CLASSIC ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

There are 3 arguments for the existence of God which have been used throughout the ages, each with a great deal of strength. The Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument, and the Ontological Argument. I’m including a relative newcomer: the Argument from Probability, and I’m going to skip over the Ontological Argument for brevity’s sake.

DISCLAIMER: Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians that cleaver arguments will nullify the message of the cross. Seldom if not never will anyone come to Christ because of a philosophical argument.

THE ARGUMENT FROM PROBABILITY

This argument demonstrates the improbably (statistical impossibility) of the universe coming into being by random chance (without a designer and purpose). I will cite Bill Bryson, an atheist, who unintentionally presents a strong apology for theism in his book “A short history of nearly everything”. To begin, Bryson discusses the miraculous intricate design of the universe and says that if the earth were just 1 to 5 degrees closer or further from the sun, and if the earth didn’t rotate and orbit the sun at the precise speed that it does, the earth would be uninhabitable. He presents similar arguments offering insurmountable odds against the precise synchronization of the solar system and how unlikely this could have happened by random chance. Later he focuses on the human body, namely the building blocks of life – amino acids, and how they are strung together to create proteins. The human body contains millions of proteins, all working in concert – another miracle he says. Bryson claims the odds against 1 amino acid randomly occurring in nature are statistically impossible. The chances are 1 in 10 to the 260th power (10 with 260 zeros behind it), a number greater than all of the atoms in the universe. Bryson claims the chances are much better for a tornado ripping through a junkyard and leaving behind a fully operational 747 jet airplane, than for 1 protein forming by random chance!

If that isn’t daunting enough; consider what others have written: The chances of 1 DNA molecule randomly forming on its own are 1 in 10 to the 89,900th power! If the universe is 14 billion years old (10 to the 70th power in seconds of time), has enough time elapsed for random trials to have taken place; to get lucky and create just 1 DNA molecule? Consider that every living organism on earth has large amounts of DNA. The DNA in a simple single-celled Amoeba is quite complex, how about the plant kingdom, insects, animals, fish, humans etc. Every cell of a living organism is a well-ordered factory with a specific purpose. Consider that the sun shrinks by 8 miles in diameter each year, about .1% of its size. If our solar system is 4.8 billion years old; how could the planetary orbits have adjusted for the heat and gravitational pull of the sun, without anybody at the controls? 4.8 billion years ago, the sun would have been 5 million times larger than it is today!  Is the universe really that old? Honesty, we don’t know, nobody was there at its creation. Any estimates really amount to a wild guess, shrouded in a lot of fancy words.

THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

This argument was pioneered by Aristotle, and through the ages has taken different forms, most notably by St. Thomas Acquinas. The general argument, is that we observe causality and change in our universe. Every cause must have an effect, and every effect must have a cause; and everything (life and non-life) in the physical universe is contingent (experiences change), and owes its existence to something other than itself. Aristotle deduced that a First Mover was necessary to begin the causal chain of events, to put the universe in motion and existence. Acquinas posited that it was necessary for a being who is eternal and immutable (changeless), to account for existence. Aristotle focused more on the law of causality, while St. Thomas focused on the concepts of existence, contingency, and necessary being. Both dealt with the problem of an infinite regress, and the universe needing a First Mover. These arguments have great force, and leave no room for minuscule odds, and probability quotients for a godless universe.

ST THOMAS AQUINAS’S VERSION: Since we observe everything that exists in the universe goes through change (including rocks, minerals, gases, energy, living organisms), these things owe their existence to something other than themselves. They are “contingent” or “derived”. They did not create themselves! And if the universe owes its existence to something else, there must of necessity, exist an eternal-immutable being. A necessary being to ground the regress of existence and causality, for the universe to exist. If not, the universe could never have actualized (come into being) because, an endless regress of contingent causes and effects, would owe their existence to another contingent cause and effect ad infinitum. Even worse, if there isn’t an eternal being, then something back in time would have had to created itself. Self-creation is circular reasoning; for it would first have to exist before it could create itself.

Again, the universe could not have created itself nor can it be eternal, because everything in the universe is contingent and derived. The only possible way by which the universe could have begun and exist, must be by a immutable being with the power of self-existence, self-movement. This is why a necessary being must exist. Any attempt to describe the origin of the universe other than by a necessary being is an absurdity, both logically and ontologically. The problem with the infinite regress will be further explained in Aristotle’s argument.

ARISTOTLE’S VERSION: While Acquinas emphasized necessary being and contingent being, Aristotle emphasized the law of causality or cause and effect. The law of causality states that every effect must have a cause, and every cause must have an effect. This is true by definition: A cause is something that produces or entails an effect. An effect is something that has an antecedent cause. NOTE: The law of causality does not state that every cause must have a cause. This misinterpretation of the Law has been the demise of many. Because it assumes that, if every cause must have cause, then God must have a cause. And if God must have a cause, then John Doe might as well be the creator of the universe.

Aristotle set forth this argument and understood the law of causality and ultimately grounded his causal chain with what he called an Unmoved Mover or First Mover. This was of logical necessity, for if the causal chain continued in eternity past, it would be impossible to traverse this actual infinite causal chain. We could never account for yesterday, today, or tomorrow. An infinite causal chain of events cannot exist in time and space; for we would be caught on an infinite regress. Similar to walking in the wrong direction on an escalator in an airport, stepping forward at the same speed as the steps moving backwards.

THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

This is the argument from design or Intelligent Design, which is quite self-evident. We observe the design and purpose of nature, and conclude that there must have been a designer. This would include the entire universe, the orbiting of the planets, the design of the simplest forms of life; especially as we see the actual complexity and purpose of everything. Let’s say an archeologist is digging in the ground and finds an old piece of broken pottery. She immediately concludes it must have been left by an intelligent civilization, or intelligent designer. This is because she notices the design and purpose of this simple earthenware fragment! Now let’s compare the complexity and uniformity of the human body. The amino acids, millions of proteins, the complexity of the organs, the ability to reason and possess consciousness. Let’s ask ourselves, how could we in good conscience argue against an intelligent designer of the human body, let alone the entire universe! This is the strength of the Teleological Argument, concise, and appeals to your reason and logic, and understanding of the nature of things.

St. Paul in the letter to the Romans 3:18 employs this argument, namely that God has revealed Himself to all of mankind through His creation, and further revealed Himself in all people through a conscience; therefore, mankind stands before God without excuse for not honoring Him. We suppress the truth of God in our decisions to live a life without Him.

CONCLUSION

Each of these arguments have merit and offers sufficient proof for the existence of God. I believe that the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments are among the strongest. The issues with the Argument from Probability are, that someone can know all of the insurmountable evidence against a godless universe, and still remain atheist. They will hang to what little hope they have because technically, a goddess universe is theoretically possible with this argument. Bill Bryson is a paradigm example of this person. Secondly, natural science itself precludes the inclusion of super-natural evidence of phenomena for the origin of the universe, even if it is the most reasonable explanation. Scientists will ignore any evidence that might point to God and consider it anomalous; because their presuppositions begin with, ‘God does not exist’. Things such as, an upright petrified tree spanning through 7 layers of rock strata; or finding dinosaur bones in the soil as shallow as 3 feet. These are the artifacts that point to the Biblical flood, which are ignored by scientists, because they don’t jibe with their geological time-line. Don’t believe everything someone says just because they have PhD behind their name.

The Bible tells us, the fool (imprudent person) has said in his heart, ‘there is no God’. Study of the origins of the universe cannot be subjected to the analysis of science; Creation cannot be repeated in a laboratory. These are some of the reasons why I favor the next argument.

The Cosmological Argument rules out any possibility of a godless universe, 0% chance! The only way of escape, from argument is to be irrational, and ignore logic. But the laws of logic are necessary to intelligible cognition, and are used by all scientists! The laws of logic are not negotiable, arbitrary or selective. Additionally, this argument is closely associated with how things work in the extended universe viz. causality and logic. The laws of causality and logic are descriptive and explain reality, they are not mere laws of thought.

Most often if an atheist is playing fair in a debate she will say “I will grant you Aristotle’s God, but how do you get to the God of the Christians?” Fair question, I will then answer that given the hundreds of biblical prophecies that have been fulfilled, the scores of miracles which have been confirmed by eye witnesses and recorded, the nature of God set forth in the Bible, the resurrection of Christ; I can’t find any reason not to believe this God is the best explanation for the world we know it.

I find the Teleological Argument very strong because it appeals to our God-given consciences, and our observations of the design in our universe. If there is no uniformity of nature, then science is a fool’s errand, and we’re just imposing design from our minds, on randomness and chaos; therefore, science discovers nothing. Denying order in the universe destroys all of science.

I don’t believe any of us has enough faith to believe in a godless universe. Most of us don’t believe in God because we are distracted by the issues of life. St. Paul tells us that the devil has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, so that the gospel is perceived as foolishness. I hope this article will encourage you to do some soul-searching and consider the weightier issues of life. The Lord is not willing that any should perish but that all come to repentance.