DOCSLIB.ORG

2015 Paper Topics: Teleological Argument Arguments Against The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2015 Paper Topics: Teleological Argument Arguments Against The 2015 Paper Topics: Teleological Argument Arguments against the teleological argument Cosmological argument Reasons for accepting or rejecting the cosmological argument 25. (a) Give two pieces of evidence used to support the teleological argument. 4 The complexity of the human eye (1 mark). The eye is a famous example of a designed complex structure. It has many elaborate and interlocking parts, all dependent upon one another (1 mark). DNA structure (1 mark). Messages transmitted by DNA in the cell show “specified complexity” specified by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent designer (1 mark). The regularity of the seasons (1 mark). Everything in the universe has a purpose (1 mark). The position of the earth in the solar system is perfect for life to exist (1 mark). The apparent design and purpose 25. (b) (b) Explain why someone might disagree with the teleological argument. 5 David Hume’s criticisms Comparison between a watch and the natural world is wrong (1 mark). Mechanical cannot be compared to the living world (1 mark). There are lots of examples of bad design (1 mark). Analogies are only based on assumptions and not fact so are weak (1 mark). If the world needs an intelligent designer then so does the designer (1 mark). Design can come about by chance (1 mark). The analogy points to many gods being the designers (1 mark) not necessarily the monotheistic Christian God (1 mark). 26. (a) What are the main points of the cosmological argument? 3 First of five ways (motion) everything that moves is moved by something else (1 mark). This cannot be infinite or the movement would not have started in the first place (1 mark). There must be an ‘unmoved mover’ God (1 mark). Second of five ways (causality) everything has a cause (1 mark). There cannot be an infinite number of causes therefore there must be an ‘uncaused cause’ (1 mark). God is the First Cause (1 mark). Third of five ways (potentiality) nothing can come from nothing (1 mark). Something only comes into existence as a result of something that already exists (1 mark). There must be something with ‘necessary being’ that exists of itself –God (1 mark). 26. (b) “The cosmological argument proves the existence of God.” How far do you agree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer. 8 Agree Disagree The universe exists and everything that exists needs a The argument contains self-contradiction – it states that there are beginning/cause. Only God could be the cause of the universe. (2 no uncaused causes (1 mark) yet it also says that God does not mark). need a beginning (1 mark). God is a ‘necessary being’ that exists of itself. If God didn’t exist, We assume that because everything in our experience needs a nothing else would exist, as everything else is contingent on him. cause everything else must have a cause too (1 mark) but our (2 marks). experience is limited and may things may be able to exist without Infinite regress is impossible, so there must be a first cause (1 cause (1 mark). Quantum Physics suggests particles may be able mark) and as Aquinas said, “This all men know as God.” (1 mark) to just appear, so perhaps the singularity occurred spontaneously. Based on the belief that the universe is the best evidence for God. (2 marks) Something like the universe requires a creator God. Why does the universe need a beginning? If God can be without The argument points to a personal creator who chose to create cause, why can’t this be true of the universe itself? (1 mark). The the universe rather than something that is the result of pure universe may be going through an infinite number of expansions chance or even natural laws. and contractions. (1 mark) Christians might argue, given that our knowledge stops at the Big The argument is based on assumptions, therefore proves nothing. Bang, that God is the simplest explanation for the univers’s (1 mark) At most it shows it might be reasonable to believe in existence. God. (1 mark) 2016 Paper Topics: Existence of God Problem of Evil Teleological argument and arguments for or against 35. (a) Why are questions about the existence of God important for some people? 4 If God is real, people might want to connect with or know more about Him. If you decide God doesn’t exist it lets you get on with your life without fear of judgement. If God does exist you may need to take care to live in a way which pleases Him in order to get a good afterlife. Answering one ultimate question can help you with the others: if God is real there may also be an afterlife, creator, purpose to existence, etc. Knowing that God exists might help people to find meaning, value or purpose in life. 35. (b) Explain one religious response to the problem of evil. 4 Some Christians would say Adam and Eve were tempted to eat the forbidden fruit. As part of their punishment for disobeying God they will experience suffering. For example, suffering and death. Suffering and evil is the result of humans deliberately choosing to do ‘bad’ things. God wants us to have a loving relationship with him, but this can’t be forced we have to be free to choose. Freewill and the existence of human- caused suffering is necessary. Suffering can have a purpose, and is part of God’s big plan. It makes the human race appreciate the good. Suffering can be a test of faith. 36. (a) Explain the teleological argument. 4 Paley’s analogy of the watch says that If someone walking over a heath, stumbled against a stone and asked how it got there, they might say it had always been there – it had no purpose or reason. But if they found a watch they might say that its various parts show evidence of regularity and purpose, so there must be a watch maker. The universe, like the watch, shows evidence of regularity and purpose, eg the movement of the stars in the heavens, the seasons, wings for flying, eyes for seeing etc. This can only be the product of intelligent design, because things can’t order themselves. 36. (b) “The teleological argument provides complete proof of the existence of God.” To what extent do you agree? Give reasons for your answer. 8 Agree Disagree The fine-tuning observed in the universe, from the moment of the The laws of physics and Evolutionary Theory give a credible big bang means we have to infer a designer. The alternative, that alternative to belief in a designer. the universe is here by chance alone, stretches credulity, and if The order we see in nature exists only in our mind. It does not we apply Ockham’s Razor, the simplest explanation is surely that matter what universe we stayed in we would always think it was God must exist. perfect. (Kant) Where there is the appearance of design, there must be a Dawkins agrees the universe appears designed, but this finds a full designer. explanation when chance mutations meet the necessity of natural Replication in organisms requires genetic information, and selection. information requires intelligence. The first replicator, from which Even if the universe is perfect as the Teleological Argument says, all life evolved, needed information rich DNA, so this points to that does not prove that God created it. There might even have God as the source of the information. been a number of Gods creating it.(Hume) Irreducible complexity means that at the microscopic level, Evolution shows many examples of extinction of species, suffering biological machines like the bacterial flagellum need all of the and waste. It is incredible to think that this is by design, and it component parts to function. This would need to be designed in certainly doesn’t get you to the good God of traditional theism. its entirety and could not have evolved because the component parts would be useless to the organism on their own. 2017 Paper Topics: Belief in the teleological argument Arguments against the teleological argument The Cosmological argument evaluation 42. (a) Why might people believe the universe was designed by God? 6 The complexity of the world, shown in, eg the regularity of natural laws, must point to a designer. Life is too awe-inspiring and beautiful to be the result of chance. Things in the world show evidence of design for a purpose eg eyes for seeing, wings for flying etc. The universe is balanced perfectly to produce and sustain life, showing an all-powerful creator. It is not reasonable to believe that the debris from the Big Bang would form such complex things in the universe. The only logical explanation is an all-powerful God. The rise of life is contrary to physical law of entropy. The Theory of Evolution could be part of God’s plan. God used the mechanism of Evolution to create life. Genesis 1 and 2 explain that God created the world and all living things, and this is God’s word, therefore it can be trusted completely. 42. (b) How might people argue against the teleological argument? 6 There is no proof that the universe needs a designer, maybe it has always been there. There is evidence of bad design in the world, so perhaps this is down to chance rather than design. Natural disasters like earthquakes point to a bad designer rather than the God of traditional Theism. Comparisons used to explain the design argument are not appropriate.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Atheistic Argument from Ugliness
    AN ATHEISTIC ARGUMENT FROM UGLINESS SCOTT F. AIKIN & NICHOLAOS JONES Vanderbilt University University of Alabama in Huntsville Author posting. (c) European Journal of Philosophy of Religion 7.1 (Spring 2015). This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version is available at http://www.philosophy-of- religion.eu/contents19.html This is a penultimate draft. Please cite only the published version. Abstract The theistic argument from beauty has what we call an ‘evil twin’, the argument from ugliness. The argument yields either what we call ‘atheist win’, or, when faced with aesthetic theodicies, ‘agnostic tie’ with the argument from beauty. 1 AN ATHEISTIC ARGUMENT FROM UGLINESS I. EVIL TWINS FOR TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS The theistic argument from beauty is a teleological argument. Teleological arguments take the following form: 1. The universe (or parts of it) exhibit property X 2. Property X is usually (if not always) brought about by the purposive actions of those who created objects for them to be X. 3. The cases mentioned in Premise 1 are not explained (or fully explained) by human action 4. Therefore: The universe is (likely) the product of a purposive agent who created it to be X, namely God. The variety of teleological arguments is as broad as substitution instances for X. The standard substitutions have been features of the universe (or it all) fine-tuned for life, or the fact of moral action. One further substitution has been beauty. Thus, arguments from beauty. A truism about teleological arguments is that they have evil twins.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Aquinas' Argument from Motion & the Kalām Cosmological
    University of Central Florida STARS Honors Undergraduate Theses UCF Theses and Dissertations 2020 Rethinking Causality: Thomas Aquinas' Argument From Motion & the Kalām Cosmological Argument Derwin Sánchez Jr. University of Central Florida Part of the Philosophy Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the UCF Theses and Dissertations at STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Undergraduate Theses by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Sánchez, Derwin Jr., "Rethinking Causality: Thomas Aquinas' Argument From Motion & the Kalām Cosmological Argument" (2020). Honors Undergraduate Theses. 858. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/858 RETHINKING CAUSALITY: THOMAS AQUINAS’ ARGUMENT FROM MOTION & THE KALĀM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT by DERWIN SANCHEZ, JR. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Honors in the Major Program in Philosophy in the College of Arts and Humanities and in the Burnett Honors College at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2020 Thesis Chair: Dr. Cyrus Zargar i ABSTRACT Ever since they were formulated in the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas’ famous Five Ways to demonstrate the existence of God have been frequently debated. During this process there have been several misconceptions of what Aquinas actually meant, especially when discussing his cosmological arguments. While previous researchers have managed to tease out why Aquinas accepts some infinite regresses and rejects others, I attempt to add on to this by demonstrating the centrality of his metaphysics in his argument from motion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Teleological Argument Looks at the Purpose of Something and from That
    The teleological argument looks at the purpose of something and Cosmological arguments start with observations about the way The Third Way: contingency and necessity William Paley (1742 – 1805) observed that complex objects work from that he reasons that God must exist. Aquinas (1224 – 1274) the universe works and from there these try to explain why the with regularity, (seasons, gravity, etc). This order seems to be the gave five ‘ways’ of proving God exists and this, his teleological universe exists. Aquinas gives three versions of the cosmological Aquinas’ point here is that everything in the universe is result of the work of a designer who has put this regularity and arguments, starting with three different (although similar) argument, is the fifth of his five ways. contingent – it relies on something to have brought it into order into place deliberately and with purpose. For example, the observations: motion, causation and contingency. Aquinas, influenced by Aristotle, believed that all things have a existence and also things to let it continue to exist. eye is constructed perfectly to see. For Palely, all of this pointed to purpose, but we cannot achieve that purpose without something The First Way: the unmoved mover a designer, who is God. In nature, there are things that are possible ‘to be’ and to make it happen – some sort of guide, which is God. Inspired by Aristotle, Aquinas noticed that the ways in which things ‘not to be’ (contingent beings) The analogy of the watch move or change (changing state is a form of motion) must mean These things could not always have existed because that something has made that motion take place.
    [Show full text]
  • God and Design: the Teleological Argument and Modern Science
    GOD AND DESIGN Is there reason to think a supernatural designer made our world? Recent discoveries in physics, cosmology, and biochemistry have captured the public imagination and made the design argument—the theory that God created the world according to a specific plan—the object of renewed scientific and philosophical interest. Terms such as “cosmic fine-tuning,” the “anthropic principle,” and “irreducible complexity” have seeped into public consciousness, increasingly appearing within discussion about the existence and nature of God. This accessible and serious introduction to the design problem brings together both sympathetic and critical new perspectives from prominent scientists and philosophers including Paul Davies, Richard Swinburne, Sir Martin Rees, Michael Behe, Elliott Sober, and Peter van Inwagen. Questions raised include: • What is the logical structure of the design argument? • How can intelligent design be detected in the Universe? • What evidence is there for the claim that the Universe is divinely fine-tuned for life? • Does the possible existence of other universes refute the design argument? • Is evolutionary theory compatible with the belief that God designed the world? God and Design probes the relationship between modern science and religious belief, considering their points of conflict and their many points of similarity. Is God the “master clockmaker” who sets the world’s mechanism on a perfectly enduring course, or a miraculous presence continually intervening in and altering the world we know? Are science and faith, or evolution and creation, really in conflict at all? Expanding the parameters of a lively and urgent contemporary debate, God and Design considers the ways in which perennial questions of origin continue to fascinate and disturb us.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing and Strengthening Belief in God I
    DEVELOPING AND STRENGTHENING BELIEF IN GOD I First Cause (Cosmological) and Design (Teleological) Arguments he cornerstone of Jewish belief is that God created the universe ex nihilo with Tthe Torah as His Divine plan and that He continually guides and supervises His creation. Nevertheless, there are many people who do not share this belief, or at least question it. There is a need, therefore, to present a range of approaches to developing and strengthening belief in God. The traditional Jewish approach to belief in God is based on the Exodus from Egypt and hashgachah pratit (Divine Providence). These approaches are discussed in the Morasha classes on Passover, Torah M’Sinai, and Hashgachah Pratit. The goal of this series of classes is to present additional approaches to belief – those based on logic and science – to help strengthen one’s belief in God. Specifically, this series will present three arguments for the existence of God. The first class, after defining the aim of the series on the whole, will explore two deductive arguments for the existence of God, namely the First Cause or Cosmological Argument, and the Design or Teleological Argument. The second class in the series will explore the inductive approach, focusing on the Moral Argument. In order to help students digest the logical force of the arguments presented, the series will conclude with an exploration of the decision making process. In this first class we will explore the following questions: Where did the world come from? Does it make sense that the world always existed? What does modern science have to say about the subject? Does the design found in nature imply that there is a Divine Designer? Does the Theory of Evolution explain this phenomenon? 1 Core Beliefs DEVELOPING & STRENGTHENING BELIEF I Class Outline: Section I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Design Argument
    The design argument The different versions of the cosmological argument we discussed over the last few weeks were arguments for the existence of God based on extremely abstract and general features of the universe, such as the fact that some things come into existence, and that there are some contingent things. The argument we’ll be discussing today is not like this. The basic idea of the argument is that if we pay close attention to the details of the universe in which we live, we’ll be able to see that that universe must have been created by an intelligent designer. This design argument, or, as its sometimes called, the teleological argument, has probably been the most influential argument for the existence of God throughout most of history. You will by now not be surprised that a version of the teleological argument can be found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. You will by now not be surprised that a version of the teleological argument can be found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas is noting that things we observe in nature, like plants and animals, typically act in ways which are advantageous to themselves. Think, for example, of the way that many plants grow in the direction of light. Clearly, as Aquinas says, plants don’t do this because they know where the light is; as he says, they “lack knowledge.” But then how do they manage this? What does explain the fact that plants grow in the direction of light, if not knowledge? Aquinas’ answer to this question is that they must be “directed to their end” -- i.e., designed to be such as to grow toward the light -- by God.
    [Show full text]
  • Gce a Level Marking Scheme
    GCE A LEVEL MARKING SCHEME SUMMER 2018 A LEVEL RELIGIOUS STUDIES - COMPONENT 2 PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION A120U20-1 © WJEC CBAC Ltd. INTRODUCTION This marking scheme was used by WJEC for the 2018 examination. It was finalised after detailed discussion at examiners' conferences by all the examiners involved in the assessment. The conference was held shortly after the paper was taken so that reference could be made to the full range of candidates' responses, with photocopied scripts forming the basis of discussion. The aim of the conference was to ensure that the marking scheme was interpreted and applied in the same way by all examiners. It is hoped that this information will be of assistance to centres but it is recognised at the same time that, without the benefit of participation in the examiners' conference, teachers may have different views on certain matters of detail or interpretation. WJEC regrets that it cannot enter into any discussion or correspondence about this marking scheme. © WJEC CBAC Ltd. Marking guidance for examiners, please apply carefully and consistently: Positive marking It should be remembered that candidates are writing under examination conditions and credit should be given for what the candidate writes, rather than adopting the approach of penalising him/her for any omissions. It should be possible for a very good response to achieve full marks and a very poor one to achieve zero marks. Marks should not be deducted for a less than perfect answer if it satisfies the criteria of the mark scheme. Exemplars in the mark scheme are only meant as helpful guides.
    [Show full text]
  • Original Monotheism: a Signal of Transcendence Challenging
    Liberty University Original Monotheism: A Signal of Transcendence Challenging Naturalism and New Ageism A Thesis Project Report Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Divinity in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Ministry Department of Christian Leadership and Church Ministries by Daniel R. Cote Lynchburg, Virginia April 5, 2020 Copyright © 2020 by Daniel R. Cote All Rights Reserved ii Liberty University School of Divinity Thesis Project Approval Sheet Dr. T. Michael Christ Adjunct Faculty School of Divinity Dr. Phil Gifford Adjunct Faculty School of Divinity iii THE DOCTOR OF MINISTRY THESIS PROJECT ABSTRACT Daniel R. Cote Liberty University School of Divinity, 2020 Mentor: Dr. T. Michael Christ Where once in America, belief in Christian theism was shared by a large majority of the population, over the last 70 years belief in Christian theism has significantly eroded. From 1948 to 2018, the percent of Americans identifying as Catholic or Christians dropped from 91 percent to 67 percent, with virtually all the drop coming from protestant denominations.1 Naturalism and new ageism increasingly provide alternative means for understanding existential reality without the moral imperatives and the belief in the divine associated with Christian theism. The ironic aspect of the shifting of worldviews underway in western culture is that it continues with little regard for strong evidence for the truth of Christian theism emerging from historical, cultural, and scientific research. One reality long overlooked in this regard is the research of Wilhelm Schmidt and others, which indicates that the earliest religion of humanity is monotheism. Original monotheism is a strong indicator of the existence of a transcendent God who revealed Himself as portrayed in Genesis 1-11, thus affirming the truth of essential elements of Christian theism and the falsity of naturalism and new ageism.
    [Show full text]
  • Evil and the Ontological Disproof
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 9-2017 Evil and the Ontological Disproof Carl J. Brownson III The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2155 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] EVIL AND THE ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF by CARL BROWNSON A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, City University of New York 2017 1 © 2017 CARL BROWNSON All Rights Reserved ii Evil and the Ontological Disproof by Carl Brownson This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date Graham Priest Chair of Examining Committee Date Iakovos Vasiliou Executive Officer Supervisory Committee: Stephen Grover, advisor Graham Priest Peter Simpson Nickolas Pappas Robert Lovering THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii ABSTRACT Evil and the Ontological Disproof by Carl Brownson Advisor: Stephen Grover This dissertation is a revival of the ontological disproof, an ontological argument against the existence of God. The ontological disproof, in its original form, argues that God is impossible, because if God exists, he must exist necessarily, and necessary existence is impossible. The notion of necessary existence has been largely rehabilitated since this argument was first offered in 1948, and the argument has accordingly lost much of its force.
    [Show full text]
  • Robin Le Poidevin, ARGUING for ATHEISM: an INTRODUCTION to the PHILOSOPHY of RELIGION
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 16 Issue 2 Article 14 4-1-1999 Robin Le Poidevin, ARGUING FOR ATHEISM: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION Andrew Eshleman Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Eshleman, Andrew (1999) "Robin Le Poidevin, ARGUING FOR ATHEISM: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 16 : Iss. 2 , Article 14. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil199916231 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol16/iss2/14 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. 272 Faith and Philosophy the materialist paradigm, at least with regard to the probJem of continu­ ity between the inorganic and the organic. Griffin might have strength­ ened his thesis by discussing and offering his reasons for rejecting the current work in theoretical biology. Second, for most of us the panexperimentalist solution is so radical that it is hard to imagine what kind of sentience is spread throughout the universe. For example, it is much easier to think of such conditions arising on Earth, but what about the sentience that forms the basis of the nuclear-fusion reactions of the sun, the magma of volcanic eruptions or the vast regions of empty space? In this connection, I doubt many will be persuaded by Griffin's insistence on the distinction between true individuals and aggregational composites of such individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Argument's for God's Existence Kant's Criticisms O
    Kant’s Arguments for God’s Existence Introduction Background: Three Argument’s for God’s Existence Kant’s criticisms of these three arguments Ground vs. Cause: Kant’s reason for rejecting constructive proofs of God’s existence Kant’s first argument for God’s existence: God’s existence as the foundation of causal explanation Kant’s second argument for God’s existence: Natural orderliness as being grounded in the coherence of God’s mind Kant’s third argument for God’s existence: morality as grounded in the coherence of God’s mind Kant’s arguments for God as transcendental arguments Introduction Kant puts forth three arguments for God’s existence---or, what might be more accurate, three very different versions of a single such argument. Each is original and none has any obvious flaws. This is not to say that they prove what they are meant to prove, only that, if they fail to do so, it is not immediately clear why. Background: Three Argument’s for God’s Existence When philosophers try to prove God’s existence, it is almost always by way of one of the following three arguments: the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument. Kant rejects each of these arguments, and his own arguments are to be understood in terms of this fact. Right now, I will state and evaluate these arguments, and then I will state and evaluate Kant’s arguments. The ontological argument: God is by definition perfect; failure to exist is an imperfection; therefore, God must exist. Analysis: This argument is a total failure, since all it shows is the truism is that if God existed, then, having as he would every conceivable perfection, he would exist— since, in other words, all it shows is that if God existed, then God would exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant on the Cosmological Argument
    Philosophers’ volume 14, no. 12 Introduction may 2014 Imprint In the section of the first Critique entitled “The Ideal of Pure Reason,” Kant constructs an elaborately layered critique of the so-called “cos- mological proof” of the existence of God.1 He portrays the cosmologi- cal argument (as I shall more neutrally term it) as having three main phases.2 First, one observes that there is at least one existent being, and argues that it exists contingently (28: 1006). Second, appealing to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, one argues for the existence of Kant on the an absolutely necessary being as the ultimate cause (A 605/B 633n*) or ground (28: 1006) of this contingently existing being. Third, one argues that this absolutely necessary being is a most real being — or ens realissimum (A 605–6/B 633–34). In “The Ideal,” Kant presents Cosmological Argument this third step as drawing the argument to a close (A 606/B 634). But, judging by his discussion in the Religion Lectures, he sometimes con- ceives of the argument as intended to be completed by a sort of coda in which one argues that the absolutely necessary being, since it is an ens realissimum, must possess each of the traditional “divine attributes.”3 Kant raises three main objections to this version of the cosmologi- cal argument. First, it “presupposes” the correctness of the ontological argument in the sense, apparently, of tacitly incorporating the onto- logical argument as a proper part (A 607/B 635; A 608–9/B 636–7). Second, it commits an ignoratio elenchi, a fallacy of arguing for some- thing other than what was at issue (A 609/B 637).
    [Show full text]