe is evidence of a divine designer – e.g the human eye with all
its intricacy, or the ozone layer which ensures we are protected from the sun’s
powerful rays, even the sequencing of the seasons and the movement of eco-systems.
 Richard Swinburne writes: “God is simpler than anything we can imagine and gives a
simple explanation for the system.” God himself requires no explanation, indeed any
other explanation surely requires further investigation.
  Liebniz supports this view by suggesting that the universe must have a reason for
existing and this reason must be outside the universe itself – this is called the
Principle of Sufficient Reason. (i.e. God)
Criticism:
 The idea of a hierarchy of causes no longer exists – why not an endless series of
causes? (Mackie) The Big Bang theory could replace God as the cause, rather than
the God of classical theism who creates ex nihilo.
 Why can’t there be some contingent beings that have lasted throughout time and will
one day perish at some distant time in the future?
 If nothing can cause itself, how can God be an uncaused causer? But Aquinas saw
God as totally different and not subject to the same conditions as the universe. Martin
Lee has claimed that the principle of necessity leads to God being placed in a
category of his own – neither something nor nothing.
 Why does there have to be a first cause? - Why not causes which are independent of
each other or even a plurality of causes?
 Why can God not be the originator and now no longer exists – Deist view.
 Concepts such as infinity and uncaused are beyond human comprehension.
 The universe is not contingent – matter or energy seems to be eternal. God is a
metaphysical being, not a material one.
(b) “Philosophical Arguments are inadequate, all you need is faith” Discuss

Agree:
 Philosophical arguments are based on logical observations or a logical formulation of
words, and in this way they are remote to the emotion.
 Much of what we believe does not require the back-up of philosophical or logical
argument, but on feelings, intuition and emotion e.g relationships.
 The argument from religious experience is perhaps the most convincing of all the
arguments since the person making the claim has had a personal experience of a deity
and this experience has a life changing effect on them – conversion. Whilst such and
experience in subjective and individual, this does not negate it from being true, after
all, an individuals witness/testimony is accepted in a court of law.
 When we are referring to matter like the existence of God – it could be argued that
the existence of a deity is beyond human comprehension – we are finite but God is
infinite – but the Bible speaks of God’s revelation to mankind and the Gospels in
particular speak of Jesus as the incarnate manifestation of God. Jesus said: “Once you
have seen me, you have seen the father also”. There was no question in the minds of
the gospel writers that Jesus was the Messiah/God and they all risked their lives to
share that belief.
 It is clear then that faith – is a fundamental ingredient though that faith cannot/should
not be blind.
Disagree:
 Philosophical argument can be useful in framing why it is a person believes what they
do, or simply giving logical justification to a belief – this is certainly the aim of
Christian fathers such as Anselm and Aquinas. They were not necessarily intending to
convince the non believer but attempting to strengthen the believer.
 According to the Apostle Paul – faith is not without reason – In his letter to the
Romans chapter 1 he states that God has revealed himself to the world for all to see
– in what he has made and in scripture.
 Of course revelation is an act of God – we need to be open to this revelation, and bear
in mind that because it is less to do with our search and more to do with our openness
to the Holy Spirit – we might be looking for God in all the wrong places.
 God is bigger than any philosophical formula – He defies formulation.