© Copyright 2010-2015

Arguments for the Existence of God
By Brother Mike  

We read in Romans 1:18-20, 

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 
19
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse . . . 

In this passage we are told that human beings have no excuse for not knowing God. Why? " Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them, for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead . . ." This means that as humankind thinks and looks upon the creation, they should be able to naturally conclude there is a God. We shall call such revelation of God, Natural Revelation, because it is a revelation which does not come through the Supernatural Revelation of the Holy Scriptures, but it originates in the creation itself. Although some will attest to not being able to see God through creation, it is not because God cannot be seen therein, but because they are blind. The following section will show how someone through looking upon the creation and using simple logic can come to know there is a God without any previous biblical knowledge or supernatural revelation of any kind. 


The Ontological Argument (in short)
 

The Ontological Argument is an argument within the realm of reason alone without looking to anything outside of the mind. Philosophers call such arguments, a priori. According to this argument, the existence of God can be argued without looking to anything outside of the mind to prove it, but by simply using reason, it can be shown that God must exists. In my mind, this is probably the weakest of all the arguments for God's existence; nevertheless, it has been upheld for centuries as a legitimate argument, so I have included it here. 

The argument goes something like this: within the very concept of "God" there exists the idea of perfection; that is, God, by definition, is perfect as well as being omnipotent and omniscient. To say that God is perfect means there can be nothing better or greater than what God is. As, St. Anselm, the originator of this argument said, God is "that than which no greater can be conceived." Now to think for a moment that God does not exists would mean that God is not greater or better than everything else because we can't think of anyone who does not exist as being better or greater than something. But, by definition, God is better and greater than everything else; He is perfect; therefore, God cannot not exist, but He must exist. 

For a more detailed explanation of this argument with answers to objections, go here .   


The Cosmological or First Cause Argument (in short)
 

The First Cause Argument is an argument based on there being a cause for every effect, and each cause being sufficiently substantial and powerful enough to be able to bring the given effect into being. This is obvious, isn't it? The bicycle moves (effect) because someone pedals the bike (cause). The car runs (effect) because of the explosion of gas in the cylinder (cause). The sun rises and the sun sets (effect) because of the earth's rotation on its axis (cause). A tree catches on fire (effect) because lightning strikes it (cause). A baby is conceived (effect) because of the union of sperm and egg (cause). Yes, every effect has a cause; there is no way of escaping this fact. 

Now since everything in creation can be explained by a cause, this logically leads one to conclude that there must be a cause for the effect of the entire creation. I mean if all the various things in creation are due to a cause, then the entire creation itself must be due to a cause as well. This is just simple natural logic, and it leads to the conclusion that there must be a cause for the creation. We will call this sufficient and powerful first cause, God. Although this argument does not give proof for God being a personal and intelligent creator since a cause does not need to be personal or intelligent; nevertheless, it certainly does give proof for a powerful and sufficient creator, for how else could such a vast creation have been first caused (created) unless God Himself were powerful enough to bring it all about. 

For a more detailed explanation of this argument with answers to objections, go here


The Teleological Argument from Design (in short) 

This Argument is an argument from design. In the creation there is a display of design everywhere, and design infers there being a designer. Therefore, because the creation is full of the evidence of design, creation itself must have a designer. This designer we call, God. 

If I ask you, who designed your car, you would say a person designed it. If ask you, who designed your house, you would in like manner have to at least admit to some person having designed it. But if I now ask you, for instance, who created that beautiful flower or tree, what would you now say? I mean, just as you concluded it to be a person who designed your car and house, wouldn't it be logical to see that a designer must have designed the flower and tree as well? The flower and the tree shine forth design in all their organization and structure in a similar way as does the car and the house, so, in order to remain consistently logical, you must conclude that the flower and the tree exists because someone designed them. And this designer must be an intelligent designer just as it must have been an intelligent designer who designed the car and the house. Furthermore, this designer had to have been a person who had a will and great enough power to be able to accomplish the design and creation of the thing at hand. This intelligent, free willing, powerful designer and creator we call, God. We begin to get an idea of just how great and powerful God really is when we contemplate just how big and great all of creation really is, knowing that in order to have designed and created it all, God must be greater and more powerful than it all. Since all of creation itself is incomprehensible, God Himself must be even more incomprehensible. 

For a more detailed explanation of this argument with answers to objections, go here


The Anthropological or Moral Argument (in short)
  

The Moral Argument is an argument from the morality of humankind. It is clear that all humans have a sense of right and wrong; that is, they have a conscience. In other words, inherent in the being of every person is a law of conscience which commands the right course of action given a particular situation. Where does this come from? God is the ultimate law giver and judge of what is right and wrong, so if there is no God, then there is no law, and all things would be permissible. But because there is this law of conscience in every soul, and all things are not permissible, we must conclude that God exists. If people had no conscience, we might conclude that there is no God, but because people of every kind and from every place manifest this law of conscience, God, the law giver, must exist, and He must be a moral and personal God. 

For a more detailed explanation of this argument with answers to objections, go here


Conclusion 

What we have seen through the previous arguments is that God must exist. But not only that God must exist, but, in the First Cause Argument, God must be incredibly powerful. In fact, He must be powerful enough to have been the first cause for the creation of this entire cosmos. Since the entire cosmos is far beyond the capability of humans to fully comprehend, God must also be far beyond what humans can comprehend. He is, in fact, all powerful. 

In the Argument from design, we learned that God must exist because this cosmos shines forth all the elements of design, and design points to there being a designer. This designer, who we call God, must not only be powerful, but He must be incredibly intelligent and creative to have been able to design all the incredibly wonderful and amazing things of design found in the creation. 

Finally, in the Moral argument, the conscience of all human beings points to there being a law giver. This law giver, who we call God, must be a moral God who determines right from wrong.

So by simply looking to the creation and reason alone, it can be concluded that God exists, and He is a very powerful, self-willed, intelligent, creative and moral being.

© Copyright 2010-2013
aaaaaaaaaaaaiii