The Existence Of God

Arguments for The Existence of God

(Reposted and easy accessed for Atheists and Theists request)
_     _

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.

17 thoughts on “The Existence Of God

  1. These arguments can only be accepted if the one listening to these arguments does not critically analyze them. The problem with arguments that support one’s views is that when someone says something that fits in line with our thinking, we tend to accept it rather than be skeptical and analyze what we hear. This here seems to fall in line. These are poor arguments that fail quite easily. I wrote a blog on the probability of God. I recommend you check it out and let me know your thoughts. Since I am sure you won’t be biased to my views, you should have counter arguments which would make for an interesting discussion I would hope.

  2. Cosmological = An infinite regress, constitution constitutes constitution.

    Teleological Argument = Falsely privileging a state of existence amongst other imagined states.

    Moral Argument = Not objective, rather contextual and pragmatic.

    Ontological Argument = Error of presupposing an object of thought has relation to existent metaphyiscal states of affairs. Great in what respect? Greatness is relational.

  3. Interesting dicussion about proving the existence of God….. my favorite one is the causation….. everything has a cause… the cause itself does not have a cause. Trying to fully understand the infinite is trying to be infinite ourselves, which we are not.

  4. Allallt, I’m afraid you are another person that has had the unfortunate experience of being unintentionally deceived my Lawrence Krauss’s limited vocabulary. What you need to understand, and Krauss has admitted this in a debate I saw (I’m afraid I don’t remember which one), is that the “true nothingness” of Krauss and quantum big bang events is empty spacetime. By “true nothingness” Krauss refers to the possibility that there existed a flat, zero matter spacetime, that due to quantum indeterminancy erupted into what we know as the Big Bang. My critique is this does not solve the problem because such an empty spacetime is really a false vacuum- it is brimming with quantum energy! This theory of the Big Bang does not solve the problem. Now the question becomes, what is the explanation of this empty spacetime? Current Big Bang theory also discredits this since it is believed that spacetime was actually created at the Big Bang and that there was no previous spacetime. Of course, just because that is the theory in current sway does not mean it will endure. It does mean though that the argument is sound.

  5. God or the big bang. Lets say everything started with a bang. No pun intended. What made the bang. I heard from someone that gases blew up then that, I guess they meant, CREATED everything. How can an explosion create something? Doesn’t it destroy everything?

  6. Both of your Cosmological arguments come up against problems when you note something we know know from quantum mechanics: true nothingness is inherently unstable; quantum activity -must- happen in actual nothingness.
    This is the real we do not see any real nothingness anywhere: not between atoms, not between quarks in atoms, not in space and vaccuums devoid of “stuff”. Nowhere is “nothing” observable, because nothingness -must- give way to somethingness. You can watch Lawrence Krauss’ A Universe from Nothing lecture on youtube (as the book is expensive and timely).

    The idea that objective morality is contingent on a God is argued and railed against all over the internet. But being a shameless self-promoter, I recommend my blog (allalltor.wordpress.com) or A Moral Landscape.

    The Ontological Argument assumes that existence is (a) better than non-existence and (b) a quality, not a property.
    If I define a unicorn as something that exists, and I note that I can conceive of a unicorn then it follows–by the ontological argument at least–that unicorns exist. I could play this game will all of fiction, and I could do it equally for Yahweh or Allah.

    As for the teleological argument, we don’t have all the facts. However, there are functional alternative theories. String theory, the oscillating universe and number of multiverse models and the anthropic principle do a fair job of offering numerous alternatives based in chance and necessity.

  7. Hi Prayson,
    Thanks for reading and liking my article on “Abortion.”
    Honestly, when I saw your “How to Read Atheist’s Blog,” I was skeptic; but when I read your introduction of yourself, I know you’re His indeed.

    Blessings in Christ,
    Cynthia

  8. Hello Prayson, thanks for reply.

    Talk, talk, talk. No matter what words you or any other religious believer uses, words alone cannot prove the existence of the Christian God…never happening.

    God does not exist…there is no concrete undeniable proofs for a God of any kind, there are only words desperately trying to prove the unprovable. If one cannot somehow present God to be confirmed by physical examination, if *all* one has is words, then God must not exist.

    He cannot be proved by prayer, as we know that prayer doesn’t work. Prayers for outcomes that defy mans ability to fix or come about as a placebo effect have never been answered…never.

    Other than words in a book written by Goat herders and other people who actually believed in magic, and later by people who still believed in magic and who never witnessed the events they wrote about…we have nothing. Nothing tangible, nothing testable, nothing real. Just words.

    Along with more than a billion other people in this world I am satisfied that the undeniable evidence proves that there is no God or gods…all there is is nature.

    • I would recommend you to start reading about Historical Jesus. Both from the Critics and Christian scholars.

      You are so right, words alone cannot prove the existence of the Christian God. Why don’t you take a step further, more than words, pick a Bible and start reading the New Testament as you would read Shakespeare. Why take my words, why don’t you start researching for yourself?

      The Christian God is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial(Mind/Soul), I can not present Him to you to test Him in a test-tube. But I can present Him in the person of Christ Jesus, history and archeology is open, dive in and I pray that God to find you.

      In Christ,
      Prayson

  9. Hello Prayson Daniel, thanks for your reply.

    You write:
    “How did it evolved? How does a blind processed evolution give rise to Golden Rule? If God does not exist namely atheism is true then then this Golden Rule is a delusion…”

    People of other cultures had their own exact version of the “Golden Rule” hundreds of years before Christianity. Confucius wrote about it 500 years before Jesus. It seems most all civilizations have spontaneously created the “Rule” at some point in their history. Morality comes from humanity…not some vaporous god floating in the cosmos somewhere.

    The Golden Rule is not an illusion, it is how many civilized people conduct there existence here on earth.

    You write:
    “Every thing that exists has an explanation of its existence”…”Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.”

    Therefore the explanation for God is…??? Who says that this little non-logical ditty is true.

    Where and when was God created? There is no logic that works with something that always existed…because that is a non-logical, non-existent phenomenon.

    How do you envision this God you talk about; is He/She/It made in our image? Does it have a head, two arms, two legs, etc.? Does it have a face? Does it float in the sky near earth? Does it still like the smell of burning flesh sacrifices? Is it inciting Jews on another planet to kill whole villages…man, women, child, and infants…you know, like he did here on earth in the good ol’ days?

    • Dear thewordofme,

      Thank you deeply for your tone in this one. I would like to answer the following questions you brought up:

      1. Golden Rule
      2. God as explanation?
      3. Who Created God.
      4. What is God and Who is God


      1. Golden Rule:

      One Golden Rule goes back to c. 1446/1260 B.C, Wayyigra documents -Hebrew for “And he called”. In our Bible, Leviticus(Pentateuch)

      Thus over 1200 years before the birth of Christ.

      You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD(YHWH).(Leviticus 19:18 ESV)

      But this does not mean before the law was given there was no moral accountability. Because even societies without law are accountable.

      According to ancient writer Paul of Tarsus,(c 2?-46 A.D) writes

      For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them (Romans 2:14-15 ESV)

      Law is the Mosaic(Pentateuch) writings. Known also as Torah.

      Thus if he is right, then all societies do have Moral law wired by their Maker(If God exist).

      2. God as an explanation?

      The explanation of the being of the universe is a being(entity) that is uncause, immaterial, timeless, spaceless. Now they are candidate of being(entities) with this properties.

      Example: Abstract objects, like Numbers. 7, is uncause, immaterial, timeless, spaceless. Thus 7 exists(necessary by its own nature) namely does not depend on time, causation, space, material.

      Mathematical truth(Logic) 2+2=4 this truth is true even if there was no universe. Thus this truth is independent from time, space, material and on. It is true necessary by its own necessary nature.

      Immaterial mind(God) also is among the candidate. We know that abstract object(2+2=4, 7, logical truth) do not have causation power. Only immaterial mind(God).

      According to Christian and Theological and Philosophical definition of God, God is timeless, uncaused, spaceless, immaterial,necessary being.

      For more, read the premises of the argument for deeper explanation.

      3. Who created God?

      Asking this question(which is a decent question) is like asking who created 2 + 2 = 4. The answer is no one. 2 + 2 = 4 no matter what we think of it. Even if we want it to be 2 + 2 = 5.

      Thus God per definition is creator(Aristotle’s unmoved mover) The timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and UNCAUSED being. for this reason God is called eternal, and ever-present. Therefore who create God question is like asking what is a square-circle.

      4. What is God? Who is God?

      I have already answer this but would like to take you deeper into the ancient understand of God. The Monotheist God. The God(Either all religion are wrong, or one is right, but not all can be right).

      Here is the Historical understanding of this Monotheistic God.

      There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful,long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty.

      God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himselfall-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.


      Talking more about God.

      If we are going to discuss of God, I want us to have the same understanding, same definition. Thus not creating our own gods to who we toy around as we like. It does not matter whether we agree or disagree with his acts.

      • Hi Prayson Daniel, you said

        “Mathematical truth(Logic) 2+2=4 this truth is true even if there was no universe. Thus this truth is independent from time, space, material and on. It is true necessary by its own necessary nature.”

        I get your point but When you think about it anything is possible in the abstract so long as it is not logically contradictory. Things like pink unicorns and multiple universes are possible in the abstract. There are ways for them to be true given the right conditions, so, even if they don’t exist it’s possible for them to be true. I’m not sure if math is anymore true than possibilities that could exist under the right circumstances. All math is saying is that if you have a quantity of two and add it to a quantity of 2 you get a quantity of four.It’s really only a definition of what you get under the right circumstances. In the realm of the abstract anything might be possible and because of this it may be that something/everything almost has to exist somewhere in some dimension.I think that is about as far as anyone can go to make a case for a necessary being but that doesn’t make possibilities in to a God. So it might be possible your God exists but it also might be possible that many different Gods exist also. My only point here is that when you get abstract anything, as long as logically consistent, can be possible. Math isn’t anymore true than, a pink unicorn is always a pink unicorn. So I don’t see math as being some independent truth that doesn’t depend on something. It depends on abstract quantities and is only a definition of relationships whether abstract or material. Somehow I doubt you will understand my point.

  10. Just words that prove nothing. Do you have anything better??

    “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.”

    Where does god come from…what caused him to exist??

    “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.”

    Have you heard of the “Golden Rule” Mankind evolved moral rules to enable living together with out killing each other…you want to be treated nice–you treat others nice.

    “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”

    Who says the explanation is God…this is not a valid argument.

    • Where does god come from…what caused him to exist??

      Everything that begins to exist has a cause, there things that did not being to exist called necessary being. Example 2 + 2 = 4 will be true even if the nothing began to exist. Christian “God” is a being that never began to exist therefore nothing cause him to existence. He by definition has always existed.

      Have you heard of the “Golden Rule” Mankind evolved moral rules to enable living together with out killing each other…you want to be treated nice–you treat others nice.

      How did it evolved? How does a blind processed evolution give rise to Golden Rule? If God does not exist namely atheism is true then then this Golden Rule is a delusion: The following atheist makes it clear:

      “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” Richard Dawkins

      “morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory” Michael Ruse

      We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, not be individual egoists or classic amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me. … The point is this: pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.” Kai Nielsen

      Why should I be deluded with Golden Rule? I have a wonderful movie in this article Cruel Logic

      Who says the explanation is God…this is not a valid argument.

      Please go through the argument Contingency Version, If you still have question, I will be glad to answer.

Follow 3 Comment Covenants: What Say You?

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s