Evolution by Natural selection AO1 No belief in God
• Darwin explained how the appearance of design is possible 1. Evolutionary biologists reject this conclusion- bacteria can still
without a designer. move without its tail- acts as a pump.
• Genetic alterations happen randomly; mostly disappear. 2. Evolution- small changes due to nurture.
• But those improve reproduction and survival and spread in a 3. Genetic changes happen to exist without the need of an
population altering a species. adaptor.
• Not actually 'selected 'natural forces' secure survival. 4. Still imperfect- why would God not have designed it perfectly.
Introduction Counter argument- God's plan.
• A posteriori- based on sensory Supports belief in God Relationship between faith and
experience. 1. Irreducible complexity- systems won't work reason
• Inductive- based on probability unless all parts in place. • Applies to all 3 arguments.
• Analogical- compares different 2. A posteriori argument, • Price's view, both 'belief that'
things. 3. Swinburne- God is omnipotent, makes sense he and 'belief in' are necessary to
•Watch
Natural theology-
analogy AO1 questions god's designed the world. faith.
The Design
existence
• William Paley found a watch and 4. Assumes that the complex has designer(s) so • Without belief that, 'belief
thought why it was different to its why not the world. in' has no substance.
surroundings of rocks and plants. 5. Simplistic and makes sense. • Without belief in, 'belief that'
• Watch was complicated and has no personal significance.
Argument
concluded that it was complex and
its clever nature
• This meant that the watch must
have a designer which was God.
Regularity was the seasons and
complexity with its inner workings.
David Hume (1802) AO2 Weakness of The Design Argument AO2
• Inconsistent triad- co-existence of evil, an omnibenevolent and 1. Simplicity doesn't necessarily correspond to
omniscient God is not possible. truth.
• The existence of evil and imperfection in the world suggests a limited 2. The stronger the evidence, the truer a claim
designer- infant Gods? is.
• Analogies between the way the universe works, and the way machines 3. Universe could be designed by a team of
work are unsound. lesser beings.
• Vast growing vegetable- grow themselves without the need of a 4. Evil- Supernova explosions irradiate nearby
designer.
Status of Paley's Design Argument AO2 civilisation.
• Sufficient
To make an analogyfor
evidence between theof
the truth designers of human machines and the Strengths
a proportion. 5. Anthropomorphic- limited experience is
of The Design Argument AO2
designer isprobably
• Inductive- just anthropomorphism, we are
true, when evidence trying
points to to explain
truth the
of the imposed on the universe.
1. Simple to understand (Occam's razor)- Swinburne.
universe in our own image.
conclusion. 6. If nature
2. Inductive- can on
based design itself, then surely the
probability.
• Evidence doesn’t amount to scientific proof- the best explanation to universe can.
3. Paley argued that evil maybe unavoidable to help God
how we see in the universe. bring about himself- Free-will defense, process
• Proof of God's existence ONLY through religious experience. theology and soul-making theodicy.
• Can never have proof of deductive argument. 4. Evolution doesn’t destroy the Design Argument as it
• Fideists- rational arguments play no part in faith as they don’t lead is compatible with a metaphysical and transcendent
to commitment. designer.
• Paley's argument doesn’t successfully address the problem of evil 5. 'Nature shows intention' stronger when supported by
and suffering. anthropic principle.
, Introduction Gaunilo's On behalf of a fool AO1 Relationship
• A priori- relies on logic. • You can prove the existence of between faith and
• Deductive- aims to give certain proof. If anything reason
A=B, then B=C therefore A=C. • Lost island is nothing greater • Applies to all 3
• Analytic statements- true by definition and can be conceived. arguments.
logical • Greater to exist, than in the • Price's view, both
• Subject- what a sentence is about. mind. 'belief that' and
• Predicate- adds info about a subject. • If it only exists in the mind, 'belief in' are
• Necessary truths- statements that couldn’t then a greater being can necessary to faith.
be false. be conceived. • Without
• Contingent- happens to be true but might • So, if the lost island, exists in belief that, 'belief
Anselm's argument
have been otherwise.AO1 both the mind and reality. in' has
• God is a being greater
than which cannot be The Ontological Argument no substance.
• Without belief in,
conceived. 'belief
• I can conceive of such a Kant's criticisms AO2 that' has
Weaknesses of Anselm's argument no personal
• Existence is a predicate-
being.
• Its greater to exist that AO2 Thalers you significance.
can say they are
Strengths of Anselm's
not exist. 1. Kant's challenges- not working gold and shiny (its new info)
argument
• Therefore,AO2God must exist. in either of its forms. but saying they exist adds no
1. Deductive- aims to give 2. Argument on existence need to new info. No difference
absolute proof. be empirically based. between the concept of 100
2. Independent from 3. Aquinas and other have thalers and 100 thalers that
empiricism- protects it from challenged Anselm- humans exist.
the possibility of unreliable cannot know the nature of God • Something cannot be defined
evidence. and any attempt to define God into existence- necessary
3. Claims God is limitless, if limits him. In this case, the existence belongs to the
there
Status ofis a God, his
Anselm's definition
argument as proof whole ontological argument concept of God, this means
• makes
Proof- good sense.
A priori, collapses.
analytic and deductive- if premises are true then it that God doesn’t exist.
proves the existence of God. Valid- scholars claim. • 'God exists necessarily is an
• Proof in faith- Anselm never intended it as proof. analytic- based on God's
• Not proof- Most scholars agree God exists necessarily but the 'if'. If words. Statement 'a bachelor
Anselm's argument were true, there would be no doubt. is an unmarried man' isn’t
• Not proof- Confirming belief not what proof is for. analytic because that’s how we
define bachelors. 'Unicorns
have horns' is analytic as we
don't know as we haven't
experienced unicorns. God
exists necessarily is logically
• Darwin explained how the appearance of design is possible 1. Evolutionary biologists reject this conclusion- bacteria can still
without a designer. move without its tail- acts as a pump.
• Genetic alterations happen randomly; mostly disappear. 2. Evolution- small changes due to nurture.
• But those improve reproduction and survival and spread in a 3. Genetic changes happen to exist without the need of an
population altering a species. adaptor.
• Not actually 'selected 'natural forces' secure survival. 4. Still imperfect- why would God not have designed it perfectly.
Introduction Counter argument- God's plan.
• A posteriori- based on sensory Supports belief in God Relationship between faith and
experience. 1. Irreducible complexity- systems won't work reason
• Inductive- based on probability unless all parts in place. • Applies to all 3 arguments.
• Analogical- compares different 2. A posteriori argument, • Price's view, both 'belief that'
things. 3. Swinburne- God is omnipotent, makes sense he and 'belief in' are necessary to
•Watch
Natural theology-
analogy AO1 questions god's designed the world. faith.
The Design
existence
• William Paley found a watch and 4. Assumes that the complex has designer(s) so • Without belief that, 'belief
thought why it was different to its why not the world. in' has no substance.
surroundings of rocks and plants. 5. Simplistic and makes sense. • Without belief in, 'belief that'
• Watch was complicated and has no personal significance.
Argument
concluded that it was complex and
its clever nature
• This meant that the watch must
have a designer which was God.
Regularity was the seasons and
complexity with its inner workings.
David Hume (1802) AO2 Weakness of The Design Argument AO2
• Inconsistent triad- co-existence of evil, an omnibenevolent and 1. Simplicity doesn't necessarily correspond to
omniscient God is not possible. truth.
• The existence of evil and imperfection in the world suggests a limited 2. The stronger the evidence, the truer a claim
designer- infant Gods? is.
• Analogies between the way the universe works, and the way machines 3. Universe could be designed by a team of
work are unsound. lesser beings.
• Vast growing vegetable- grow themselves without the need of a 4. Evil- Supernova explosions irradiate nearby
designer.
Status of Paley's Design Argument AO2 civilisation.
• Sufficient
To make an analogyfor
evidence between theof
the truth designers of human machines and the Strengths
a proportion. 5. Anthropomorphic- limited experience is
of The Design Argument AO2
designer isprobably
• Inductive- just anthropomorphism, we are
true, when evidence trying
points to to explain
truth the
of the imposed on the universe.
1. Simple to understand (Occam's razor)- Swinburne.
universe in our own image.
conclusion. 6. If nature
2. Inductive- can on
based design itself, then surely the
probability.
• Evidence doesn’t amount to scientific proof- the best explanation to universe can.
3. Paley argued that evil maybe unavoidable to help God
how we see in the universe. bring about himself- Free-will defense, process
• Proof of God's existence ONLY through religious experience. theology and soul-making theodicy.
• Can never have proof of deductive argument. 4. Evolution doesn’t destroy the Design Argument as it
• Fideists- rational arguments play no part in faith as they don’t lead is compatible with a metaphysical and transcendent
to commitment. designer.
• Paley's argument doesn’t successfully address the problem of evil 5. 'Nature shows intention' stronger when supported by
and suffering. anthropic principle.
, Introduction Gaunilo's On behalf of a fool AO1 Relationship
• A priori- relies on logic. • You can prove the existence of between faith and
• Deductive- aims to give certain proof. If anything reason
A=B, then B=C therefore A=C. • Lost island is nothing greater • Applies to all 3
• Analytic statements- true by definition and can be conceived. arguments.
logical • Greater to exist, than in the • Price's view, both
• Subject- what a sentence is about. mind. 'belief that' and
• Predicate- adds info about a subject. • If it only exists in the mind, 'belief in' are
• Necessary truths- statements that couldn’t then a greater being can necessary to faith.
be false. be conceived. • Without
• Contingent- happens to be true but might • So, if the lost island, exists in belief that, 'belief
Anselm's argument
have been otherwise.AO1 both the mind and reality. in' has
• God is a being greater
than which cannot be The Ontological Argument no substance.
• Without belief in,
conceived. 'belief
• I can conceive of such a Kant's criticisms AO2 that' has
Weaknesses of Anselm's argument no personal
• Existence is a predicate-
being.
• Its greater to exist that AO2 Thalers you significance.
can say they are
Strengths of Anselm's
not exist. 1. Kant's challenges- not working gold and shiny (its new info)
argument
• Therefore,AO2God must exist. in either of its forms. but saying they exist adds no
1. Deductive- aims to give 2. Argument on existence need to new info. No difference
absolute proof. be empirically based. between the concept of 100
2. Independent from 3. Aquinas and other have thalers and 100 thalers that
empiricism- protects it from challenged Anselm- humans exist.
the possibility of unreliable cannot know the nature of God • Something cannot be defined
evidence. and any attempt to define God into existence- necessary
3. Claims God is limitless, if limits him. In this case, the existence belongs to the
there
Status ofis a God, his
Anselm's definition
argument as proof whole ontological argument concept of God, this means
• makes
Proof- good sense.
A priori, collapses.
analytic and deductive- if premises are true then it that God doesn’t exist.
proves the existence of God. Valid- scholars claim. • 'God exists necessarily is an
• Proof in faith- Anselm never intended it as proof. analytic- based on God's
• Not proof- Most scholars agree God exists necessarily but the 'if'. If words. Statement 'a bachelor
Anselm's argument were true, there would be no doubt. is an unmarried man' isn’t
• Not proof- Confirming belief not what proof is for. analytic because that’s how we
define bachelors. 'Unicorns
have horns' is analytic as we
don't know as we haven't
experienced unicorns. God
exists necessarily is logically
