Arguments for God's Existence

[SportyAngel2oo6]

Twelve Arguments for God's existance

From The Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli

Please read this book it is really good and has even more arguments and tons more topics.

These are cosmological, ontological, and psychological arguments. Realize that some are stronger than others and dont disregard all of them just because you dont agree with one of them.

These arguments are for the existance of a God based on the philosophical definition: An all-powerful, unlimited Being.

1. The argument from effiecient casuality

Everything that exists stands in need of being caused to exist. That is a simple scientific law... everything in this universe has a cause. God is the Uncaused Being he is outside from the universe. This is a very simple argument that rests on the foundation of cause and effect. How could the world exist without a greater cause, it could not just come from nothing.



2. The Design argument

"1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside t hemselves.That is to say: the way they eixst and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder... 2. Either this intelligable order is the product of chance or of an intelligent design. 3. Chance can account for it. 4. Therfore the universe is the product of an intelligent design. 5. Design comes only from a mind, a designer. 6. Therfore the universe is the product of an intelligent designer."

3. The Kalam Argument

"1. Whatever began to exist has a cause for its coming into being. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being."

4. The Argument from contingency

"1. If something exists there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist. 2. The universe- the collection of beings in space and time- exists. 3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist. 4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time. 5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcence both space and time." God. For things to continue existing they depend on other things. For example... we depend on oxygen's existance for our own existance.Similarly the universe depends on God's existance for its own existance.

5. The argument from the world acting as an interacting whole

This world is given to us as a dynamic, ordered system of many active component elements. Their natures are ordered to interact with each other in stable, reciprocal relationships which we call physical laws... Such a system as our world requires a unifying efficient cause to posit it in existance as a unified whole. Any such cause must be an intelligent cause, one that brings the system into being according to a unifying idea... The sufficient reason for our ordered world-s ystem must ultimately be a creative, ordering (intelligent) Mind... such an ordering Mind must be independent of the system itself."

6. The argument from miracles

This one you have to first ask yourself whether or not you believe in miracles. If you do, miracles are by definition a divine intervention of God, so therfore God exists if miracles exist.

7. The argument from consciousness
​

We encounter intelligence all over the world, but the universe itself is not intellectually aware and this unconscious material cannot account for the intelligence and design on it.

8. The arguemnt from truth

"!. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. 2. Truth properly resides in a mind. 3. But the human mind is not eternal. 4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside."

9. The ontological argument

Hard for me to explain... read the book

10. The moral argument

"1. Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil. 2. Either the atheistic view or reailty is correct or the "religious" one. 3. But the atheistic one is imcompatible with there being moral obligation. 4. Therefore the "religious" view of reality is correct." If you believe in moral obligation (for example murder is wrong) then for that obligation to exist there has to be a moral lawgiver... God.

11. The argument from conscience

If you don't believe in moral obligation, but ratehr moral subjectivism, you will still admit that you have a conscience. Its the little voice in your head that tells you if you are doing something wrong. Well God accounts for that too because for people to have that builtin sense of right and wrong there has to be a moral lawgiver who first decided it.

12. Pascal's Wager

This is one of my favorites just because it is based purely on logic and it is kinda neat when you think about it.

"The Wager assumes that logical reasoning by itself cannot decide for or against the existance of God; there seem to be good reasons on both sides. Now since reason cannot decide for sure, and since the question is of such importance that we must decide somehow, then we must "wager" if we cannot prove. And so we are asked: Where are you going to place your bet." Suppose God does not exist and i believe in him. In that case, i gain nothing and what awaits me after death is not eternal life but, most likely, eternal nonexistance. Now suppose God does exist and i do not believe in him, I lose everything because i rejected him and would not be going to heaven- a place of joy and happiness and love. If God doesnt exist and i dont believe in him, then i dont gain anything. Lastly if God does exist and i do believe in him than i gain everything! So what sounds like the best bet? "The wager cannot- or should not- coerce belief. But it can be an incentive for us to search for God, to study and restudy the arguemtns that seek to show that there is Something, or Someone, who is the ultimate explanation of the universe and of my life."

Thanks for reading!
Jessica

 

[SportyAngel2oo6]

I forgot... i gave a very brief summary of the arguments. if you want to know more details and stuff ask me and i can try to answer them or you could just get the book which will definately explain alot better than i can! lol

 

[Cordoba]

Hello Sporty Angel:

I personally find the first argument of Cause and Effect to be very convincing.

<< Everything that exists stands in need of being caused to exist. That is a simple scientific law... everything in this universe has a cause. God is the Uncaused Being he is outside from the universe. This is a very simple argument that rests on the foundation of cause and effect. How could the world exist without a greater cause, it could not just come from nothing. >>

One day, a wise man was walking next to a river and saw a boat at a distance. Walking with him was a person who did not believe in a Creator, so the wise man asked him: "Could this boat have been built by coincidence?".

"What do you mean?", he answered.

"I mean could a few pieces of wood on the surface of the water come together on their own, and by coincidence some ropes were not far away, and tied the wood togeter, then a hammer appeared which bashed a few nails into the wood, also by coincidence, to produce this boat you see over there?"

"Of course not", said the other person.

"So how could you for a moment claim that this universe is a coincidence?"

Very logical and convincing argument!

 

[ayani]

thank you, jessica!

sounds like an interesting book. my own argument has always been that, seeming as belief in a higher force or forces in the universe is something that is overwhelmingly culturally and emotionally acceptable to humans and seeming as the human view of things is the only spin we can really have on the world, it makes more sense for a human to believe in such a higher power than not to. not than there's anything wrong with non-belief.

 

[michel]

Twelve Arguments for God's existance

From The Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli

Please read this book it is really good and has even more arguments and tons more topics.

These are cosmological, ontological, and psychological arguments. Realize that some are stronger than others and dont disregard all of them just because you dont agree with one of them.

These arguments are for the existance of a God based on the philosophical definition: An all-powerful, unlimited Being.

1. The argument from effiecient casuality

Everything that exists stands in need of being caused to exist. That is a simple scientific law... everything in this universe has a cause. God is the Uncaused Being he is outside from the universe. This is a very simple argument that rests on the foundation of cause and effect. How could the world exist without a greater cause, it could not just come from nothing.

I Agree wholeheatedly.

2. The Design argument

"1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside t hemselves.That is to say: the way they eixst and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder... 2. Either this intelligable order is the product of chance or of an intelligent design. 3. Chance can account for it. 4. Therfore the universe is the product of an intelligent design. 5. Design comes only from a mind, a designer. 6. Therfore the universe is the product of an intelligent designer."
I Agree wholeheartedly
3. The Kalam Argument

"1. Whatever began to exist has a cause for its coming into being. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being."
I Agree wholeheartedly, but this is a repetition of a point already made.
4. The Argument from contingency

"1. If something exists there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist. 2. The universe- the collection of beings in space and time- exists. 3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist. 4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time. 5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcence both space and time." God. For things to continue existing they depend on other things. For example... we depend on oxygen's existance for our own existance.Similarly the universe depends on God's existance for its own existance.
I think this one is debatable; I agree with the first premise, but there is no logical argument for the creatot to still be there.
5. The argument from the world acting as an interacting whole

This world is given to us as a dynamic, ordered system of many active component elements. Their natures are ordered to interact with each other in stable, reciprocal relationships which we call physical laws... Such a system as our world requires a unifying efficient cause to posit it in existance as a unified whole. Any such cause must be an intelligent cause, one that brings the system into being according to a unifying idea... The sufficient reason for our ordered world-s ystem must ultimately be a creative, ordering (intelligent) Mind... such an ordering Mind must be independent of the system itself."
I agree, but this is repetition.
6. The argument from miracles

This one you have to first ask yourself whether or not you believe in miracles. If you do, miracles are by definition a divine intervention of God, so therfore God exists if miracles exist.
Fallacious. You are proving a fact 'in reverse' - believe in miracles, then it provbes that you believe in God; that is not untrue, but would read far better as if you believe in God, therefore you ought to accept the concept of miracles.
To prove this one you would have to find an atheist if he believes in miracles

7. The argument from consciousness​

We encounter intelligence all over the world, but the universe itself is not intellectually aware and this unconscious material cannot account for the intelligence and design on it.
This actually proves nothing and I disagree that because the universe itself is not intellectually aware, unconscious material cannot account for the ID theory. You have your own eyes - they are the testimony.
8. The arguemnt from truth

"!. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. 2. Truth properly resides in a mind. 3. But the human mind is not eternal. 4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside."
I agree that this proves the existance of a soul.
9. The ontological argument

Hard for me to explain... read the book
After I have read everything else I've already got on my list!, probably in a hundred years time.
10. The moral argument

"1. Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil. 2. Either the atheistic view or reailty is correct or the "religious" one. 3. But the atheistic one is imcompatible with there being moral obligation. 4. Therefore the "religious" view of reality is correct." If you believe in moral obligation (for example murder is wrong) then for that obligation to exist there has to be a moral lawgiver... God.
I disagree with you on this one; there are as many immoral religious followers as there are moral atheists.
11. The argument from conscience

If you don't believe in moral obligation, but ratehr moral subjectivism, you will still admit that you have a conscience. Its the little voice in your head that tells you if you are doing something wrong. Well God accounts for that too because for people to have that builtin sense of right and wrong there has to be a moral lawgiver who first decided it.
Again, I have to disagree; the ten commandments could 'emerge' from a totally atheist society - they are in fact the only rules that can allow man to live in peace, and with no worry that his next door neighbour is going to kill him, steal from him..etc
12. Pascal's Wager

This is one of my favorites just because it is based purely on logic and it is kinda neat when you think about it.

"The Wager assumes that logical reasoning by itself cannot decide for or against the existance of God; there seem to be good reasons on both sides. Now since reason cannot decide for sure, and since the question is of such importance that we must decide somehow, then we must "wager" if we cannot prove. And so we are asked: Where are you going to place your bet." Suppose God does not exist and i believe in him. In that case, i gain nothing and what awaits me after death is not eternal life but, most likely, eternal nonexistance. Now suppose God does exist and i do not believe in him, I lose everything because i rejected him and would not be going to heaven- a place of joy and happiness and love. If God doesnt exist and i dont believe in him, then i dont gain anything. Lastly if God does exist and i do believe in him than i gain everything! So what sounds like the best bet? "The wager cannot- or should not- coerce belief. But it can be an incentive for us to search for God, to study and restudy the arguemtns that seek to show that there is Something, or Someone, who is the ultimate explanation of the universe and of my life"
I actually find this an immoral way of looking at things; if the only reason that you can think of to be good stems from a fear that if there is a God, he will punish you for not being good, then your morality emmerges from the wrong motive
Thanks for reading!
Jessica

Thank you for the read; fruballacious!

 

[meogi]

1. The argument from effiecient casuality

I believe this is confusing the term cause. Cause as action is pretty standard, but cause as purpose is a bit off. They don't mean the same thing, and this is using both, incorrectly.

2. The Design argument

Um, this has been done to death. But I'm just gonna quick hit up #5 and say, 'design' also comes from chaos and disorder. Look at fractals or chaos theory.

3. The Kalam Argument

Look at #1.

4. The Argument from contingency

You have to show that objects have purpose before you can rely on this one. Reliance is not purpose.

5. The argument from the world acting as an interacting whole

This is strangely related to ID...

6. The argument from miracles

Miraculous!

7. The argument from consciousness

We also encounter non-conciousness. Existance requires conciousness? First time I've heard that...

8. The arguemnt from truth

Universal truth? Let's have one.

9. The ontological argument

Conceivability suggests existance? I'd suggest otherwise.

10. The moral argument

Moral obligation is not a fact. Also, the 'moral lawgiver' is not necessarily god. Society rings closer.

11. The argument from conscience

I think that little voice inside my head was more than a little affected by society.

12. Pascal's Wager

You're ignoring other possibilities. Asside from alternate gods, there could be no god, but an 'afterlife'.