Week Four: Apologetic Arguments for God

Apologetic “Proofs” for the existence of God

First of all, you cannot “Prove” God. Likewise, there is nothing that can decisively “disprove” God. The best that can be done on either side of the issue is to demonstrate the probability that a God does or does not exist. Thus the debate over whether God exists or not.

However, there are four basic arguments

4 types of arguments:

Ontological
Axiological
Teleological
Cosmological

Ontological Argument

1) Ontology is literally the study of “what is real, what has being”.
2) Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was the first one to call this argument the “Ontological” argument, in that he felt that it makes an unjustified jump from ideas to reality (or being).
3) It was developed by St. Anselm (1033-1109)
4) Originally developed by St. Anselm, the Ontological Argument plainly stated is as follows:
a. It is logically necessary to affirm that a Necessary Being has all the attributes that a Necessary Being must necessarily have.
b. “Existence” would be a necessary attribute that a Necessary Being would have.
c. Therefore, if there could be a Necessary Being, then there must be a Necessary Being, for it could not be denied Existence.
5) This argument could just as easily be used to prove “perfect” unicorns as it could be to prove God.
6) It has it’s place, but that place is limited.

Axiological Argument

1) The “Moral Argument” was perfected by C. S. Lewis in his book, “Mere Christianity”. The basic form is as follows:
a. There must be a universal Moral Law, or else:
i. Moral disagreements would make no sense, as we all assume they do
ii. All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g., “The Nazis were wrong”)
iii. It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all assume that it is
iv. We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all do
b. But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver, since the Source of it:
i. Gives moral commands (as lawgivers do)
ii. Is interested in our behavior (as moral persons are)
c. Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good:
i. Otherwise all moral effort would be futile in the long run, since we could be sacrificing our lives for what is not ultimately right
ii. The source of all good must be absolutely good, since the standard of all good must be completely good
d. Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver (God)
2) People have argued that evil disproves this argument, but it in fact bolsters it
a. How can there be “evil” in any meaningful and real sense if there is no absolutely “good” moral law against which “evil” can be measured?
b. For there to be an absolutely “good” moral law, there must be an absolutely good God to mandate the “good”
c. Thus, you end up with the moral argument either way.
3) This argument is based on the principal of causality though, and is ultimately reducible to the Cosmological Argument.

Teleological Argument

1) The Teleological Argument is an argument from Design. (teleos = design)
2) The basic form is as follows:
a. All design implies a designer
b. Great design implies a great designer
c. There is great design in the world (like that of a great machine)
d. Therefore, there must be a great designer
3) Some critique of this argument is in order, in that it trades on the Cosmological Argument; it presents design as an effect that needs a cause.
4) Also, it fails to demonstrate that there must be a cause that is beyond the universe, as there are “causes” that are in fact inferior to their “effects” in some sense (an engineer building a machine that can lift many times more than the engineer can).
5) The Teleological argument also does not demonstrate that a God must exist now, only that a God may have existed then.
6) Though there is certainly some merit in the Teleological argument, it is not conclusive or absolute.

Cosmological Argument

There are two forms of the Cosmological Argument, the Horizontal and the Vertical. They are both similar, though the Horizontal argues for a cause for the beginning of the Universe (back then), while the Vertical argues for a current cause for the existence of anything within the universe right now.

The Horizontal Form:
1) Anything that begins to exist must have a cause
2) The Universe began to exist
3) Therefore, the Universe must have a cause
a. This “Cause” is either caused by another, self caused, or uncaused.
i. In order to be caused by another, this cause must be demonstrated to have a beginning. If the “cause” needed a cause, there would result an infinite regress of causes (until you ultimately end with an Uncaused Cause)
ii. It is not possible for the first cause to be self caused, as it would have to exist prior to it’s own existence in order to cause it’s own existence, which is not possible.
iii. Therefore, this first cause must be uncaused and eternal.

The Vertical Form:
1) Some things undeniably exist (e.g., I cannot deny my own existence)
2) My nonexistence is possible
3) Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another
4) There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence
5) Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists
6) This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-perfect
7) This infinitely perfect Being is appropriately called “God”
8) Therefore, God exists
9) This God who exists is identical to the God described in the Christian Scriptures
10) Therefore, the God described in the Bible exists

The Vertical argument agues for a current cause of my current existence, as my current existence is not necessary; rather it is contingent and could be otherwise (it is possible that I not exist).

Appendix:

St. Thomas Aquinas:
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.
Argument Analysis of the Five Ways


The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
3. Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6. The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
7. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
2. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
4. 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.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
2. Most natural things lack knowledge.
3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.