DOES GOD EXIST?

1. DOES GOD EXIST?

2. In asking, “Does God exist?” we must first ask what this question means. In context we mean, “Is there an existing or ontological reality to which theists refer, or do theists refer only to a conceptual reality? For Christians, the most important question is not whether or not a god of some sort exists, but whether or not the biblical God exists. THE VALUE OF ARGUMENTS FOR GOD

3. The Bible is not primarily concerned to demonstrate that some sort of God exists, but to explicate exactly what sort of God exists and how one can know that God. The arguments for God’s existence are not necessarily fundamental to one’s experience of God. THE VALUE OF ARGUMENTS FOR GOD

4. They are rational in character. Many of life’s most important decisions are not based merely on rational reflection. These arguments are subject to interpretation. They can do no more than point to probability. They do not necessarily lead one to the biblical God. They cannot reveal the one true God in a polytheistic culture. THE VALUE OF ARGUMENTS FOR GOD

5. They can reinforce a Christian’s belief. They can remove obstacles to faith. They can create a sense of crisis in one investigating the Christian Gospel. THE VALUE OF ARGUMENTS FOR GOD

6. Teleological Cosmological Pragmatic Ontological TYPES OF THEISTIC ARGUMENTS

7. Teleological (from the Greek word telos)arguments for God’s existence are based upon the observation of order and/or design in the universe. • Arguments from Order • Arguments from Design Teleological Arguments

8. Order arguments contend that order is apparent in the universe, thus there must be an orderer. Design arguments note that non-conscious things often seem to work toward a purpose. Purpose cannot be the result of impersonal causes. Teleological Arguments

9. “The power of this argument is best seen by taking seriously its opposite hypothesis, that there is no cause of order. For then one is attributing the order to chance, which in the long run still would leave the order unexplained” (The Living God, 144). THOMAS ODEN ON Teleological ARGUMENTS

10. To say that order occurs by chance is to say either: (1) that we are unable to ascertain what the cause is while nonetheless affirming that some cause must exist; or (2) that there is no cause and that orderly events in nature randomly occur, for no reason and with no explanation. Teleological Arguments

11. If we take seriously the idea that the world seems to run on a design on several levels, and yet deny the existence of a designer, we must ask, “Why is this so?” The answer most often given is “evolution.” But such an answer only puts off the original question: “Why does evolution work in the way that it does?” Simply put, evolution is not a cause for design, but is in fact the result of observing design in the first place. Teleological Arguments

12. Another argument that may be used to deny design arguments is that nature seems to fail more often than it succeeds. How many sperms or eggs die without successfully producing? But consider what would happen if every sperm and egg were “successful.” The result would be cataclysmic. Perhaps even nature’s failures fail for a purpose . Teleological Arguments

13. O Lord, our Lord,    how majestic is your name in all the earth!You have set your glory above the heavens.2      Out of the mouth of babies and infants,you have established strength because of your foes,    to still the enemy and the avenger. PSALM 8

14. 3 When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,    the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,4  what is man that you are mindful of him,    and the son of man that you care for him? 5 Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings    and crowned him with glory and honor. PSALM 8

15. 6 You have given him dominion over the works of your hands;     you have put all things under his feet,7 all sheep and oxen,    and also the beasts of the field,8 the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea,    whatever passes along the paths of the seas. 9 O Lord, our Lord,    how majestic is your name in all the earth! PSALM 8

16. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. ROMANS 1:18-20

17. This argument need not lead to the biblical God This argument does not logically lead to a single God This argument depends upon the principle of analogy—but the universe is a one of a kind sort of thing—and thus not subject to analogy. This argument need not lead to the Greatest Possible Being—only a very powerful, creative being. Some say that this argument does not require a personal being. ANALYSIS OF Teleological ARGUMENTS

18. Cosmological arguments for God’s existence are based upon the concept of contingency. Cosmological arguments work from the world to God. Cosmological arguments are “a posteriori” in nature, that is they reason “after the fact” from effects to causes. They thus have an inductive starting point—our experience of the world. COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

19. Thomas Aquinas is classically the high point of Cosmological argumentation. Four of his famous “Five Ways” are actually cosmological arguments. Aquinas’s Cosmological Arguments

20. All mutables bring us back to a first immutable. The universe is mutable (it exhibits characteristic change). Therefore there is an immutable cause of the universe—this we call God. #1 The Argument from Motion or Change

21. No effect or efficient cause can exist in and of itself—it must have its own cause. An infinite regress of efficient causes is impossible. Therefore there must be a first or necessary cause—and this we call God. #2 The Argument from Causation

22. If contingent beings exist, then there must be a necessary being. Contingent beings evidently exist. Therefore there is a necessary being—and this we call God. #3 The Argument from Contingency

23. If anything at all exists, there must be something that exists perfectly (to the nth degree). Evidently things (e.g. the universe) exist. Therefore there is a perfect cause of all imperfect things—this we call God. #4 THE ARGUMENT FROM DEGREES OF PERFECTION

24. First developed by medieval Arabic philosophers. Popularized today by William Lane Craig. Craig joins the deductive logic of this argument to inductive, Big Bang cosmology. The Kalam Cosmological Argument

25. If something had a beginning, it must have a cause. The universe had a beginning (Big Bang cosmology). Therefore the universe had a cause (God). The Kalam Cosmological Argument

26. For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house. For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God. HEBREWS 3:3-4

27. Such arguments need not lead to the biblical God Such arguments do not logically lead to a single God Such arguments need not lead to the Greatest Possible Being—only to a very powerful, creative being or beings. Some have denied a necessary relationship between cause & effect. Each of these arguments is tied to the accuracy of our perception. If our perceptions are uncertain, then the premises of each argument are flawed. ANALYSIS OF COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS

28. Pragmatic arguments for God’s existence are based upon the concepts of risk and reward. • There are two major types of pragmatic arguments: • Moral Arguments • Wager Arguments PRAGMATIC ARGUMENTS

29. Moral arguments for God’s existence are based upon the concept of conscience. In its classical form this argument works much like a cosmological argument. There is an awareness of a sense of oughtness within everyone. That sense could not spring from nothing or be contained within each individual. Thus there must be a source of goodness. PRAGMATIC ARGUMENTS (MORAL)

30. In its Kantian form, however, a different approach is taken. Kant argues reductively ( for Y to be X is required). Kant argues that all people possess two things: (1) a sense of universal oughtness (categorical imperative) that drives us to seek the summumbonum(highest good), which means the highest degree of happiness; and (2) moral freedom. The two together imply responsibility. PRAGMATIC ARGUMENTS (MORAL)

31. At this point one is not required to posit God in Kant’s reasoning. Everything is fine with Kant’s thought until he looks at the world around him and sees that in this life the wicked do prosper. Since the highest good is tied to the highest degree of happiness, if eternity does not ultimately right all the wrongs that take place in this life due to human freedom, then freedom, responsibility, and law are absurd because this sense of desiring the highest good does not lead ultimately to the highest happiness. Thus God is required when Kant concludes that there must be a “transhistorical way of righting wrongs” (Critique of Practical Reason 2.2.1). PRAGMATIC ARGUMENTS (MORAL)

32. The greatest good of all persons is that they have happiness in harmony with duty. All persons should strive for the greatest good. What persons ought to do, they can do. But persons are not able to realize the greatest good in this life or without God. Therefore we must posit both a future life and God. A Simple Form of Kant’s Moral Argument

33. 1. There must be a universal moral law or: (a) moral disagreements would make no sense; (b) a all moral criticisms would be meaningless; (c) it is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties; (d) There must be a universal moral law or else we would not make excuses for breaking the moral law. C. S. Lewis’s Moral Argument

34. 2. A universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver since (a) the source of it gives moral commandments; (b) it is interested in our behavior (as persons are); C. S. Lewis’s Moral Argument

35. 3. This universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good: (a) or all moral effort would be futile since we would be sacrificing our lives for what is not ultimately right; (b) since the standard of all good must be completely good. C. S. Lewis’s Moral Argument

36. 4. Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver. C. S. Lewis’s Moral Argument

37. Cannot human moral consciousness come from evolution? Cannot human moral consciousness come from cultural conditioning? Are moral standards genuinely objective? Is there really a universal moral sense? This argument need not lead to one God, or to the Christian God. Perhaps a committee or a group of powerful and moral beings created or organized the world. One cannot get from ethics to ontology. ANALYSIS OF MORAL LAW ARGUMENTS

38. Wager arguments for God’s existence are based upon the concept of risk, i.e., gain vs. loss. As such they are pragmatic in nature. PRAGMATIC ARGUMENTS (WAGER)

39. PASCAL’S WAGER

40. “I tell you that you will gain even in this life, and that at every step you take along this road you will see that your gain is so certain and your risk so negligible that in the end you will realize that you have wagered on something certain and infinite for which you have paid nothing” (Pensées). PASCAL ON THE WAGER

41. The wager cannot be avoided. Pascal asserts that the believer has nothing to lose: if God does not exist, the Christian life is still a good life. There is no possibility of the Christian being disappointed or the non-Christian being rewarded. If the Christian is wrong, he will never know it. If the skeptic is wrong, he will know it for eternity. If, on the other hand, the skeptic is right, he will never have the pleasure of knowing it. ANALYSIS OF PASCAL’S WAGER

42. The wager cannot be avoided. Pascal asserts that the believer has nothing to lose: if God does not exist, the Christian life is still a good life. There is no possibility of the Christian being disappointed or the non-Christian being rewarded. If the Christian is wrong, he will never know it. If the skeptic is wrong, he will know it for eternity. If, on the other hand, the skeptic is right, he will never have the pleasure of knowing it. ANALYSIS OF PASCAL’S WAGER

43. The “many-gods” objection notes that the wager assumes either the Christian God or no god. But there are other conceptions of God, such as Islam, etc. For this reason it is limited in its application. Is Christian conversion really nothing more than hedging one’s bets? There is no moral compulsion to choose God. Others object to the concept of eternal punishment. ANALYSIS OF PASCAL’S WAGER

44. Ontological arguments for God’s existence are based upon the concept of perfection or necessity. At the heart of ontological arguments lies the question, “which is greater?” The “lesser” is never to be associated with God, the Perfect, or Greatest Possible Being (GPB). ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS

45. One attraction of ontological arguments is that they are a priori and deductive in nature. As such a properly constructed (valid) argument with true premises should be necessarily true (sound). ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS

46. And, indeed, we believe that thou art a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.   [I]t is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, and another to understand that the object exists.  [T]hat, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone.   For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.  ANSELM’S FIRST ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

47. God is by definition, the Greatest Conceivable Being (GCB) with every possible perfection. • Existence is a perfection (i.e., it is more perfect to exist than not exist). • Therefore, God must exist. ANSELM’S FIRST ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

48. Idea in Mind Only The idea refers to that which exists in our minds, but not in reality. Idea as Existing The idea refers to that which exists in reality, and not only in our minds. The First Ontological Argument Summarized AorB Which Idea is Greater?

49. Immanuel Kant critiqued the ontological argument in his Critique of Pure Reason and concluded that “existence is not a predicate.” A being that doesn’t exist isn’t a being! (Critique of Pure Reason 2.3.4). CRITIQUE OF THE FIRST FORM—PERFECTION

50. And it assuredly exists so truly, that it cannot be conceived not to exist. For, it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist.   Hence, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction.   So truly, therefore, dost thou exist, O Lord, my God, that thou canst not be conceived not to exist; and rightly. For, if a mind could conceive of a being better than thee, the creature would rise above the Creator; and this is most absurd. ANSELM’S SECOND ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT