Argument for theism

gosimeon

Question: "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of God?"



Answer: Does God exist? I find it interesting that so much attention is given to this debate. The latest surveys tell us that over 90% of people in the world today believe in the existence of God or some higher power. Yet, somehow the responsibility is placed on those who believe God does exist to somehow prove that He really does exist. To me, I think it should be the other way around.



However, the existence of God cannot be proven or disproved. The Bible even says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. "Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'” (John 20:29).



That does not mean, however, that there is not evidence of God’s existence. The Bible declares, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset – all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men…” There is something deep down in our beings that recognizes that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and through us is still there. Despite all of this, the Bible warns us that some will still deny God’s existence, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” (Psalm 14:1). Since over 98% of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God – there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.



In addition to the Biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument basically uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist then God would not be the greatest conceivable being - but that would contradict God's very definition. A second is the teleological argument. The teleological argument is that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a Divine designer. For example, if earth were even a few hundred miles closer or further away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 10 followed by 243 0’s). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.



A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” something is God. A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?



Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and instead believe a lie. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen.” The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).



People claim to not believe in God because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once people admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from God (Romans 3:23; 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable for our actions to Him. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. I believe that is why evolution is so strongly clung to by many in our society - to give people an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.



Allow me one last argument for God’s existence. How do I know God exists? I know God exists because I speak to Him every day. I do not audibly hear Him speaking back to me, but I sense His presence, I feel His leading, I know His love, I desire His grace. Things have occurred in my life that have no other possible explanation other than God. God has so miraculously saved me and changed my life that I cannot help but to acknowledge and praise His existence. None of these arguments in and of themselves can persuade anyone who refuses to acknowledge what is so plainly clear. In the end, God’s existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark, it is safe step into a well-lit room where 90% of people are already standing.



Question: "What is the Teleological argument for the existence of God?"



Answer: The word "teleology" comes from "telos" which means "purpose" or "goal." The idea is that it takes a "purposer" to have purpose, and so where we see things obviously intended for a purpose something had to have caused it for a reason. Design implies a designer in other words. We instinctively do this all the time. The difference between the Grand Canyon and Mount Rushmore is obvious - one is designed, one is not. The Grand Canyon was clearly formed by non-rational, natural processes, whereas Mount Rushmore was clearly created by an intelligent being - a designer. When we are walking down the beach and see a watch we do not assume that time and random chance produced it from blowing sand around. Why? Because it has the clear marks of design - it has a purpose, it conveys information, it is specifically complex, etc. In no scientific field is design considered to be spontaneous, it always implies a designer, and the greater the design, the greater the designer. Thus, taking the assumptions of science the universe would require a designer beyond itself (i.e. supernatural).



Now the teleological argument applies this criteria to the whole universe. If designs imply a designer, and the universe shows marks of design, then the universe was created. Clearly every life form in earth's history has been highly complex. A single strand of DNA equates to one volume of the encyclopedia Britannica. The human brain is approximately 10 billion gigabytes in capacity. Besides living things here on earth, the whole universe seems designed for life. Literally hundreds of conditions are required for life on earth - everything from the mass density of the universe down to earthquake activity must be fine tuned in order for life to survive. The random chance of all these things occurring is literally beyond imagination - the odds are many orders of magnitude higher than the number of atomic articles in the whole universe! With this much design it is difficult to believe that we just got lucky. In fact top atheist philosopher Antony Flew's recent conversion to Theism was based largely on this argument.



In addition to being used to demonstrate God's existence, the teleological argument also exposes shortcomings in the theory of Evolution. The Intelligent Design movement in science applies information theory to life systems and shows that chance cannot even begin to explain its complexity. In fact, even single celled bacteria are so complex that without all of their parts working together at the same time they would have no survival potential - that means those parts could not have developed by chance. Darwin recognized that this might be a problem someday just by looking at the human eye. Little did he know that even single celled creatures have too much complexity to explain without a creator!



Question: "What is the Cosmological argument for the existence of God?"



Answer: The Cosmological argument derives its title from the fact that it is derived from observing the world around us (the cosmos). It begins with what is most obvious in reality: the fact that things exist (as Descartes noted, if you doubt this then you, at least, must be existing in order to doubt!). It is then argued that the cause of those thing's existence had to be a "God-type" thing. These types of arguments go all the way back to Plato and have been used by notable philosophers and theologians ever since. Besides being philosophically evident, science finally caught up with theologians in the 20th century when it was confirmed that the universe had to have a beginning. So today the arguments are even powerful for non-philosophers. There are two basic forms of these arguments and the easiest way to think of them might be what are called the "vertical" and the "horizontal" forms. These titles indicate the direction that the causes come from. In the vertical form it is argued that every created thing is being caused right now (imagine a timeline with an arrow pointing up from the universe to God). The horizontal version shows that creation had to have a cause in the beginning (imagine that same timeline only with an arrow pointing backward to a beginning point in time).



The horizontal is a little easier to understand because it does not require much in the way of philosophy to grasp. The basic argument is that all things that have beginnings had to have causes. The universe had a beginning, therefore the universe had a cause. That cause, being outside the whole universe, is God. Someone might say that some things are caused by other things, but this does not solve the problem. This is because those other things had to have causes too, and this cannot go on forever. Why not? Let's take a simple example: trees. All trees began to exist at some point (for they have not always existed). Each tree had its beginning in a seed (the "cause" of the tree). But every seed had its beginning ("cause") in another tree. See where this is going? You can't have an infinite series of tree-seed-tree-seed because no series is infinite - they cannot go on forever. All series are finite (limited) by definition. There is no such thing as an infinite number because even the number series is limited (although you can always add one more, you are always at a finite number). If there is an end, it is not infinite. All series have two endings actually - at the end and at the beginning (if you don't see why this is true try to imagine a one ended stick!). But if there was no first cause, the chain of causes never would have started. Therefore there is, at the beginning at least, a first cause - one that had no beginning. This first cause is God.



The vertical form is a bit more difficult to understand, but it is more powerful because not only does it show that God had to cause the "chain of causes," in the beginning, He must still be causing things to exist right now. Once again we begin by noting that things exist. Second, while we often tend to think of existence as a property that things sort of own - that once something is created existence is just part of what it is - this is not the case. Consider a simple example - a triangle. We can define the nature of a triangle as "the plane figure formed by connecting three points not in a straight line by straight line segments." Notice what is not part of this definition: existence.



This definition would hold true even if no triangles existed at all. Therefore a triangle's nature - what it is - does not guarantee that one exists (like unicorns - we know what they are but that does not make them exist). Because it is not part of a triangle's nature to exist, triangles must be made to exist by something that else that already exists (such as myself drawing one on a piece of paper). But it also do not exist simply because of what I am - so I have to be given existence as well. This cannot go on forever (no infinite series, remember?). Therefore something that does not need to be given existence must exist to give everything else existence. Now apply this example to everything in the universe - does any of it it exist on its own? No. So, not only did the universe had to have a first cause to get started, it needs something to give it existence right now. The only thing that would not have to be given existence is a thing that exists as its very nature. It is existence. This thing would always exist, have no cause, have no beginning, have no limit, be outside of time, be infinite, . . . sound familiar? It should! It is God!



Question: "What is the Moral argument for the existence of God?"


Answer: The Moral argument begins with the fact that all people recognize some moral code (that some things are right, and some things are wrong). Every time we argue over right and wrong we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not free to arbitrarily change. Right and wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawgiver. Because the Moral Law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawgiver. This, it is argued, is God.

In support, we see that even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else's. Although differences certainly exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are universal. If man was responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented. Further, it is not simply a record of what mankind does - rarely does one ever live up to their own moral code. Where, then, do we get these ideas of what should be done? Romans 2:14-15 says that the moral law (or conscience) come from an ultimate lawgiver above man. If this is true then we would expect to find exactly what we have observed. This lawgiver is God.

To put it negatively, atheism provides no basis for morality, no hope, and no meaning for life. While this does not disprove atheism by itself, if the logical outworking of a belief system fails to account for what we instinctively know to be true it ought to be discarded. Without God there would be no objective basis for morality, no life, and no reason to live it. Yet all these things do exist, and so does God. Thus, the moral argument for the existence of God.

Good reading on this issue:
The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" by Geisler and Turek
"The God Delusion" by Dawkins.

Copied above theories from GotQuestions.Org.

Zombrex

Gosimeon I quote you but I know you didn't right this. I would like to post a counter to some of the points raised. As the post directly mention atheism I feel it is only fair to put over an atheists response to some of it.

gosimeon wrote:

The latest surveys tell us that over 90% of people in the world today believe in the existence of God or some higher power.

That isn't quite true. 90% of the worlds population do not believe in the same god or same higher power. They actually believe in a wide range of different gods. And if you ask them do they think the other guys god exist they will flat out tell you no. And many are prepared to die and kill over that issue.

As atheists often point out everyone alive today is atheist towards 99.9% of the gods that have ever be imagined. Atheists just take it one god more.

gosimeon wrote:

Yet, somehow the responsibility is placed on those who believe God does exist to somehow prove that He really does exist.

Only when people actually want to draw conclusions and further actions based on that belief.

I've no problem if you wish to believe in God. If on the other hand you wish to say make a law around that, or preach something in a science class room based on that belief, then I want you to show you are correct. So far no one has every been able to show scientifically that their religion is actually the correct one.

gosimeon wrote:

Since over 98% of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God – there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.

Yes there is something causing this. They themselves are causing this belief.

It is called "hope" and we all do it. Ever bought a Lotto ticket and thought "This time, this time I'm going to win" Ever had a family member or friend in an accident and gone "They will be ok, they will be ok"

Hope is a powerful emotion, and it can make people do powerful things. At the end of the day we are all humans, and well all share similar emotional structures. We all hope for things.

gosimeon wrote:

First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument basically uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist then God would not be the greatest conceivable being - but that would contradict God's very definition.

The problem with that is it requires that the greatest thing must also exist, that existence is a property of the "greatest". That isn't actually true. Think of the greatest football game that could ever, and now think of the greatest that could ever be. The later would naturally be greater than the form, the one that did exist. Yet this football game doesn't exist, it is only in our imaginations.

gosimeon wrote:

The teleological argument is that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a Divine designer.

There is no actual logic behind that assumption.

The most obvious flaw is the idea that the universe displays amazing design. Amazing compared to what exactly? Do you have a less amazingly designed universe to compare this one with and go "wow, that is a good job". It is amazing to us, but that doesn't really mean anything. I find David Beckhams free kicks amazing, but he isn't God.

gosimeon wrote:

For example, if earth were even a few hundred miles closer or further away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does.

(actually it is a few hundred thousand miles. The Earth moves closer and away from the sun by a few hundred miles each year)

That is only amazing if one assumes life had to develop on this planet. Considering that there are trillions upon trillions upon trillions of stars and planets in the universe it is actually quite likely that one of them would be this far from a star. If we had developed on one of those planets we would probably be wondering the odds of that happening.

gosimeon wrote:

If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, every living thing on earth would die.

But we developed like this based on our atmosphere. If our atmosphere had been different we would have developed differently. It is no great surprise.

gosimeon wrote:

The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 10 followed by 243 0’s). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.

Protein formation by darwinian evolution wasn't random, so that is a bit of a redundant point.

gosimeon wrote:

A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence.

Firstly that only applies based on our universe's rules of space and time. Since these are actually properties of our universe we don't know if they applied before our universe was created.

Secondly there is no reason to believe the "cause" was based on an intelligent action.

Thirdly, if you hold that every effect must have a cause where does that leave God? What caused God to exist in the first place? I'm pretty sure your answer will be "nothing, God always existed" but that then defies your original assertion that everything must have a cause.

gosimeon wrote:

A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?

Evolution.

Every culture has a sense of right and wrong because every culture is ultimately human, and we have all evolved systems to ease social interaction. We call them emotions. We fall in love for companionship and to mate. We feel guilty about inflicting harm so that we don't inflict harm on others in our social system (our tribe). Yet we don't feel the same guilt if we inflict this on people outside our social group, such as in times of war. We feel fear at danger because it isn't good for our genes if we die before we can reproduce.

Of course it is a lot more complicated that those examples above. But it is incorrect to state that there is no natural explanation for why we feel emotions, and why we have a sense of morality.

gosimeon wrote:

Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and instead believe a lie.

Well it would wouldn't it. It needs to explain away why some don't believe. It also tells you that ever lasting life awaits in heaven, but then just to make sure everyone just doesn't top themselves to get to this wonder world it tells you not to commit suicide. Its all very convenient

gosimeon wrote:

People claim to not believe in God because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.”

It is also "illogical" and can be better explained by human psychology ...

gosimeon wrote:

The true reason is that once people admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from God (Romans 3:23; 6:23).

Yeah, that is why .... :rolleyes:

gosimeon wrote:

If God exists, then we are accountable for our actions to Him. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us.

Seriously? We can do what ever we want! Where is my bottle of vodka I'm getting some hookers!

Is the only reason theists don't run through the streets shooting the place up, high on drugs while raping women is because God will punish you if you don't?

That is a bit messed up right there, and as an atheist I think that is a reason that I would be rightly a bit nervous being around a theists.

gosimeon wrote:

I believe that is why evolution is so strongly clung to by many in our society - to give people an alternative to believing in a Creator God.

Is the author aware that a large number of biologists are Christian (or Muslim or Jewish)?

Also evolution doesn't actually say anything about God, either way. In fact I don't think God is ever mentioned at all? It is actually religious people who judge that if evolution is true then their religion cannot be true. Lots of other religious people don't have a problem with evolution. Ultimately this is a discussion for the religion itself.

gosimeon wrote:

The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.

And what does the fact that people throughout history have very very aggressively (ie wars and sh1t) tried to prove his existence taught us?

robindch

> atheism provides no basis for morality

Am I right if I read into this that the only reason that you are a decent person is that you are scared that if you aren't, that you will suffer divine retribution? And that you're nice because you will receive some reward from the particular god you believe in? Where does that leave us atheists who do nice things because we want to?

Which morality is better -- to do something because it's a good thing to do, or because you want to curry favour?

gosimeon

I agree with you guys on the morality point. The article contradicts itself as:
-It claims that all humans, from the beginning, have had a sense of morality and this is proof of God. It says even non-Christians had morality.
-It later claims that non-Christians avoid Christianity because it involved morality.

Actually I don't like much of the article!
Just looking for feedback.

Zombrex

gosimeon wrote:

I agree with you guys on the morality point. The article contradicts itself as:
-It claims that all humans, from the beginning, have had a sense of morality and this is proof of God. It says even non-Christians had morality.
-It later claims that non-Christians avoid Christianity because it involved morality.

I was going to point that contradiction out after reading the article again, but I'm glad you saw it for yourself.

I think a lot of theists like to find ways to dismiss atheism as being something bad, and they do this by saying that atheists are ultimately selfish and are atheist because they want to live their lives without having to follow any moral frame work. This links back to the theist idea that all morals come from the teachings of the Bible in the first place. Don't believe in God, don't follow the Bible, don't have any morality.

In reality you will find atheists can be some of the most moral people you will find (of course they can equally be quite immoral). As Robin points out atheists examine their morality themselves, and if they choose a moral framework they do this because they actually think it is good, not because a book tells them it is.

For example I see absolutely no reason why two homosexual who love each other cannot get married when two heterosexuals who don't love each other can.

Not only that, but I can tell you why I think this.

It is with issues like that that you find yourself as an atheist actually sitting down and thinking about an issue, thinking about the logic of the issue, the pros and cons. Where as all to often (in my opinion) you find theists running to the nearest Bible or Qur'an to tell them what to believe about this.

Trying to explain away atheism, as the author of this article does, as simply selfishness is, aside from being rather insulting, simply a convenient smoke screen over the issues of why people actually are atheist.

Us atheists, we aren't all that bad.

I take your point in the other thread about the Christianity forum not turning into a second atheism forum, so if you are interested in why atheists actually are atheists that is probably a discussion for the Atheism Forum. Feel free to pop over any time.