DESCRIPTION OF INTERACTIVE
Key Proponents: Plato, Aristotle.
Though they often disagreed, one principle of philosophy on which Plato and Aristotle agreed was that existence and the universe required a First Cause or Prime Mover - a god of some kind.
Their argument was basically as follows.
Every finite and dependent being has a cause.
Nothing finite and dependent can cause itself.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, there must be a First Cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect.
To conclude,what else could it be, other than a god?
Counter-Arguments.
The cosmological argument contains a logical fallacy: circular reasoning. In other words, the argument relies on itself to be true. Specifically, the First Cause necessarily had no preceding cause. Yet, where is the proof of this other than rationalizing? This is not to suggest the argument is wrong; however, it does leave itself open to some essential critical questions.
Another is that being a First Cause doesn't necessarily mean that the First Cause is a Being (sentient, self-aware and/or alive). It is just as possible that the Big Bang singularity randomly sprang into existence without method, reason, or purpose.
Key Proponent: St. Anselm.
This argument is favoured by rationalists because it requires no external experimentation or proof - only reasoning. Although it has changed, the original idea put forth by St. Anselm argues that a Supreme Being exists because you can imagine that a Supreme Being exists. In short, Anselm states that if we can imagine a perfect, flawless being, with our imperfect minds, then that perfect, flawless being must also exist in reality, or else where would we have gotten the idea that such perfection was possible?
One of the biggest concerns with ontological arguments is that they rely on certain presumptions, often the existence of a Supreme Being as one of them. Anselm is committing an ‘a priori’ (definition: Knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences.) argument - suggesting that there must be something rather than nothing. However, it is not impossible to imagine nothing existing a priori, including God.
Key Proponent: Thomas Aquinas.
The word teleology comes from telos, which means "purpose" or "goal." The idea is that it takes a "purposer" to have purpose, and so, where we see things obviously intended for a purpose, we can assume that those things were made for a reason. In other words, a design implies a designer.
In other words, Aquinas argues that there is no way that the universe could have been created by chance and not design - therefore, there must a Supreme Being: a designer.
Counter-Arguments.
Complexity does not prove conscious design.
As complex as humans are, evolution states that humanity evolved from simpler organisms over the course of millions of years. If that is the case, why were humans not made perfect from the onset? Why are we not perfect now?
Key Proponents: Leibniz and Spinoza.
According to Leibniz in his Monadology, since we know that the mind and the body exist, it only ‘makes sense’ that something must be causing the two to interact. God then, must act as a conduit through which the mind and body can interact. God is the invisible glue that binds them together.
Another variation comes from Spinoza, who argued that ‘everything is God,’ so there is no mind-body problem since they are both aspects of the same thing. That means, that everything, from you to your cat to the moon, is simply an aspect of God.
The greatest concern surrounding the mind-body problem is that most arguments rely on God in order to work. This assumption is a logical fallacy known as begging the question (also circular reasoning). In other words, if you take out God as a support, the argument cannot sustain itself.