Draft:God: Rational Proofs of Existence

Historically, a very large number of proofs of God's existence have been presented and debated. This page will not focus on the history of proofs of God, but will instead focus on the laying out of logical arguments, and where appropriate standard objections to them, and Christian responses to those objections.

Cosmological arguments
The first proof to be considered is less a singular argument than a type of argument. The arguments which will be considered here are cosmological arguments. Cosmological arguments have this basic feature: they are a posteriori arguments (that is they contain an existential premise) that seek a cause or reason for the cosmos. It is very important that one distinguish between "cause" and "reason" in cosmological arguments, as we can then distinguish between different forms of the argument.

The first cosmological argument to be considered is usually known contemporaneously as the "kalam cosmological argument". The argument can be stated in the following form;

1) everything that begins to exist has a cause

2) the universe began to exist

3) therefore, the universe has a cause

Having arrived at the conclusion that the universe has a cause, a conceptual analysis, it is argued by proponents of the argument, will reveal that the cause of the universe must possess many of the core components of God.

The first premise may be defended by the metaphysical intuition that nothing comes from nothing. For to come into being without a cause of any sort is to come into being from nothing, as William Lane Craig and James D. Sinclair have said in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.

It may also be defended by a reductio ad absurdum proof. If something could come into being from nothing, then it's inexplicable why just anything doesn't come into being from nothing.

Finally, premise 1 is constantly confirmed in our experience. It is as the naturalist philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider calls it "a metaphysical hypothesis which has proved so fruitful in every corner of science that we are well-adivsed to try as hard as we can to eschew processes of absolute origin."

Premise 2 can be defended by appeal to both philosophical arguments and scientific evidence. Philosophically, the idea of an infinite regress of past events leads to metaphysical absurdities. One arrives at contradictory results when trying to negate from infinity. Results like these suggest infinity is just an idea in the mind, not something that can be realized. However, if that is the case, then the universe cannot be eternal. Further, attempting to count down to today from infinity also results in paradoxical results.

Premise 2 may be further supported by remarkable discoveries in the field of astronomy and astrophysics. The controlling paradigm of 20th and 21st century science has been that the universe is not infinitely old, but had an absolute beginning a finite time ago in the Big Bang. Of course, various models have been proposed to try to avert such beginnings. However, it has been shown that these models either fail for other reasons or fail to avert an absolute beginning of the universe.

Given the truth of the two premises, the end of the proof, the conclusion that "therefore, the universe has a cause" is also true. A conceptual analysis of what it means to be a cause of the universe may then be undertaken. Such a cause, by the very nature of the case, must transcend space and time, matter and energy. It must be changeless as in the absence of time there is no change. It must be uncaused. Since it is uncaused it must be beginningless, by contraposition of premise 1. It must further be unimaginably powerful (if not omnipotent) since it created the universe from nothing. Finally, the cause must be plausibly personal. We can know this for three reasons. Firstly, philosophers make a distinction between personal causes and scientific causes. In the absence of the laws of nature at the beginning of the universe, such a cause must be a personal one. Secondly, the only causal entity that fits the description of the cause listed here is an unembodied mind or consciousness. Finally, the personhood of the first cause is implied by the origination of an effect with a beginning (the universe) from a timeless and therefore eternal cause. If the cause is eternal, then the effect would always be given as well. The best way out of this dilemma is to postulate agent causation, where the cause of the universe is a personal agent, endowed with freedom of the will, who can therefore spontaneously generate an effect in time from a timeless starting-point. We thus arrive at a cause that is uncaused and personal, and who, absent the universe, is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful. This, as Thomas Aquinas was wont to remark, is what everybody means by "God."

Contemporary objections to this argument have been made by philosophers such as Adolf Grünbaum, since his objections are very typical, a brief review of his objections and responses to them will be adumbrated.

1) the argument is guilty of equivocation because when we use the word cause we mean something that transforms materials from one state to another, but when we infer that the universe has a cause, we must mean something that creates its effect from nothing. The argument is thus guilty of equivocation and is therefore invalid

Response: the question of whether the cause referred to in premise 1 is causation out of existing materials or not is an incidental question to premise 1). aConsequently, the charge of equivocation is "groundless".

2) It does not follow from the necessity of there being a cause that the cause of the universe is a conscious agent.

Response: the personhood of the cause does not follow from the two premises of the cosmological argument proper, but rather from a conceptual analysis of the notion of a first cause of the beginning of the universe, as we have seen.

3) it is logically fallacious to infer that there is a single conscious agent who created the universe.

Response: the inference to a single cause is justified by the principle, commonly accepted in science, that one should not multiply entities beyond necessity.

4) causality is logically compatible with an infinite, beginningless series of events

Response: it is not the concept of causality which is incompatible with an infinite series of past events,

5) if everything has a cause of its existence then the cause of the universe must have a cause

Response: this misunderstands premise 1). Premise 1) states everything that begins to exist has a cause, thus it is entirely compatible with an eternal thing not needing a cause.

Thus, the kalam cosmological argument is one proof of God that is very much "live" in contemporary philosophy.

A second cosmological argument is the Leibnizian cosmological argument. Here the argument asks for a sufficient reason for the Universe. Everything it is maintained has an explanation of its existence (this may be called the principle of explanation). The universe exists, therefore it should have an explanation for its existence. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, its explanation is a necessary, uncaused, transcendent, omnipotent and personal being, aka God. The argument assumes the explanation of the universe is necessary because such a cause is anterior to the contingent universe. It follows it is uncaused, since according to the version of the argument that has been advanced historically and contemporaneously, everything has an explanation of its existence, either in an external cause, or by the necessity of its own nature. Since we have concluded that God exists by a necessity of his own nature, it follows logically (as we have eliminated the only other option for his explanation) that he is uncaused. Since the explanation of the universe is anterior to all contingent reality, it follows that he transcends space-time, matter and energy. Further, the cause of the universe must be omnipotent, as it created all of reality. Finally, such a cause is taken to be personal, since only a transcendent mind or consciousness fits the description of the cause laid out here. The conclusion of this argument does not leave us with an ill-defined Flying Spaghetti Monster, but a being with many of the attributes commonly ascribed to God. To lay out the argument formally:

1) everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external cause

2) if the Universe has an explanation of its existence, then that explanation is God

3) the Universe exists

4) therefore, the Universe has an explanation of its existence

5) therefore, the explanation of the Universe's existence is God

These are the two prominent cosmological arguments defended contemporaneously. Of course, many more have been expounded historically. This project directs the reader to the work "The Cosmological Argument: From Plato to Leibniz" by Craig for a look at the historical cosmological arguments.

The teleological argument (or design argument)
The teleological argument, also known as the design argument, states that the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants and quantities of the universe is best accounted for by an appeal to an intelligent designer of the cosmos. The fact that there are around 50 constants and quantities which, if they were different, would not allow the formation of embodied conscious moral-agents (ECM) is a fact that is argued to be best accounted for by the hypothesis of theism as opposed to atheism. To lay out the argument in formal terms;

1) the fine-tuning of the universe for ECM is due to either chance, physical necessity, or design

2) it is not due to either chance or physical necessity

3) therefore, it is due to design

The philosopher Richard Swinburne asks us to imagine we are strapped to a machine that must deal out 42 aces of hearts from 42 randomly ordered decks of cards. The machine will kill us instantly if this does not happen. Lo and behold, it does happen, and we are released. Would we assume this was due to pure chance, or would we say the game had been rigged? Physical explanations of why this fine-tuning has occurred also do not fully explain the fine-tuning. Like a stubborn bump in the carpet, fine-tuning of the constants and quantities of nature persist in needing explanations, and physical explanations at best reduce the number of coincidences to be explained, but do not address them all. The laws of nature are quite independent of the constants and quantities, making it very very unlikely that further will say these constants and quantities are the way they are because of physical necessity.

Since neither chance or physical necessity can account for these constants and quantities being as they are, that leaves design as the best explanation of fine-tuning.

The moral argument
The moral argument states that for morality to be objective, there must be a God. It is argued that evolution and social conditioning at best produce subjective illusions of morality, but they do nothing to make it objective. The best explanation for objective morality's existence is that God exists. However, in moral experience, one apprehends a realm of objective moral values. Therefore, God exists. The argument can be stated formally as follows:

1) if God did not exist, then objective moral values and duties would not exist

2) objective moral values and duties exist

3) therefore, God exists

The argument from miracles
This argument tries to establish the Christian God's existence. All of the other arguments narrow down the field of gods to deistic and monotheistic Gods. The argument is that the facts of Jesus's life are accounted for best by God raising Jesus from the dead, and that therefore, what Jesus said about himself was correct. The four facts discussed here are accepted by the vast majority of New Testament historians today.

We thus we have an argument for the Christian God. The argument may be stated as an inference to the best explanation as follows:

1) there are four established concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus's burial by a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin (Joseph of Arimathea),  the discovery of Jesus's empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and the origin of the disciples faith in Jesus rising from the dead

2) the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation of these facts

3) the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" entails that God exists

4) therefore, God exists