God and the World The whole topic is looking at two different approaches throughout. The existence of the world points to the existence of God The world as we know it is incompatible with a God For Design We look at the world with awe and wonder. It could be random but we see that it has consistency, predictability and things work together and it has purpose. Fine Tuning argument. Cosmologists argue that the conditions for this life are improbable (F.R.Tennant) One slight variation and we would not be here, therefore the very fact that we are here is an argument for God. Natural selection could be part of the process. Paley – Watch analogy Natural selection. Through millions of alterations it may give the appearance of design. ‘shifting the goal posts’ Flew may claim that this is ‘death by a thousand qualifications’ In that the theist is trying to justify the existence of a God Hume- Earth is not a machine. The world is more organic. Evolutionary biologists may argue against intelligent design eg lungs; initially they were unimportant air bladders in fish. Intelligent Design – Michael Behe (biochemist) Talks of irreducible complexity – if the removal of one thing stops it from working then it suggests this has been planned. From Design Moving on from Paley ‘like effects have like causes’ This can point to a designer. Hume claims that the effects aren’t the same therefore we can’t point to the same causes. This could point to anthropomorphism. Also the universe could be infinitely old and so over time all possible combinations of matter will occur. Big Bang - Some may say that it is 13.8 billion yrs old. Also actual infinites do not exist because it is illogical so the universe could not be infinitely old. Does a designer also have to be a creator? Some may say there is design but Hume would argue that this does not necessarily point to God as the creator. The nature of God is questioned. How can we look at a finite world and point to an infinite creator? Some say that ‘God’ cannot be the simplest explanation because of a dysteleological argument: J.S. Mill – Evil and suffering. Even if you point to a designer it doesn’t have to be God (Hume) Swinburne sees that this may not point to ‘God’ and so offers Occam’s (Ockham) razor. Claiming that God is the simplest explanation. Probability: Inductive argument. Is it more probable that things were designed than not and so God is the best explanation. All scientific explanations presuppose ‘laws’. Problem of Evil Theodicies: Irenaean, Augustinian, Hick (Vale of Soul making), A.N.Whitehead and Process theodicy - God is not omnipotent He is part of the created process. God cannot be all powerful, all knowing, all loving and yet allow evil to exist.(In this section it is important to be able to apply this to life) Is religion just perception? No Verificationism – If it is not making truth statements then it is meaningless - A.J.Ayer, if a statement cannot be proven empirically and it is not an analytic statement then it is meaningless. Yes Seeing as: Religious belief is a ‘seeing as’ ; perception and interpretation. language games: Religious belief is part of a ‘form of life’. Part of religious life therefore language games are the spoken part of the ‘form of life’. Wittgenstein explained that we can only understand language in terms of its context. If you are outside of the language game you will not understand the meaning of the language. bliks, R.M Hare eg Lunatic don. anti realist approach: we are not talking about making universal truth statements, just subjective meaning. Natural Theology – ‘Belief that’ Religious belief is not merely an attitude it is revealed truth through special and general revelation.