In the end it's the tail: Thomas Aquinas's fifth proof of the existence of god

Think ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. 67-74
Author(s):  
Sharon Kaye ◽  
Robert Prisco
Keyword(s):  
Intelligent Design ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Argument From Design

Kaye and Prisco draw our attention to one of the more obvious difficulties with all versions of the argument from design (including both the fine-tuning and intelligent design versions).

Arguments for the Existence of God

Philosophy ◽  
2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Oppy
Keyword(s):  
Intelligent Design ◽  
Ontological Argument ◽  
Ordinary Language ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Ordinary Language Philosophy ◽  
Philosophical Discussion ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Pascal’S Wager ◽  
The One

Philosophical discussion of arguments for the existence of God appeared to have become extinct during the heyday of logical positivism and ordinary language philosophy. However, since the mid-1960s, there has been a resurgence of interest in these arguments. Much of the discussion has focused on Kant’s “big three” arguments: ontological arguments, cosmological arguments, and teleological arguments. Discussion of ontological arguments has been primarily concerned with (a) Anselm’s ontological argument; (b) modal ontological arguments, particularly as developed by Alvin Plantinga; and (c) higher-order ontological arguments, particularly Gödel’s ontological argument. Each of these kinds of arguments has found supporters, although few regard these as the strongest arguments that can be given for the existence of God. Discussion of cosmological arguments has been focused on (a) kalām cosmological arguments (defended, in particular, by William Lane Craig); (b) cosmological arguments from sufficient reason (defended, in particular, by Richard Gale and Alexander Pruss); and (c) cosmological arguments from contingency (defended, in particular, by Robert Koons and Timothy O’Connor). Discussion of teleological arguments has, in recent times, been partly driven by the emergence of the intelligent design movement in the United States. On the one hand, there has been a huge revival of enthusiasm for Paley’s biological argument for design. On the other hand, there has also been the development of fine-tuning teleological arguments driven primarily by results from very recent cosmological investigation of our universe. Moreover, new kinds of teleological arguments have also emerged—for example, Alvin Plantinga’s arguments for the incompatibility of metaphysical naturalism with evolutionary theory and Michael Rea’s arguments for the incompatibility of the rejection of intelligent design with materialism, realism about material objects, and realism about other minds. Other (“minor”) arguments for the existence of God that have received serious discussion in recent times include moral arguments, arguments from religious experience, arguments from miracles, arguments from consciousness, arguments from reason, and aesthetic arguments. Of course, there is also a host of “lesser” arguments that are mainly viewed as fodder for undergraduate dissection. Further topics that are germane to any discussion of arguments for the existence of God include (a) the appropriate goals at which these arguments should aim and the standards that they should meet, (b) the prospects for “cumulative” arguments (e.g., of the kind developed by Richard Swinburne), and (c) the prospects for prudential arguments that appeal to our desires rather than to our beliefs (e.g., Pascal’s wager).

scholarly journals A crítica de Hume ao argumento do desígnio

DoisPontos ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
José Oscar De Almeida Marques
Keyword(s):  
Intelligent Design ◽  
A Posteriori ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
The World ◽  
Argument From Design

É comum considerar que o chamado “argumento do desígnio” (o argumento a posteriori para provar a existência de Deus a partir da ordem e funcionalidade do mundo) teria sido refutado ou seriamente abalado por Hume. Mas a natureza e o alcance dessa alegada refutação são problemáticos, pois Hume muitas vezes expressou suas críticas por meio de seus personagens e evitou assumi-las diretamente enquanto autor. Em vez de supor que Hume procedeu dessa forma apenas para disfarçar suas verdadeiras convicções e evitar um conflito com as autoridades eclesiásticas, proponho que sua posição nesse assunto não é tão categórica como às vezes se supõe, e que os famosos argumentos de Filo nos Diálogos mostram apenas que é possível que a ordem e funcionalidade do mundo tenham surgido sem a intervenção de um desígnio consciente, mas não podem por si sós dar a essa hipótese o mínimo grau de plausibilidade necessário para torná-la digna de uma séria consideração. De fato, antes da revolução explicativa operada por Darwin um século depois, ninguém estava realmente em condições de vislumbrar uma alternativa plausível à atuação de algum tipo de inteligência na geração da ordem e funcionalidade do mundo. Hume’s Critique of the Argument from Design Abstract The so-called “argument from design” (the a posteriori argument to prove the existence of God from the order and functionality of the world) is commonly considered to have been refuted or seriously impaired by Hume. But the nature and scope of this alleged refutation is problematic because Hume often expressed his criticisms through other characters’ mouth and avoided to assume them directly as author. Contrarily to the supposition that Hume proceeded in this way only to disguise his true convictions and to avoid a confrontation with ecclesiastical authorities, I propose that his stance on the matter is not, in fact, as clear-cut as it is sometimes supposed, and that Philo’s famous arguments in the Dialogues show only that it is possible for the order and functionality of the world to have arisen without the intervention of an intelligent design, but cannot by themselves lend to this hypothesis the least degree of plausibility needed to make it worthy of serious consideration. In fact, before the explanatory revolution inaugurated by Darwin a century later, nobody was in position to envisage a plausible alternative to the operation of some sort or other of intelligence in the generation of the order and functionality of the world.

Psychic Phenomena and the Existence of God

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Fantl
Keyword(s):  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Phenomenal Conservatism ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Meta Analyses

This chapter applies the conclusions of the previous chapters to two cases of controversial belief: atheistic belief and the denial of psychic phenomena (psi). In both cases, in line with so-called “phenomenal conservatism,” the felt obviousness—to the denier—of the non-existence of what they’re denying figures large in their knowledge, if they have it. In both cases, the deniers’ knowledge runs up counterarguments—for example, the fine tuning argument or meta-analyses of a number of controlled studies that purport to demonstrate the existence of psychic phenomena. But these arguments need not destroy knowledge, even if the atheist or psi-denier can’t figure out what’s wrong with those arguments. Knowledge can survive precisely because some atheists and psi-deniers lack sufficient methodological expertise, though it’s crucial that there is no consensus of trustworthy experts offering testimony that the counterarguments are sound.

It Keeps Me Seeking

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Briggs ◽  
Hans Halvorson ◽  
Andrew Steane
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Quantum Physics ◽  
Natural World ◽  
Theological Reflection ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Good Argument ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Argument From Design ◽  
Relationship Of

Two scientists and a philosopher aim to show how science both enriches and is enriched by Christian faith. The text is written around four themes: 1. God is a being to be known, not a hypothesis to be tested; 2. We set a high bar on what constitutes good argument; 3. Uncertainty is OK; 4. We are allowed to open up the window that the natural world offers us. This is not a work of apologetics. Rather, the text takes an overview of various themes and gives reactions and responses, intended to place science correctly as a valued component of the life of faith. The difference between philosophical analysis and theological reflection is expounded. Questions of human identity are addressed from philosophy, computer science, quantum physics, evolutionary biology and theological reflection. Contemporary physics reveals the subtle and open nature of physical existence, and offers lessons in how to learn and how to live with incomplete knowledge. The nature and role of miracles is considered. The ‘argument from design’ is critiqued, especially arguments from fine-tuning. Logical derivation from impersonal facts is not an appropriate route to a relationship of mutual trust. Mainstream evolutionary biology is assessed to be a valuable component of our understanding, but no exploratory process can itself fully account for the nature of what is discovered. To engage deeply in science is to seek truth and to seek a better future; it is also an activity of appreciation, as one may appreciate a work of art.

Misapprehensions about the Fine-Tuning Argument

2017 ◽  
Vol 81 ◽  
pp. 133-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Hawthorne ◽  
Yoaav Isaacs
Keyword(s):  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Fundamental Physics

AbstractThe fine-tuning argument purports to show that particular aspects of fundamental physics provide evidence for the existence of God. This argument is legitimate, yet there are numerous doubts about its legitimacy. There are various misgivings about the fine-tuning argument which are based on misunderstandings. In this paper we will go over several major misapprehensions (from both popular and philosophical sources), and explain why they do not undermine the basic cogency of the fine-tuning argument.

The heavens are declaring the glory of God: Contemporary teleological arguments

2014 ◽  
Vol 111 (3) ◽  
pp. 244-258
Author(s):  
John M. DePoe
Keyword(s):  
Final Section ◽  
Temporal Order ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Positive Role ◽  
The Third ◽  
Teleological Argument ◽  
Christian Apologetics ◽  
Argument From Design ◽  
The Universe

This article presents an overview of various formations of contemporary teleological arguments with a brief historical background. The fine-tuning argument and three of its most well-known objections are considered first. Next, the argument from design based on the origins of life is presented. The third teleological argument is based on the temporal order of the universe. The final section of the article considers and responds to well-known objections commonly raised against design arguments. The conclusion is that the contemporary versions of the teleological argument have a positive role to play in Christian apologetics despite some of their limitations.

Fine-Tuning Fine-Tuning

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoaav Isaacs
Keyword(s):  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Fundamental Physics ◽  
Anthropic Reasoning ◽  
Legitimate Argument

This chapter argues that the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God is a straightforwardly legitimate argument. The fine-tuning argument takes certain features of fundamental physics to confirm the existence of God because these features of fundamental physics are more likely given the existence of God than they are given the non-existence of God. And any such argument is straightforwardly legitimate, as such arguments follow a canonically legitimate form of empirical argumentation. The chapter explores various objections to the fine-tuning argument: that it requires an ill-defined notion of small changes in the laws of physics, that it over-generalizes, that it requires implausible presuppositions about divine intentions, and that it is debunked by anthropic reasoning. In each case it finds either that the putatively objectionable feature of the fine-tuning argument is inessential to it or that the putatively objectionable feature of the fine-tuning argument is not actually objectionable.

scholarly journals Students’ “teleological misconceptions” in evolution education: why the underlying design stance, not teleology per se, is the problem

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kostas Kampourakis
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Intelligent Design ◽  
Evolution Education ◽  
Teleological Explanation ◽  
Inherent Feature ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Selection For ◽  
Argument From Design ◽  
Design In Nature ◽  
Design Stance

AbstractTeleology, explaining the existence of a feature on the basis of what it does, is usually considered as an obstacle or misconception in evolution education. Researchers often use the adjective “teleological” to refer to students’ misconceptions about purpose and design in nature. However, this can be misleading. In this essay, I explain that teleology is an inherent feature of explanations based on natural selection and that, therefore, teleological explanations are not inherently wrong. The problem we might rather address in evolution education is not teleology per se but the underlying “design stance”. With this I do not refer to creationism/intelligent design, and to the inference to a creator from the observation of the apparent design in nature (often described as the argument from design). Rather, the design stance refers to the intuitive perception of design in nature in the first place, which seems to be prevalent and independent from religiosity in young ages. What matters in evolution education is not whether an explanation is teleological but rather the underlying consequence etiology: whether a trait whose presence is explained in teleological terms exists because of its selection for its positive consequences for its bearers, or because it was intentionally designed, or simply needed, for this purpose. In the former case, the respective teleological explanation is scientifically legitimate, whereas in the latter case it is not. What then should be investigated in evolution education is not whether students provide teleological explanations, but which consequence etiologies these explanations rely upon. Addressing the design stance underlying students’ teleological explanations could be a main aim of evolution education.

Charles Darwin and Intelligent Design

2003 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-42
Author(s):  
Denis O. Lamoureux ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Dynamic Process ◽  
Intelligent Design ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
Natural Theology ◽  
Biological Evolution ◽  
Historical Literature ◽  
The World ◽  
Argument From Design ◽  
Design In Nature

Many assume that Charles Darwin rejected outright the notion of intelligent design. As a consequence, the term "Darwinism" has evolved to become conflated with a dysteleological interpretation of evolution. The primary historical literature reveals that Darwin's conceptualization of design was cast within the categories of William Paley's natural theology, featuring static and perfect adaptability. Once Darwin discovered the mechanism of natural selection and the dynamic process of biological evolution, he rejected the "old argument from design in Nature" proposed by Paley. However, he was never able to ignore the powerful experience of the creation's revelatory activity. Darwin's encounter with the beauty and complexity of the world affirms a Biblical understanding of intelligent design and argues for the reality of a non-verbal revelation through nature. In a postmodern culture with epistemological fourmulations adrift, natural revelation provides a mooring for human felicity.

scholarly journals The fine-tuning argument: the Bayesian version

2002 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 375-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. C. BRADLEY
Keyword(s):  
Final Section ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Vast Number ◽  
Traditional Theism ◽  
The Third ◽  
Objectivist Theory ◽  
Theory Of Value ◽  
The Way

This paper considers the Bayesian form of the fine-tuning argument as advanced by Richard Swinburne. An expository section aims to identify the precise character of the argument, and three lines of objection are then advanced. The first of these holds that there is an inconsistency in Swinburne's procedure, the second that his argument has an unacceptable dependence on an objectivist theory of value, the third that his method is powerless to single out traditional theism from a vast number of competitors. In the final section of the paper the fine-tuning argument is considered, not now as self-standing, but as one of a number of theistic arguments taken together and applied in the manner of the final chapter of Swinburne's The Existence of God. It is argued that points already made also block the way for this line of thought.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document