Arguments for The Existence of God

I am going to give an outline of the Arguments for Existence of God, taken out of Natural Theology, and I will one by one, describe and explain the logic behind them, testing the truth of each premises and the validity of the arguments.(If you can not wait, click on the arguments to have William Lane Craig’s Explanation and how he answers Dawkin’s God Delusion and Dennett’s objections of the argument)

Cosmological Argument

a: Contingency Version

1. Every thing that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its nature or in some external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God
3. The universe is a thing that exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.

b: Temporal Version
1. What ever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Teleological Argument

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Moral Argument

1. If God does not exist, objective moral value and duties do not exist
2. Objective moral value and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Ontological Argument

1. It is possible that a greatest conceivable being exists.
2. If it is possible that a greatest conceivable being exists, then a greatest conceivable being exists in some possible world.
3. If a greatest conceivable being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a greatest conceivable being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If  a greatest conceivable being exists in the actual world, then  a greatest conceivable being exists.
6. Therefore, a greatest conceivable being exists.

Stay tuned for Cosmological Argument, its Pros and Cons, How to present it and how to answer most of the objections raised. Til then be open for God’s Spirit to lead you and know that it is God who opens His Truth to us, not our Arguments, not our logic. (1 Corinthians 1:22-2)

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Arguments for The Existence of God

  1. Pingback: Zangomatic: Is God Good? | With All I Am

  2. Pingback: Why I am No Longer An Atheist | With All I Am

  3. Pingback: Craig's Explanation of Moral Argument | With All I Am

  4. Pingback: Richard Dawkin Affirms God’s Existence | With All I Am

  5. Pingback: Craig’s Explanation of Cosmological Argument (Continegency Version) | With All I Am

  6. “Question, how can it be explained by Evolution?”

    Why the universe is as complex as it is now, is what can be explained by evolution. Why the universe exists in the first place can’t be explained with God, evolution, or chance. The best we can do for now is: Because it does

    If not A, we can not automatically assume B. Just because the origin of the universe has yet to be explained by evolution and chance, does not mean that you can explain it with God.

    You seem to speak of two different sorts of reality, the first being physical things and the second being a-physical absolute things. Things like time, and mathematics are in the a-physical section while matter is in the physical. By your logic, A-physical things can combine to create physical things. The universe exists because of the absolute a-physical forces. But, your explanation does not include a valid explanation for God. If there are absolute forces such as time, gravity, math, etc. That always exist without explanation that can create matter, then God is not necessary. Your logic actually supports my view. I say that extremely simple matter can exist without reason, which is exactly what your argument points to.

    If the laws of the universe always existed do to necessity and these laws created the universe, then God is not one of the necessities of creation of the universe because the natural forces that always existed could create the universe by themselves which is exactly what atheists claim happened. The necessary forces of the universe could create the universe by themselves. Therefore, God is not necessary.

    So the argument from necessity does not explain God as his existence is not necessary for the creation of the universe, the always existent forces can do it for themselves.

    As for Dawkins, I think you still don’t understand him. While men like Hitler believed Jews were the scum of the Earth, Dawkins does not believe religious people to be bad people. While genocides are a result of hatred of religious people, Dawkins does not have anything against religious people, but against religious ideas.

    There is a big difference. Dawkins is leading a war on the false theories of creation and religion itself, not against any particular race or culture. He is not spreading hatred towards religious people. He is promoting rational thinking. No harm can be done when you attack a belief and not a particular set up people.

    • Dear Myers,

      Let expore the logic in your above comment and see where it take us.

      “If the laws of the universe always existed do to necessity and these laws created the universe, then God is not one of the necessities of creation of the universe because the natural forces that always existed could create the universe by themselves which is exactly what atheists claim happened. The necessary forces of the universe could create the universe by themselves. Therefore, God is not necessary”

      1. If the laws of the universe always existed, these laws necessarily created the universe
      2.If that is the case, then God is did not created the universe
      3.Natural forces always existed
      4.Therefore God is not necessary for the creation of the universe

      Your Premise 1.
      If the laws of the universe always existed, these laws necessarily created the universe is this premise true? Answer: No, the laws were created at the big bang, the laws have not always exist

      From these, your premise 2, is down too because it depend on the truth of premise 1.

      Premise 3:
      “Natural forces always exist” Is this true? Answer: No, Natural forces where created at the big bang, therefore Natural forces have not always existed.

      From your argument premises 1, 2, and 3 we now have

      1. If the laws of the universe always existed, these laws necessarily created the universe
      1.1. It is false that the laws of the universe always existed, these laws did not necessarily created the universe

      2. If that is the case, then God did not created the universe
      2.1. If 1.1 is the case then God did create the universe

      3. Natural forces always existed
      3.1. Natural forces have not always existed

      4.Therefore God is not necessary for the creation of the universe
      4.1 Therefore God is necessary for the creation of the universe

      I believe we did not understand what BIG BANG is. At the Big Bang, time, space,natural force(gravity among other), matter and antimatter came to be(begin to exist). Ex nihilo?
      Time,antimatter, matter, space and forces are not existing by the necessity of their own nature like sets, numbers. They are not transcendent!

      God according to Christian Bible is transcendent, unembodied Mind. An unembodied Mind fits to the things which exist necessary by there own necessary nature as with seven. Remember necessary here does not imply that it is necessary to believe God, no, that is not the case here, the case here is the necessity of God existence.

      Myers, I will post Craig’s Explanation Cosmological Argument(Temporal Version) which you are used to and from that version of Argument, William Lane Craig will pause a lot of theories to which Dawkin’s God Delusion proposed as the alternatives and show how they all fall short. I will so much like you to read through and think. Read with neutral mind so that you can see the Pros and the Cons.

      He will explain Big Bang in much deeper way.

      Thank you so much for the comments once more. You have good questions which indeed needs good answers 🙂

      Yours
      Prayson Daniel

  7. Pingback: Craig’s Explanation of Moral Argument | With All I Am

  8. Pingback: Craig’s Explanation of Cosmological Argument(Continegency Version)

  9. Dear proteusiq:

    “Your Objection I namely ““Every thing that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its nature or in some external cause.” is not good, since God exist by necessity of His own nature.”

    Don’t you see that this is a cop-out? You are excusing God from logic. If God created himself, then why do things need to be created? If God can do it, then it stands to reason that the universe could have done so itself or anything for that matter. If nothing can create itself into something, then why would a creator be necessary in the first place? If a God could create himself, then new Gods should be popping up everyday!

    “God by definition did not begin to exist, therefore God does not need a cause”

    Once again, the same could be said for the universe. If things can just always exist, then they apparently don’t need a cause, which undermines your argument. What suggests that the universe needs a beginning? You have already demonstrated with God that things can exist forever with no reason or cause. Therefore the universe can do the same and there is no evidence showing that the universe did not always exist.

    “for Evolution to take place, there need to be a Fine-Tuned universe and chance is a very huge Atheist-of-the-Gap. You need a lot of faith to believe that Fine-Tuning is due to chance.”

    Not to be rude, but I would label that as an argument from ignorance. Atheists do not say that the the universe exists because of chance. Evolution is a force all by itself, it is simply the tendency for things to become more complex over time. The universe can be explained through the combination of evolution and chance, to say that the universe exists because of just chance would be crazy indeed, but this is not what atheists say.

    There certainly does not need to be a fined tuned universe. All that was needed was billions of years of evolution. There are billions of planets in the universe, that makes it actually likely that life would arise on at least one of them. Once life arises, natural selection, the chief form of evolution, leads the simplest form of life to great complexity.

    While chance alone doesn’t explain anything, a combination of evolution, large amounts of time, and chance explain virtually everything.

    I apologize for calling these arguments ludicrous but I have heard them so many times that it gets aggravating. They are in no way valid.

    If you want to better understand the atheist position, I recommend reading Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion. For further information of evolution and how it is showed to create us, Read Richard Dawkin’s The Blind Watchmaker.

    Alternatively if you want evidence that evolution has occurred, read Richard Dawkin’s new book, The Greatest Show on Earth.

    • Dear Christian Myers,

      Thank you so much for your comments and I will try to answer or give more detail of the Objections you noted:

      “Don’t you see that this is a cop-out? You are excusing God from logic. If God created himself, then why do things need to be created? If God can do it, then it stands to reason that the universe could have done so itself or anything for that matter.” The Argument does not excuse God.

      We have just miss a small point to which I can not blame you for coming up with this concern. I Posted a new Article, just to Explain what the argument state,

      But to give a short answer, which I will so much ask you to read more of the argument from the above Article:

      God existing because of his own necessity, it more like number 7, seven exist necessary by its own. Nothing caused number 7. Number seven needs no cause. It is just there by its own necessity.

      “If God created himself, then why do things need to be created?”
      What you are saying here is like “If 7 created itself, then why do things need to be created?” But this is absurd because 7 did not create itself, it is simply there.

      Creation of X meaning beginning of existence of X, but if X did not begin, saying X created itself is absurd.

      On your comment of Cosmological argument (Temporal Version)

      This arguments talks about all things that Begin to Exist.

      Not all things begin to Exist, example, logic, numbers, sets, and on. Example: 2 + 2 = 4 did not being to exist, it was just there, the multiplication table did not begin to exist it was just there waiting to be discovered, logic and on, all these things do not need Universe to exist for them to exist, they exist by there own necessity nature. The explanation of Cosmological Argument above will take you deep in understanding of this subject.

      Whether we discovered that 2 + 2 = 4, multiplication Tables or not does not effect them. We can say, they are transcendent. Even God can not change them!(Many Christians will hate me for saying this, but its because they are not good in Theology, somethings God can not do, example make a square circle, or tell a lie)

      Therefore God falls in this group, necessity of their own necessary nature.

      Atheists do not say that the the universe exists because of chance. Evolution is a force all by itself, it is simply the tendency for things to become more complex over time. The universe can be explained through the combination of evolution and chance, to say that the universe exists because of just chance would be crazy indeed, but this is not what atheists say.” Myers, lets look at our logic in your statement here:

      1. Atheists do not say that the universe exists because of chance(From You)
      2. The universe can be explained through the combination of evolution and chance(From You)
      3. Atheist believe in universe explained by evolution and chance(From Me)
      4.Therefore universe can be explained by evolution(From Me)
      5.Therefore universe can be explained by chance(From Me)

      We are back to square one.

      1. All A is B
      2. All A is not B
      3. Same A is B

      “From Me” is to show where “From You” goes if we reason this way.

      If A is explained by Evolution and Chance, A is explained by Evolution, A is explained by Chance

      Question, how can it be explained by Evolution? Evolution started after the coming of the universe/multiverse, no universe/multiverse no evolution. Evolution can not be the explanation of the Universe/Multiverse because we need the Universe or Multiverse(if they exist) for Evolution to take place.

      Therefore premise 4 is deadly wrong.

      Premise 5, Chance!
      By Chance is all we have, if Atheist is true from your above reasoning.

      I love reading Richard Dawkin’s books, but I think he is brilliant when it comes to his field “zoology” but when it comes to Religious History or Philosophy he is indeed poor. You are far better than him 🙂

      I read God Delusion but at the end I applied what he say ” at the bottom(end of reading his book include its) … nothing but blind pitiless indifference”

      He makes lots mistakes in his book, Atheism and Theism have committed evil together big time. Read Atheist History, Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism and communism, All these ideas(Worldviews) murdered so many people to archive there goals. So I think that the evilness is not with Religion or Atheism but the deluded fanatics( from Atheism or Theism) who change, bend or take the ideas to extremes.

      What I know about Christianity, True Christianity is not murdering others but Christians ought to give their lives for others. Christian, nickname for the followers of Anointed One(Christ Jesus) are to live a life like Christ. Suffering and Dying for others. Humble to the point of death. C.S. Lewis was so right when he said the problem with Christianity is Christians.

      Swedish fanatic atheists have started breaking churches windows and attacking priests in Sweden, this is not new, in atheistic history, atheists have destroyed many churches, murder lot of priests and murder millions of people in the name of their ideas(Read the History of Mother Russia and other Communist states) just like the Muslims, Christians or any other Worldview.

      All these Worldviews, are capable of doing lots of evil when in power. Take Dawkins dangerous calms Religion is virus, it remind me of Rwanda Radio which started the genocides in 1994 ” called Tutsis as cockroaches” and Hutu started killing so many Tutsis because they where nothing but cockroaches and other political ideas.

      If Atheists fanatics, like Islam fanatics take Dawkin call to get ride of the virus! Do you know what will happen? I love Dawkin but I am scared of his Ideas.

      P.S: You had the right to call it “Ludicrous” for it can be ludicrous if not understood. Good thing about you, you give reasons and argue very well.

      Sincere
      Prayson Daniel(Proteusiq)

  10. Those arguments are ridiculous!!

    The first one, has a massive logical flaw, so large it is like a giant hole in reasoning!

    “Every thing that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its nature or in some external cause.”

    By your reasoning, God must also have a creator, and that creator must also have a creator as well and so on. You can’t have infinite creators!

    “1. What ever begins to exist has a cause.”

    The same thing applies. By your logic if God exists, then he must also have a cause to which you end up with infinite creators, something that is logically impossible. The arguement is actually an argument against God.

    1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
    2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

    3. Therefore, it is due to design.

    On what basis do you say that it is not do to chance? Anyway, it is not chance but evolution that makes such events as our existence not only possible but probable.

    The other two are so ludicros that I am not even going to debate them.

    • Dear Christian Myers,

      Thank you for your comments, but how are the arguments ridiculous!?

      Your Objection I namely ““Every thing that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its nature or in some external cause.” is not good, since God exist by necessity of His own nature.

      Your Objection II namely “What ever begins to exist has a cause” God by definition did not begin to exist, therefore God does not need a cause

      Your Objection III for Teleological Argument, is also not good since, for Evolution to take place, there need to be a Fine-Tuned universe and chance is a very huge Atheist-of-the-Gap. You need a lot of faith to believe that Fine-Tuning is due to chance.

      We need to debate all the argument, tagging them with names like “Ludicros” does not help us. We are all Seekers of Truth, and If your are a gentlemen by peace and love.

Comments are closed.