Theism has produced several arguments for the existence of God, which may be regarded as evidences for the existence of God. Such arguments owe much to the Greek philosophical tradition. Their cogency is denied by those who hold to worldviews contradictory to theism.
These theistic arguments are usually thought to belong to the field of Christian apologetics, and indeed most Christian apologists have made use of them or at least treated them in considerable detail. Do these arguments also belong to Christian systematic theology?
I. ARGUMENTS FROM THE NATURAL ORDER#
A. COSMOLOGICAL: ARGUMENT FROM THE EXISTENCE FO THE COSMOS TO THE NECESSARY EXISTENCE OF GOD#
This is an argument from an effect (cosmos) back to a necessary cause (God). It takes various forms:
1. Arugment from Motion to a First Mover
This is the first argument advanced by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. He argued: “whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.”
If this putting into motion should be carried to infinity ( or, to eternity), there would be perpetual motion and hence no prime mover. But perpetual motion contradicts putting into motion. To explain putting into motion, one needs to posit a prime mover, or God.
Admittedly objections have been and can be raised against this form of the cosmological argument. Objectors can either posit an infinity or eternity of what we call motion or posit that motion arose “from nothing,” or spontaneously. But the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entrophy, bespeaks of a decline in energy and seems to be contrary to perpetual motion in the universe.
2. Argument from Efficient Cause to a First Efficient Cause, or God
This is the second argument set forth by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. Nothing is “the efficient cause of itself’; “for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.”
The chain of causality (efficient causes, intermediate causes, ultimate causes) cannot be infinite, for “to take away the cause is to take away the effect.” Thus, “if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any interme diate cause.” Therefore, one must posit “a first efficient cause,” or God.
Similarly, objectors may argue either that the “chain of causality” is eternal or that it “originated from nothing.” Furthermore, David Elton Trueblood (1900-94) has raised two other questions.
Can we trust “the whole principle of causality”?
How do we know that the first cause is the same as the God who has been revealed in Jesus Christ?
3. Argument from Contingency, that is, from Beings That “Do Not Contain in Themselves the Reason for Their Existence” to an External Reason or Being for Their Existence
It has been argued that an external reason “must be an existent being,” that is, one that “contains within itself the reason of its [own] existence” or one “which cannot not-exist.” Such a being, therefore, is God.
Objectors can either point to the eternality of contingent beings or insist that contingent beings have come from nothing.
B. TELEOLOGICAL: ARGUMENT FROM PURPOSIVE DESIGN IN NATURE TO THE NECESSARY EXISTENCE OF A DESIGNER, OR GOD#
This is the fifth argument by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. Thomas identified it as the argument “from the governance of things.”
Accordingly, it is said that planets, animals, and plants “work for an end” of which they seem to lack knowledge. The fact that they normally “attain their end” comes “by design, not by chance.” Hence there must be “an intelligent being by whom all natural things are directed to their end.”
The chief objection to the teleological argument arises from the problem of natural evil.
Do not “the dysteleological facts in the world” - sickness and disease, one animal’s devouring another for food, the arid deserts, the frozen polar regions, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and volcanic emptions - outweigh the evidences for design?
Does not the Bible construe the natural order as participating in the fall of humankind and thus needing redemption (Gen. 3: 17-18; Rom. 8: 18-25)?
Does the teleological argument allow enough room for freedom?
Defenders of the teleological argument contend that God has set limits to freedom and “natural evil” is limits which permit humans to speak of design or purpose.
It may be necessary, therefore, to recognize both the validity and the limits of the teleological argument. Blaise Pascal declared: “Nature has some perfections to show that she is the image of God, and some defects to show that she is only His image.”
ARGUMENTS FROM THE NATURE, THOUGHT, EXPERIENCE, AND DESTINY OF HUMAN BEINGS#
A. MORAL: ARGUMENT FROM THE MORAL LAW OR THE HUAMN SENSE OF OUGHTNESS TO THE AUTHOR OF SUCH, OR GOD#
Immanuel Kant argued in his Critique of Practical Reason that humans have “a sense of ‘oughtness’ or duty to pursue the highest good.” In order “to be able and free” to pursue the highest good-whether “morality” or “happiness” or holiness, humans may need life after death. For there to be such life after death, one must necessarily assume the existence of God.
One may ask whether the Lawgiver is the Creator of the universe or the transcendent God. One may object that such a Lawgiver is only the projection of human desires, wishes, and fears.
Furthermore, where there is considerable relativism in morality, the moral argument may not be persuasive, for the moral law as objective reality has been downplayed, if not denied.
B. ONTOLOGICAL: ARGUMENT FROM THE HUMAN IDEA OF AN INFINITE AND PERFECT BEING TO HIS NECESSARY EXISTENCE#
This is a syllogistic argument rather than an argument from effect to cause. Its first exponent, Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), expounded it in deductive fashion in his Proslogium.
First, contended Anselm, a human being has in his mind the idea of an infinite and perfect being.
Second, “existence is an attribute of perfection.”
Third, an infinite and perfect Being, therefore, must exist.
Even in Anselm’s day the question was raised as to the truth or validity of the second premise. one should have in his mind the idea of an island in the Atlantic Ocean, does that mean that that island necessarily exists?
Anselm’s reply was “that the case of is a special one.” For the ontological argument “a necessary conclusion, not a contingent conclusion.”
Rene Descartes (1596-1650) set forth the ontological argument both deductively and inductively. By the latter method he argued that “the idea of God, who is infinite and perfect, could not be produced [in man] by any finite object and must, therefore, be caused by God Himself.” Descartes himself stated: “The existence of God is demonstrated a posteriori from this alone, that his idea is in us.”
Does the ontological argument depend too much upon the idea of God as a “necessary” idea? According to Casserley, the ontological argument does not “prove” God’s existence but rather proves “that essence involves existence, not always but in… God.”
C. RELIGIOUS: ARGUMENT FROM THE RELIGIOUS CONSCIOUSNESS OF HUMAN BEINGS OR FROM THE FACT OF EXTENSIVE CLAIMS TO RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE AMONG ALL PEOPLES AND NATIONS TO THE NECESSARY EXISTENCE OF THE AUTHOR OF SUCH RELIGIOUS CONSCIOUSNESS OR THE TRUE OBJECT OF SUCH RELIGIOUS DEVOTION, OR GOD#
1. From the Religious Consciousness or Religous Nature of Human Beings
This argument was implicit in the classic statement of Augustine of Hippo: “Thou hast made us for thyself, and our heart is restless till it finds rest in Thee, 0 God.”
Augustus Hopkins Strong gave to it a modem formulation.
Man’s emotional and voluntary nature proves the existence of a Being who can furnish in himself a satisfying object of human affection and an end which will call forth man’s highest activities and ensure his highest progress. Only a Being of power, wisdom, holiness, and goodness, and all these indefinitely greater than any that we know upon the earth, can meet this demand of the human soul. Such a Being must exist. Otherwise man’s greatest need would be unsupplied, and belief in a lie be more productive of virtue than belief in the truth.
Even idolatry bears witness to this religious consciousness.
2. From the Fact of the Claims of Manifold Human Beings in Various Nations and Cultures to Having Had Religious Experiences
Trueblood has pressed this argument in the twentieth-century context:
The fact that a great many people, representing a great many civilizations and a great many centuries, and including large numbers of those generally accounted the best and wisest of mankind, have reported direct religious experience is one of the most significant facts about our world. The claim which their reports make is so stupendous and has been made in such a widespread manner that no philosophy can afford to neglect it.
These two expressions of the religious argument may prove to be more persuasive and convincing to serious-minded persons today than the cosmological and teleological arguments.
D. WAGER: ARGUMENT THAT HUMAN BEINGS, OUT OF CONSIDERATION OF THE ETERNAL CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH A DECISION, OUGHT TO WAGER OR BET THAT GOD IS#
An early form of this argument was expressed by Arnobius of Sicca in his The Cose against the Pagans, written about A D. 300-303. Its most classic formulation was probably that of Blaise Pascal in his Pensées.
If I bet that God is:
And he is, then I have gained all. Remember the stakes involve eternity.
And he is not, then I have lost nothing. (There is the possibility of gain if a good, moral, and ‘godly’ life is valued more than an immoral’ one.)
If I bet that God is not:
And he is, then I have everything to lose including everlasting happiness.
And he is not, then nothing is lost except the possibility ohem poral happiness if through this conclusion one finds no mean ing to life.
Therefore, if the odds are a billion to one, the reasonable man, the sen sible man would bet his life on God.
III. VALIDITY AND VALUE OF THE THEISTIC ARGUMENTS#
A. THESE ARGUMENTS ARE NOT LOGICALLY DEMONSTRATIVE FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS#
These arguments do not prove the existence of God in the sense of being infallible, indisputable, and utterly conclusive proofs.
Since the various arguments are particularly dependent on certain philosophies or worldviews, the tenability or cogency of a particular argument for a given human being or group of persons may depend upon the attachment of the same to a particular philosophy, worldview, or discipline of learning.
Criticisms of, objections to, and probing questions concerning an argument for the existence of God must also be considered and evaluated.
The inclination, the presupposition, or the attitude of a particular human being can play an even greater role in reference to the “convinceability” of the theistic arguments than the cogency of any argument. One’s religious beliefs or unbeliefs are not founded on “pure reason,” that is, reason devoid ofinclination, feeling, or choice.
The arguments can be rejected as arguments without reflecting on the mental capacities of the rejector, and such rejection does not necessarily mean the rejection of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and as Lord and Savior.
B. THESE ARGUMENTS MAY BE CONFIRMATORY AND CORROBORATIVE OF CHRISTIAN FAITH#
- The arguments may create a climate favorable to belief in one supreme God.
The most that can be said for any of the philosophical arguments, or for all of them put together, is that they point to a probability and create an intellectual interpretation of existence where the assumption of a God is not unreasonable. They do not, however, absolutely and irrefutably prove that God exists.
These arguments may help to bring into focus the question as to what is the best worldview and may serve to point to theism or personalism or theistic existentialism or another worldview.
The arguments may furnish good reasons for believing in God so as either to serve the unbeliever who would become a Christian believer or to strengthen the faith of the Christian believer.
The arguments do not remove the absolute necessity for faith as the supreme and essential mode of knowing and being rightly related to God.