/essay/
An Outline and Evaluation of the Classic Proofs for God’s Existence
Introduction
Introduction
Does
God exist? This question has engaged the minds of many people since the
beginning of human history. Since science uses the methods of experimental
repetition in order to prove something, a supernatural reality like God’s Being
cannot be subjected to scientific research as it well goes beyond the realms of
natural order of things. That’s why, in order to answer this question, many
philosophers and theologians have attempted to construct and offer arguments
‘proving’ or ‘refuting’ that existence.
Of
course, many people doubt whether non-believers can be convinced to believe
that God exists by such argumentation (see Kreeft & Tacelli, Handbook of
Christian Apologetics, p. 48-49). But, nevertheless, the question of God’s
existence is central to Christian apologetics as it can serve as an important
step towards non-Christians taking the idea of divine existence seriously.
Furthermore, each Christian is called by God to give a reasonable explanation
of his/her faith (1 Pet. 3:15). That’s why all Christians should treat the
arguments for God’s existence seriously.
There
are, according to some authors, twenty arguments for the existence of God
(ibid.). Among those, central are four: the ontological, the cosmological, the
teleological and the moral argument.
The Ontological Argument
This
argument is set out by Anselm of Canterbury in his Proslogion in 1079.
His statement has become classics in religious philosophy (see Milne, Bruce, Know
the Truth, p.53). Anselm begins by defining God as “that than which nothing
greater can be conceived”. He tries to deduce the existence of God from the
idea of the most perfect being (“greater” = more perfect) (see Brown, Colin. Philosophy
& The Christian Faith, p. 20). His proof for this is as follows. If God
does not exist, then remains only the idea of God. Therefore, it is possible to
imagine a more perfect being than that perfect being, which exists only in the
mind, and that is a contradiction. Hence, we must accept that God exists.
The
ontological argument is the most controversial of all arguments of the
existence of God. Whereas it has fascinated some thinkers like Descartes and
Leibniz, others refuted it. Kant said that all it proved was if there is God,
he exists. To use his analogy, a real banknote is of not more in currency value
than an imagined one. In spite of all its opponents, recently Anselm’s argument
has revived its popularity.
The Cosmological Argument
It
is looking for an ultimate cause for the universe (cosmos (Greek) means
universe). It was set out by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Contra Gentiles,
as one of his Five Ways or arguments for the existence of God. The cosmological
arguments considers that things don’t come about by chance; every event in the
universe has a cause, which in its turn has a cause, and so on back to the
original cause, God.
The
opponents of this proof claim that there is no ultimate origin of things, so we
just don’t need an uncaused cause. However, its defenders answer with the
argument from time and contingency. It says that some existing (‘contingent’)
things might not have existed at all, but there are such that must exist
(‘necessary’). Even though the existence of some contingent things can be
explained by referring to some contingent realities, “the coming into being and
the continued existence of all contingent reality can be explained only in
terms of a necessary being, God” (Milne, Know the Truth, p.55).
The Teleological Argument
This
argument is given by Plato, but its classical formulation is set out by William
Paley. It derives its name from the Greek word telos, meaning ‘purpose’.
It is a subcategory of the cosmological argument and considers the things in
the universe and the way they interrelate with others outside themselves. In
other words, the way things exist and coexist shows a beautiful order, harmony
and design that fill the observer with wonder (see Kreeft & Tacelli, Handbook
of Christian Apologetics, p.55). The argument is as follows: either this
order and harmony are the products of chance, or they are the result of
intelligent design. Chance cannot have caused such a complicate design.
Therefore, the universe is the product of intelligent design. If there is a
design, it must come from a designer. Therefore, there is an intelligent
Designer, and this Designer is God.
All
these claims seem quite easy to prove. Even the strongest defenders of
Darwinism admit the presence of harmony and order in the universe. But, they
cannot agree with the claim that chance cannot be the cause of this order. They
say that it is indeed by chance that the universe “exists the way it does” (the
Big Bang theory) (ibid.). Chance, though, makes sense only against the
background of order. Here is the way Kreeft and Tacelli develop their argument:
To say that something happened ‘by chance’ is
to say that it did not turn out as we would have expected, or that it did turn
out in a way we would not have expected. But expectation is impossible without
order. If you take away order and speak of chance alone as a kind of ultimate source,
you have taken away the only background that allows us to speak meaningfully of
chance at all… Therefore it is eminently reasonable to affirm … the conclusion,
that this universe is the product of intelligent design.
Even though many philosophers
have subjected the teleological argument to criticism, it has been one of the
most widely used ‘proofs’ in Christian apologetics.
The Moral Argument
The Moral argument is another
popular approach in proving God’s existence. It is sometimes regarded as an aspect
of ‘the anthropological argument.’ Its argument is as follows. People are moral
beings. They distinguish between good and evil and have an inbuilt awareness of
moral obligation. This moral obligation is universal and objective, and does
not depend significantly on the cultural, ethnic or religious differences among
people. Therefore the categories of good and evil and the sense of moral
obligation must have been given to people from outside. But this outside source
cannot be impersonal, since morality is a personal category. Therefore, there
is a personal moral Being, God.
Logical
however it may seem, the moral
proof is attacked by the proponents of ethical relativism, who claim it
does not explain away ethical subjectivism. However, the truth is, not many people
live out what they say they believe. To claim that corruption is good is one
thing; to be a victim of corruption and still to claim that it is good is a
completely different thing.
Yet,
a more serious attack against the moral argument is the disagreement with the
final statement in the argument, concerning the personal aspect of morality.
These critics say that it points not to God, but to “some vague ‘religious’
view” (Kreeft & Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, p.73).
The Christian apologist might reply that it is true. But, no matter how general
and vague this religious view is, it is completely incompatible with atheism
and all other views that don’t accept the ultimate objective values. To believe
that “moral conscience is the voice of God within the soul” seems just most
reasonable (ibid.), because moral value is a personal characteristic. Of
course, Christians should admit that there is still a long way from this
‘personal moral Creator’ to the Christian ‘triune God of love’ (ibid.).
Conclusion
As
Wayne Grudem points out in his treating of the subject, “all these traditional
‘proofs’ are attempts to cause people to think rationally or correctly about
the evidence of God’s existence” when their tendency is to think irrationally,
due to the original sin (Systematic Theology, p.144). He goes on to say
that all these arguments are valid in the sense that they are a reality that
every Christian is convinced of: God exists as being greater than anything that
can be conceived, He is the cause/creator of the universe as we know it, He is
the intelligent purposeful Mind behind it and He is the source of objective
moral values. But, on the other hand, these arguments cannot be treated as
valid in the sense that they are “able to compel agreement even from those who
begin with false assumptions” (ibid.). Their value is mainly in helping
Christians overcome the intellectual objections non-believers raise, and
providing them with further evidence for their convictions based on the
testimony of Scripture.
Trif Trifonov
2002, London Bible College
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Milne,
Bruce: Know the Truth, IVP, 1982
Kreeft,
P & Tacelli R.K.: Handbook of Christian Apologetics, IVP, 1994
Brown,
Colin. Philosophy & The Christian Faith, IVP,1968
Grudem,
Wayne: Systematic Theology, IVP & Zondervan, 1994
McGrath,
Alister E.: Christian Theology, Blackwell, 2001
The
NIV Study Bible
Райри, Чарлз: Основно богословие, Верен, 1997 (originally published as Charles C. Ryrie: Basic
Theology, Victor Books, 1986)
Christian
Classics Ethereal Library, Wheaton
College
Kant,
Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by F. Max Muller. New York
Leibnitz,
New Essays Concerning Human Understanding. Translated by A.G. Langley. New York
Descartes,
The Philosophy of Descartes in Extracts from His Writings. H. A. P.
Torrey. New York
Spinoza,
The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza. Translated by R.H.M.Elwes. London
