amazon.co.ukArguments for the Existence of God
Ontological (Anselm, Descartes, Kant) and design (Paley, Tennant, Swinburne) arguments with cosmological context: premises, classic critiques and A* essay technique for AQA 7062, OCR H573, WJEC/Eduqas and CCEA.
🎯 Learning Objectives
- Set out Anselm's Proslogion 2-3 argument and Descartes' version, then evaluate Gaunilo's perfect-island parody and Kant's 'existence is not a predicate' reply (AO1/AO2)
- Reproduce Paley's watchmaker analogy and Aquinas' Fifth Way, distinguishing regularity from purpose (AO1)
- Explain modern design arguments: Tennant's anthropic principle, aesthetic argument and Swinburne's probability reasoning (AO1)
- Recite Hume's five Dialogues critiques and Mill's objection from nature's cruelty, and weigh them against the anthropic counter (AO2)
- Outline Aquinas' First, Second and Third Ways for WJEC/CCEA coverage, including infinite regress and contingency (AO1)
- Distinguish a priori, a posteriori and abductive reasoning and classify each argument correctly (AO1)
- Plan an evaluative essay with a structured argument, scholarly support and a justified verdict rather than a summary (AO2/AO3)
📋 Key Definitions and Core Concepts
a priori: Reasoning independent of sense experience; based on analysis of concepts or definitions alone (the ontological argument).
a posteriori: Reasoning from observed evidence about the world to a conclusion beyond it (design and cosmological arguments).
contingent existence: Existence that depends on something else and could fail to exist; anything whose non-existence is conceivable.
necessary existence: Existence that cannot fail to be and does not depend on anything else; Anselm holds it belongs uniquely to God (Proslogion 3).
predicate: A property asserted of a subject; Kant argues existence is not a real predicate because it adds no property, only asserts instantiation.
reductio ad absurdum: Argument that refutes a position by deriving a contradiction from it; Anselm's method in Proslogion 2-3.
teleological argument: A posteriori argument inferring a designer from order, regularity or purpose in the universe (Greek telos = end/purpose); also called the design argument.
anthropic principle: Tennant's claim that the universe is finely tuned for intelligent, moral life; the conditions of the cosmos point to design rather than chance.
infinite regress: An endless chain of explanations; Aquinas rules it out for causes and motion, since then no first cause would exist to start the series.
epicurean hypothesis: Hume's alternative: particles in chaos, given infinite time, randomly settle into stable, ordered configurations with no designer.
principle of sufficient reason: Leibniz's claim that every contingent fact needs an explanation; even an infinite series of causes needs a reason outside the series.
📌 Key Points
Ontological: a priori, from definition; Anselm (Proslogion 2-3) vs Gaunilo and Kant.
Design: a posteriori, from order; Paley's watchmaker vs Hume's five critiques and Dawkins.
Modern design: Tennant's anthropic principle; Swinburne's probabilistic cumulative case.
Cosmological (WJEC/CCEA): Aquinas' First, Second and Third Ways; contingency and regress.
Ontological argument: Anselm, Descartes and the classic critiques
Classification: a priori - it rests on analysis of the concept of God rather than observation. Spec: AQA 7062/1A section 3.1.1.2; OCR H573/01.
Anselm (Proslogion 2): God is 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'. Even the fool who denies God (Psalm 14:1) understands this definition, so it exists in the understanding (in intellectu). Existence in reality (in re) is greater than existence in the mind alone. If the greatest conceivable being existed only in the mind, a greater being could be conceived - one existing in reality - which is a contradiction. Therefore God exists in reality. The argument proceeds by reductio ad absurdum: assume God exists only in the understanding, derive a contradiction, conclude he exists.
Anselm (Proslogion 3): the greatest conceivable being cannot be conceived not to exist. A being that cannot be thought of as non-existent is greater than one that can; God is the former; therefore God exists necessarily - his existence is not contingent on anything, including whether anyone happens to think of him. Distinguish this from merely existing forever.
- Gaunilo ('On Behalf of the Fool'): parody argument - by the same logic a 'perfect island' existing in the understanding must exist in reality, since reality makes it greater. The satire targets the move from definition to existence.
- Anselm's reply: the parody only works for contingent, surpassable things. There is no coherent 'greatest possible island' (an island could always be bigger and better), but the concept of a uniquely supreme necessary being is coherent; the reductio applies only where necessary existence is part of the concept.
Descartes (Meditation V): existence belongs to God's essence just as three angles belong to a triangle's essence; existence is a perfection, so the supremely perfect being cannot lack it. God's existence is as self-evident, once the concept is grasped, as a triangle's angle-sum of two right angles.
Kant's critique (Critique of Pure Reason): existence is not a real predicate - saying something exists adds no property to it, it only asserts that the concept is instantiated. 'A hundred real thalers do not contain the least bit more than a hundred possible ones.' So treating existence as a perfection is a mistake, 'necessary existence' is incoherent, and the argument collapses. Malcolm's defence: an unlimited being cannot exist contingently, so God's existence is either impossible or necessary; since Anselm shows it is conceivable, it is necessary. Critics reply that Malcolm establishes coherence, not actual instantiation - the very gap Kant identified remains open.
Design (teleological) argument: Aquinas, Paley, Tennant and Swinburne
Classification: a posteriori, inductive; it infers a designer from order, regularity and apparent purpose. Spec: AQA 7062/1A section 3.1.1.1; OCR H573/01.
Aquinas (Fifth Way, Summa Theologiae I.2.3): natural bodies lacking intelligence act for an end - they achieve the best result 'always or for the most part' (arrows fly, seeds grow predictably). Nothing that lacks knowledge can act for an end unless directed by a being with knowledge, as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore an intelligent being (God) orders all natural things to their end. Note: this is an argument from regularity, not from complexity - a common exam confusion with Paley.
Paley (Natural Theology, 1802): the watch on the heath - its intricate mechanism, the precise fitting of parts for the purpose of telling time, would compel the inference to a watchmaker even for someone who had never seen a watch made. The eye and the universe are vastly more intricate and purposeful, so they compel the inference to a vastly more capable designer. Paley's supporting points: even an imperfect watch still implies a maker; the inference survives ignorance of how the mechanism works; the parts are assembled for a purpose, not found that way by chance.
| Argument | Basis | Key scholars | Classic critique |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ontological | Definition of God (a priori) | Anselm, Descartes, Malcolm | Kant: existence not a predicate; Gaunilo parody |
| Design from purpose | Adaptation of means to ends | Aquinas (Fifth Way), Paley | Hume: weak analogy, alternative causes |
| Design from regularity | Laws and fine-tuning | Tennant, Swinburne | Multiverse; chance over infinite time; Darwin |
- Tennant (Philosophical Theology, 1930): the anthropic principle - the universe is uniquely adapted to intelligent, moral, religious life (stable physical constants, life-permitting conditions); the aesthetic argument - beauty in nature exceeds any survival need, suggesting a mind behind nature; a cumulative case combining many strands is stronger than a single analogy.
- Swinburne (The Existence of God, 1979): regularities of succession (temporal order, the persistence of laws) are too fundamental for science to explain - science explains one regularity by another; God is the simplest possible explanation of the universe's order. The argument is probabilistic, not demonstrative: the evidence raises the probability of God's existence, giving rational grounds for belief without proof.
Later challenge - Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker, 1986): cumulative natural selection explains apparent design with no designer: small heritable variations, sifted over deep time, produce complexity. Reply: evolution presupposes a lawful, life-permitting universe in which selection can operate, and selection cannot explain the origin of those laws - the anthropic question remains open (Tennant's counter).
Hume's Dialogues and the classic critiques of design
Hume (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, published 1779): the character Philo presses five objections - written before Paley but almost always examined against him, which examiners reward.
- Weak analogy: the universe is unique - there is only one, so we cannot compare it with familiar artefacts whose origins we know. It may be more like a vegetable or animal (growing, reproducing) than a machine, in which case the inference is to generation, not design.
- Alternative causes: given infinite time, random matter under the epicurean hypothesis could settle into stable, ordered configurations; order does not require a designer, only time and chance.
- Multiple designers: a great effect may have many causes - machines are made by teams; from the universe one might infer many gods, a cosmic infant or a clumsy deity rather than one perfect God.
- Finite or flawed maker: the defects of the world (disease, earthquakes, waste) suggest a finite, imperfect or careless architect, not the omnipotent, omnibenevolent God of classical theism.
- Problem of evil: a world full of suffering suggests an indifferent or malevolent maker; the design argument undermines the very God it is meant to prove.
Mill (Three Essays on Religion, 1874, posthumous): 'nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another are nature's every-day performances'; nature is wasteful and cruel, so its Designer cannot be both omnipotent and perfectly good. Mill accepts at most a limited designer.
Kant (Critique of Pure Reason): even if the design argument worked, it would establish only a world-architect within the realm of possible experience, not the transcendent, necessary being of theism; and to reach necessary existence it must borrow from the ontological argument, inheriting its failure. For Kant both arguments fail as proof, though the concept of God remains a regulative ideal of reason.
Mackie (The Miracle of Theism, 1982): order arises from the evolution of chaos plus selection-like processes; the theistic reply that fine-tuning is astronomically improbable on chance keeps the anthropic debate alive, but Mackie insists that multiplying weak arguments does not make them strong.
Weighing point: Hume's objections anticipate Paley, but the anthropic principle and fine-tuning claims postdate him - a modern design argument is not refuted by the vegetable analogy alone. A* essays stage this as a conversation: Hume versus Paley, Darwin versus Paley, Tennant/Swinburne versus Hume.
Cosmological argument (WJEC/Eduqas and CCEA coverage)
Aquinas' First Way (motion/change): some things are in the process of change; whatever changes is changed by another; an infinite regress of changers is impossible, since then there would be no first changer and no subsequent change; therefore there is a first unmoved changer - God. Second Way (efficient causation): everything that comes into existence has a cause; an infinite regress of causes is impossible; therefore there is a first efficient cause - God. Third Way (contingency): things exist contingently (they could fail to exist, so at some time nothing existed); if nothing ever existed nothing could exist now; therefore there must exist a necessary being - God.
- Hume's critiques: the causal principle (everything has a cause) is not self-evident - we can conceive of things beginning uncaused; the universe as a whole need not have a cause even if everything in it does (fallacy of composition); 'a necessary being' may be an empty phrase - anything conceived to exist could be conceived not to exist.
- Kant: the cosmological argument covertly relies on the ontological argument to identify the first cause as a necessary being, so it fails with it.
- Copleston vs Russell (BBC radio debate, 1948): Copleston defends Aquinas - the question 'why is there anything at all?' demands an answer; Russell: the universe is 'just there, and that's all', and 'the whole concept of cause is not applicable to the total'. This exchange is the standard AO2 currency for WJEC/CCEA essays.
- Leibniz (principle of sufficient reason): contingent facts need sufficient reasons; even an infinite series of contingent causes needs an explanation outside the series - a necessary substance (God). Differs from Aquinas: God is needed to explain the series as a whole, not merely to start it.
Evaluation and exam technique: weighing the arguments
Conceptual vs existential: a priori arguments at best establish coherence (that God's existence is conceivable), not that God exists - Kant's instantiation point is the sharpest critique and A* essays must lead with it rather than resting on Gaunilo.
Inference to the best explanation: design arguments are abductive - they compete with natural selection, the epicurean hypothesis and multiverse reasoning. Strong answers weigh relative explanatory power (Swinburne: God is the simplest explanation; simplicity is a theoretical virtue) rather than demanding proof. A* structure: state the argument's premises, give the strongest critique, give the theistic reply, weigh, then verdict.
Cumulative case: Tennant and Swinburne argue that single analogies are weak but convergence - cosmological plus design plus religious experience - raises the probability of theism. Mackie's reply: weak arguments multiplied remain weak. Assess whether accumulation genuinely strengthens inference or merely stacks speculation.
Religious perspectives: Barth - natural theology overreaches: God is known through revelation alone, and Anselm's 'faith seeking understanding' begins from belief rather than neutral reason, so the argument is best read as theology's self-reflection. Against this, Catholic tradition (Vatican I) teaches that God's existence can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason - the arguments retain apologetic value.
Exam technique: AQA 7062 Paper 1 Section A: each question is worth 25 marks - a 10-mark AO1 'Explain...' part followed by a 15-mark AO2 'Critically discuss...' essay; answer both parts of two questions. OCR H573/01: 2-hour paper; extended 'Critically discuss' essays reward a justified line of argument rather than balanced description. WJEC/Eduqas and CCEA similarly combine AO1 exposition with AO2 evaluation, and CCEA also expects the cosmological argument.
- Command words: 'Explain' = accurate, developed AO1 with scholarship; 'Critically discuss' = sustained argument ending in a justified verdict, not a summary.
- Pitfalls: mislabelling the ontological argument as a posteriori; conflating Paley's purpose-based argument with Aquinas' regularity-based Fifth Way; presenting Gaunilo as refuting Anselm (the parody only targets contingent things); quoting Dawkins without engaging the anthropic counter; listing critiques without weighing them.
- Examiner tips: memorise the key phrases ('that than which nothing greater can be conceived'; 'existence is not a real predicate'; 'just there, and that's all'); signpost premises with 'firstly... therefore'; name the scholars and texts (Proslogion, Natural Theology, Dialogues); reserve your final paragraph for a reasoned verdict.
💡 Worked Example
Exam-style: 'The ontological argument fails to demonstrate the existence of God.' Critically discuss this claim. [AQA 7062 15-mark AO2 essay / OCR H573 extended essay]
Mark-scheme logic: AO1 required: Anselm's Proslogion 2-3 (definition of God, intellectu vs in re, necessary existence, reductio); Descartes' version (existence as a perfection); Gaunilo's parody and Anselm's reply; Kant's 'existence is not a real predicate'; optionally Malcolm's defence and Barth's revelation-only objection. AO2 required: a sustained evaluation - (1) Gaunilo shows definition-to-existence moves fail for contingent things, but Anselm's reply is that a uniquely necessary being is different in kind; (2) Kant shows that even coherent concepts need not be instantiated, so 'necessary existence' is suspect - this is the decisive critique and should be weighed most heavily; (3) Malcolm's defence only restores coherence, not instantiation; (4) Barth: even if the argument worked it would be theology, not neutral proof, since it begins from faith; (5) weigh and conclude - e.g. the argument fails as demonstration but retains apologetic or theological value, and justify which verdict the weight of critique supports.
❓ Practice Questions & Mark Schemes
Explain Anselm's ontological argument as set out in the Proslogion. [10 marks AO1]
Answer: AO1 answer: Anselm defines God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived' (Proslogion 2). Even the fool who denies God (Psalm 14:1) understands this definition, so it exists in the understanding (in intellectu). Existence in reality (in re) is greater than existence in the mind alone. If the greatest conceivable being existed only in the mind, a greater could be conceived - one existing in reality - which is a contradiction. Therefore God exists in reality. Add Proslogion 3: the greatest conceivable being cannot be conceived not to exist - necessary existence. The argument proceeds by reductio ad absurdum. Marks awarded for: accurate definition, the intellectu/in re distinction, the contradiction move, necessary existence (Proslogion 3), and naming the text.
'The design argument shows that the universe was created by God.' Critically discuss. [15 marks AO2]
Answer: AO1 anchor: Paley's watchmaker (Natural Theology 1802) - intricate parts fitted for a purpose compel inference to a designer; Aquinas' Fifth Way from regularity. AO2 required: (1) strength - the eye and universe are vastly more intricate than a watch, so inference to a vastly more capable designer is proportionate; (2) Hume's critiques - weak analogy (universe unique, may be more like an organism), alternative causes (epicurean hypothesis), multiple designers, finite maker; (3) Mill - nature's cruelty suggests an imperfect or indifferent designer, so the argument overreaches if it claims the God of classical theism; (4) Dawkins - natural selection explains apparent design; reply - evolution presupposes a lawful, life-permitting universe (Tennant); (5) weigh - the argument supports a designer probabilistically but cannot show that designer is God: conclude the claim overstates what the argument establishes, and justify this verdict.
Explain Hume's objections to the design argument. [10 marks AO1]
Answer: AO1 answer: Hume (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 1779), through Philo: (1) weak analogy - the universe is unique, so comparing it with human artefacts stretches the analogy; it may be more like a vegetable or animal (growth, reproduction) than a machine; (2) alternative causes - given infinite time, random matter under the epicurean hypothesis could settle into ordered configurations; (3) multiple designers - a great effect may have many causes, so polytheism or a cosmic infant is as plausible as one God; (4) finite or flawed maker - the world's defects suggest an imperfect architect; (5) problem of evil - a world of suffering suggests an indifferent maker. Marks awarded for: all five points, the Philo context, and accurate use of 'epicurean hypothesis'.
'Existence is not a predicate.' Critically assess Kant's objection to the ontological argument. [15 marks AO2]
Answer: AO1 anchor: Kant (Critique of Pure Reason) - existence is not a real predicate; it adds no property, only asserts instantiation ('a hundred real thalers do not contain the least bit more than a hundred possible ones'); Anselm and Descartes treat existence as a perfection, which is therefore a mistake. AO2 required: (1) strength - the critique is decisive against treating existence as a property: 'necessary existence' becomes incoherent; (2) Malcolm's defence - an unlimited being cannot exist contingently, so God's existence is either impossible or necessary; critics reply this restores coherence, not instantiation; (3) Anselm's fides quaerens intellectum - the argument was never neutral proof but faith seeking understanding, so Kant's objection may miss its purpose (Barth's reading); (4) weigh - the objection defeats the argument as demonstration but not as theology; conclude with a justified verdict, e.g. Kant is right that existence is not a predicate, so the argument fails as proof but retains theological value.
Explain Tennant's anthropic principle and Swinburne's version of the design argument. [10 marks AO1]
Answer: AO1 answer: Tennant (Philosophical Theology, 1930) - the anthropic principle: the universe is uniquely adapted to intelligent, moral, religious life (stable physical constants, life-permitting conditions); the aesthetic argument: beauty exceeds survival need; a cumulative case combining many strands is stronger than a single analogy. Swinburne (The Existence of God, 1979) - regularities of succession (temporal order, persistence of laws) are too fundamental for science to explain, since science explains regularities by other regularities; God is the simplest possible explanation; the argument is probabilistic, raising the probability of theism without proving it. Marks awarded for: accurate distinction between anthropic fine-tuning and aesthetic argument, the cumulative case, and Swinburne's probabilistic framing.
'Hume's critiques of the design argument are decisive.' Critically discuss. [15 marks AO2]
Answer: AO2 required: (1) strength - Hume anticipates Paley's objections: weak analogy, epicurean hypothesis, multiple designers, flawed maker, problem of evil; the vegetable analogy and chance explanations genuinely undermine simple machine-based inference; (2) limitation - Hume wrote before Paley and before the anthropic principle: fine-tuning claims (Tennant) postdate him and the vegetable analogy does not address them; (3) reply to chance - evolution and the epicurean hypothesis presuppose a lawful universe whose order remains unexplained; (4) Mackie - multiplying weak arguments does not make them strong, so the cumulative case is not automatic progress; (5) weigh - Hume's critiques are decisive against Paley's single analogy but not against the anthropic cumulative case; conclude with a justified verdict on whether the modern design argument survives.