SUMMARY OF RATIONAL ARGUMENTS

It is important to keep in mind that the following arguments are the traditional
approaches taken to prove the existence of a theistic God. Ideally theism maintains that
God is a perfect unitary Being whose characteristics include, but are not limited to
omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence.

ANSELM (1034-1109): He claims that; “the fool who has said in his heart there is no
God, does not understand what he utters”. If one truly understand what is meant by a
perfect being, then to deny such a being exists is self-contradictory. Having this pointed
out is equivalent to being illuminated about the self-evidence of Godʼs existence.

Methodology:
a. Ontological - The study of being (what is) or existence. The ontological
argument claims that God is or exist.
b. A priori - That which is self-evident or true independent of any experience.
Anselm is claiming that the existence of God is ʻself-evident for any rational
being. The Fool is confused because he doesnʼt understand the meaning of
his words. This is evident from the fact that he claims to deny what he
understands, when he says; ʻthere is no Godʼ.
c. Illuminated- Once the meaning of certain terms are made clear, the fool will
ʻseeʼ the contradictory nature of his assertion and the necessity of Godʼs
existence. He will be enlightened by the very grace that he denies.
d. Necessity - That which is necessarily true cannot be denied without
contradiction. The most common type of statements associated with necessity
are analytic statements involving the principle of identity, tautologies or
definition. Their truth is a function of the way language itself works.
e. Reductio ad Absurdum - A self contradiction must necessarily lead to
assuming its opposite to be true.

Key Phrases and potential problems:

a. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
b. That which exist in reality has a greater reality than that which exists only as a
concept in the understanding.

Issues:
a. Does the existence of something follow from understanding the meaning of
certain terms or a phrase?
b. Is existence a predicate (an attribute or characteristic) of a wordʼs sense?
c. Should this be allowed in the case of God?
d. What does it mean to say of something that it has a greater reality? Are there
degrees of reality?

1
The Argument: (GCB = Greatest Conceivable Being)
a. Assume that the (GCB) exist only as a concept in the understanding (in the
mind alone).
b. However, that which exist in reality is greater than that which exist in the mind
alone, and
c. We can conceive of a GCB that exists in both (mind and reality).
d. So, If we conceive the GCB existing in the mind alone, there is a being that is
greater than the GCB, namely, the one conceived to exist in reality.
e. But this is impossible, since to affirm that the GCB exist only as a concept in
the mind, or deny that is exist in reality is self-contradictory.
f) Therefore, If the GCB exist in the mind, it must exist in reality.

THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274): Unlike the Ontological argument which establishes

itself independent of experience, the Cosmological argument includes reference to facts
about the world that depend on the reliability of our experience or observations.
Aquinasʼ strategy appeals to both reason and experience, and attempts to explain and
show warrantable justification for the existence of a theistic God.

Methodology:
a. Cosmological - a type of argument that proceeds from certain ʻeffectsʼ or
features of the world that we experience. In answer to the Third Article;
whether God Exists? Aquinas proceeds by citing the following fact. ʻIt is
certain and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in
motion.ʼ At the beginning of each of the five arguments Aquinas makes some
reference to an accepted fact about the world.
b. A posteriori - Empirical knowledge that is derived from or comes after sense
experience. One who assumes this type of position argues from facts of our
experience (effects) to the best explanation (cause) of these facts. In each of
Aquinasʼ arguments, God is given as the best explanation for these effects.
c. Evidence - In this kind of argument, evidence takes two forms. One consists
of accepted matters of fact that any rational person can observe. The second
consist of accepted reasons or general principles of reason that, when
combined with the experienced facts, serve to support or explain those facts.
d. Contingency - Statements whose truth or falsity depend upon what happens in
the world may or may not be true. Their truth depends upon certain events, in
the actual world of experience taking place for confirmation. When such
statements are combined with other reasons in an argument, the conclusion is
probable but not necessary. The strength of such inductive arguments depend
upon how compelling the reasons are. In other words, Itʼs improbable that the
conclusion is false given that the premises (reasons) are true. To deny such
compelling evidence would would seem to be irrational.

2
Key Phrases and potential problems:
a. Putting one thing in motion by another cannot go on to infinity
b. In efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity
c. We must postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own
necessity
d. The truer things are, the more truly they exist
e. Whatever lacks intelligence cannot fulfill some purpose unless it be directed by
some being endowed with intelligence and knowledge

Issues:
a. Are there alternative explanations that would account just as well for what we
experience?
b. Is the God of theism the best answer to these issues?
c. Why should God be more satisfying an answer than the universe is uncaused
and is eternal?
d. Do these arguments establish a personal and benevolent God or an
impersonal and distant one? How significant is the difference?

The Arguments: Reduced to basics;

MOTION: 1) Some things are in motion. 2) Nothing in the world can move itself but
must be moved by another. 3) There cannot be an infinite regress of motions. 4) So,
there must be a First Mover who is responsible for all other motions = God.
CAUSALITY: 1) There exist things that are caused. 2) Nothing can be the cause of
itself. 3) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. 4) There exists an uncaused first
cause = God.
CONTINGENCY: 1) Whatever has the possibility of not being, at some time or other is
not. 2) If everything has the possibility of not being, then at some time or other nothing
is. 3) If at some time or other nothing is, then there is nothing now. 4) It is not the case
that there is nothing now. 5) Not everything has the possibility of not being; So, there
must be something which is necessary and the cause of the necessity in other things.
This is God.
GRADATIONS: 1) Some things are discovered to be more or less Good, True, or Noble
than other things. 2) Things are said to be more or less G-T-N to the degree that they
approach G-T-N. 3) The truer things are, the more truly they exist. 3) There is something
that is truest, something best, something noblest, and consequently something which is
uttermost being, since whatever is most complete in any genus is the cause of that
genus. 5) Therefore, there is something which causes being and goodness and any
perfection in all things. This we call God.
DIRECTEDNESS OF THINGS: 1) We observe that some things which lack awareness,
(natural bodies), act for the sake of an end. 2) They commonly act in the same manner
to achieve what is best, which shows that they reach their goal not by chance but
because they tend toward it. 3) Things which lack awareness do not tend towards a
goal unless directed by something with awareness and intelligence, like an arrow by an
archer. 5) There is therefore, some intelligent being by whom everything in nature is
directed to a goal: This we call God.

3
WILLIAM PALEY (1703-1805): Like Thomas Aquinas, Paleyʼs Teleological Argument
can be viewed as an extension of the above arguments. He argues that just as we infer
an intelligent designer to account for the purposive nature of a watch, we must
analogously infer an intelligent grand designer to account for the purposive nature of our
world.

METHODOLOGY: (See Aquinas above)

a) Cosmological
b) A posteriori
c) Analogy

KEY PHRASES:
a) Design and purpose
b) The universe resembles human artifacts

ISSUES:
a) Is this a good analogy (from parts to the whole)
b) Can we infer from the existence of things in the world something other than
the world?
c) Is the world as a whole (purpose) ever an object for us?
d) Is there good reason to think the universe has a purpose?

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: 1) Human artifacts are products of intelligent design

and purpose. 2) The universe resembles these human artifacts. 3) So, the universe is
probably a product of intelligent design and purpose. 4) But the universe is vastly more
complex and gigantic than a human artifact. 5) There is probably a vastly intelligent
designer who designed the universe.