You are on page 1of 2

Are the theistic arguments useful in

proving Gods existence?


Since the beginning of religion, human kind has had a constant fascination with
the origin of the universe. Although the questions have changed due to
knowledge discovered, the recurring theme has been How did the universe
come into existence?. This lead to the creation of theistic proofs. These proofs
have been used in an attempt to deduce and explain the existence of God. In
my opinion, the three most famous theistic proofs, the Cosmological,
Teleological and Ontological arguments are all useful in proving Gods existence
using various methods and means.
A posteriori arguments are that which are based on empirical evidence which is
gained through the senses by observing the world around us and coming to
conclusions. An example of this is There is a flower in my classroom. I can go
to the classroom and empirically test if there is a flower in the room. I consider
this an important quality of a theistic argument as this implies that the only
flaw in the argument will be regarding my observations. Both the Cosmological
Argument and Teleological Argument is a posteriori. The Cosmological
Argument is the argument that the existence of the universe is strong evidence
of a creator, known as God. The self-moving principle of the argument implies
that all motion and change must have originated from a source. This is deduced
as we cannot infinitely regress to find the First Mover, so this first action must
have occurred by God. The Teleological Argument or the Design Argument
dictates that the universe was created by a supreme designer. William Paley
uses the analogy of a watch to highlight this argument. A watch is so complex
and intricate that it must have a designer, a watchmaker. The same could be
said about the universe. Both of these arguments requires empirical evidence
to be proven. I believe the a posteriori nature of the Teleological argument,
combined with it being inductive allows it to be scientifically assessed, which
makes it appear stronger than other theistic arguments. However, not all the
theistic arguments are a posteriori.
By basing a theistic argument on a definition, it is considered a priori. A priori
arguments draw strength from the fact that they are based on agreed upon and
fixed definitions. This is a priori arguments strength over a posteriori as there is
always one defining conclusion. The Ontological Argument is a priori as it
declares that God is that than nothing greater can be conceived. The
argument also states that something that exists in reality and in the mind is
greater than something which exists merely in the mind. Therefore, God must
exist in reality as he is that which nothing greater can be conceived. God has
necessary existence as it is illogical to consider otherwise. Thus, there is not a
possibility of God not existing. The a priori nature of the argument relies on
deductive reasoning, appealing to the scientific community. As the argument is
a priori it is not contingent upon empirical evidence which could be found false
in the future, a weakness of a posteriori arguments.

Chinyere Hatton

While each argument has strengths to them, it is not possible to ignore their
weaknesses. For the Cosmological argument, I know the key weakness is the
lack of knowledge we have. Although humans are finding out new information
everyday, there is still so much we have to learn. I believe that it is nave for
humans to think that we can explain everything in the universe, while there is
still so much we have yet to learn and experience. Why must we strive to find
out about the existence of the universe, is it not enough that we are simply part
of it.
In a society where we rely on proof as a means of justification, the Ontological
argument falls short as there is not much evidence or a consensus for the
premise of the argument.
The Ontological Argument is not a useful argument is proving the existence of
God as simply because you imagine something existing, such as unicorns or
fairies or God, doesnt mean it does. Although the premise is logical, if you do
not agree with it the argument falls apart. While the arguments deductive
nature can be its strength, it also one of its weaknesses. If the premises of the
argument are true then the conclusion must also be true, hence if we accept
the premises of the ontological argument we call into logical contradiction if we
deny the existence of God. The assumption that existence is a predicate is also
a weakness. No evidence or consensus of the premise
Attempting to define something into existence

Evolution has taught society that complex organisms can be achieved through
the slow process of random genetic mutations, a concept supported by natural
selection. This is widely accepted and I perceive this as the largest flaw in the
Teleological argument. This concept of evolution nullifies the need for a
designer as evolution can be the blind watchmaker. Even if there was a
designer of the universe I think it is simplistic to think that there is only one
designer. Similar to a car needing more than one designer, the universe could
need more than one as well. This would support the concept of polytheism and
make monotheism inoperative.

Conclusion:

Chinyere Hatton

You might also like