Philosophy Knowledge
Organiser
AATEOG, M, ME, RL, SLDATA, PoE
, Arguments for the Existence of God
Anselm's Ontological Argument Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument Paley’s Analogical Argument
P: Greatest thing you can think of? 1 - Argument from Motion: God is unmoved mover Watch: complex and all parts are suitable to their
P: Better to exist in the mind or reality? 2 - Argument from Causation: God is First cause function → Watchmaker.
C: God Exists 3 - Argument from contingency: God is necessary Universe: Complex and has suitability of parts →
4 - Argument from Degrees: God is perfect greater complexity indicates a greater designer.
Deductive: If the premises are true, the conclusion 5 - Teleological Argument: intricate design
must be also. Inductive Reasoning: New knowledge: probably true
A Priori: Known independent of experience A posteriori: From experience/ evidence A Priori: Known independent of experience
(Inherently understood) Infinite Regress: Chain of reasoning with no start (inherently understood)
Inductive Reasoning: new knowledge: probably true
Opposition: Hume’s Criticisms:
Gaunilo's Most perfect and Real Lost Island : Strengths: He could’ve proved a “Pantheon of Gods”
“Reductio Ad Absurdum” Talks about God’s metaphysical necessity. Problem of Evil suggests the world isn’t designed or
Anselm's Responsio: Islands are contingent so Shows it’s logically sound the designer is somehow limited.
cannot exist necessarily → Logic still applies to Universe could’ve grown itself (organism)
Science assumes there’s no “Brute Fact”
God: necessary and non contingent. God anthropomorphizes the universe
Occam's razor - most likely
whole cause
the
one
Could’ve developed by chance (supports TBBT)
Kant's Argument: “Exists” is not a predicate. Saying assumingtrue,(
Weaknesses:
a thaler exists doesn't add to our understanding of
it. Anselm uses analytic statements, but you can do
argument easy of
Russel: Universe is a “Brute Fact” composition site Has he proven anything?
YES: Uses evidence from the world around us,
this for things that don’t exist - unicorns. Pantheon of Gods > -
Synthetic proposition Shows its illogical to assume there’s no designer
Why can’t the universe ! be eternal and NO: Doesn’t amount to scientific proof, Cannot say
Has he proven anything? -
. It's
uncaused Hume neccesary:
being t thing no such
with certainty that the argument is correct, it’s down
Comparing Anselm's ‘proof’ with mathematical believe
possible to doesn't depend
the universe on
God : God isn't
neccesary
to personal belief if you’re convinced
proof [2+2=4] - nobody doubts mathematical proof, Has He Proven Anything?
but people doubt the ontological argument. YES: You can prove something with Easy to understand and fits with human reason -
How does it help faith? suggests purpose in the universe and strengthens
overwhelming probability - quarks.
Can be understood by logic and reasoning → faith, can be incompatible with evolution / TBBT
NO: No scientific evidence, doesn’t convince
understand God better. Concludes that logically
God must exist. atheists, synthetic statements are unreliable
Anselm: those who don’t believe in God are ‘fools’ - (which it is based on)
those who don’t believe in God don’t understand. God keeps omni characteristics.
Organiser
AATEOG, M, ME, RL, SLDATA, PoE
, Arguments for the Existence of God
Anselm's Ontological Argument Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument Paley’s Analogical Argument
P: Greatest thing you can think of? 1 - Argument from Motion: God is unmoved mover Watch: complex and all parts are suitable to their
P: Better to exist in the mind or reality? 2 - Argument from Causation: God is First cause function → Watchmaker.
C: God Exists 3 - Argument from contingency: God is necessary Universe: Complex and has suitability of parts →
4 - Argument from Degrees: God is perfect greater complexity indicates a greater designer.
Deductive: If the premises are true, the conclusion 5 - Teleological Argument: intricate design
must be also. Inductive Reasoning: New knowledge: probably true
A Priori: Known independent of experience A posteriori: From experience/ evidence A Priori: Known independent of experience
(Inherently understood) Infinite Regress: Chain of reasoning with no start (inherently understood)
Inductive Reasoning: new knowledge: probably true
Opposition: Hume’s Criticisms:
Gaunilo's Most perfect and Real Lost Island : Strengths: He could’ve proved a “Pantheon of Gods”
“Reductio Ad Absurdum” Talks about God’s metaphysical necessity. Problem of Evil suggests the world isn’t designed or
Anselm's Responsio: Islands are contingent so Shows it’s logically sound the designer is somehow limited.
cannot exist necessarily → Logic still applies to Universe could’ve grown itself (organism)
Science assumes there’s no “Brute Fact”
God: necessary and non contingent. God anthropomorphizes the universe
Occam's razor - most likely
whole cause
the
one
Could’ve developed by chance (supports TBBT)
Kant's Argument: “Exists” is not a predicate. Saying assumingtrue,(
Weaknesses:
a thaler exists doesn't add to our understanding of
it. Anselm uses analytic statements, but you can do
argument easy of
Russel: Universe is a “Brute Fact” composition site Has he proven anything?
YES: Uses evidence from the world around us,
this for things that don’t exist - unicorns. Pantheon of Gods > -
Synthetic proposition Shows its illogical to assume there’s no designer
Why can’t the universe ! be eternal and NO: Doesn’t amount to scientific proof, Cannot say
Has he proven anything? -
. It's
uncaused Hume neccesary:
being t thing no such
with certainty that the argument is correct, it’s down
Comparing Anselm's ‘proof’ with mathematical believe
possible to doesn't depend
the universe on
God : God isn't
neccesary
to personal belief if you’re convinced
proof [2+2=4] - nobody doubts mathematical proof, Has He Proven Anything?
but people doubt the ontological argument. YES: You can prove something with Easy to understand and fits with human reason -
How does it help faith? suggests purpose in the universe and strengthens
overwhelming probability - quarks.
Can be understood by logic and reasoning → faith, can be incompatible with evolution / TBBT
NO: No scientific evidence, doesn’t convince
understand God better. Concludes that logically
God must exist. atheists, synthetic statements are unreliable
Anselm: those who don’t believe in God are ‘fools’ - (which it is based on)
those who don’t believe in God don’t understand. God keeps omni characteristics.
