• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
ARGUMENTS FOR GOD’S EXISTENCEEVIDENCE FOR TRUTHEVIDENCE FOR GOD’S EXISTENCEVarious World ViewsObjections to God’s ExistenceArguments for God’s ExistenceEVIDENCE FOR MIRACLESEVIDENCE FROM HISTORYEVIDENCE FOR DEITYEVIDENCE FOR SCRIPTUREEVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITYArguments for God’s Existence
 Everyone at some point wonders whether God exists. Among the reasons God fascinates usis that “all men by nature desire to know” (Aristotle, M, I, 1), and knowing the greatest truthcommands our greatest desire. Consequently, as long as man desires to know, he will seek toknow the truth about God. Those who believe in one God who intervenes in the world haveproposed many arguments to demonstrate that such a God exists. Most of these arguments arevariations on a few types of arguments for God’s existence. This chapter will not serve as acomprehensive survey of every argument but rather will concentrate on those classicalarguments that historically have the most compelling presentations: the cosmological argument,the teleological argument, and the moral argument.
1
 
I. Cosmological ArgumentA. General Summary
There are two forms of the cosmological argument. One form argues for an Original Causethat caused the universe to come to be. This is the “horizontal” approach of the cosmologicalargument, better known as the
Kalaam
argument. Medieval Arab philosophers as well as St.
1
There are both classical arguments for God’s existence and experiential arguments. As the names suggest,classical arguments are those which have considerable precedent in the history of philosophy while experientialarguments are more recent formulations by existentialists that focus only on what is internal to man rather thanincluding what is external as well. There are four classical arguments: the cosmological argument, the teleologicalargument, the ontological argument, and the moral argument. I have chosen to omit the ontological argumentbecause it does not prove anything about the
existence
of God but rather demonstrates certain verities about His
nature
. Concerning the experiential arguments, their greatest contribution lies not in
 proving
that God exists butrather in
 persuading
someone to know God once His existence has been proven.
- 1 -
 
Bonaventure presented and defended this view. The other form argues for an Operational Causethat causes the universe to continue to be. This “vertical” form of the cosmological argument hasThomas Aquinas as its chief historical proponent. Various contemporary philosophers defendversions of both types of the argument.The general form of the horizontal argument is as follows:
1.
 
Every event that had a beginning had a cause.2.
 
The universe had a beginning.3.
 
Therefore, the universe had a Cause. (Geisler, ST1, 27)
The general form of the vertical argument is as follows:
1.
 
Every effect has a cause.2.
 
The universe is an effect.3.
 
Therefore, the universe has a Cause. (Geisler, WA, 54)
B. Particular Arguments
 
1.
 
Aristotle’s Argument for an Unmoved Mover
Aristotle understands reality in terms of what actually is (actuality) and what potentiallycould be (potentiality). The movement from potentiality to actuality is (efficient) causality,which something purely potential cannot perform on itself. In other words, something cannotmake itself exist. Therefore, something must exist which is not made to exist. Though Aristotlebelieved that there was a plurality of uncaused, self-existent actualities, his reasoning is animportant first step that launched the thoughts of future philosophers concerning God.
The first principle or primary being is not movable either in itself or accidentally, but produces the primaryeternal and single movement. And since that which is moved must be moved by something, and the firstmover must be in itself unmovable, and eternal movement must be produced by something eternal and asingle movement be a single thing, and since we see that besides the simple spatial movement of theuniverse, which we say the first and unmovable substance produces, there are other spatial movements—those of the planets—which are eternal. . . each of these movements also must be caused by a substanceunmovable in itself and eternal. (Aristotle,
 Metaphysics
, 12.8, 1073a24-34)But the primary essence has not matter; for it is fulfillment. So the unmovable first mover is one both informula and in number; therefore also that which is moved always and continuously is one alone; thereforethere is one heaven alone. (Aristotle,
 Metaphysics
, 12.8, 1074a35-38)
2.
 
Anselm’s Arguments
Though better known for the ontological argument, Anselm did articulate a number of lesser-known cosmological type arguments. These
a posteriori
arguments begin with existing thingsand reason inductively to their cause, which he sees as God.
It follows, therefore, that all other goods are good through another being than that which they themselvesare, and this being alone is good through itself. Hence, this alone is supremely good, which is alone goodthrough itself. For it is supreme, in that it so surpasses other beings, that it is neither equaled nor excelled.But that which is supremely good is also supremely great. There is, therefore, some one being which issupremely good, and supremely great, that is, the highest of all existing beings. (Anselm, “M” in SABW,chap. 1)But whatever exists through another is less than that, through which all things are, and which alone exists
- 2 -
 
through itself. Therefore, that which exists through itself exists in the greatest degree of all things. There is,then, some one being which alone exists in the greatest and highest degree of all. But that which is greatestof all, and through which exists whatever is good or great, and, in short, whatever has any existence—thatmust be supremely good, and supremely great, and the highest of all existing beings. (Anselm, “M” inSABW, chap. 3)
3.
 
Avicenna’s First Cause
A number of Muslim philosophers also argued for the existence of the theistic God.Avicenna was one such philosopher. Central to Avicenna’s cosmological argument is the notionthat anything that comes into existence has a reason (meaning existential cause) for its existence.In other words, a Necessary Being is existentially self-sufficient; it
must 
exist.
Whatever has being must either have a reason for its being, or have no reason for it. If it has reason, then itis contingent . . . . If on the other hand it has no reason for its being in any way whatsoever, then it isnecessary in its being. . . . A necessary being has no cause whatsoever. (Avicenna, AT, 25, 26)
Following these assumptions, Avicenna argues that a Necessary Being, or God, exists.
If the reason is also contingent, there is then a chain of contingents linked one to the other, and there is nobeing at all; for this being which is the subject of our
hypotheses
cannot enter into being so long as it is notpreceded by an infinite succession of beings, which is absurd. Therefore contingent beings end in aNecessary Being. (Avicenna, AT, 25)
4.
 
Aquinas’ Five Ways to Prove God’s Existence
Probably the most famous of the classical cosmological arguments for God’s existence comefrom Thomas Aquinas. In his massive
Summa Theologica
, Aquinas supplies five demonstrations,or “ways,” of God’s existence, arguing from various effects we see in the world to their ultimateCause. These arguments illustrate the vertical form of the cosmological argument, which is thatGod is the Present Cause sustaining the existence of all things in the world.
a. The First Way: Argument from Motion
 
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, thatin the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothingcan be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing movesinasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality toactuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot,and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actualityand potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannotsimultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that inthe same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should moveitself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put inmotion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by anotheragain. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, noother mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the firstmover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive ata first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
 
(Aquinas, ST, Pt. 1Q. 2Art. 3)
- 3 -
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...