Reasons to Believe "God Is"
[Arguments - http://rayciervo.com/theology/for-the-sake-of-argument/ This blog post ought to be read in context in order to better understand the following arguments.]
Cosmological Argument . . . or something like that
Having studied with the best of the best, it is presumptuous to think that this presentation is in any way “original” or that it has any “original” thoughts. The back bone of this presentation is the scholarly work of Dr. Norman Geisler. Although, there are many fine apologists doing excellent work today, almost every one of them has learned at some point from Dr. Geisler. His work and contribution to the field of apologetics is unmatched today. The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (BECA) is a necessary reference work for any budding and/or accomplished apologist. Having learned my preliminary understanding of apologetics from “popular” apologists, I have had the opportunity to study with Dr. Geisler. Attending Southern Evangelical Seminary in the Spring of 2000, I began a concerted comprehensive effort to get the necessary components for understanding apologetics. I received much more than I bargained for. I’ve had the privilege of studying with other fine apologists. Some of them were students along with me.
My attempt is make these arguments accessible to the common reader without losing the strength and essence of the arguments. To do this I’ll start with the simplest to understand, The Moral Argument.
Most arguments for the existence of God, like the cosmological argument, come from the earliest times. However, the moral argument finds its roots within the past few hundred years. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is the philosopher who is initially credited with proposing the moral argument. Kant dismissed other arguments for God’s existence, but did not reject the existence of God. Rather, he “believed that God’s existence is practically (morally) a necessary postulate, even though we cannot prove it.” (BECA, pg 498) Kant was an agnostic; he didn't believe you could know anything as it is, only as it appeared to you. None of the other arguments convinced him of God's existence. However, Kant made this statement: "Two things fill me with constantly increasing admiration and awe, the longer and more earnestly I reflect on them: the starry heavens without and the moral law within." Kant was pointing to his reason for believing in God.
However, C. S. Lewis provides the best example of the moral argument for God’s existence found in Mere Christianity.
Lewis’ argument for the moral law can be summarized this way:
There must be a universal moral law, or else:
Moral disagreements would make no sense, as we all assume they do.
All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g., “The Nazis were wrong.”)
It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all assume that it is.
We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all do.
But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver, since the Source of it:
Gives moral commands (as lawgivers do).
Is interested in our behavior (as moral persons are).
Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good:
Otherwise all moral effort would be futile in the long run, since we could be sacrificing our lives for what is not ultimately right.
The source of all good must be absolutely good, since the standard of all good must be completely good.
Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver.
Further, Lewis anticipates objections and states that the moral law is not the “herd instinct.” If it were we wouldn’t act against it when we act selflessly to help someone. If moral law were simply herd instincts then instincts would always be right, but they are not. Geisler reminds us, “Even love and patriotism are sometimes wrong.” (BECA, pg 500).
Nether is moral law the same as social convention, because not everything learned through society is social convention. For example, logic and mathematics are not social conventions. The same basic moral conventions can be found virtually in every society. This is true of the past and present. Every society knows it is wrong to torture babies. Even in societies where murdering your enemy is accepted, murdering someone from your own family, tribe, or society is wrong. Geisler added, that “judgments about social progress would not be possible if society were the basis of the judgments. (ibid)
Neither is moral law the same as The Laws of Nature. The Laws of Nature are descriptive, that is, they describe what is. Moral law prescribes what ought to be. Therefor The Laws of Nature are descriptive (is) while moral law is prescriptive (ought).
Moral law is not human desire or fancy. We cannot get rid of the “ought” even if we want to. If it were simply desire or fancy than all value judgments would be meaningless. Moral law is not something we create, but is impressed upon us. Therefore we know that “hate is wrong” “racism is wrong.” It is wrong in every instance to hate someone simply because they’re racially different from you. “But if moral law is not a description or a merely human prescription, then it must be a moral prescription from a Moral Prescriber, beyond us.” (ibid.) Lewis makes the point that this Moral Law Giver is more like a Mind than a Nature. This means that the Moral Law Giver can no more be part of Nature than an architect can be identical to a building he designs.
Finally, Lewis makes the point that injustice does not disprove a Moral Law Giver, but rather is evidence for His existence. Atheist like to point to the evil and injustice in the world to demonstrate the absence of an all good, all loving, all powerful Being. How could such a being exist in an imperfect world? The response to this is to point out that the only way to know something is imperfect is to point to a perfect standard that judges this world as imperfect.
The Cosmological Argument . . . or something like that (BECA 120,121)
The cosmological argument can be understood easily as it is an argument from cause to effect. It can be a bit confusing to remember what each of these arguments' titles represent. Simply, the cosmological argument in one of its forms (it has two) is an argument from cause. The other form is that of “being” or sustaining. So, one of the arguments proceeds from the idea of what caused the universe to come into existence and the other is what causes it to continue on. Both of these arguments are valid and useful in talking with people about God’s existence. Both of these arguments, when rightly understood, help to show that God exists.
The Cosmological argument can get pretty technical. It has been wrestled with for quite some time and evolved over the centuries. However, I’m offering something I believe is simpler to get your mind around without learning all the stages of development. It relies heavily on the law of causality.
One of the most important questions to ask is: Why is there something rather than nothing? If at one time nothing was all there was then (and by nothing, I don’t mean - empty space - I mean “no - thing,”) how can there be some thing?
How did anything come into existence if ever nothing was all there was?
“Nothing,” Aristotle said, “is what rocks thing about.” People have a hard time imagining nothing. As I mentioned above, most people think of “empty space.” However, space is a thing, so logically it cannot be “no-thing.” That is, space is some thing. Other ways to express this is that from nothing comes nothing. “Nothing comes from nothing; nothing every could” is the old saying.
When something comes into existence, it comes to “be.” That is, it has being. But something that has come into existence cannot cause itself to come into existence. To do that it must exist before it existed, and that we know is absurd. So something that is non-existent cannot cause something to exist.
The law of causality is a “first principle,” that is, it is self-evident. All first principles are self evident but some have to be unpacked. Causality can be expressed in the following statements:
1. Every effect has a cause.
2. Every contingent being is caused by another.
3. Every limited being is caused by another.
4. Everything that comes to be is caused by another.
5. Nonbeing cannot cause being.
Statement 1 is the only one that is self-evident. It’s self evident because by “effect” is meant “what is caused” and by “cause” is meant “that which produces an effect.” Numbers 2-4 must be proven for it is not readily evident that “contingent” must be caused by another. To say “a contingent thing must be caused by another” - that must be demonstrated. However, this is not as hard as you may think.
When we talk about a “contingent being” we’re talking about something that exists but at one time may not have existed and/or may not exist in the future. Since it has the possibility not to exist (not to be) it cannot account for its own existence. In itself, there is no reason why it exists. Once it was “nonbeing,” but nonbeing cannot cause anything. Something that has come into existence (being) can only be caused by something that already exists (being). So, a contingent being is a being that depends on another being for its existence. Only something can produce something. In this paragraph we have dealt with numbers 2 and 4. Number 3 is simple to deal with as all things that come into existence are limited. That fact that they once did not exist speaks to this limitation. Or, the fact that they could not exist some time in the future also speaks to their limitation.
So now the big question is: Is the universe a cause or an effect? If it a cause then it is not limited, nor contingent and therefor eternal. Or, did the universe have a beginning? Scientists and theologians both declare the universe had a beginning, therefor it at one time did not exist. Some might say, “It did not exist in its present form.” This is just to back it up a step to ask the question again - where’d the stuff come from that was the form before it became the universe as we know it? At that point you need more faith than any one else to make that conjecture.
The idea of an “infinite regress” will challenge the “beginning to exist” claim. In other words someone will propose that time has gone on forever. The present state of the universe came out of another state. The answer to that is as stated above, “Where’d that come from?” Then they will suggest another state before that, etc. This is an infinite regress of time. In other words, there is an infinite amount of seconds before today. However, infinity doesn’t work with a time/space/matter world. (They’re also suggesting an infinite amount of energy/matter).
Doug Powell uses a good illustration to make how to answer this plain. Here’s my rendition of his illustration: Imagine that “now” was the train station in the world of railroad seconds. You’re waiting at the station and the train is coming down the tracks of infinite railroad tracks. How long will you wait for the train? The answer is forever because you cannot traverse those infinite tracks. (Guide to Christian Apologetics: Holman Quick Source Guide, Doug Powell, pg 32)
One of the ways to understand this is that there is a difference between a mathematical infinite and an actual infinite. In math there is such a thing as a mathematical infinite. In reality there is no actual infinite. Once you start messing with a three dimensional time/space world, infinities don’t fit.
So what caused the universe? It had to be something outside, not a part from the universe. Something that is not a part of time or matter, but has the power to create them and can create at will. This entity must therefore be outside of time and space and therefor eternal and infinite. Next, you must ask where did "intelligence come from?" Rocks don't have intelligence, nor does any inanimate thing. So, where then did intelligence come from? Common sense tells us it must have come from an intelligent being.
To Come:
The Teleological Argument
The Historical Argument
And more . . .
