Arguments for the Existence of God Over the centuries, there have been many attempts by religious philosophers

to prove the existence of God, and a canon of classic arguments has been developed. Not all of these arguments have their origins in Christian philosophy ; Jewish and Muslim philosophers have made significant contributions to the philosophy of religion, and both Plato and Aristotle have influenced its development. Recent decades have seen a rise in interest in natural theology and the philosop hy of religion. Each of the classic theistic proofs has been revived and refined, pres ented in revised form and defended afresh. Whether any of these arguments for the existen ce of God is successful, of course, remains controversial. The Arguments for the Existence of God section sets out to explain each of the c ommon philosophical arguments for theism, and so to explore the case for the existence of God. Arguments for the Existence of God The arguments themselves are arranged under the following headings: Pascal s Wager , The Ontological Argument, The Cosmological Argument (including the first cause argument), The Teleological Argument (i.e. the argument from design), The Moral Argument, and The Argument from Religious Experience. There are, however, two preliminary issues to be dealt with: the intrinsic proba bility of the existence of God, which will bear on the degree of suspicion with which we v iew the purported theistic proofs, and reformed epistemology, which holds that belief in God can be rational even if it cannot be supported by evidence. Pascal s Wager Pascal s Wager is an argument for belief in God based not on an appeal to evidence that God exists but rather based on an appeal to self-interest. It is in our interest s to believe in God, the argument suggests, and it is therefore rational for us to do so. The claim that it is in our interests to believe in God is supported by a consid eration of the possible consequences of belief and unbelief. If we believe in God, the argu ment runs, then if he exists then we will receive an infinite reward in heaven while if he does not then we have lost little or nothing. If we do not believe in God, the argument continues, then if he exists then we w ill receive an infinite punishment in hell while he does not then we will have gained little or nothing. Either receiving an infinite reward in heaven or losing little or nothi ng is clearly preferable to either receiving an infinite punishment in hell or gaining little or nothing. It is therefore in our interests, and so rational, to believe in God. The Ontological Argument The ontological argument is an argument that attempts to prove the existence of God through abstract reasoning alone. The argument begins with an explication of the concept

of God. Part of what we mean when we speak of God is perfect being ; that is what the word God means. A God that exists, of course, is better than a God that doesn t. To speak of God as a perfect being is therefore to imply that he exists. If God s per fection is a part of the concept of God, though, and if God s perfection implies God s existenc e, then God s existence is implied by the concept of God. When we speak of God we cannot but speak of a being that exists. To say that God does not exist is to co ntradict oneself; it is literally to speak nonsense. The Cosmological Argument The cosmological argument is the argument from the existence of the world or uni verse to the existence of a being that brought it into and keeps it in existence. It c omes in two forms, one modal (having to do with possibility and the other temporal (having t o do with time). The modal cosmological argument, the argument from contingency, suggests that because the universe might not have existed (i.e. is contingent), we need some explanation of why it does. Whereever there are two possibilities, it suggests, something must determine which of those possibilities is realised. As the universe is cont ingent, then, there must be some reason for its existence; it must have a cause. In fact , the only kind of being whose existence requires no explanation is a necessary being, a be ing that could not have failed to exist. The ultimate cause of everything must therefore be a necessary being, such as God. The temporal kalam cosmological argument, begins by arguing that the past is fin ite. The idea that the universe has an infinite past stretching back in time into infinit y is, the argument notes, both philosophically and scientifically problematic; all indicat ions are that there is a point in time at which the universe began to exist. This beginni ng must either have been caused or uncaused. It cannot have been uncaused, though, for t he idea of an uncaused event is absurd; nothing comes from nothing. The universe must th erefore have been brought into existence by something outside it. The kalam argument thu s confirms one element of Christianity, the doctrine of Creation. The Teleological Argument The teleological argument is the argument from the order in the world to the exi stence of a being that created it with a specific purpose in mind. The universe is a highl y complex system. The scale of the universe alone is astounding, and the natural laws that govern it perplex scientists still after generations of study. It is also, however, a high ly ordered system; it serves a purpose. The world provides exactly the right conditions for the development and sustenance of life, and life is a valuable thing. That this is s o is remarkable; there are numerous ways in which the universe might have been differ

ent, and the vast majority of possible universes would not have supported life. To sa y that the universe is so ordered by chance is therefore unsatisfactory as an explanation o f the appearance of design around us. It is far more plausible, and far more probable, that the universe is the way it is because it was created by God with life in mind. The Moral Argument The moral argument is the argument from the existence or nature of morality to t he existence of God. Two forms of moral argument are distinguished: formal and perfectionist. The formal moral argument takes the form of morality to imply that it has a divi ne origin: morality consists of an ultimately authoritative set of commands; where can thes e commands have come from but a commander that has ultimate authority? The perfectionist moral argument sets up a problem: how can it be that morality requires perfection of us, that morality cannot require of us more than we can give, but that we cannot be perfect? The only way to resolve this paradox, the argument suggests, is to posit the existence of God. The Argument from Religious Experience The argument from religious experience is the argument that personal religious experiences can prove God s existence to those that have them. One can only percei ve that which exists, and so God must exist because there are those that have exper ienced him. While religious experiences themselves can only constitute direct evidence of God s existence for those fortunate enough to have them, the fact that there are many people who testify to having had such experiences constitutes indirect evidence of God s existence even to those who have not had such experiences themselves. The Argument from Miracles The argument from miracles is the argument that the occurrence of miracles demon strates both the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. If the Bible is to be b elieved, then Jesus ministry was accompanied by frequent miraculous signs that his claims and h is teachings were endorsed by God the Father. His resurrection from the dead was, o f course, the greatest of these, and is still taken by many today to be a solid fo undation for their faith. Miracles typically involve the suspension of the natural operation of the universe as some supernatural event occurs. That can only happen, of course, giv en the existence of some supernatural being. <PIXTEL_MMI_EBOOK_2005>259</PIXTEL_MMI_EB OOK_2005>