Can we prove or disprove God's existence?

I encourage any student of religion to question the idea that the arguments for and against the existence of God can prove (or disprove) God's existence. My basic reasoning for this is as follows: If any of the arguments for God's existence worked as a conclusive proof of God's existence, then (logically) it would provide a sound reason for believing God existed and as such there would be no denying God's existence. In short, everyone would be theists. Likewise, if any of the arguments against God's existence worked to conclusively disprove God's existence, then (logically) no-one would believe God existed and (in theory) everyone would be atheists. However, the fact that the matter of God's existence is still widely debated, and that we have people all around the world who believe in God's existence and do not believe God exists, suggests the issue is far from resolved. As such, we must reject the simplistic notion that any of the arguments (either for or against God's existence) are the final word on the matter.

Rodin's "The Thinker"
(Copyright Stephen A Richards)

In light of this, it's important to approach the question of God's existence with a degree of humility. The issue has been hotly debated, and often by the finest minds, throughout much of human existence. Thus to think we can easily prove or disprove the question of God's existence beyond all doubt is rather naive.

So why do people regularly engage with others over the issue of God's existence in a simplistic and knee-jerk fashion? I would suggest that many find it hard to see anything positive in another person's point-of-view for fear that in doing so it would undermine their own beliefs. For example, atheists would be afraid that if they see any value in an argument for God's existence, that they would then have to start believing in God; with theists worrying that conceding any ground to atheists would undermine their belief in God. So quickly dismissing another person's belief is the easier option, and simply a matter of self-preservation.

The author walking on ice
(Copyright Stephen A Richards)

Yet this is a very oversimplified view of who we are and the beliefs we hold. We do not change our fundamental beliefs about things on a whim. Anytime our beliefs do radically change, this tends to happen over a period of time. If a theist or atheist is going to change their belief in God this will have taken place after many months, or even years of thinking and reflection.

Religious Studies/Philosophy of Religion is first and foremost an academic subject. It is not an attempt to convert students to either atheism or theism. Thus in order to do well in the subject, one must be prepared to engage critically, yet also respectfully, with other people's beliefs and opinions. At the end of the day, no-one has all the answers. We are all born into a particular family, society, and place in the world which has a profound influence on who we are, what we think of other people and the way we experience the world. The value in taking a subject like Religious Studies/Philosophy of Religion is that it gives us a chance to experience the world as other's do, and to critically reflect on our own place and beliefs in the grand scheme of things.

David Hume's criticisms of the Design Argument in 5 minutes

An overview of David Hume's criticisms of the design argument from chapters 2-5 of the "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion", along with some key quotes.

The key issue

Design arguments such as the one Hume critiques in "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" (1779), compare the complex and ordered nature of the world with complicated and ordered things humans have made (for example machines). The argument is that as things such as machines have been made by someone, this can suggest (by analogy) that a complex and ordered natural world must also be the result of a deliberate act of creation. In other words, where we find complexity in the natural world this is evidence that there is a world maker, who is God.

Schematic diagram of the human eye
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye)

The importance of analogies

The success of design arguments is dependent on how close the analogy works to compare the natural world with things humans have made. If the natural world can be shown to be complex and organised without any appeal to outside influences, then the analogy is significantly weakened.

Section 1: The analogy is weak (Chapters 2-4)

The following objections were made in response to an analogy based on building a house:

• Objection 1: The analogy does not compare like-for-like things. We cannot compare the building of a house with the creation of the world. They are too different ("The unlikeness in this case is so striking that the most you can offer on the basis of it is a guess")
• Objection 2:  We cannot take one small part of nature and use this "as the model for the whole world" coming into existence ("From observing the growth of a hair, can we learn anything about how men come into being?")
• Objection 3: Why assume the natural realm exhibits evidence of intelligent design, rather than simply the creation of more natural stuff? ("When nature has operated in such a wide variety of ways on this small planet, can we think that she incessantly copies herself throughout the rest of this immense universe?")
• Objection 4: The analogy between building a house and creating a world is only valid if you have seen both a house and a world being built, otherwise the analogy is based on assumptions ("Have worlds ever been formed under your eye")

New house under construction Pittsfield Township Michigan
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_construction)

Section 2: What sort of God created this sort of world (Chapter 5)

The following objections were made in response to a principle established at the outset, that "like effects prove like causes" and "that the more similar the observed effects... the more similar the causes that are inferred":

• Objection 5: Based on evidence from the (finite) world we live in, we have no reason to conclude that God is infinite ("What right have we (on your theory) to ascribe infinity to God?")
• Objection 6: We have no reason to conclude that God is perfect from looking at the way things are in the world ("Consider the many inexplicable difficulties in the works of nature - illnesses, earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, and so on")
• Objection 7: This world may be one in a line of many "imperfect" worlds made by an "imperfect" God ("It may be that many worlds were botched and bungled, throughout an eternity, before our present system was built")
• Objection 8: Why assume the creation of our world was the work of just one God? ("A great many men join together to build a house")
• Objection 9: The things we see being made around us are created by intelligent humans, why not go the whole way and say that God is also human? ("No man has ever seen reason except in someone of human shape, and that therefore the gods must have that shape")
• Objection 10: God might exist, but why assume God is still around and interested in our world? ("This world was only the first rough attempt of some infant god, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his poor performance")

William Blake's The Ancient of Days (1794)
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_of_Days)

Was Hume an atheist or an agnostic?

In the essay "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion", the character Philo represents Hume's skeptical point-of-view. Before the critiques of the design argument are set out (Chapters 2-5), the character Philo seems to state a version of the Cosmological Argument:

That [God] exists is, as you well observe, unquestionable and self-evident. Nothing exists without a cause; and the original cause of this universe (whatever it may be) we call ‘God’, and piously ascribe to him every kind of perfection.

It should noted that the "First Cause" mentioned here could be God as traditionally believed, or a natural phenomenon such as the 'Big Bang'?

Key quotes

"Since the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer by all the rules of analogy that the causes are also alike, and that the author of nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man."

"The exact similarity of the cases gives us a perfect assurance of a similar outcome... But the evidence is less strong when the cases are less than perfectly alike; any reduction in similarity, however tiny, brings a corresponding reduction in the strength of the evidence; and as we move down that scale we may eventually reach a very weak analogy."

Key Text

• DIALOGUES CONCERNING NATURAL RELIGION

William Paley's Watch Analogy

Review

Atheists and the Problem of Evil

If God exists then why is there evil in the world? If God exists why do people suffer? If God exists why do bad things happen? Many atheists use this kind of argument as a basis for rejecting belief in God, the point being that if there is an all-powerful (omnipotent) and all-good (benevolent) Deity, then why do bad things happen?

In Christian theology this is known as The Problem of Evil. The classic statement of this "problem" was set out by Epicurus circa. 300BCE, and later rehashed by David Hume in "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" (1779):

Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then [God] is impotent. Is [God] able, but not willing? then [God] is malevolent. Is [God] both able and willing? then where does evil come from?

Murder in the House by Jakub Schikaneder (1890)
(Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jakub_Schikaneder_-_Murder_in_the_House.JPG)

The argument assumes that if God exists then God could, would and should do something about the presence of evil in the world. That there is evil and suffering in the world must mean God does not exist. The argument seems decisive, and believers have largely bought into the paradox, leading to all manner of theological gymnastics being performed across the years in the attempt to resolve this so-called "problem".

Yet for any atheist who uses this as a basis for arguing against God's existence I think the question begs: What exactly do you expect God to do about evil and suffering? Let me phrase this another way. If the claim is being made that were God to exist then God should, could and would do something about the presence of evil in the world, then what does God acting in the world essentially boil down to? In the end we are essentially talking about miracles.

Christ Appearing to His Disciples After the Resurrection by William Blake (1795)
(Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Christ_Appearing_to_His_Apostles_Blake.jpg)

In suggesting that God should, could and would address the problem of evil and suffering, what an atheist is basically asking God to do is nothing short of a miracle! Yet atheists do not believe God does miracles... or do they? If atheists want to ground belief in God's non-existence on the assumption that if God exists then God would do something about evil, then they are essentially making the case that God does miracles. Yet if we are suggesting that God can do a miracle to end evil and suffering, why not go all the way and say that God could also raise Jesus from the dead, this being the miracle par excellence for Christians as it not only proves God's existence but justifies the profession of Jesus Christ as our Saviour:

For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins (1 Corinthians 15:16-17)

I doubt any atheist would go this far. In fact somewhat paradoxically in "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" (1748) David Hume actually rejects the logical probability of miracles and the resurrection occurring, which seems to undermine his suggestion thirty years later in the "Dialogues" that were God to exist, then God should be doing something about evil and suffering. In the end, Hume cannot have his theological cake (why doesn't God do a miracle to stop evil and suffering) and eat it (miracles don't happen).

All this appears to leave the atheist having to restate the "problem" of evil in the following manner: Either God exists and can do a miracle to stop evil and suffering, which leaves the question begging as to why someone would then logically reject Jesus' resurrection, or God does not do miracles, which means the existence of evil and suffering in the world is not God's problem to solve, but ours!

Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways (Part 2): Contingency, Goodness, Design

Click here to read Part 1 of this article

The third way: The way of CONTINGENCY

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to be corrupted, and consequently, it is possible for them to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not.Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence - which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore, we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God. (Aquinas)

Things exist, but they could easily not exist! There was a time before certain things existed, and there will be a time when they no longer exist. There must also have been a time when nothing existed. This means that objects that exist have contingent existence, which means they could or  could not exist. For Aquinas, the only thing which has always existed is God (who would therefore have necessary existence). Aquinas saw no way to explain how anything was here, unless something existed prior to it. Thus for him, if God did not exist then nothing else would.

The essence of Aquinas’ argument in bold above, assumes that God created the world ex nihilo (out-of-nothing). It was literally caused to be here from no other natural cause. Of course this could be challenged today by Cosmologists who argue that although there was no form to matter before the “Big Bang”, there was still something prior to the ‘Bang” which led to it occurring (E.g. Quantum fluctuations).

The fourth way: The way of GOODNESS

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble, and the like. But more and less are predicated of different things according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest, and, consequently, something which is most being, for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being... Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus, as fire, which is the maximum of heat, is the cause of all hot things, as is said in the same book. Therefore, there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. (Aquinas)

We see in the world degrees of perfection and goodness. Some things are really bad, some not so bad, some things are better than others. Aquinas argues that we only know things are 'degrees of x' (i.e something is really bad or not so bad) because we compare them to the best in any group (or genus) of things. So something not so bad is being compared to something that’s really bad!

Now in terms of morality, as humans have the capacity for both good and bad deeds they cannot logically be the source of Goodness (i.e. the most Good thing), because if they were they would not do bad things. Therefore, the maximum in the genus of morality must be something non-human, and not in the world (because this too is not completely good), which leaves us with God as the most perfect being, and the 'first cause' (or source) of all goodness and perfection. Of course, it might be argued that this is not so much an argument for the existence of God, but for the existence of some standard of morality. We could could say there is an ultimate standard of Goodness, without requiring us to posit the existence of God. Far more compelling (in terms of any moral argument for God’s existence) is to use God’s existence as as way of explaining why humans are something compelled to act in an altruistic manner, if there is nothing more than this world or life.

The fifth way: The way of DESIGN (or teleology)

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. (Aquinas)

Aquinas' argument here is basically suggesting that inanimate objects (E.g. Planets), could not have ordered themselves on their own (i.e. got themselves into the orbits they have), because they lack the intelligence to do so. As the planets are aligned so perfectly, this means it must have been done by a Being with the ability and intelligence to do this. Although humans are intelligent and can explain planetary motion, they cannot move planets, so that leaves us with God (who Aquinas believed could move planets if God chose to do so).

From simple observation nature suggests a realm of order and purpose. This is the basis of science. The world is able to be observed, understood and explained. For Aquinas, anything which has in it a sense of purpose and order requires a 'guiding hand'. For instance, an arrow only hits the target because it has been fired by an archer. Thus if nature appears ordered, it must have a 'guiding hand', who Aquinas believed was God.

A weakness with Aquinas’ Fifth Way is that for science to be capable of observing, understanding and explaining the world we live in, we must first assume a sense of order and stability about things. The idea that there is some Deity acting in and on the world raises questions in terms of science’s ability to test, examine, and explain things. For instance, we cannot easily talk about the ‘laws of nature’ being constants, and have a God acting in the world doing miracles for example. So the scientific enterprise has gradually removed the notion that God acts in nature, to one where nature acts independently of any Divine Being. In the end, the more science provides us with an explanation of how and why things are the way they are, the less we find any need for a Divine Creator.

Further reading

• What Came Before the Big Bang?, Koberlein B, December 1st 2014

Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways (Part 1): Introduction, Motion, Causation

Introduction

In Summa Theologica (1265-74), Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) outlined five proofs for God’s existence. As with Catholicism today, Aquinas believed it was possible to discern truths about God based on reason (human rationality), and revelation (divinely revealed truths not available to reason). Aquinas lived at a time when Aristotle's teachings were popular, and he made wide use of these in his theological writings.

The chief idea Aquinas harvested from Aristotle was the notion that things that changed, required an unchanging source. Aquinas explored variations of this theme in the first three of his proofs for God’s existence and have formed the basis of what are popularly known as COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS. Aquinas’ fourth proof is related to MORAL ARGUMENTS for God’s existence, whilst the fifth way is related to DESIGN (or TELEOLOGICAL) ARGUMENTS.

In summary

• Cosmological Arguments: Proofs 1 -3
• Moral Argument: Proof 4
• Design (Teleological argument): Proof 5

It should be noted that for each of his proofs Aquinas is already assuming the existence of a God who is uncreated and independent of this world, the universe and their respective processes. This means God is not reliant on the world and the universe for God's existence. However, for Aquinas the world and the universe are reliant on God for their existence. In other words, without God nothing would be here.

The first way: The way of MOTION

It is certain, and evident to our sense, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be moved from a state of potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality... it is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved must itself be moved, then this also needs to be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover, seeing as subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. (Aquinas)

Everything in the world changes! Aquinas' proof here needs to be set against the background of Aristotle's discussion of astronomy. Aristotle argued that planetary motion, which he believed caused the seasons to change, required an Unmoved Mover who would maintain the order of things. Therefore, Aquinas used this notion to speak of the sustaining work of God. God makes sure the world and the universe remain the same, but was also behind the changes which led to the years passing by.

The essence of Aquinas’ argument in bold above, is that the potential for something to become something else has to come from outside of itself. For example, a pot will not simply appear from a ball of clay without the input of a potter! The potential for the pot to be formed from the clay is there, but it requires something external to the clay to work on it to achieve this.

The second way: The way of CAUSATION

The second way is from the nature of efficient cause. In the world of sensible things we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, or intermediate, cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. (Aquinas)

The notion of cause and effect, means you cannot have the latter (effect), without the former (cause - here called an efficient cause, because it is the means of bringing another thing into existence, or causing something to change). For Aquinas (and Aristotle) there cannot be an endless regression of cause and effect. An event always implies a cause, and if we continue to seek causes of events we will naturally look for a first cause of everything. According to the natural sciences, the first cause of everything is found in such things as singularities and a “Big Bang”. According to Aquinas though, the first cause is God.

The essence of Aquinas’ argument in bold above, is that that there would be nothing here if there wasn’t a cause of everything. The world and the universe cannot have always existed, (i.e. be infinite). Even though logically this is possible, Aquinas rejects this idea.

Review (The First Way)

Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways (Part 2): Contingency, Goodness, Design

A Brief Review of Arguments for the Existence of God (Part 2): Cosmological Arguments

To read part 1 of this article click here

Cosmological arguments

As with those based on the notion of design, cosmological arguments seek to argue for the existence of God based on what we experience of the world and universe we live in. The central aim of cosmological arguments is to establish what CAUSED everything to be here, or how the world and the universe began.

Cosmological arguments are attempting to address the problem of an infinite regress. This occurs when we have no starting-point for something. For example, in terms of the origin of the world we might ask where everything came from. If we are told that everything came from x, we would then ask where x came from. If x came from y, then we would logically ask where y came from, and so on and so on. Therefore, in order to stop this never-ending sequence we need an uncaused-cause of everything.

The Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-74 CE) is known for examining two versions of the cosmological argument. In one he argued that every event has a cause, and this leads us to posit a first cause of everything. In another version he argued that things only move because they are moved by something else; leading us to seek the first mover of everything. Aquinas' cosmological arguments were basically intended to show that in order for anything to be here, it requires the presence of something existing before anything else did, and being a Christian he believed the world is only be here because God created it.

Here are the two cosmological arguments Aquinas set out in more detail:

• The argument from FIRST CAUSES: Whatever exists is here because something else has caused it to be here (for example, children are here because of their parents). Things cannot cause themselves to exist (for example, children cannot give birth to themselves). There cannot be a never-ending (infinite) chain of causes. God is the first cause of everything here.
• The argument from MOTION: Things move (or become something else), because something causes it to do this. It is impossible for motion in the universe to have always been happening, so it must have begun somewhere (and somehow). There cannot be a never-ending (infinite) chain of events. God is the first mover (cause) of everything.

Naturalistic evolution works from the premise that the world and the universe had a first cause, this being known as a Singularity (aka ‘Big Bang’); We should also note that logically for naturalistic evolution to work, this present world and universe cannot always have existed.

Summary: Key features of cosmological arguments

• Nothing happens in the world without a reason.
• Events in the world have been caused by something else.
• Things in the world and the universe did not cause themselves to come into existence.
• To deal with the problem of an infinite regress the world and the universe must have a first cause.
• The reason why the world and the universe are here is because of God.
• Cosmological arguments are based on comparing the way things work in the world, to the way things must be in the universe (analogy).

Evidence in support of cosmological arguments

• We can see from our own experience that things happen in the world because something else has caused them to happen.
• That we are here because of our parents, and they are here because of theirs etc., is an example of something which cannot have an infinite regress. Life has not always been here. Something must have caused humans to be here.
• Science tells us that the world had a starting point (The 'Big-bang').
• Modern cosmology posits that stars are moving out and that the universe is expanding. This suggests it had a starting point.

Debates about cosmological arguments

One of the biggest problems with cosmological arguments is that they appear to be self-defeating. If we say that EVERYTHING must have a cause, and that nothing can exist without having been caused by something else, then what about God who is said to be an uncaused causer? This seems to leave the question begging: 'If God caused everything, then who caused God?' In order words, why construct an argument on the basis that everything needs a cause, and then argue that the answer to how the world and universe got here is an uncaused cause (i.e. God)? This is contrary to the logic of the argument. If we say that God is uncaused, then why not the world and universe too?

Another problem for cosmological argument is that scientific explanations for the origins of life do not require the existence of God to explain why anything is here. In fact, it seems the more 'science' works to explain the world around us, the less we need of God. For example, in the past God has often been used to bridge gaps in our scientific knowledge (aka God of the gaps) such as praying and offering gifts to God to ensure a good harvest, or to get pregnant. However now 'science' has shown us that it is good soil and the right fertilizer that will maximise our crop yield, and ovulation tests and IVF now help women to get pregnant.

Yet for all that science informs us about the world and universe we live in, it cannot tell us everything about it. For instance, modern cosmological theories of the origins of life argue that the Singularity which caused the 'Big-bang' was the product of events we can know nothing about. This is because we are unable to 'see' them because they happened prior to anything else coming into existence. So if in reality we are speculating (or making a best-guess) about events prior to the 'Big-bang', this means the possibility of God's existence must remain open, and as such this is why some theologians say science tells us how life began, but God’s existence explains why it did.

A Brief Review of Arguments for the Existence of God (Part 3): Morality and Religion

A Brief Review of Arguments for the Existence of God (Part 1): Introduction and Design

Introduction

Arguments for the existence of God are an attempt to prove (or justify) God's existence by rational means. They are usually expressed in the form of 'If... then' statements. For example:

• If there is evidence for design in the world... then this is evidence for a designer (who is God).

Arguments for the existence of God are based on what in Christian theology is known as general revelation. This is the belief that there is evidence for God's existence from the way things are in the world. Arguments for the existence of God based on general revelation are also called natural theology.

General revelation is contrasted with special revelation. Special revelation consists of knowledge that God has specifically revealed, such as who God is, what God has done (or will do), and how God wants us to live (E.g. The Ten Commandments). Special Revelation can be found in the various holy books of the World Faiths (E.g. The Bible, Qur'an, Guru Granth Sahib).

Although natural theology (based on reason) is said to be capable of demonstrating God's existence, many theologians believe it is incapable of telling us anything about who God is, or how God wants us to live. For example, Muslims would not have known from the way the world is that Allah wanted them to pray five times a day (Salah). This is something Allah specifically revealed to them through the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH*). Furthermore, some say that in relying on our own thoughts and reasoning skills that there is a danger people might confuse their own ideas about who God is, with who God truly is.

Well known arguments for the existence of God

Some of the most widely studied arguments for the existence of God are:

• Design arguments (the way the world is structured and organised)
• Cosmological arguments (considering the ultimate origin of life)
• Moral arguments (the origin of Goodness and why people do good things)
• Logical arguments (making a rational case for God’s existence - E.g. The Ontological Argument)

Some might say that a proof for God’s existence is the phenomena (or existence) of religion. In other words, why do people claim God exists and worship God, if there is no God to believe in or worship in the first place?

Arguments for the existence of God based on the appearance of design in the world

Design arguments suggest that the world has been set up and ordered in such a precise way that this could not have happened by chance, but must have been done by some higher reality. In theistic religions this 'higher reality' is known as God**. Design arguments are also known as teleological arguments. The word telos in Greek means 'purpose', and so teleological arguments suggest that there is evidence of purpose (or intentional design), in the way the world is. For example, eyes and ears are said to have been precisely 'designed' for seeing and hearing, the seasons ordered so as to cause plants to grow year after year, and the ozone layer set up at the correct distance from the earth so as to protect us from harmful U.V. rays.

Inherent in all design arguments is the notion that the world and the universe are complex yet everything seems to fit together in a precise and ordered way, and that this must have been planned in some way.

Those who believe God created the world are called Creationists. Sometimes the notion of Creationism is also linked to a specific idea of how God created the world. For example, because in the Bible it says God created things on the First Day, Second Day, Third Day etc. (Genesis 1), the assumption is made that the world was created within a week. Some Christians also believe that by using the various dates and ages of people we find in the Bible, we can prove that the world was created around 6,000 years ago. People who believe this are known as Young Earth Creationists***.

William Paley (1743-1805) set out what many people consider to be the classic form of the design argument.

The Watch Analogy

“If you came across a watch in an uninhabited place, you could not say it had been put there by chance. The complexity of its mechanism would make you say that it had a designer. Now the universe is far more complex than a watch, and so if a watch needs a watchmaker, the universe needs a universe-maker, and that could only be God.”

Paley's analogy suggests that complex and ordered things do not occur by chance. Instead, complex things (like watches) have been made by someone (watchmaker) and for a specific reason (to tell the time). In the passage above, Paley is suggesting that because the world is complex and ordered then this could not have come about by chance, but must be the product of intelligent design.

Summary: Key features of design arguments

• The world and the universe are ordered.
• The world and the universe have things in them which are 'designed' to do specific 'jobs' (they have a purpose).
• Complex things do not come about by chance, but have been made by someone.
• The world and the universe are complex and ordered places, so these must have been designed and made by some higher reality.
• Theists believe the 'designer' and creator of the world and universe is God.
• The design argument is based on an analogy with the way humans produce complex things (such as watches), to the way things must be in the universe.

Evidence of design in the world and the universe

• The way the seasons are ordered into a 'cycle of life'
• The way the ozone layer protects people from the harmful rays of the sun.
• The way gravity on earth is strong enough so as to keep us flying off it into space, yet also weak enough to prevent other planets from crashing into us.
• The complexity of eyes and ears, whose purpose is to see and hear.

Some issues

Objectors to design arguments say we do not need a God-hypothesis to explain why things are as they are in the world and the universe (i.e. complex and ordered). For these people, science tells them everything they need to know about the world and the universe they inhabit. For instance, they would say that life was 'created' from the 'Big-bang', and that everything has come about as a result of natural evolutionary processes. Of course, rather than arguing against God’s existence it might be said that science explains how God created everything. In other words, maybe God initiated the 'Big-bang' and the process of evolution as a means to forming and filling the world as we know it? The idea that God worked through the Big-bang and evolution to bring about life is known as theistic evolution.

One of the biggest objections to design arguments is the presence of evil and suffering. The argument goes that if the world has been designed and made by God, then why do bad things happen in it, or why did God create one where bad things happen? We should note that this argument does not necessarily disprove God’s existence, just the ability for God to create a good world. God can still exist but stand accused of not having done a very good job creating the world we live in today.

A Brief Review of Arguments for the Existence of God (Part 2): Cosmological Arguments

Notes

* PBUH is an abbreviation of the phrase “Peace Be Upon Him”, which is said after uttering the name of Muhammad (Prophet of Islam), as a sign of respect.

** A theist is someone who believes God exists, and theism is the term we use to describe this belief. Therefore, a theistic religion is one which has as a central idea the belief that God exists.

*** List of Creationist websites: http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationist-websites.