PHIL/RS335 Fall 2017

A teleological argument is an argument for the existence of God or at least an intelligent creator. David Hume states in one of his points that the Universe is orderly, but then states that no one should discuss the universe being orderly. God is perceived to be all powerful and loving as well as merciful. This perception of God is why we shouldn't discuss this "orderly universe" because of all the bad things that go on in the world such as pain and destruction that there is no way God can be all powerful because he allows such bad things to happen to his people. Considering so many bad things happen people question whether there is even a God at all which is why David Hume listed this point to argue.

The cosmological argument seeks to prove that God is the explanation or reason for creation and everything else. The argument has two parts. The first tries to establish the existence of a self-existent being, a being not dependent of anything else but its existence is accounted for by its own nature. The second argument attempts to prove that this self-existent being is what we call God (107). The argument works on the premise that everything has a reason. This idea is referred to as the Principle of Sufficient Reason. According to this argument everything has a reason to exist. The universe and all we know exists and has a reason to exist, therefore God exists as that reason. Everything is dependent on something else, but not everything can be dependent. Something has to be "the beginning", not dependent on anthing else but itself, that something is God. This argument uses deductive reasoning but was and still is controversial. What's controversial according to the book...

In the excerpt by David Hume on the Teleological Argument, he lays out the main points of the argument is kind of a Compare and contrast type manner. I found it a bit easier to follow this way. What I got from the Teleological Argument is that because there is so much detail and purpose in the world, we must reason this with the justification of a creator or God. Hume goes on to argue on the topic of us not knowing if our amazing is actually truly amazing. He talks about how, as the people of this universe, we don't have another universe to compare ours to. So he's making the point that we don't know if our actually being in this universe is such wonder things if there's nothing to reference to. He mentions not only our being, but the things that we witness in nature as well. He also brings up the point that the Teleological Argument states that God is all knowing, but his believes different. He talks about the belief that there is only one God responsible for the ...

In David Hume's excerpt on the Teleological Argument, he depicts the concept in sort of a dramatic play-like context. This way, as a reader, it is more of an interactive comparison of the explanation and its pitfalls. Basically the teleological argument is rooted in the purpose of things from their observed state. Ultimately, the concept is born out of a posteriori view that explains the cause of certain effects by explanation similar effects. Presuming the causes of separate things are the same because the outcome or effect is similar can result in a fallacy. Using conjecture to fabricate the cause of a similar thing makes it so there is a laziness or lack of interest when trying to the discover truth of origin of something, because the cause was already assumed since its effect was similar to something else's effect. Thus, creating an issue in understanding a things individualistic or unique cause, because there is no need to with a reference point or explanat...

To begin, I think it is important to note the backbone of what Hume is trying to argue about the Teleological Argument. 1. The Universe is orderly, yet we find suffering, pain, destruction, etc. So, why would an "all-loving" Creator of the Universe do this to us if He has the power to control it all? Hume begins to argue that we should not even discuss the matter of the universe being orderly in this case. 2. Order is the result of design. Looking back into Hume's debate, it is very evident that he believes our knowledge of cause and effect comes directly from experiences; therefore, we cannot think this about the universe, because it is distinctly unique. 3. Basically, Hume does not believe that the Teleological Argument leads to the classical Christian definition of God; rather, our hypotheses that are proposed, there can be found truth. 4. Putting all of the pieces together for the last statement, Hume says that we have nothing to compare the Universe too, so in th...

The Cosmological Argument is comprised on the notions of the existence of the self-existent being(s) and dependent beings. A self-existent being meaning a being whose existence is unreliant on the existence of another. This self-existent being is what is normally termed God. A further definition includes a being whose existence is accounted for by its own nature which once again fits the description of God. There are three primary arguments contained in the Cosmological Argument. 1. Every being that exists or did exist is either a dependent being or self-existent being 2. Not every being can be a dependent being 3. There is a self-existent being These arguments being justified through the means of being deductively valid. The Principle of Sufficient Reasoning (PSR) also chimes into the notion of the first argument. The PSR asserts that each being that exists or once existed is either explained by the existence of another (dependent being or self-existent being) or neither. This all...

The Cosmological Argument has two premises. The first part is deductively valid. It states that because every being is either a dependent being or a self-existing being and not every being can be a dependent being, then there must be a self-existing being or God. William Rowe, however, does make a point of saying that this doesn't necessarily make the claim that  there is a self- existing being true. But rather, if the premises were true then so too would the conclusion. Rowe also points out the second premise doesn't account for the possibility of there being an infinite amount of dependent beings. However, according to Rowe, the proponents of this argument did recognize its fallacious nature. And, didn't assert that there had to be a first, creating member, but rather rejected that there was no explanation for the existence of dependent beings. So, although I again disagree with this argument, I find it more agreeable than the seven ways and also agree with the proponent...

The Cosmological Argument originates from Greek philosophy, but it very much remains today  despite some modern skepticism. The Cosmological Argument seeks to establish the existence of  a self-existent being, and further prove that this said being is a theistic God. The first part of the  argument states that all beings are either dependent or self-existent. Since every being cannot be  dependent, there must be a self-existent being. The second part of the argument explains how  there must be a first being to begin any causal series. If all beings were dependent, who would've  began this series? This provides more explanation to the idea that not all beings can be  dependent. The Cosmological Argument relies on the idea that one believes everything has an  explanation or reason for existence, perhaps this is not the case. Those who subscribe to beliefs  based in scientific reasoning can agree that the Big Bang is currently the best explanati...

The Cosmological Argument has two parts; the first part tries to establish the existence of a self-existent being and the second part attempts to prove that the self-existent being is the theistic God. The first part focuses on cases of: "explained by another," "explained by nothing," and "explained by itself." This sets up the argument of deductive validity and trying to conclude if it is true even if the premises are false. By proving that the first part is true Rowe introduces  Principle of Sufficient Reason. I do not agree with this principle because it is trying to make its conclusion true without stating any good evidence. There does not need to be an explanation for why something exists because, in the end, a person could argue that "God exists because he just does."  So far the first premise of the argument denies that there exists a being whose existence hs no explanation.   For the second premise, he states that "a living thing per...

The Cosmological Argument has 2 premises. The first premise states that a being is either made by itself or is made by another, while the second premise states that not every being can be a dependent being. The reason for this second argument is that if each being is dependent on another being than there has to be a first being that was independent or the cause of the dependent being. I do not fully agree with the last premise because if every individual being is caused by the being before than that explains that beings come from other dependent beings. There does not have to be a independent being but a being that was dependent to create another being. Rowe also talks about the ideas of the Buddhist religion and what contingency is. They believe that God is a logical being and believe in a logical argument. However, they do not believe that there are always strict understandings and answers to every question. I believe that ,just as Buddha has taught, there are more complex ideas of G...

" The Five Ways" by St. Thomas Aquinas, helps us to understand the existence of God. The argument is explaining that everything and everyone had to come from a cause because there has to be a cause in order to have an effect, and ultimately the cause of being is God. The article of "The Five Ways" helps us to understand how God is the cause of the universe. St. Thomas Aquinas does go against what Aristotle believes. Aristotle believed that the universe had always been, that it came from nothing. This bothered Islamic people because they believed that Allah was the ultimate cause of existence. So, as a result of this they wrote the Qur'an. This really did not fully explain how God can be the cause of existence but it did get the ball rolling for St. Thomas. He believed that whether the universe was "eternal or not" there had to be an explanation for the cause of it. Hence, the five ways to help explain. The first way explains that nothing can be put int...

How can we justify the existence of God? Aristotle proposed an argument of an eternal universe and a temporary universe. He questions if the universe is one that has always been or one that is temporarily here for a moment in time. Many ponder the question and often go back and forth between answers, but nevertheless, many can agree that either way, the universe must have a cause or an overall creator and this is what St. Thomas Aquinas argues in, "The Five Ways." The five reasons are as follows: “The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain and evident to our senses that some things are in motion.” Motion is caused by a movement of an object or person, but who does the initial movement? This is the question that must be answered. If there is motion, who is the mover? Who has created this cause and effect relationship? This leads us to the second reason of evidence: “The second way is from the formality of efficient causation.” Who started th...

Theories in regard to the ultimate cause of existence of the universe have been in dispute, and speculation by many of the greatest philosophers known to mankind. One of the most prominent debates to the causality of existence is the cosmological argument. Saint Thomas Aquinas conceptualizes five distinct ways in which God could exist. According to the text, the cosmological argument goes back to the ancient Greek philosophers. Particularly, Aristotle is mentioned in the text due to his argument about the existence of motion. Aristotle argued that the existence of motion was governed by a prime agent. However, the text further notes that Aristotle believed both the universe and motion were eternal. His theory intrigued Islamic theistic philosophers and theologians, but they were troubled by his theory of the universe as always eternal. Consequently, Jewish theologian Moses ben Maimon criticized both the Greek and Islamic version of the cosmological argument due to their assumptions tha...

Udayana wrote "The Seven Ways" as an attempt to answer the question, does God really exist? Udayana gives seven arguments effects, atomic combinations, suspension and other states of the world, the existence of human skills, the existence of authoritative knowledge, the existences of Revelation, and the numerical combination of atoms. Udayana believes that the explanation of each argument will indeed prove not only that God exists but that God is both all-knowing and imperishable. After Udayana's arguments were stated there were objections to the first objection for example it was stated "you deny that God is corporeal: so you must deny that He is a cause" (100), but it was countered because "there is no effect without a cause" (101) Most people who answer the question are bias in their answer because they are either religious or not. For those who believe in the presence of God base their belief on "faith" and in the bible it explains that...

Udayana argues that there are "Seven Ways", or proofs, that not only does a god exist but an "all- knowing, imperishable God" exist. The first of these "Ways" is fairly straight forward. He argues that the earth must have a cause, or creator, because it is an effect. He also compares existence to a pot; the pot had to come from somewhere and was created with a purpose. All of his subsequent arguments relate back to this first one, which justifies existence by saying that it had to come from somewhere or else it simply wouldn't be. For example, his second arguments states that atoms act the way they do because someone must have caused it and they simply wouldn't behave this way on their own, "Such a combination is always consequent on the activity of a conscious agent." I myself don't believe that Udayana's "Seven Ways" justify the existence of an "all-knowing, imperishable God" because they all seem to boil d...

Wainwright's excerpt begins with him quoting William James, one of the leading philosophical thinkers in the 19th century. This sets a basis or a foundation for his argument about ultimate reality and the potential explaination behind why people seek religion. Since religion is "rooted in human needs, yearnings, and experiences," there is a individualistic connection between each person and their beliefs and dedication to their said religion (89). People struggle and don't understand how to cope with the pitfalls of this life or through the "visable world," so the desire to seek out some higher power that can mend our souls and wash away our pain is logical (88). The concept of ultimate concern is for the highly dedicated or devout who believes that complete and utter surrender to the object of tje ultimate concern then fufillment will follow. In order for something to be an ultimate concern, it must be "maximally perfect in a sense that it is the most ...

Udayana states that there are seven ways to prove that God is in existence; effects, atomic combination, suspension, human skills, authoritative knowledge, Revelation, and atoms. He also calls Him the "all-knowing, imperishable God." He is imperishable God because he is the only one who could create atoms because humans are not able to. Also, humans can not break atoms or destroy them and he is stating that the only person that can do that is God because he created atoms. He mentions the difference between the cause and effect to validate if there is a God. He brings up the argument that "Things like the earth must have a cause, because they are produced by a body (101)." Some deity had to have made the earth for their pleasure. He also relies on objections to prove that God is real. Udayana does bring up good ideas to prove that God is real. The best argument to me is that he created atoms. Humans are unable to destroy atoms or to create them; so they had to be...

        The Seven Ways are identified as effects, atomic combinations, the suspension and other states of the world, the existence of human skills, the existence of Revelation, and the numerical combination of atoms. Udayana claims that from all these an all-knowing, imperishable God can be proven. It is stated that all things must have a cause or active producer because they are effects. It is explained that the world is a combination of atoms. This combination is labeled as an action that is consequent on the activity of a conscious agent because it is an action. The world is also described as having the character of something suspended because its nature is destructible. It is also stated that traditional arts need to be launched by an independent person. Effectness is mentioned to be an objection to the argument, but is countered with “There is no effect without a cause.”  I personally do not find these arguments very convincing. To me these arguments are ...

Wainwright begins his passage with several definitions of what he believes Ultimate Reality really is; and, he also goes into detail about what religious people believe the concept of "religion" is. One of Wainwright's most simple definitions states, "Religion is thus rooted in human needs, yearnings, and experiences. The strength of conviction, hope, and commitment varies considerably from person to person." Picking this apart a bit, I have always needed religion for my own personal benefit, and it has mainly come through experiences; therefore, I would have to agree with him. But, as we know, with all of us being human, every single one of us is going to have a different viewpoint about how much 'hope' or 'commitment' we actually need to be religious, and I feel that as we grow older we learn this more and more about ourselves, especially from family, friends, and those we care about most. Whether we need prayer, church, bible study, or whate...

In the article, Wainwright begins by explaining the relationship between religion and humanity, and how it is rooted in human needs, yearnings, and experiences. He suggests that while each persons devotion, practice, and commitment may vary, all religious attitudes in essence have an "ultimate concern" which is total and requires the self as a whole, and makes all other concerns secondary. The object of the concern is thought to be separate from all profane and ordinary realities and is understood to be a mystery and holy. Thought to be an experience so consuming and precious, so real and powerful, that it requires total surrender and promises total fulfillment. With this he leads into the implication that the only object worthy of these attitudes should be the greatest thing we could conceive, the ultimate reality (89). Which according to Wainwright, is a fully appropriate object of ultimate concern that is maximally perfect, or in a sense the most perfect possible reality. ...

In Wainwright's "Is the Concept of Ultimate Reality Coherent?" he establishes the needs of mankind to create the idea of religion and the required practices of religion. They exist to give dimension to a reality higher than our own. A higher reality that can intervene with our's and give us a fuller satisfaction than that which is possible within our realm of reality. The religiosity practiced by mankind is the devotion to an entity that asks for our full surrender of self in exchange for this fulfillment and satisfaction. But this practice of religion exists almost entirely in the ideal that the entity receiving of our full selves, is an entity that is not selfish nor ignorant in some way. For our worship (as told by some philosophers), the entity must be "maximally perfect in the sense that it is the most perfect possible reality" (Wainwright 89). But in this way, isn't the idea of this sacrificing of self in the name of religion somewhat shallow? If t...

     Ultimate reality is dependent on a human beings's perspective. Ultimate reality, or the concept of God are compiled of different beliefs  and conceptual models. Questions are raised with  transcendent reality in  nature and existence. Chad Meister, addresses some of these questions. Humans desire to escape the suffering of this world with the faith and belief that another more perfect existence is obtainable where the flaws of this world does not exist (89). Wainwright states that from human beings needs and experiences came the concept of ultimate reality. Advaita Vedanta takes the Hinduism traditions of Upanishadic to interptet the concept of ultimate reality. Upanishadic traditions, such as the teaching of Brahman, could be traslated as ultimate reality. The world is simutaniously external and unchanging whole, and a individuated plurality that is constantly morphing or changing. Vedanta had taken up this particular insight and gives empahasis on th...

In this chapter the question on whether or not the belief in ultimate reality is logical and consistent. If something is ultimate and perfect, which cannot truly be fully defined, it would be outside of our understanding. If it is outside of our understanding than the ultimate reality would be incoherent or beyond our ability to say one way or the other (87). This raises questions on what is truly ultimate and is it free to perspective. Some believe that the ultimate is the best of all things that exist now while others believe it is an actual being. William J. Wainwright believed that the belief in an ultimate reality, in his example religion arises from human "needs, yearnings, and experiences." Humans desire to escape the suffering of this world with the faith and belief that another more perfect existence is obtainable where the flaws of this world do not exist (89). Some critics find the belief in a perfect place or being incoherent because there is nothing to compare ...

"The Female Nature of God" The monotheistic God in the Christian faith has been seen as only male for many centuries. Reuther believes that this is a way to further excuse the patriarchal society for subordinating women. The power of religion is used to further explain to the people why men should subordinate women and why women should accept the sexist role that is forced on them. "The subordinate status of women in the social and legal order is reflected in the subordinate status of women in the culture", (p. 82). The feminine roles played in the Christian faith are further seen as weak and secondary because the feminine is not a powerful individual but is a helper of the all powerful male God. The dominant role as male with a feminine helper further objectifies and weakens the feminine idea of God. Reuther further explains that with the development of feminism a new interpretation of the feminine side of God was created, however they did not become as ...

"The female Nature of God" is basically talking about a controversial issue of God being portrayed as a man and also other powerful parts of the bible, i.e. the holy spirit. However, the the book says that the woman is only portrayed as the "mediator" between the children and there father. So, in that case I personally believe that the Holy Spirit has to be a women since it is the mediator between humans and Jesus Christ. While reading this I went back to thinking of what I was taught when I was a child. I was taught that God can be anything we need whether it be a father, mother, sister, or brotherly figure, he can be that. I also disagree with the movement that took place in retaliation to Godly images being only masculine. The revolt against the biblical patriarchal God has no balance. They only wanted women to be the form of Godly images. However, too much of anything is not a good thing. There has to be a balance in everything. Therefore my biggest desire is th...

In Rosemary Radford Reuther’s “The Female of God,” she analyzes God’s gender as primarily male-based and relates it to today’s gender roles in society. In the bible, God is almost always described as a male and because of this, males are seen to be the only ones capable of creation or power. Males are the head of the house, the lawmakers, and the creators, and the females are the caregivers and watch over the creation. The primary and secondary relationship of this carries over into our society today because traditionally, males are the breadwinners of the household while the females stay at home and take care of the family. Growing up I always believed in this traditional viewpoint, but I never thought that it was due to the lessons from my early Sunday school classes as a child. It is interesting to see that these traditions may have stemmed from the bible, but how will it affect believers today now that females are seen to be just as powerful as men. Reuther touches on this subject...

I n   our modern society, the struggle of sexism still stains the portrayal of females as subordinates for males in secular worldviews and religious ones.  The religious context of God as feminine is predominantly dubious to some of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic beliefs due to the conception of women serving as subjects to men. The Female Nature of God is a widely controversial topic that seethes both the masculine and feminine sides of humanity. Theories of God's nature as male are largely asserted, because of the patriarchs in the ancient world. According to Rosemary Radford Reuther, the feminine in the ancient scriptures are suppressed in Patriarchal Theology( 83). The prophetic Book of Isaiah based on Reuther's study of Leonard Swidler's Biblical Affirmation of Woman , details Yahweh as a mother who cries out for her child, and as a mother who will not forsake her child. It is presumed by some that the passage derived from Isaiah is a mere metapho...