Saturday, March 14, 2009 Jediah Logiodice
I spent some time revisiting this topic for a class discussion I was having with the young men in our Church – I figured I’d post it here too.
Does God Really Exist?
What if someone asks you “Why do you believe in God”, but they don’t believe in the bible? Trying to prove the God who is revealed in the bible using the bible is a form of “begging the question”. An example of “begging the question” is as follows. Question: How do you know God exists; answer: because the bible tells us so. Question: But how do you know the bible is right; Answer: because God says it is!
You see, in this type of reasoning, you try to prove that God is real by using the bible, and yet, you use the bible to prove God is real. The argument is circular, and literally “begs the question”.
Remember, the Word of God is alive and sharper than any two edged sword (Heb 4:12, NIV), however, you can’t expect people to understand the power of the bible, if they don’t believe in the existence of God in the first place. So, what other kind of reasons could you use without appealing to the scriptures to show that God exists?
As we discussed in our class, here are some available options (although, this list is not complete, and is not as detailed as it could be):
Argument from Experience:
While you can’t see the wind, you can see the things the wind does and experience the feelings caused by the wind (e.g. blown hair, sand in your eyes, etc.). One argument for the existence of God is based on the things that we can see or experience as a result of God. The argument could go something like this: I have experienced God, therefore I know God exists.
While this argument is very powerful for the individual who has experienced God, it falls short of being able to convince someone that has never experienced God (i.e. How could you explain color to someone who is color blind, they would really have to have faith in you and your experience of color in order to believe in color).
Another reason to be cautious with the argument is that sometimes our feelings might not always represent reality (e.g. feeling like someone is watching you, when someone really isn’t [or at least as far as you knowJ]).
Teleological Argument (Or argument from design):
Another argument for the existence of God is based on the complexity of human life. The argument can be similarly compared to an argument set forth by William Paley that states an idea that if someone were to come upon a watch while walking, they would not assume that the watch ‘just appeared’ or ‘came to exist by itself’; logic would seem to dictate that there was a watchmaker that made the watch.
While some will find this argument to be very compelling; at the same time, there is a danger in appealing to the idea of a “God of the gaps”, i.e. invoking God for anything that we can’t understand based on our current scientific knowledge. The problem is that the more we, as humans, can understand based on continued evaluation of the natural laws, the less room there is for “God”, if “God” is defined as The Being that does all the things that we can’t explain.
Ontological Argument (Or argument from being):
The ontological argument is an argument that has been around for a long, long time. I enjoy Anselm’s version the most, and therefore will use it. The Ontological argument is a form of philosophical reasoning that tries to set forth a statement where the conclusion is true, as long as each of the individual statements is true.
Anselm’s argument goes something like this:
1. The definition of God means “The greatest thing”
2. Things that are outside the mind (in reality) are greater than things that are only in the mind (imaginary).
3. If God is only in the mind, then there would be something greater than God, that is, a God that exists outside of the mind.
4. Because the definition of God means “The greatest thing”, by definition, God has to exist outside of the mind, because He must be greater than the God that exists in the mind.
5. Therefore: God exists outside of the mind.
Cosmological Argument:
When discussing existence, the idea will inevitably arise that asks: “Why is there something, rather than nothing”. This question is phrased in such a way to show that the asker is searching for a cause or reason of existence; however, the question itself presupposes the idea that there really is something rather than nothing (that things really exist).
We’ll assume that everyone reading this agrees that things do exist (otherwise, you’re not really reading this, so it doesn’t really matter). So the next question is “Where did this something come from?”
From all that is known of science and philosophy, there is a premise that says “if there was ever a time in the existence of the world that there was nothing, absolutely nothing, than today, there would still be absolutely nothing, for out of nothing, nothing comes!”
Let me put it another way: If there was nothing, and something needed to make itself out of this nothing, then this something would have to be made before it could be made, that is, it would have to pre-date itself to create itself. This premise is logically impossible. In fact, even God, if He exists, can’t make Himself.
In philosophy, when discussing the concepts of existence, there are two primary terms that are put forth to identity existence. In existence, there are things that are contingent (i.e. things that rely on something else to create them) or there are things that are necessary (i.e. something in which its very essence is complete and existing with neither beginning nor end having no need outside of its own self).
While there is so much detail that can included on this one topic; the summary is this: things exist, and yet, to exist, there must be a cause, however, if there is a cause, there must be, somewhere in the history of past causes a very first cause. That very first cause cannot be caused, and cannot cause itself, and therefore the first cause must by necessary (as defined above).
In the end, the cosmological argument, can be understand in a very simplistic form which states:
· The world exists
· There must be a reason that the world exists
· The reason must be provided by something that is necessary, not contingent
· Therefore: A necessary being exists, and God is that necessary being.
Argument from Universals:
This is an argument that is used to help underline the existence of a universal idea, most often the universal of a moral value. C.S. Lewis pointed out in his book Mere Christianity that while people will often argue about that fact that a “standard of morals” does not exist, the very fact that they are arguing goes to prove that they both believe there is a standard that they are appealing to. I would never try and convince you of “right” versus “wrong” unless I had some standard of right to point at.
This argument is sometimes put forth in a similar fashion as was done by St. Thomas Aquinas:
· Something can be judged more or less good only if it is held up to a standard of that which is perfect
· Things are judged more or less good
· Therefore: a perfect standard exists, and that standard is God
Pascal’s Wager:
In final, Pascal’s wager, which we really didn’t talk about in class, makes the argument that it is smarter and safer to believe in God than to not believe in God. While I don’t necessarily condone this type of reasoning (because it really doesn’t bring someone to a true faith in God), it certainly can be used as a means to get people thinking. Pascal’s wager goes something like this:
· If God doesn’t exist, but you believe in him, you will lose a little bit of time and money now, but nothing in eternity
· If God does exist, but you don’t believe in him, you will save a little bit of time and money now, but you will suffer for eternity
· Therefore: It’s a much wiser idea to believe in God.
– Christella
– Fabienne
