Philosophy Essay Plans
Theme 1 – Arguments for the existence of God
Are inductive arguments persuasive for the existence of God?
Initial
- They are persuasive as they are things we can experience and see for example
beauty
- ‘biologically superfluous accompaniment of the cosmic process’ tenants aesthetic
argument shows how beauty is found and is not necessary for human existence –
therefore must be God
Counter
- However beauty isn’t necessarily objective as tenant makes out
- Beauty can be subjective as many different cultures see different things as beautiful
and also ugly – if it is subjective then God hasn’t created this for us out of his
benevolence and omnipotence
- Some things that are beautiful actually have a purpose for survival
Mini conclusion
- They are not persuasive
Initial
- Using our own senses we can establish that everything has a cause
- A child has a mother etc
- Aquinas argument is therefore persuasive
Counter
- However this enters the fallacy of composition
- Hume and Russel states that it goes against logic to assume that because one thing
has a cause and effect that we can see, then everything must have that similar cause
and effect
- Even if everything on the universe had a cause and effect – how do we know that the
universe has a cause
Mini conclusion
- Craig comes to the conclusion that we cannot have an actual infinite as we can never
reach the infinite amount in a series – therefore the universe must have had a cause
and that cause is god
Initial
- They are not persuasive
- Hume’s arguments have been very influential as there cannot be empirically any
evidence for God
- Furthermore people may only believe in God up and until a scientifical explanation
comes about to explain what is missing – this can be seen over time by Darwin’s
theory of evolution
- Problems of induction – cannot predict future
Counter
,- However this can show how they are persuasive as of now. The idea that God
created the Universe seems very plausible when there is no other explanation
- Religious believers will be convinced that God is the only answer
,The extent to which the Kalam cosmological argument is convincing.
Initial
- William Lane Craig cosmological argument leads to the view that we have a personal
God – the idea that creation was a choice
- ‘if the universe is caused, then the cause must be a personal being that chooses to
create the world’ – craig
- This is attractive to religious people
Counter
- If nothing exists without a cause then it begs the question as to how god can exist
- Craig offers no explanation as to how God can exist and be a necessary being
Initial
- Modern science supports the view that the universe had a beginning and that
everything must have a cause – therefore this supports the kalam argument
Counter
- Hume states that God is not the only possible explanation for the existence of the
universe
- The big bang theory is evidence and it does not require the existence of god
Mini conclusion
Initial
- Science and the Kalam argument are compatible and therefore it helps the Kalam
argument being convincing
- They both agree that there is a beginning
Counter
- However science states that the earth was created by a series of random
occurrences
- Furthermore science uses rational thought to demonstrate how our universe works,
these rational ideas can be found in the universe today
, Are cosmological and teleological arguments for Gods existence persuasive in the 21st
century
Initial
- They are not as Dawkins believes that teleological arguments such as the design
argument is wrong as apparent design comes from evolutionary processes
- Evolution is a ‘blind watchmaker’
Counter
- Behe believes that a wing for example of a bird cannot have explained natural
selection as a wing is only useful and would only help the bird survive if it could fly –
which it wouldn’t have been able to do for a long time
- Therefore a god must have created wings on birds to help them fly
Mini conclusion
- However Watsons work on DNA shows how everything can be explained through
DNA and there is no mysterious soul or divine spark that gives life. The evolution of
birds can be studied through their DNA
Initial
- Paul Davis looks at how the world can be seen to be ‘just right’ for the existence of
humans – Tennant anthropic principle
- If atoms were slightly different or electromagnetic forces changed then human
existence could not exist – this gives evidence for a designer
Counter
- Stephen Hawking’s said that he did not think god was necessary to explain the
origins of the universe
- He also questioned how there can be a personal designer due to the problem of evil
– natural evil such as earthquakes show how the earth is not make ‘just right’
- Rusell states ‘if this the best that omnipotence has had to produce in billions of
years’
- We have no other universe to compare it to
Mini conclusion
- Both religion and secular views in the 21st century can be similar here as evil in the
world such as natural evil can be explain by religious believers to be needed as
without evil there is no happiness
Initial
- Russel would argue that in the 21st century these arguments are not persuasive – he
believed that thought about the creation of the universe is meaningless – the
existence is just a simple ‘brute fact’
- He sees religious people as using the ‘God of the gaps” argument
Counter
- However religious people will see this as a misunderstanding of religious belief
- Faith is much deeper and more complex than the idea that God is just used as
religious people do not know the answer
Theme 1 – Arguments for the existence of God
Are inductive arguments persuasive for the existence of God?
Initial
- They are persuasive as they are things we can experience and see for example
beauty
- ‘biologically superfluous accompaniment of the cosmic process’ tenants aesthetic
argument shows how beauty is found and is not necessary for human existence –
therefore must be God
Counter
- However beauty isn’t necessarily objective as tenant makes out
- Beauty can be subjective as many different cultures see different things as beautiful
and also ugly – if it is subjective then God hasn’t created this for us out of his
benevolence and omnipotence
- Some things that are beautiful actually have a purpose for survival
Mini conclusion
- They are not persuasive
Initial
- Using our own senses we can establish that everything has a cause
- A child has a mother etc
- Aquinas argument is therefore persuasive
Counter
- However this enters the fallacy of composition
- Hume and Russel states that it goes against logic to assume that because one thing
has a cause and effect that we can see, then everything must have that similar cause
and effect
- Even if everything on the universe had a cause and effect – how do we know that the
universe has a cause
Mini conclusion
- Craig comes to the conclusion that we cannot have an actual infinite as we can never
reach the infinite amount in a series – therefore the universe must have had a cause
and that cause is god
Initial
- They are not persuasive
- Hume’s arguments have been very influential as there cannot be empirically any
evidence for God
- Furthermore people may only believe in God up and until a scientifical explanation
comes about to explain what is missing – this can be seen over time by Darwin’s
theory of evolution
- Problems of induction – cannot predict future
Counter
,- However this can show how they are persuasive as of now. The idea that God
created the Universe seems very plausible when there is no other explanation
- Religious believers will be convinced that God is the only answer
,The extent to which the Kalam cosmological argument is convincing.
Initial
- William Lane Craig cosmological argument leads to the view that we have a personal
God – the idea that creation was a choice
- ‘if the universe is caused, then the cause must be a personal being that chooses to
create the world’ – craig
- This is attractive to religious people
Counter
- If nothing exists without a cause then it begs the question as to how god can exist
- Craig offers no explanation as to how God can exist and be a necessary being
Initial
- Modern science supports the view that the universe had a beginning and that
everything must have a cause – therefore this supports the kalam argument
Counter
- Hume states that God is not the only possible explanation for the existence of the
universe
- The big bang theory is evidence and it does not require the existence of god
Mini conclusion
Initial
- Science and the Kalam argument are compatible and therefore it helps the Kalam
argument being convincing
- They both agree that there is a beginning
Counter
- However science states that the earth was created by a series of random
occurrences
- Furthermore science uses rational thought to demonstrate how our universe works,
these rational ideas can be found in the universe today
, Are cosmological and teleological arguments for Gods existence persuasive in the 21st
century
Initial
- They are not as Dawkins believes that teleological arguments such as the design
argument is wrong as apparent design comes from evolutionary processes
- Evolution is a ‘blind watchmaker’
Counter
- Behe believes that a wing for example of a bird cannot have explained natural
selection as a wing is only useful and would only help the bird survive if it could fly –
which it wouldn’t have been able to do for a long time
- Therefore a god must have created wings on birds to help them fly
Mini conclusion
- However Watsons work on DNA shows how everything can be explained through
DNA and there is no mysterious soul or divine spark that gives life. The evolution of
birds can be studied through their DNA
Initial
- Paul Davis looks at how the world can be seen to be ‘just right’ for the existence of
humans – Tennant anthropic principle
- If atoms were slightly different or electromagnetic forces changed then human
existence could not exist – this gives evidence for a designer
Counter
- Stephen Hawking’s said that he did not think god was necessary to explain the
origins of the universe
- He also questioned how there can be a personal designer due to the problem of evil
– natural evil such as earthquakes show how the earth is not make ‘just right’
- Rusell states ‘if this the best that omnipotence has had to produce in billions of
years’
- We have no other universe to compare it to
Mini conclusion
- Both religion and secular views in the 21st century can be similar here as evil in the
world such as natural evil can be explain by religious believers to be needed as
without evil there is no happiness
Initial
- Russel would argue that in the 21st century these arguments are not persuasive – he
believed that thought about the creation of the universe is meaningless – the
existence is just a simple ‘brute fact’
- He sees religious people as using the ‘God of the gaps” argument
Counter
- However religious people will see this as a misunderstanding of religious belief
- Faith is much deeper and more complex than the idea that God is just used as
religious people do not know the answer
