Plato's Design Argument Analysis
Andrew Baker
Corey Miller
Phil-P 100
September 16, 2014
God’s existence
The issue that I shall be addressing is whether a certain objection to a theistic explanation of God’s existence can be sustained. In this paper, the objection in question is advanced mostly by naturalists, and the thrust of it is that theists cannot provide a satisfactory account of God’s existence based on causality because occasional philosophical questions arise concerning the truth of the premises. After carefully setting out naturalist’s objections, I shall suggest that naturalists have overlooked an important resource available to theists – namely, the use of faith in God supported with causality and scientific knowledge in support of His existence. Therefore, …show more content…
He was considered very athletic and taught a variety of subjects including mathematics, philosophy, and gymnastics. His last dialogue, The Laws, his story characters attempt to prove the existence of Gods (Nagasawa, 116). One passage in particular is a version of the design argument. This argument states that the beauty and ordered structure of nature have the potential to prove God’s existence. This reminds me of how perfectly set the earth is from the sun or how water is necessary for all life on earth. Plato’s cosmological argument basically says the entire sequence of motion in the universe must spring from some initial principle (Nagasawa, 118). Plato’s argument would later be revived by Thomas Aquinas as the first of his ‘Five Ways’ to prove God’s existence (Mallett, 20). Aquinas would first use what Aristotle contributed to …show more content…
Naturalists believe that something can come from nothing. They believe that only physical laws (natural laws) are the only forces that operate the world. This is not possible to theism. Naturalism cannot prove God’s existence unsound based on Aquinas argument from motion therefore, God’s existence is still plausible. Things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent on something uncaused or God (Machuga, 224). Aquinas second proof is argument from efficient cause. The argument starts by stating there is an efficient cause for everything. Nothing can be an efficient cause of itself. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes (Harris, 44). To take away the cause is to take away the effect. If there is no first cause then there will be no others (Harris, 45). Clearly Aquinas argues for an Efficient Cause. It indicates that each prior cause must itself have its own cause leading to God as the Efficient Cause (Harris, 45). His “Third proof” is the argument from
Corey Miller
Phil-P 100
September 16, 2014
God’s existence
The issue that I shall be addressing is whether a certain objection to a theistic explanation of God’s existence can be sustained. In this paper, the objection in question is advanced mostly by naturalists, and the thrust of it is that theists cannot provide a satisfactory account of God’s existence based on causality because occasional philosophical questions arise concerning the truth of the premises. After carefully setting out naturalist’s objections, I shall suggest that naturalists have overlooked an important resource available to theists – namely, the use of faith in God supported with causality and scientific knowledge in support of His existence. Therefore, …show more content…
He was considered very athletic and taught a variety of subjects including mathematics, philosophy, and gymnastics. His last dialogue, The Laws, his story characters attempt to prove the existence of Gods (Nagasawa, 116). One passage in particular is a version of the design argument. This argument states that the beauty and ordered structure of nature have the potential to prove God’s existence. This reminds me of how perfectly set the earth is from the sun or how water is necessary for all life on earth. Plato’s cosmological argument basically says the entire sequence of motion in the universe must spring from some initial principle (Nagasawa, 118). Plato’s argument would later be revived by Thomas Aquinas as the first of his ‘Five Ways’ to prove God’s existence (Mallett, 20). Aquinas would first use what Aristotle contributed to …show more content…
Naturalists believe that something can come from nothing. They believe that only physical laws (natural laws) are the only forces that operate the world. This is not possible to theism. Naturalism cannot prove God’s existence unsound based on Aquinas argument from motion therefore, God’s existence is still plausible. Things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent on something uncaused or God (Machuga, 224). Aquinas second proof is argument from efficient cause. The argument starts by stating there is an efficient cause for everything. Nothing can be an efficient cause of itself. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes (Harris, 44). To take away the cause is to take away the effect. If there is no first cause then there will be no others (Harris, 45). Clearly Aquinas argues for an Efficient Cause. It indicates that each prior cause must itself have its own cause leading to God as the Efficient Cause (Harris, 45). His “Third proof” is the argument from