Lecture # 4:

The Cosmological Argument:

A Cause at the Beginning. The universe had a
beginning caused by something beyond the
universe (vertical argument):

1. The universe had a beginning.

2. Anything that had a beginning must have
been caused by something (someone) else.
3. Therefore the universe was caused by
something (someone) else.
 The Cosmological Kalam Argument:
Time cannot go back into the past forever, for it is impossible to pass through
an actual infinite number of moments. If so, then time must have had a
beginning. If the world never had a beginning, then we could not have
reached now. But we have reached now, so time must have begun at a
particular point and proceeded today. Therefore, the world is as a finite
event after all and needs a cause for its beginnings.

1 . Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its

coming into being.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its
coming into being.
 The Cosmological Kalam Argument:
This argument was formulated by the Arab philosophers of the Middle Ages
and employed by Bonaventure (1217-1274). The contemporary Christian
thinker William Lane Craig has widely published on it.

1. An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed.

2. If an infinite number of moments had to elapse before today, then
today would never have come.
3. But today has come.
4. Therefore, an infinite number of moments have not elapsed before
today (i.e., the universe had a beginning).
5. But whatever has a beginning is caused by something else.
6. Hence, there must be a Cause (Creator) of the universe.
 Anselm’s Cosmological Argument:
From Goodness to God:
 1. Good things exist.

 2. The cause of this goodness is either one or many.

 3. But it can’t be many, for then there would be no way to

compare their goodness, for all things would be
equally good. But some things are better than others.

 4. Therefore, one Supreme Good (God) causes the

goodness in all things.
 The Teleological Argument:
Since the universe is exceedingly more complex in
its operation, there must be a Maker of the
universe (e.g., Psalm 19:1-6; Acts 14:15-18).

1. All designs imply a designer.

2. There is a great design in the universe.
3. Therefore, there must be a Great
Designer of the universe.
 The Cosmological Argument:

A Cause to continue existing. Something not only

caused the world to come into being (Gen. 1:1)
but something causes it to continue to be (cf. Col.
1:17:
1. Every part of the universe is dependent.
2. If every part of universe is dependent, then
the whole universe must also be dependent.
3. Therefore, the whole universe is dependent for
existence right now on some Independent
Being.
 The Ontological Argument:
“The ontological argument seeks to show that once
we grasp the concept of God as the greatest
conceivable being, then it becomes clear that God
must exist.” ~ J. P. Moreland & William L. Craig

1. God is by definition an absolutely

perfect being.
2. But existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore, God must exist.
 The Ontological Argument:
Psalm 13:1 “fool says in his heart, there is no God.” Why?
Upon what basis? Anselm’s argument (an a priori argument;
reductio argument; assume the opposite of what you trying to
prove and so a self-contradiction occurs). God = that than which
a greater cannot be conceived. Argument from Proslogion 2 by
St. Anselm

1. God exists in the mind but not in reality.

2. Real existence (as well as mental) is greater than mental existence alone.
3. God’s existence in reality is conceivable.
4. If God had real existence he would be greater than he is (from 1 & 2)
5. It is conceivable that there is a being greater than (from 3 & 4).
6. It is conceivable that there is a being greater than the being than which is none greater
can be conceived (this is self-contradictory)
7. Therefore, step 1 is false (i.e., it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in
reality.
8. God exists in reality.
 The Ontological Argument:
The perfect being. The mere concept of God as an absolutely
perfect being demands that He exist. It argues from the idea of
God to the existence of God. If God did not exist, then he would
be lacking one perfection, namely, existence. But if God lacked
any perfection, then he would not be absolutely perfect. But God
is by definition an absolutely perfect being.

1. God is by definition an absolutely

perfect being.
2. But existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore, God must exist.
 The Ontological Argument:
The Necessary Being. The very concept of a Necessary
Being demands its existence. For the very idea of a
Necessary Being demands that it must exist. For if it did
not exist, then it would not be a necessary existence.

1. If God exists, we must conceive of Him as a

Necessary Being.
2. But by definition, a Necessary Being cannot
exist.
3. Therefore, if a Necessary Being can, then it
must, exist.
 The Ontological Argument:
God’s existence in reality is conceivable
.
Alvin Plantinga uses modal logic (s5) whereby this proof is
logically cogent. Modal logic is a standard system of logic
by contemporary philosophers.

1. It is possible that there be a maximally

perfect being (assumption).
2. It is necessary that there be a maximally
perfect being (result).
 The Moral Law Argument:
The roots of moral argument for God are found in Romans
2:12-15 in which humanity is said to stand unexcused since
there is “a law written on their hearts.” Moral laws don’t
describe what is, they prescribe what ought to be.

1. Moral laws imply a Moral Law Giver.

2. There is an objective moral law.
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.
Beauty:
 Beauty implies a mind of Beauty.

 There is objective beauty.

 Therefore, there is an objective

Mind of beauty.
The Standard of Validity
In the same way..

How had I got this idea of

beauty and ugliness? A
man does not call a line
crooked unless he has
some idea of a straight line.
What was I comparing
object X with when I called it
ugly?

Straight Line = Standard

 The Religious Need Argument:
Is the desire to believe in God an illusion, human wishes,
purely psychological, or is it factual? The desire for God
does exist, not as a psychological wish, but from real
existential need. This is a psychological argument.

1. Human beings really need God.

2. What humans really need, probably
really exists.
3. Therefore, God really exists.
 Sake of Clarification:
1. This argument does not mean everyone gets what they want
(e.g., I need a red lamborghini);
2. This argument does not mean everything gets what they
need (food and water during a famine);
3. Rather, this argument is declaring that what we actually
need, really exists (e.g., water, food, oxygen, etc.).

1. Human beings really need God.

2. What humans really need, probably
really exists.
3. Therefore, God really exists.
 Evidence for the first premise that everyone needs God-
consider the following: Jean Paul Sartre

“Even when one feels nearest to

other people, something in one
seems obstinately to belong to
God…-at least that is how I
should express it if I thought
there was a God. It is odd,
isn’t? I care passionately for
this world and many things and
people in it, and yet …what is
it all?” There must be
something more important one
feels, though I don’t believe
there is.”

~ Bertrand Russell, Letter to Lady

Ottoline
1872-1970, Bertrand Russell
Evidence for the first premise that everyone needs God-
consider the following: Atheist Walter Kaufmann:

“Religion is rooted in man’s aspiration to

transcend himself….Whether he worships idols
or strives to perfect himself,
man is the God-intoxicated ape.”

~Critique of Religion and Philosophy, 355, 359.

~Walter Kaufmann

1871-1947, Walter Kaufmann

Evidence for the first premise that everyone needs God-
consider the following: Jean Paul Sartre

“I need God …. I
reached out for
religion, I longed for
it, it was the remedy.
Had it been denied
me, I would have
invented it myself.”

Jean Paul Sartre

(Words, 102, 97).
1905-1980 Jean Paul Sartre
 Evidence for the first premise that everyone needs God-
consider the following: Sigmund Freud

“Freud stated that religion is an

“illusion,” but—
He admitted, “it would be very
nice if there were a God….”
He admitted “a sense of man’s
insignificance or impotence in
the face of the universe.”
He referred to “our God Logos
[reason]…” So, here he
substitutes a personal God for
“reason.”
Why the need for any “god”?

~ Sigmund Freud
(The Future of an illusion, 52, 88). 1905-1980 Jean Paul Sartre
 Evidence for the first premise that everyone needs God-
consider the following: Erich Fromm

He denied a theistic God,

but – He affirmed a
humanist religion.
In fact, he used the name
“God for his object of
devotion to the whole of
humanity.

~ The legacy of Erich Fromm

(Psychoanalysis and Religion,
49, 54, 87).
Erich Fromm, 1900-1980
Evidence for the first premise that everyone needs God-
consider the following: Victor Frankl: All Seek God

“Man has always stood in

an intentional relation to
transcendence, even if
only on an unconscious
level.”
If understood correctly, all
men seek the
“Unconscious God.”

(~ Victor Frankl, The

Unconscious God).

Is this not similar to the

“unknown” God in Acts 17?
1905-1997 Victor Frankl
Evidence for the first premise that everyone needs God-
consider the following: William James:

“In a general way, then on the

whole… our testing of
religion by practical
common sense and the
empirical method, leave it in
possession of its towering
place in history…. Let us be
saints, then, if we can,
whether or not we succeed
visibly and temporally”
~ James, The Variety of
Religious Experience, 290.
William James, 1842-1910
Evidence for the first premise that everyone needs God-
consider the following: Nietszche:

“God is dead. God

remains dead. And we
have killed him. How
shall we, the murderers,
of all murderers,
comfort ourselves?”

~ “The Madman” in Gay

Science,125.
Friedrich Nietzsche, 1844-1900
 Evidence for the first premise that everyone needs God-
consider the following: Nietzsche:

“I hold up before myself the images

of Dante and Spinoza, who were
better at accepting the lot of
solitude. Of course, their way of
thinking, compared to mine was
one which made solitude
bearable; and in the end, for all
those who somehow still had a
‘God’ for company…. My life now
consists in the wish that it might
be otherwise…. And that
somebody might make my ‘truths’
appear incredible to me…”

~ Letter to Overbeck, 7/2/1865.

Friedrich Nietzsche, 1844-1900

Evidence for the first premise that everyone needs God-
consider the following: Nietzsche:

“Thou lightening-shrouded one!

Unknown one! Speak. What wilt
thou, unknown-god?... Do come
back With all thy tortures! To the
last of all that are lonely, Oh,
come back!... And my heart’s final
flame-Flares up for thee! Oh,
come back, My unknown god!
My pain! My last-happiness!”

~ Thus Spoke Zarathrusta, part

Four, “the Magician”,

Friedrich Nietzsche, 1844-1900

 Evidence for the first premise that everyone needs God-
consider the following: Albert Camus:

“For anyone who is alone,

without God and without
a master, the weight of
days is dreadful”

~ The Fall, 133.

Albert Camus, 1913-1960

Evidence for the first premise that everyone needs God-
consider the following: Albert Camus:

“Despite the fact that

there is no God, at least
the Church must be
built”

~ The Rebel, 147.

Albert Camus, 1913-1960

Evidence for the first premise that everyone needs God-
consider the following: John Dewey:

“Here are all the elements for

a religious faith that shall
not be confined to sect,
class, or race. Such as
faith has always been
implicitly the common faith
of mankind. It remains to
make it explicit and militant.

~ A Common Faith, 87.

John Dewey, 1859-1952
Consider this quote:

The following is from the cover of

Time Magazine, European edition from
1978:

“God is dead; Marx is dead, and I am

not feeling too well either.”
Consider this quote:

Atheists speak of ‘loyalty,’ ‘devotion’ and

‘love’ of the truth. But these terms make
proper sense only when used of persons.
“The joy and wonder which men feel in the
search for truth is the same kind of feeling
we know best when there is real
communication between two finite minds”

~ Elton Trueblood, Philosophy of Religion,

115.
 The Argument from Joy:
Creatures are not born with desires unless
satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels
hunger; food can satisfy.

1. Every natural innate desire has a real object

that can fulfill it.
2. Human beings have a natural, innate desire
for immortality.
3. Therefore, there must be an immortal life
after death.
 Transcendental Argument:
dependence strategy:
 1. If I raise doubt whether (b), I must grant
(a) is true.

 2. But if I grant (a), then (b) [this is the

embedded transcendental argument].

 3. So if I raise a doubt whether (b), I must

grant (b) is true.
For the skeptic, he cannot rationally doubt.
 Innate Idea Argument:
Knowledge of God is Innate (Rom. 1:19-21, 32)

 1. All people have some knowledge of God.

 This knowledge is constitutive to the human framework.

 2. The mind perceives certain things to be true without proof

and without instruction.
 There is no instruction or use of senses needed to have some
knowledge of God…it is intrinsic knowledge (e.g., the deaf/blind
know possess within themselves some knowledge of God)
within man.

 3. Related to the Moral Law argument in that there is this

sense of dependence and accountability to a being higher
than themselves which exists in the minds of all people.
 Applying the Innate Argument using the:
dependence strategy for God’s Existence:
 1. If I raise doubt whether (b) I have an idea of
God, I must grant that (a) that I recognize that I
doubt.

 2. If (a) that I recognize that I doubt, then (b) I have

an idea of God.

 3. So if I raise a doubt whether (b) I have an idea of

God, I must grant (b) that I have an idea of God.

For the skeptic cannot rationally doubt!

Another look at the Innate Argument:
1. We have ideas of many things.
2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things
outside us.
3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God-an infinite, all-
perfect being.
4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because
we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect and no effect
can be greater than its cause.
5. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something
outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained
in the idea of God.
6. But only God himself has those qualities.
7. Therefore, God Himself must be the cause of the idea we
have of him.
8. Therefore God exists.
 Argument from Miracles:

1. A miracle is an event whose only adequate

explanation is the extraordinary and direct
intervention of God.
2. There are numerous well-attested miracles.
3. Therefore, there are numerous events
whose only adequate explanation is the
extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
4. Therefore, God exists.
 Argument from Consciousness:

1. We experience the universe as intelligible. This

intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by
intelligence.
2. Either this intelligible universe and finite mind so
well suited to grasp it are the products of
intelligence or blind chance.
3. Blind chance cannot be the source of our
intelligence.
4. Therefore, this intelligible universe and the finite
minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of
intelligence.
Argument from Religious Experience:

1. Many people of different eras and of widely

different cultures claim to have had an
experience of the “divine.”
2. It is inconceivable that so many people
could have been so utterly wrong about the
nature and content of their own experience.
3. Therefore, there exists a “divine” reality
which many people of different eras and of
widely different cultures have experienced.
 Argument from Common Consent:

1. Belief in God—that Being to whom

reverence and worship are properly due—is
common to almost all people every era.
2. Either the vast majority of people have been
wrong about this most profound element of
their lives or they have not.
3. It is most plausible to believe that they have
not.
4. Therefore, it is most plausible to believe that
God exists.
 Pascal’s Wager:
This is not a proof for God’s existence but is helpful in considering
God in the “absence” or “lack” or proof:

As originally proposed by Pascal, the Wager

assumes that logical reasoning by itself cannot
decide for or against God’s existence; there
seems to be good reasons on both sides. Now
since reason cannot decide for sure, and since
the question is of such importance that we must
decide somehow, then we must “wager” if we
cannot prove. And so, we are asked: Where are
you going to place your bet?
 Pascal’s Wager:

If you place your bet with God, you lose nothing, even if
it turns out that God does not exist. But if you place it
against God and you are wrong and God does not exist,
you lose everything; think about it: God, eternity &
heaven with those who did wager correctly. “Let us
assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything, if
you lose, you lose everything.”

“If there is a God of infinite goodness, and he justly deserves my

allegiance and faith, I risk doing the greater injustice by not
acknowledging Him.”
 Closing: Consider the following: by
David Hume:
 When we analyze our thoughts or ideas, however
compounded or sublime, we always find, that they
resolve themselves into such simple ideas as were
copied from a precedent feeling or sentiment. Even
those ideas, which, at first view, seem the most wide
of this origin, are found, upon a nearer scrutiny, to be
derived from it. The idea of God, as meaning an
infinitely intelligent, wise, and good Being, arises from
reflecting on the operations of our own mind, and
augmenting, without limit, those qualities of goodness
and wisdom. ~ Enquiry concerning Human
Understanding 2. Of the Origin of Ideas.6.