Beyond the 20 Arguments for God

I should first begin with a disclaimer that this will , inevitably , be a long entry . Some of these are just a reproduction for they are , in my opinion , already superbly succinct . Some will be admittedly flawed , but everyone perceives ideas differently and so , i decided to include everything . Picked apart , the following arguments may merely proclaim strength of probability of the existence of God , but when all twenty are assembled together and intertwined ( hence , a certain redundancy in some arguments ) , although some may find it difficult to get their heads around them (especially if you try to digest them in one night) , they do formulate a very convincing case . As for interrupting questions , do have the patience to complete the entry as you may find your answers , as i did , included somewhere later .

 

 

(1) The Argument from Change

We all understand that our world is always changing . As someone once said , the only constant is change . For example , we all don’t stay as kids (physically at least) . When something comes to be in a certain state , that state cannot bring itself into being . Until it comes to be , that ‘ it ‘ does not exist , and if ‘ it ‘ does not yet exist , ‘ it ‘ cannot cause anything . For the matter being changed , although it can be what it will become , it is not yet what it will become . It only has the potential for what it can be .

To explain change , can we consider the changing matter alone , or must other things be involved ? Obviously , the answer is the latter . Nothing can give itself what it does not have , and the changing matter cannot have now , already what it will come to have then . Matter only has the potential to change , but it needs the influence of other matters if that potential is to be actualized .

Our world is the sum of matter with the potential to change . If there is nothing outside this world , then there is nothing that can act on the world’s potential to change . But it does change . The universe is a sum of all matter , space and time which depend on each other . Therefore , this external cause is outside these three premises ; an unchanging source of change . To infer otherwise is to say that this external cause merely also has a potential and is dependent on something else to act upon it , which results in an absurd infinite series .

To ask ‘ If God made everything , then what made God ? ‘ is like asking ‘ who made circles square ? ‘ . It assumes a self-contradiction . That the uncreated creator is a created creature .

 

(2) The Argument from Efficient Causality

This is just an extension of the first argument . Every cause needs a cause . Everything is dependent on something . All things which are causing other things to be need a cause . Therefore , everything that exists stands in need of being caused to exist . Caused by what ? Beyond everything that is , there can only be nothing ? But that is absurd ; all of reality is dependent , but dependent on nothing ? So there must be an uncaused cause , something on which all things need an efficient cause of being are dependent .

Why do we need an uncaused cause ? Why isn’t there just an endless series of things mutually keeping each other in being ? Here , i like the following analogy : Think of a single drunk , unable to stand up alone . However , a group of drunks , supporting each other might be able to stand , and perhaps even move in a straight line .

align=”justify”>But here , we are presupposing the existence of a floor for the drunks to stand on , and even the presupposition of the existence of the drunks . Things have to exist before being mutually dependent . If something exists because something has to give it existence ( recall that everything cannot be dependent on nothing ) , then there must exist something whose being is not a gift . Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect . If there is no one who has the gift , the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers . If everyone had to borrow a book , but no one actually has it , that no one will ever get it . If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature , then the gift of existence cannot be passed down and we can never get it . But we do get it ; we do exist . Therefore , there must exist an uncaused cause to begin this chain . Otherwise , everything would need at the same time to be a given being but nothing could exist to give it . And that means that nothing would actually be .

(3) The Argument from Time & Contingency

1. We notice that things can both come into and go out of being ; for example , a tree grows from a tiny shoot and may flower brilliantly , but then it withers and dies .

2. Therefore , non-being is a real possibility .

3. This can be applied to all things that exist . That is , if everything was in the state on non-being , then nothing would exist .

4. If the universe began to exist , then all being must trace its origin to some moment in the past before which nothing literally existed .

5. But from nothing , nothing comes . So the universe could not have begun .

6. Suppose the universe never began . Then , for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history , all being had the in-built possibility not to be .

7. But if in an infinite time that possibility was never realized , then it could not have been a real possibility at all .

8. So there must exist something which has to exist , which cannot not exist . This sort of being is called necessary .

9. Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another . If derived from another , there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived , that is , an absolutely necessary being .

 

(4) The Argument from Degrees of Perfection

We notice and describe things with variations in certain ways . For example , shade of colors or intensity of light . Therefore , we arrange things in terms of more or less . Now , when we think of goodness of things , part of what we mean relates to what they are simply as beings . We apprehend at a deep but not necessarily conscious level that being is the source and condition of all value , finally and ultimately , being is better than non-being and that intelligent being is better than unintelligent being ; that being able to give and receive love is better than one that cannot ; that our way of being is better , richer and fuller than that of a stone or a flower .

But these degrees of perfection pertain to being and being is caused in finite creatures , then there must exist a “best” , a source and real standard of all perfections that we recognize belong to us as beings . This absolutely perfect being is God .

Some may argue that this argument assumes a ‘ better ‘ but aren’t all our judgments of comparative value merely subjective ? The very asking of the question answers it . The questioner would not have asked this unless he or she thought it was ‘ better ‘ to do so than not . You can speak subjectivism but you cannot live it .

 

(5) The Design Argument

This is also somewhat a summary of what i wrote in my previous entry on Intelligent Design :

1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility , both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others within themselves . Existence and co-existence display an intricately beautiful order .

2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design .

3. Not chance .

4. Therefore , the universe is the product of intelligent design .

5. Design comes only from a mind , a designer .

6. Therefore , the universe is the product of an intelligent designer .

To proclaim that this isn’t intelligible order and is the product of chance puts you in an awkward position . To say that something happened by chance is to say that it did not turn out as you would have expected , or that it turned out in a way in which we would not have expected . So , you are presupposing order , the only background that provides meaning to chance .

What if this ‘ order ‘ is just a product of our minds and perhaps this is not how reality really is ? This also puts you in an awkward position . To propose something for consideration is to think about it . So , by saying that reality could be a contradiction could be a contradiction in itself .

 

(6) The Kalam Argument

The Arabic word ‘ kalam ‘ means speech . It came to denote a certain type of philosophical theology which demonstrates that the world could not be infinitely old and therefore must have been created . Simplified , the progression is as follows :

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being .

2. The universe began to exist .

3. Therefore , the universe has a cause for its coming into being .

This is similar to arguments (1) and (2) , but here , i would like to focus on the second premise . Did the universe begin to exist ? If the universe never began , then it always was . If it always was , then it is infinitely old . If it is infinitely old , then an infinite amount of time would have to have elapsed before , say , today . But , in order to reach a certain infinite end , infinitely many steps would have to precede it . That is not possible , even in an infinite time , for there are infinite steps . Even the step just before the end cannot be achieved because an infinite number of steps precedes it .

So , either the present day has not been reached or the process of reaching it was not infinite . But obviously, the present day has been reached . So , the process of reaching it was not infinite . In other words , the universe began to exist which follows on to the third premise .

 

(7) The Argument from Contingency

The basic form is as follows :

1. If something exists , there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist .

2. The universe – the collection of beings in space and time – exists .

3. Therefore , there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist .

4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time .

5. Therefore , what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time .

To be dependent is to be contingent . You exist if something else right now exists . However , not everything can be like this . For then everything would need to be given being , but there would be nothing capable of giving it . There would not exist what it takes for anything to exist . So there must be something that does not exist conditionally ‘ something which does not exist only if something else exists ; something that exists in itself . Unlike changing material reality , there would be no distance , so to speak between what this thing is and that it is . Obviously , the collection of beings changing in space and time cannot be such a thing . Therefore , what it takes for the universe to exist cannot be identical with the universe itself or with part of the universe .

 

(8) The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole

This world is given to us as a dynamic , ordered system of many active component elements . Their natural properties are ordered to interact with each other in stable , reciprocal relationships which we call physical laws . From chemical valences of all basic elements to all particles with mass gravitating toward every other according to gravity .

In such an interconnected , interlocking , dynamic system , the active natural property of each component is defined by its relations with others and so presupposes the others for its own intelligibility and ability to act . Contemporary science reveals to us that our world-system is not merely an aggregate of many separate , unrelated laws , but rather a tightly interlocking whole , where relationship to the whole structures determines the parts .

In any such system as the above ( like our world ) , no component part or active element can be self-sufficient or self-explanatory . For any part presupposes all the other parts – the whole system already in place – to match its own relational properties . It can’t act unless the others are there to interact reciprocally with it . Any one part could be self-sufficient only if it were the cause of the whole rest of the system – which is impossible , since no part can act except in collaboration with the others .

Nor can the system as a whole explain its own existence , since it is made up of component parts and is not a separate being , on its own , independent of them . So neither the parts nor the whole are self-sufficient ; neither can explain the actual existence of this dynamically interactive system .

Therefore , the only sufficient possibility is something outside the system that acts as a reason for its existence as an operating whole .

 

(9) The Argument from Miracles

This argument seems only sufficient for those who actually believe in miracles :

1. A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God

2. There are numerous well-attested miracles .

3. Therefore , there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God

4. Therefore , God exists .

Here , there is a lot of need to discuss the prerequisites defining a miracle , and its settings , but for that purpose , i will dedicate an entire entry for miracles in itself in time .

For now , it is sufficient to ponder that there is not really a proof from miracles . If you see some event as a miracle , then the activity of God is seen in this event . There is a movement of the mind from this event to its proper interpretation as miraculous . And what gives impetus to its movement is not just the event itself , but the many factors surrounding it which invite , or seem to demand , such interpretation . In short , even those who claim not to believe in miracles seem to have an in-built belief in miracles in order to be able to reject them .

 

(10) The Argument from Consciousness

When we experience the tremendous order and or intelligibility in the universe , we are experiencing something intelligence can grasp . However , the universe is not itself intellectually aware . As great as the forces of nature are , they do not know themselves yet we know them and ourselves . These remarkable facts have given rise to a variation on the first argument for design :

1. We experience the universe as intelligible . This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence .

2. Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence , or the products of blind chance .

3. Not blind chance .

4. Therefore , the products of intelligence .

Again , here , we focus on the third premise . The view that everything , including our thinking and judging , belongs to one vast interlocking system of physical causes and effects , is termed naturalism . If naturalism is true , C.S. Lewis argued , then it seems to leave us with no reason for believing it to be true , for all judgments would equally and ultimately be the result of non-rational forces .

What we mean by ‘ blind chance ‘ is the way physical nature must ultimately operate if ‘ naturalism ‘ is true – void of any rational plan or guiding purpose . Is blind chance really the source of our intelligence ?

 

(11) The Argument from Truth

1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being

2. Truth resides in a mind

3. But the human mind is not eternal

4. Therefore , there must exist an eternal in which these truths reside

Those who are familiar with Augustine will recognize that these progressions came mainly from him . Sadly , there is too much about the theory of knowledge that needs to be said before this could work as a persuasive demonstration .

 

(12) The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God

This argument was originally made famous by Rene Descartes , and almost impossible to follow his scholastic vocabulary , but those who wish to do so may read his third Meditation . Here is a merely a summary attempting to simplify his argument :

1. We have many ideas of many things .

2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us .

3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God – an infinite , all-perfect being .

4. This idea could not have been cause by ourselves , because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect and no effect can be greater than its cause .

5. Therefore , the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God .

6. But only God himself has those qualities .

7. Therefore , God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him .

8. Therefore , God exists .

The most common argument against this is that there seems to be no need for an actually existing God to account for the existence of idea . All we need is the experience of things varying in degrees of perfection , and a mind capable of thinking away perceived limitations .

Here , my favorite argument of self-contradictory argument surfaces again . How can we think away limitations or imperfection unless we first recognize it as such ? And how can we recognize things as imperfect as such unless we already have some notion of infinite perfection ? To recognize things as imperfect or finite involves the possession of a standard in thought that makes the recognition possible .

Does that seem far-fetched ? It does not mean that toddlers spend their time pondering about God , but it does mean that , however late you use the standard , however long before it comes explicitly into consciousness , still , the standard must exist for you to use it . But where did that come from ? Not from your experience of yourself or the world that exists outside you for the idea of infinite perfection is already presupposed in our thinking about all these things and judging them imperfect .

 

(13) The Ontological Argument

This argument was first devised by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) . Most people who first hear it are tempted to dismiss it as an interesting riddle , but distinguished thinkers of every age , including our own , have risen to defend it . There is a lot to be said about this , and it is only popular in textbooks and professional journals . It is included not because it is conclusive or irrefutable , but for the sake of completeness .

1. It is greater (ontologically) for a thing to exist in the mind and reality that in the mind alone .

2. ” God ” means ” that than which a greater cannot be thought “

3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality .

4. Then a greater God could be thought ( namely , a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence ) .

5. But this is impossible , for God is ” that than which a greater cannot be thought “

6. Therefore , God exists in the mind and in reality .

If you must think of something as existing , you cannot think of it as not existing . But then you cannot deny that ‘ greater that than which a greater cannot be thought ‘ (GCB) exists ; for then you are thinking what you say cannot be thought – namely , that GCB does not exist .

 

(14) The Moral Argument

1. Real moral obligation is a fact . We are really , truly , objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil .

2. Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the ‘ religious ‘ one .

3. But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation .

4. Therefore , the ‘ religious ‘ view of reality is correct .

Most like to argue that moral obligation is subjective . The most common one takes the form of claiming that if an individual is brought up in an environment where bad is replaced with good , then the individual’s moral obligations are warped . Perhaps . But that is the subjective form of moral obligation . Just because that individual thinks something is right does not make it right despite his or her upbringing . Let’s take lying for an example . Almost no one or perhaps , no one at all , doesn’t lie . The same may be said about being lied to . It is certain that we are not comfortable with either , although the intensity of discomfort may differ between individuals . Is there really an influence from society that dictates such a response ? We are uncomfortable not because we were brought up to acknowledge that discomfort but because we already have an innate understanding , or at least the acknowledgment of that pain . Furthermore , by making such an argument , you are already presupposing the existence of objective moral obligation .

The next step is the confronting premise of involving atheism which i myself find slightly uncomfortable . Atheists never tire of telling us that we are the chance products of the motion of matter ; a motion which is purposeless and blind to every human striving . Can moral obligations really be rooted in a material motion blind to purpose ?

Suppose we say that it is rooted in nothing deeper than human will and desire . In that case , we have to moral standard against which human desires can be judged for every desire will spring from the same ultimate force – purposeless , pitiless matter . And what becomes of obligation ? According to this view , if i say that there is an obligation to feed the hungry , i would be stating a fact about my wants and desires and nothing else . I would be saying that i want the hungry to be fed , and that i choose to act on that desire . But this amounts to an admission that neither i nor anyone else is really obliged to feed the hungry – that in fact , no one has any real obligations at all . Therefore , the atheistic view of reality is not compatible with there being genuine moral obligation .

 

(15) The Argument from Conscience

Moral subjectivism is very popular today . So here is an argument which should prove easier as it does not presuppose moral objectivism . They always say that they believe that there are no universally binding moral obligations , that we must all follow our own conscience . Isn’t it remarkable that no one , even the most consistent subjectivist , believes that it is ever good for anyone to deliberately and knowingly disobey his or her own conscience ? However , that very admission alone is enough of a premise to prove the existence of God .

Now where did conscience get such absolute authority ? There are only four possibilities :

1. From something less than me ( nature ) .

2. From me ( individual ) .

3. From others equal to me ( society ) .

4. From something above me ( God ) .

To which we consider in order ,

1. How can i be absolutely obligated by something less than me – for example , by animal instinct or practical need for material survival ?

2. How can i obligate myself absolutely ? Am i absolute ? Do i have the right to demand absolute obedience from anyone , even myself ? And if i am the one who locked myself in this prison of obligation , i can also let myself out, thus destroying the absoluteness of the obligation which we admitted as our premise .

3. How can society obligate me ? What right do my equals have to impose their values on me ? Do a million human beings make relative an absolute ?

4. The only source left for absolute moral obligation is something superior to me .

This is not to say that we can never discover human moral goods unless we acknowledge that God exists . Obviously , we can . The question has merely been : which account of the way things really are best makes sense of the moral rules we all acknowledge – that of a believer or that of a non-believer .

We don’t need to be religious to see that the life of Francis of Assisi or Mother Theresa is an admirable way to operate . You need not be a theist to see it , but you do need to be a theist to see why .

 

(16) The Argument from Desire

1. Every natural , innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire .

2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time , nothing on earth , no creature can satisfy .

3. Therefore , there must exist something more than time , earth , and creatures , which can satisfy this desire .

4. This something is waht people call ‘ God ‘ and ‘ life with God forever ‘ .

Innate , natural desire consists of things like food , drink , sleep and etcetera . It is important to note that this is different from artificial desire ; things like flying as Superman does or the land of Oz . The difference is that natural desires come from within , from our nature , whereas artificial desire comes from without , from society , advertising or fiction . More importantly , however , is that natural desires are found in all of us but artificial ones vary from person to person . Furthermore , the existence of artificial desires does not necessarily mean that the desired object exists .

As Jean-Paul Satre admitted , ” there comes a time when one asks , even of Shakespeare , even of Beethoven , ‘ Is that all there is ? ‘ “

However , the only concept of God in this argument is the concept of that which transcends concepts , something ‘ no eye has seen , nor ear heard , nor the human heart conceived ‘ ( 1 Cor 2:9 ) .

C.S. Lewis summarizes : ” Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists . A baby feels hunger ; well , there is such thing as food . A duckling wants to swim ; well , there is such thing as water…If i find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy , the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world ” ( Mere Christianity , Book III , Chapter 10 , ‘ Hope ‘ ) .

 

(17) The Argument from Aesthetic Experience

There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach .

Therefore , there must be a God .

You either see this one or you don’t .

 

(18) The Argument from Religious Experience

Some sort of experience lies at the core of most people’s religious faith . It is difficult to state this argument deductively , but it might fairly be put as follows :

1. Many people of different eras and widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the ‘ divine ‘ .

2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience .

3. Therefore , there exists a ‘ divine ‘ reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced .

Does such experience prove that an intelligent Creator-God exists ? On the face of it this seems unlikely . For such a God does not seem to be the object of all experiences called ‘ religious ‘ . But still , he is the object of many . That is , many people understand their experience that way . The question is : are we to believe in them ?

Here , we take into account :

1. The consistency of these claims .

2. The character of those who make these claims .

3. The effects of these experiences have had in their own lives and the lives of others .

Suppose someone says to you : ‘ All these experiences are either the result of lesions in the temporal lobe or of neurotic repression . In no way do they verify the truth of some divine reality ‘ . You might think back over that enormous documentation of accounts and ask yourself if that may be right . ‘ No . Given this vast number of claims , and the quality of life of those who made them , it seems incredible that those who made the claims could have been so wrong about them , or that insanity or brain disease could cause such profound goodness and beauty ‘ .

It is impossible to lay down ahead of time how investigation into this record of claims and characters will affect all individuals but it is evidence and not something that can be simply ignored . Sometimes , in fact , i believe , very often , that record is not so much faced as dismissed with vivid trendy labels .

 

(19) The Common Consent Argument

1. Belief in God – that Being to whom reverence and worship are properly due – is common to almost all people of every era .

2. Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this profound element of their lives or they have not .

3. It is most plausible to believe that they have not .

4. Therefore , it is most plausible to believe that God exists .

It is conceivable that those who believe in an ultimate Being were and are deluded . But is it likely ? It seems far more likely that those who refuse to believe are the ones suffering from deprivation and delusion – like the tone-deaf person who denies the existence of music , or the frightened tenant who tells herself she doesn’t hear the cries of terror and distress coming from the street below and when the children awaken to the sounds , she dismisses them simply as the howling wind .

Majority does not equate to infallibility but can anyone offer a very persuasive explanation for religious belief , one that takes full account of the experience of all believers and shows that their experience is best explained as delusion and not insight ?

Some people inquire about the possibility of psychological explanations to account for religious belief . For example , that belief in God may be the result of childhood fears , or that it is merely a human projection of protection and fatherly comfort . It is interesting to note here that we seek psychological explanations only for ideas which we already know or presume to be false , not those we think to be true . We ask ‘ Why do you think black dogs are out to kill you ? Were you frightened by one when you were small ? ‘ but we never ask ‘ Why do you think black dogs aren’t out to kill you ? Did you have a nice black puppy once ? ‘ .

 

(20) Pascal’s Wager

This isn’t an argument at all , but it is something i’ve grown fond of . I have to insist that this wager may seem venal and purely selfish , but it is not meant to coerce belief ( that will defeat my purpose ) , rather , it should be an incentive for us to search for God , to study and restudy the arguments for and against the existence of Something , or Someone , who is the ultimate explanation of the universe and of my life .

As originally proposed by Pascal , the Wager assumes that logical reasoning by itself cannot decide for or against the existence of God ; there seem to be good reasons on both sides . Now since reason cannot decide for sure , and since the question is of such importance and beckons a decision , then we must wager if we cannot prove .

Let’s say you lay your bet on God , and it turns out that He does not exist , what do you lose ?

On the other hand , let’s say you place your bet against God , and you’re wrong and God does exist , you lose everything : God , eternity , heaven , infinite gain .

Let us assess the two cases . In other words , if you place your bet on God and you win , you win everything and if you lose , you lose nothing .

Where are you going to place your bet ?

The beauty of this is it’s potential to be reformulated to appeal to a higher moral motive but that is a story for another day .

 

 

 

At some point whilst reading this , i’m certain almost everyone would have asked the question ” But is this Something , is it really God ? A He and not a mere it ? “

It was some time ago when some one asked me ” Why do we call this thing ‘ God ‘ ? ” . Truth be told , i have pondered the question myself . I have even read up about the etymology of the word but there isn’t a single satisfactory answer . All i have obtained is the meaning of the word ‘ God ‘ but no one seems to explain why . But the real question is , does it really matter what we call Him ?

The proofs let us know that every moment , the being of the universe is the creative act of a Giver – a Giver transcending all material and spiritual limitations . Beyond that , they do not tell us much about what or who this Giver is – but they point in a very definite direction . Reason at least lets us know that ‘ someone did it ‘ . He may remain a mystery , perhaps as a necessity so we continue to ask , but the point is that the first step is the conviction of such an existence .

I could go on and talk about defending the rationality of the bible , and hence the reason for the name ‘ God ‘ , but frankly , i don’t see such a need…yet .

I was initially hesitant about spending so many nights / mornings typing this up as i am not a particular fan of most of these arguments . I have just summarized , perhaps not so effectively , at least about 40 pages worth of a book , but still , i have always believed that the ultimate proof of the existence of God does not exist within these arguments , but rather , within ourselves . It should not simply be a knowledge we feed ourself , but rather , a knowledge that wells up from within . As the late pope John Paul II , when he was still Karol Wojtyla , said ,

” We shouldn’t start with the proofs of God’s existence , but with a reflection of man’s deep and radical solitude “