Paste your essay in here…Part A #1
The subject of God seems to have been, and always will be one of debate. Many believe in a higher power and have arguments to support their claim. One of which is the cosmological argument. The main idea behind this case is that if the universe itself exists, there has to be a force that created it. The universe must have something to depend on. That something would be God. Thomas Aquinas is the philosopher most associated with the cosmological argument. He gives 5 arguments as to why God exists:
1. Change: All things that are in motion must be moved by something else. There must be a first mover (God).
2. Causation: There is an order of causes that come from something else, nothing causes itself. There must have been a first efficient cause, or the order would not exist
3. Contingency: It is impossible for there to have been a time when nothing existed, because things cannot exist without a push. Therefore, if there was nothing then, there would be nothing now. There must be something that is necessary in itself to support dependent beings.
4. Degrees of Excellence: We apply degrees of excellence to things (better, worse). Therefore, there must be something that is in the highest degree, a perfect being from which these things are caused (God).
5. Harmony: It seems that chance is not enough. Nature has a harmony that must be guided by something with enough intelligence to guide it. It could not perform on its own.
Just as there are supporters of the arguments, there will also be critics. Paul Edwards is the cosmological critic. One of his points asks why everything must have a cause. He mentions that particles could have started something. This in itself was an issue, for physicists explain that this is controversial. Edwards also questions why an infinite regress of causes is impossible if we have infinite series in mathematics. He also states that using an infinite being to explain the world is pointless since the being also needs explaining. Edwards even goes on to say that a being is a necessity makes little sense.
The next argument is teleological. This centers on the idea that the world shows signs of having an intellectual purposefulness, therefore there must be a divine being who created and planned our universe. William Paley is known for supporting this argument through his analogy of a watch and its maker. He describes the craftsmanship of the watch and all its parts. Due to its complexity, it is unlikely to have been created naturally; it must have been designed. He compares this to our creation. Here is a look at his argument’s outline:
1. Human objects are created with a purpose by its designer
2. The universe resembles our creations
3. Therefore, the likelihood of the universe coming from an intelligent design is high
4. The universe however, is larger and more intricate than anything we can create
5. Therefore, there is a high possibility that the universe has an intelligent, all-powerful designer
Hume is one of the most popular critic for this argument. He attacks it in multiple ways. The first deals with the comparison of the universe to inanimate objects. He believes that they are so different that Paley’s analogy is unfitting. While I see both sides, one could argue that they are similar due to the complex designs that must go into both in order for them to function. Hume also points out that our would has many errors, which would mean that the designer was flawed. Another important critique he makes is that we have no universe to compare ours to, how can we be certain that it was designed and not a result of chance? Paley pointed out a shortcoming in this critique, for if we find something with a purpose in nature, that is enough to conclude there is a possibility of a designer without a need for comparison.
The third argument is the ontological argument. This is a priori argument that rests on the grounds that it can be known to be true while being free of world experiences. This argument was created by the archbishop of Canterbury, St. Anselm. He begins his argument by explaining the difference between something being in an understanding, and understanding the existence of it. This means things can exist solely in our minds, or they can exist both in mind and reality. St. Anselm believes that God is the best possible thing that our minds can conjure. The only thing that could improve it, is if God existed. However, if we are envisioning the highest thing imaginable, nothing can be greater; therefore, God must exist.
Guanilo was Anselm’s first critic, stating that his reasoning is false when applying it to topics other than God. He proves his point by applying Anselm’s argument to the concept of a nonexistent island that is considered the best. If nothing can top the imaginary island, it must exist, for that could be the only improvement. While Guanilo’s argument makes sense, its shortcoming was applying an argument meant for God to something else. Anselm was quick to call him out on this, stating that the argument only works when applied to necessary beings (God).
While many believe in a higher being, many also argue against it, the major argument being the very existence of evil. This is a major argument due to God being seen as omnibenevolent and omnipotent yet permitting evil to survive. If he is truly these things why is there a world with evil in it; can he not simply lessen or erase evil from the equation?
Many philosophers who back this argument follow similar guidelines that go like this:
1. The existence of God, would mean the inability for evil to exist
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore, God cannot exist
The main critique against this argument is that of free-will. Theists explain that because we were created with free-will, God cannot prevent us from becoming and/or acting evil; it is our choice. While this is a sensible argument, it leaves room for recoil. For example, what about natural evil? Theists respond two ways, claiming it is the work of the devil or that it is part of the nature of things. This also has room for backlash, would an all-powerful God not be able to overpower these forces?
Part B, #3
The thought experiment known as “the Ship of Theseus” is one that centers around the topic of identity (what keeps us the same over time). This experiment has two different scenarios that each question identity in their own way. The first situation begins with Theseus’ original ship. His ship has all its original planks, sails, etc. His ship however has rotting planks; therefore, he begins to replace the planks over a period of time. If he replaces one plank is it sill his ship? What if he replaces multiple parts of the ship? If he replaces all the parts over a span of time, is it still the same ship? If not, at what point did that change? The second scenario is a little different, it questions what happens when the original planks are taken to build an entirely new ship. Would this new ship built from the original planks be considered Theseus’ ship? At the end of the thought experiment, the question remains, which of the two ships would be considered Theseus’ ship; the ship with the replaced parts, or the ship created from the original parts?
According to John Locke, in order to understand what makes a person the same person over time, you must first understand what a person is. He states that a person is a thinking intellectual that has the ability to reason, reflect and recognize itself. His explanation as to what keeps us the same people over time is very centered around the idea of our consciousness and our souls. He believes that as long as the consciousness can be extended to any past or future action, it is the same person. Even if the consciousness is in a different substance, as long as it can repeat the idea of past actions and acknowledge itself, it is the same person. He explains that there are possibilities of losing memories, therefore it could technically be a different person. However, he would still address it as the same person. Locke explains that while our bodies are part of ourselves, if you cut off your hand, it is no longer part of your consciousness, therefore our matter can be changed while our identity remains. He also gives the example of the prince’s consciousness entering the body of the cobbler. While the cobbler may seem to be the same person, in reality, he is really a different man. Therefore, it is ultimately our consciousness and our souls that determine if we are the same person over time.
There are a few areas in which Locke’s work runs into issues. His work is very centered around past memories. As mentioned in the book, what if someone has partial amnesia, are they no longer the same person during these moments of memory loss? I don’t remember anything under the age of 5, does this mean that I was a different person? While he briefly mentions memory loss, he doesn’t really elaborate on what it means for our identity. He also fails to address people with multiple personalities who each have separate memories. He also focuses on consciousness and being aware of our self, therefore what happens when we pass out or when we are asleep? Do we become different people? While I agree with many of Locke’s points, he had multiple holes in his argument as to what keeps us the same people over time.
David Hume takes on a very different approach to the idea of identity. He states that the concept of self and the notion of a soul is a misconception. Hume explains that because our consciousness is always changing, the concept that a constant impression gives us our idea of self does not hold up. He states that what we refer to as “self” is nothing more than the ever-changing perceptions such as happiness, anger, pain, etc. that we had and continue to experience. Hume compares our mind to a theater that has multiple perceptions performing at once. He believes that identity comes from our nature to imagine something connecting these different perceptions/experiences that may seem similar but are different. The object’s perceptions and parts are connected by resemblance and causation, not by something uninterrupted. Hume gives the example of the ship and how all the materials can change, yet in the end it is the same ship through the transition of the imagination. He gives similar examples with an oak tree and an infant becoming a man. Hume stood by the notion that there is a consciousness of a continuation of experiences but not of an ongoing self.
There are a few critiques of Hume’s work, one of which being his denial of self. How would we think, be aware, and have our imaginations without a sense of self? Many who challenge him on this, such as Thomas Reid, who argued that if we are capable of such thought, that it must come from a higher place. The concept of “self” must exist. He also states that our constant impressions are what give us this false sense of self, for there is no uninterrupted consciousness. However, we are always feeling something, this is something that is uninterrupted, therefore could our identity lie in these constantly changing perceptions?
When I first reviewed the thought experiment known as Theseus’ ship, it was not one that I had to contemplate, the response came fairly easy to me. The answer that I felt made the most sense was that the original ship with the replaced parts would still be considered his ship. Regardless of the fact that all the planks were replaced, I believe that it is still his ship. Locke touches on this when he mentions the consciousness of the prince in a separate body. Hume addresses the ship itself stating that it would remain the same ship. When people get plastic surgery, or organ transplants, they are still considered to be the same person. Therefore, why would replacing the ship’s parts be any different?