4/30/2013 7:11:00 PM Ontological argumentIt is an argument of gods existence based entirely on reason. Ontology- means study of being.

According to this argument, there is no need to go out looking for physical evidence of gods existence; we can work out that he exists just by thinking about it. made by Anselm- "a being than which no greater can be conceived." Since existence is possible, and to exist is greater than to not exist, then God must exist (if God did not exist, then a greater being could be conceived, but that is self defeatingyou can't have something greater than that which no greater can be conceived!). Therefore, God must exist. Descartes did much the same thing, only starting from the idea of a perfect being. Everyones believe in god regardless of what religion, thinks same basic things about god i.e. omnipresent, omniscience, omnipotent. Where did the idea came from about existence of god? Regardless you believe it or not God is still there. Everyone knows what it means to be a God. And if you know this then, the idea came from somewhere. And if it didnt came from somewhere, then something put it there (second party ie God) Fact that you are able to conceive of god proves god exists. All contingent means its possible, if something is necessary that it doesnt have to be possible.

Gaunilo in ontological argument. The perfect island! Replace God with perfect island. If you can imagine of perfect island then it doesnt mean it exists. Another example of believing unicorn is real thing. Gaunilo wasnt arguing against existence of god (he did believe in god), he was just criticizing Anselms argument on ontological argument. Anselms made argument later in response to Gaunilos criticism.

He said there are many ways for god to exists even if its not physically. Like spiritually, mentally, conceptually, or supernaturally. For example, numbers are very real but not physical, its conceptual. Ideas are real, but its not physical and need to be made physical.

Thomas Aquinas5 proofs for existence of God. Motion Causality Contingency Degrees Design

First cause- (first three cause ie contingency, causation and motion) some things are caused. Everything that is caused is caused by something else An infinite regress of causation is impossible. Therefore, there must be and uncaused cause of all that is caused. This cause is what we call God. Gradation of perfection in order for any case to make sense, there has to be a scale to compare. (reference point) and that reference is god. God is perfectly good. For example, there has to be absolute hot, otherwise you cant compare X or Y with how hot it is. A reference point. Design (William Paley) God is compared to a pocket watch. There has to be a designer to make pocket because it can not show in middle of field like a rock. Rock doesnt need a designer, it naturally occurs. William Paley asks if universe looks more like a pocket watch or like rock. Most people will say pocket watch because, universe is way too complicated to happen naturally. There has to be creator for that universe and that creator is God.

Bertrand Russell (atheist) Russell on ontological argument He says it is much easier to say that ontological argument is no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with it. It is not popular in most chirstian circles these days because 1st- they seem to beg the question as to what god is like 2nd- subjective appeal is low for non believers, as these arguments tend to lack objectivity support. 3rd- it is difficult to support for why a thing must exist, simply defining something into existence is not good philosophy. Like unicorns are magical, single horned horses that exists.

He critics arguments of design, first cause, natural law, remedying of injustice and moral argument of deity. The nature law argument: The euthyphro problem It is question directed to religious people who believe that god is source of morality. It aims to show god can not be source of morality. The euthyphro problem, Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God? if something is good coz god commands it then anything can be good. Infact to say if something is good, mean nothing more than to say well god commands it however if commands it because something is good, then is not the morality. He is just the messenger and there must be something else to the source of morality. Something else is establishing what is good and what is not good. (1) If divine command theory is true then either (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.

In other words, if you ask someone that something is good, is it good because god likes it or is it good because it is good at first place. Good and bad is up to gods opinion. It makes it meaningless, arbitrary. (2) If (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of Gods will. Good and bad are independent of gods will. (3) It is not the case that morally good acts are morally good independent of Gods will. Bertrand Russell uses euthyphro problem to prove critique on natural law argument and moral law. Argument from design. He uses Darwins theory to critique argument from design. Darwin said, not the world adapt to fit us, we adapt to world to fit in. He says Darwins theory is better because it explains more. Its able to account for stories that it couldnt before. Remedying of injustice Remedying of injustice says that existence of god is required in order to bring justice into the world. Russell critiques this argument by giving an example of orange where if you determine that the top layer of orange is bad, then you would not say that the underneath that layer must be all good. Rather you would say that whole orange is bad. It doesnt mean all oranges are bad, that orange just happened to be bad. Therefore, you just have to accept that injustice exists in world.

At the end of reading, Russell says, his argument is not going to change peoples mind. Most people believe in god because they have been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason.

Other reason people believe is the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will always look after you.

Pascal: Wager- everyone has choice either believe or not believe. Each option has one of four possible outcome, that is, you believe is right or you believe is wrong. Dont believe in your right, dont believe in your wrong. Pascal says that if you believe then you will receive best reward ever or nothing. If you dont believe then, you will receive worst punishment ever or nothing. Therefore you should choose to believe. Pascals question was not, does god exists? But his question was should I believe if god exist? Answer is obviously YES for Pascal! Therefore him and Kierkegaards belief were different than Aquinas and Russell.

Critiques of Wager: Pascal said God only favors who acts on his belief. Aka blind loyalty. But what if god also reward people who dont have belief. People who think creatively, or who show independence or who question what they are told? Thus its not given that god only rewards people who have believe in him. Pascal does not shows possibilities for beliefs and just assume that either people believe or not believe. He doesnt say that theres more than one way to have faith. Faith happens only when you believe despite not having proof. And if faith is treated as Pascals wager, then youre gambling on favorites. Kierkegaard-

Its waste of time to prove or disprove of gods existence. Why? because if you cant show someone doesnt mean it doesnt exist. For example of unicorn. You can never disprove for sure that something never existed. Why is it waste of time to prove existence of god? Because we encounter into limits of reason when we try to prove gods existence. God is supernatural in nature. Human being are natural in nature. Thus we are limited to reason because god is above and beyond limits of nature. It doesnt make sense to prove. Kierkegaards- Leap of faith he thinks people have three choices. o choice 1- accept paradox and make the LOF (leap of Faith) o choice 2- reject paradox and stay in rational world. In other word, one can say it didnt make sense and be in rational world. o choice 3- (what you cant do) attempt to reason out the paradox. Dont waste time to explain something thats irrational. Either you accept or you reject but dont find reason. He doesnt say one or two choice are bad, he just saying that dont do choice number 3. LOF- gain subjective knowledge. subjective knowledge is based on relationship with God. The connection found with passion. if you pick option one, then you give up your rational knowledge and become subjective.

Ramakrishna- religious pluralist. He believed in all possible religion in world. Is it possible to believe in all god? Yes or no up to you. According to Kierkegaard, he took leap of faith. He accepted everyones god is same god. All that matter was whole hearted devotion. If you have whole hearted devotion can you follow all religion.

Do you believe his philosophy can apply to those who doesnt believe in god, ie atheist? Pascal cares about objectivity and Ramakrishna is subjectivity. They both are opposite with their view on religion. Ramakrishna is subjective because he took leap of faith.

4/30/2013 7:11:00 PM

4/30/2013 7:11:00 PM