Three Arguments for the Existence of God

The question of the existence of God is a vitally important one; possibly THE most important one. It's been argued about for millennia, yet there doesn't seem to be a firm conclusion. This may be because people are looking in the wrong place for the answer. Let me explain. You see, we live in a culture immersed in the belief that scientific discovery is the only means to finding truth. "Prove it...make it repeatable..." -- these are responses which work fine within the world of empirical data (stuff you can touch, taste, feel, count...), but they don't work well outside of the physical world. Therein lies the problem; when we discuss God, we're discussing something that lies outside of the natural realm; we're discussing the supernatural.

Because of this, when discussing whether God exists, we can't use the normal testing criteria of science. We need to use logic and reasoning.

So here goes: below you'll find three arguments that strongly imply the existence of a god. They're written out in their simplest form with only a little explanation. The point is to do some research...study them further...come to your own conclusion. Check them out.

1. Aristotle and the Proof from Movement and Change

Aristotle based his argument on an observation: Everything is moving and changing. Aristotle deduced that all movement and change must be caused by a Mover or Changer which possesses the capacity to move or change something else. But, reasoned Aristotle, if everything that moves and changes requires a Mover or Changer…that would imply something about the universe (by universe we mean “everything that exists”)…

Think of it like a row of dominoes that stretches so far back, you can’t see the beginning. But you see that the dominoes are falling in front of you. You know that each falling domino was caused by the falling of the domino behind it. But if each domino required a domino behind it, and the domino line is infinite…then you would never get to a domino falling NOW (*exploding head noise*)

So, Aristotle said that the series of things causing change would either have to be eternal in the past, OR there had to be a single Mover/Changer that, itself, did not require something to move or change it. Aristotle called it the First Cause or the PRIME MOVER. Others call it “God"

2. Islam and the Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological Argument (sometimes referred to as The Kalam Argument) is really similar to Aristotle’s Prime Mover Argument. What the Cosmological Argument says is this:

(Premise 1) - Everything that begins to exist has a cause

(Premise 2) - The universe began to exist

(Conclusion) - Therefore, the universe had a cause

This argument is in the Deductive form—this means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true…in fact it MUST be true.

Premise 1 is really not argued against…it’s just an observable fact about our universe. Someone once said that if we were to believe that things in our universe could pop into existence without a cause, then we should, logically, see things constantly popping into-and-out-of existence. Like POOF…there’s a raccoon in your pants…

Premise 2 is the only one really disputed. There are multiple theories of how/whether the universe began to exist. But the overwhelmingly accepted theory is called the Big Bang Theory (bazinga). In this theory, space, time and matter all came into existence at the same time. Now the question is…HOW? If we accept Aristotle’s view, then we have to propose a First Cause (that doesn’t have a Cause itself) that is capable (and many would say willing) to do it.

HOWEVER…the First Cause—if it created matter and space and time—can’t, itself, NEED those things to exist. So the Cause has to be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. And if it made a decision…it’s probably got a mind and a will. A spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal being is how theologians define “God”

3. The Moral Argument

We all know that right and wrong exist. While there may be disagreements about the specifics, we’d all agree that at least some things are right and some things are wrong.

So the question arose…WHY do we all know this? It would seem that maybe this common belief about morality is somehow hardwired into us…by a “Hardwirer.” If that’s the case, it would seem that right and wrong exist objectively…outside of us…independent of human minds.

The Moral Argument goes something like this: (Premise 1) - If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

(Premise 2) - Objective moral values and duties do exist

(Conclusion) - Therefore, God exists

Premise 1 is basically saying that moral decisions are the action of a mind. These kinds of decisions express belief that some things should not be done (or, in the case of duties, should be done). If they really are decisions, that seems to imply a mind...someone who chooses.

Now look at Premise 2--Objective moral values and duties do exist. This may be arguable, but it seems to be true. While there may not be absolute agreement on the details, it seems that every society agrees to at least SOME specifics. Maybe things like "it's always wrong to kick a toddler" or "loyalty is good," or "it's always right to be just,"

If you're not sure, ask yourself a question: "is there anything that is ALWAYS wrong...no matter what anyone says, or when, where, who does it?" If you said "yes", then you seem to be agreeing that some things are just wrong... regardless of how anyone feels about it. They are wrong objectively.

Now back to Premise 1; If some things are ALWAYS wrong...for everyone (objectively), and those things are decisions of a mind...this seems to require a mind that is independent of all humanity; a supernatural Mind. This strongly implies a god, and it's what's meant by the Premise *If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.*

What are we trying to prove?

None of these arguments are attempting to prove any specific deity by name, but rather an uncaused, personal, eternal, all-powerful being.

These arguments attempt to prove what some call “the god of philosophy.” That god could be Yahweh, or Allah, or the Shangdi, or any other. (Naming the god is a whole other set of arguments!)

There are quite a few other arguments worth looking into, like

• The Ontological Argument

• The Fine-Tuning of the Universe Argument

• The Argument from Consciousness

And there are lots more. In the future, Logicas will continue to expand on arguments like these. In the mean time, check them out for yourself. It's worth your time.