Conversation on God
Here is a conversation on God that is an extract from the comments after a blogpost. Check the post for the complete discussion that took place over a period of two months.
George 1 October
The new objection relates to the “proof of God” and the “divinity of Jesus”. These are big topics. I didn’t claim to prove the existence of God from the Bible. Instead, I would say that God is the most logical explanation of the existence and complex nature of the universe, the existence and complex nature of life, and the existence of the human conscience (innate sense of right and wrong). So, I agree that the Bible “is of itself not proof of God” – there’s lots of other evidence. However, the best evidence of the nature of Jesus is the historical record in the Bible. To investigate the “divinity of Jesus” one should study the most reliable ancient text about Him. Of course, one’s conclusion will depend on whether they have an open mind or not.
George 9 October
You say, “I would once again say that citing the Bible as proof of god amounts to nothing more than hearsay”. I didn’t claim to prove the existence of God from the Bible. Instead, I would say that the existence of God is the most logical explanation of the existence and complex nature of the universe, the existence and complex nature of life, and the existence of the human conscience (innate sense of right and wrong). So, there’s lots of other evidence available.
Commentator 9 October
Hi George I am curious if there is lots of other evidence that is not in the bible could you please point me in the right direction to find it?
George’s reply 19 October
You asked, “if there is lots of other evidence (of the existence of God) that is not in the bible could you please point me in the right direction to find it?”. The other evidence of the existence of God that I mentioned was: the existence and complex nature of the universe, the existence and complex nature of life, and the existence of the human conscience (innate sense of right and wrong). Look up any articles on the source or origin of these and see if they answer the question or not and see how many miracles they require.
For example, an article by Stephen Hawking on “The origin of the universe” says that the origin was due to “the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe (which) would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water”. And at the more popular level the Khan Academy says, “In the beginning, as far as we know, there was nothing. Suddenly, from a single point, all the energy in the universe burst forth”. These sound like miracles to me.
On the other hand, an article by Dr Gregory Ganssle of Yale University provides evidence that:
– The existence of the universe is better explained by the existence of God, and
– The existence of objective moral values is better explained by the existence of God.
Commentator 20 October
Dear George This evidence you speak of can be interpreted in many different ways, not just yours. But thank you for your help.
Dear George in a specific response to your source of gods proof I have to point out the following holes in logic.
- If we see time as being linear there is no problem with the first few of Mr Ganssle’s premises but if you take into account the idea of circular time troubles pop up. (ganssle is a little goose in some German dialects 🙂). He obviously had no idea of these theories as he wrote this. But many cultures such as the ancient Mayans and Indians did. Or maybe he did understand circular time theories and choose to ignore them.
- This is a big one but if god created the universe what created god? How could he just spring or come into existence?
“About god, there are only three alternatives:
1. God has always existed. and has an infinite past.
2. God was popped into existence from nothing with absolutely no cause.
3. God was caused to exist by something outside it.”
By the author’s own reasoning god, herself must have an outside cause. He must have skipped his logic class as well.
I should really just stop here because one needn’t read any further because #2 is the end of any rational discussion. In fact, the very idea of god is infinite.
But since we are already here…
- Multiverse theory or the fact that every single being on this planet has an individual experience of all things based on his or her own store consciousness. This is in itself infinite. Therefore we could be living in a universe with one two, millions of gods or actually not at all. But there is no way to tell is there?
4. The idea of knowing good or bad does not presuppose a god. It simply means that humans can see the results of their actions and generally try to choose good actions resulting in good results.
- The authors understanding of space-time is flawed. Just because something is outside of space and time does not mean it is outside space-time. We would need to be sure that we truly understand our space with our limited sense perceptions, for example, a bat or dolphin with sonar might understand space much differently than us. Our universe does not stop at time as the last dimension. There are other dimensions as well within our universe and without further study of all of them, this argument is mute. An understanding of the fourth dimension from the perspective of someone in the second dimension is hardly trustworthy.
- I quote “If there is no God, there are no objective moral values.
There are moral values which are objective.
Therefore, God exists.
Before I discuss this argument, I must make it clear that I am not claiming that one must believe in God in order to be moral. I am not claiming that statistically, those who believe in God are more moral than those who do not. I am also not claiming that our knowledge of morality depends upon God. This argument is to the effect that objective moral values themselves are foreign to a universe without God. They do not fit.” George Bush believed in god and said on camera that he spoke to god every day. He said this while he was directing the U.S. Armed Forces to bomb Iraq to smithereens. Did god tell him it was ok? Even with god, one’s objective moral values are out of the window. So why should this presuppose a god? He simply believed that it was morally permissible to bomb Iraq even though most of the world did not.
- If the author lived in a completely racist society, unfortunately by default he would also be racist whether or not it was morally right or else the society would not be completely racist. Point made?
- Is morality transcultural? No, how would one explain the existence of head-hunters and human offering as we know exists in our world. One famous offering was even sanctioned by god, in Genesis 22. The bible and its god was not morally sound here. Oh, but isn’t he the same god who was the standard for the objective right and wrong? oops….
- This essay is really crap and written by someone who only sees right and wrong through a dualistic perspective of the bible and not from an objective scientific perspective, therefore it is a fail as proof that god exists.
Thanks for the comment.
- I understand that the idea of circular time has been held by some tribes (Inca, Mayan, and Native American) and some religions (Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism). But time as we experience it is linear because:
– Time is irreversible – we can’t travel back in time
– Things fall apart. Things in our universe go from a state of order to a state of (increasing) disorder, and not vice-versa. This is called the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy (or disorder) in the universe increases over time.
Although there are daily, monthly and annual cycles, time is unidirectional. This is physical reality. The idea of circular time may be a perception or a belief, but it’s not a physical reality.
- You ask “what created god”? The answer is your first option, “God has always existed. and has an infinite past”. You say, “By the author’s own reasoning god, herself must have an outside cause”. But you fail to note that the author was only addressing, things that have come into existence, not things that are eternal. God is in a different category to the universe. God is eternal and has no cause, whereas the universe has a beginning and so has a cause (which is God’s will).
- Your idea of a Multiverse (multiple universes) is pure speculation. There is no evidence of this at all. It’s a philosophical idea that cannot be falsified.
- You say that people mainly choose good actions because they lead to good results. If this is the case, why do we need police to maintain law and order?
- You question the author’s understanding of space-time. We live in the 4 dimensions of 3D space plus linear time. That’s the universe we all experience and observe. We could also add an extra (spiritual) dimension that is revealed in the Bible that includes God, angels and demons. So the author understands 5 dimensions of space-time, which is more than you identify! You only allude to “other dimensions”, but don’t say what they are.
- Your example about George Bush doesn’t address the author’s claim that, “objective moral values themselves are foreign to a universe without God. They do not fit”. Just because someone may believe in God doesn’t mean that they will always follow their God-given conscience. The Bible says that our conscience can be “seared as with a hot iron” or “corrupted” (1 Tim. 4:2; Ti. 1:15). These consciences are insensitive to sin; they do not work properly.
- Your example of “a completely racist society” is similar to the example of George Bush, it doesn’t address the author’s claim that, “objective moral values themselves are foreign to a universe without God. They do not fit”. It’s just an example of a seared or corrupted conscience. For example, slavery was accepted in society for many years until the slave trade was abolished by the efforts of Christians such as William Wilberforce (who responded to his guilty conscience when he realized that the slave trade was an abuse of the moral truth that all races are equal).
- You don’t believe that morality is transcultural and cite the existence of head-hunters and human sacrifices as an example. But this isn’t what the author stated, which was “there is a morality that is trans-personal, trans-cultural and trans-temporal”. He calls this objective moral truth. Is head hunting and human sacrifice still practiced? The answer is no. When it was it was a case of a seared or corrupted conscience (like Hitler). In this case the objective moral value is that it wrong to kill (murder) another person.
Of course, there are also subjective moral truths (a sense of right and wrong) that can differ according to person, culture and time. This means that all that is accepted and all that is prohibited will not be identical in all societies.
You say that human sacrifice was even sanctioned by God in Genesis 22, but you only quote half the story. After Abraham passed the test of obedience, God provided an animal sacrifice instead. So God never intended for Abraham to kill his son Isaac as an offering to God.
- You criticize Ganssle’s article because of its “dualistic perspective of the bible”. However, I don’t know in what sense you are using the idea of dualism:
– Is it that our mind is more than just our brain? That it has a non-material, spiritual dimension that includes consciousness and that is eternal? Yes, that is what the Bible teaches.
– Is it that there are two opposing forces of equal power called good (represented by God) and evil (represented by Satan)? This is false because God is omnipotent and Satan was created by God as an angel before he rebelled (Isa. 14:12-15; Ezek. 28:13-17).
– Is it just opposite of the Buddhist idea that all phenomena inter-exist; nothing is separate? Unfortunately, I have not yet found a clear explanation of this Buddhist idea.
Commentator 19 October
As for god, god is nothing more than an idea like enlightenment both are the goal in one way or another. Christians wish to abide with god in their afterlife. And Buddhists seek to calm and abide in meditation and the all knowing truth that unites all beings. And yes one could use the word the “Devine” equally to both. Both are hard to explain and quite difficult to grasp. But nevertheless, they are both lofty but worthwhile ideals.
You said “Instead, I would say that the existence of God is the most logical explanation of the existence and complex nature of the universe, the existence and complex nature of life, and the existence of the human conscience (innate sense of right and wrong). So, there’s lots of other evidence available.” Is this already your Trump card? 😉 It is very well thought out and partly plausible. What is this evidence you have spoken of I would like to learn about it? Some would say that science is coming close to explaining the wonderful complexities of life.
“Creator – noun – a person or thing that brings something into existence”.
“James Bond’s creator Ian Fleming”
synonyms: writer, author, composer, designer, deviser, maker, inventor, producer, developer; More
used as a name for God.
noun: Creator; noun: the Creator
synonyms: God, the Lord, the Almighty, the Master of the Universe; one’s Maker
“the Sabbath is kept to honor the Creator”
“If” god is the creator and we are made in his image then we are creators as well his equals.
You have also mentioned god’s perfection in all he does. Ok so what about this. if we really were made in gods image Genesis 1:27 and yet we still are sinners, one can draw two conclusions 1. god who is perfect made a mistake or 2. god is also a sinner like us and therefore imperfect. When Christ came to fix or redeem us was god trying to fix his error? How can something so imperfect and sinful as man come from such perfection from a Christian perspective?
George’s reply 29 October
You say, “god is nothing more than an idea like enlightenment both are the goal in one way or another”. This is a poor summary of the God of the Bible. God is not only the end, but the beginning as well. He’s the source and ultimate cause of the universe. He also sustains the universe.
You doubt my statement that “Instead, I would say that the existence of God is the most logical explanation of the existence and complex nature of the universe, the existence and complex nature of life, and the existence of the human conscience (innate sense of right and wrong). So, there’s lots of other evidence available.” I will choose one part of this statement, the “complex nature of the universe”. There are two main ways to explain this observation.
– matter/energy came from nothing.
– matter/energy created the laws of the universe.
– The order and complexity of the universe came from an explosion of this matter/energy and the operation of these laws. This included producing life and producing the information stored in DNA codes.
– Hypothetical “dark matter” and “dark energy” is proposed to explain the observed behaviour of the universe (otherwise it can’t be explained by the current laws of physics).
– An all-powerful God designed and created matter/energy, and the laws of the universe, and the order and complexity of the universe. This included producing life and producing the information stored in DNA codes.
Both options involve miracles. Ockham’s razor says that the simplest explanation is preferred because it involves fewer assumptions. Therefore, option 2 is preferred because it’s simpler.
A similar argument can be made for the origin of life, the origin of gender and the origin of morals (or conscience).
You ask, “Is the god of Abraham alive? Can you prove it to a 5 sigma level? Could you even prove it in a court of law?”. About 2000 BC, God promised Abraham that his descendants would be a nation that would occupy Palestine. This was fulfilled about 1,000 years later during the reign of king Solomon (970-930BC). But they were driven from the land by 586BC because they were unfaithful. And Palestine was ruled by other nations up to AD 1947. In the time of Isaiah (about 700BC), God promised that after the exile the nation would be restored in Palestine. But there was no evidence of this being fulfilled until over 2,500 years after the exile. So, the history of the nation of Israel proves that “the God of Abraham is alive”. Two promises that He made were fulfilled, one after a period of about 1,000 years and the other after a period of over 2,500 years. I know of no other god or prophet doing something like this. By the way, we are dealing with history here, not statistics (5 sigma level).
You say, “’If’ god is the creator and we are made in his image then we are creators as well his equals”. Yes humans are creative, but we don’t have the same power as God. Can we create matter/energy (from nothing)? Can we create life from chemicals? God is in charge of the universe (Eph. 1:20-22), whereas we have much smaller responsibilities (Ps. 8:6-8). And we can’t even fulfil these (Heb. 2:8). So, we are not equal with God.
When you looked at why humanity is sinful you left out the biblical explanation that Adam and Eve were created with a free will to either obey or disobey God. They were initially sinless (like God), but after they disobeyed God, they became sinful and their descendants inherited this sinfulness. So God didn’t make a mistake and God isn’t a sinner. When Christ came to fix or redeem us God was trying to fix humanity’s error (not God’s error).
You ask, how a perfect God could have created sinful people. God desires the love of His creation. But love cannot exist apart from free-will, which implies the choice to obey (do good) or disobey (do evil). So He created people in such a way that they had the capacity to choose to love and accept Him or to choose to hate and reject Him. So God Himself did not create sin, He only created Adam and Eve with the capacity to sin. So God allowed Adam and Eve the freedom to rebel and in so doing, pain-and-suffering entered the world.
The answer is that God gave humans the freedom to make choices, they are not His robots (it could be one of the ways they are made in the image and likeness of God, Gen. 1:26-27). As God knew that people would rebel against Him, He also had a plan of salvation through Jesus. Adam and Eve were not sinners until they decided to disobey God. After this time in history the universe was and is not as it was originally created by God. That’s why it’s wrong to blame God for the state of the world today. Yes, God is perfect, but the world is no longer perfect (Rom. 8:20-22). But its perfection will be restored in a coming day. In the meantime, we can be a part of this new creation by being reconciled with God (2 Cor. 5:17-21). That’s why Paul urged people to “Be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20). The message of the Bible is a marvellous exchange, “God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ” (2 Cor. 5:21). Jesus took the penalty of our sin (rebellion), so that we could receive His righteousness (be made perfect before God).
Commentator 30 October
Now in response to your last message, how about option 3: The universe is conscious of itself and we are the result of it. How is this for simplicity?
How could god make christ if they were one and the same along with the holy spirit? This is illogical but typical for all your arguments.
George’s reply 10 November
You give a third way to explain the complex nature of the universe as “The universe is conscious of itself and we are the result of it. How is this for simplicity?”. It seems simple, but is it reasonable? Like option 1, it doesn’t explain the cause of the universe (the universe can’t create itself). According to the Cambridge dictionary, the adjective “conscious” means to be “awake, thinking, and knowing what is happening around you”. For example, “She’s out of the operating theatre, but she’s not fully conscious yet”. So, it’s usually applied to living creatures with a mind and nervous system. The Bible describes human beings as being comprised of spirit, soul and body (1 Th. 5:23). It is the spirit which distinguishes us from animals; they do not have such an eternal spirit. As the soul is comprised of the mind, will and emotions, it’s a characteristic of living creatures. To say the universe is conscious seems to be a contradiction to me. How can non-living matter, like rocks, sand, dust and dead things, be awake, thinking and knowing what is happening around it? How can it have a mind, will and emotions? I know that some people speculate about whether the universe is conscious. Whatever they mean, it’s nothing like the dictionary definition. Instead they are making up their own definition. But I would rather trust in something that is robust and reliable instead of speculative ideas.
Commentator 15 November
The next one is my favourite. “the universe cannot create itself” Finally we agree on something. This is not what I said, but since you did the same must also apply to god. How does she exist? She could not create herself either, could she?
George’s reply 19 November
You ask how can God exist if something can’t create itself. The answer to this question is that God is in a different category to everything else. God is eternal and so had no beginning.
You propose that the “universe” is equivalent to “God”. This seems like a version of pantheism to me. I can’t see how the universe can be personal, holy, righteous, just, benevolent, gracious, and merciful. God is everywhere, but He is not everything. The Bible forbids the worship of anything except God and calls it idolatry.
Commentator 20 November
Dear George if god is all-powerful and omniscient it seems very perverse that all beings have to suffer and wait in this hell that he created for us for millennia in order to experience his so-called benevolence, grace and mercy and his second chance to fix it. I really mean this, it is sick to torture untold billions of beings here in hell if you have the power to fix it now, this is not in any way shape or form mercy no matter what the bible says. The only two conclusions that are possible is that he is sick and perverse or he cannot fix this because he did not make it in the first place.
George’s reply 28 November
Once again you criticize God because of the suffering in the world. I have already answered this point in detail above. God often delays judgment so that more people will repent and turn to Him. God is both merciful and just. If there was instant judgement, there would be no mercy. Your ideas of what God is like are different to the reality described in the Bible.
Discussion with second commentator
George’s reply to second commentator 11 October
You say, “there is no current scientific proof that God exists at all”. This is not surprising because science only deals with the physical world and not the spiritual world.
George’s reply to second commentator on 9 November
You say, “You cannot prove god”. Likewise, you cannot prove that God doesn’t exist. But we can see the evidence of God’s handiwork in the complexity and fine-tuning of nature, in the genetic language in the DNA code, in the uniformity of the laws of nature, as the ultimate source of life, as the ultimate source of gender, as the ultimate source of objective moral values, and as the ultimate source (cause) of the universe. There is no other more likely explanation of these characteristics of our world. So, it’s reasonable to believe that God exists.
For example, the ultimate cause of the universe can be explained as follows:
– Whatever begins to exist requires a cause.
– The universe (space, time, matter/energy) began to exist.
– Therefore, the universe requires a cause.
So, whatever caused the universe to appear is not physical (outside space), is eternal and timeless (outside time), and is immaterial (outside matter/energy). The cause is a supernatural (because it creates nature) mind (a non-material entity that can cause a response) with immense power. The Bible says, “By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God’s command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen” (Heb. 11:3).
Second commentator 10 November
George says: “You say, ‘You cannot prove god’. Likewise, you cannot prove that God doesn’t exist. But we can see the evidence of God’s handiwork in the complexity and fine-tuning of nature, in the genetic language in the DNA code, in the uniformity of the laws of nature, as the ultimate source of life, as the ultimate source of gender, as the ultimate source of objective moral values, and as the ultimate source (cause) of the universe. There is no other more likely explanation of these characteristics of our world. So, it’s reasonable to believe that God exists.”
Here you go again George. My statement is that “you cannot prove that god exists”. This is 100% true George. You cannot. Maybe someone else will be able to one day but YOU cannot. Your answer is an example of what I mentioned above. Just because Nature and DNA are complicated in no way does that mean that god must of created them. That is just your “opinion” George which differs greatly from fact. You can say that god is one of the possible explanations in the multitude of explanations that exist. There is no proof that god created anything and that is a fact!
George says: “For example, the ultimate cause of the universe can be explained as follows:
– Whatever begins to exist requires a cause.
– The universe (space, time, matter/energy) began to exist.
– Therefore, the universe requires a cause.
So, whatever caused the universe to appear is not physical (outside space), is eternal and timeless (outside time), and is immaterial (outside matter/energy). The cause is a supernatural (because it creates nature) mind (a non-material entity that can cause a response) with immense power.”
Your first statement is straight out of the Buddhas teaching “Whatever begins to exist requires a cause”. If you read the two books I mentioned above you will see that scientists question if “time” exists at all. “So, whatever caused the universe to appear is not physical (outside space)” Here you go again George making a statement as if it were fact when there is no facts backing it up. There is no proof that the universe had a beginning. The big bang is a theory George. I am sure when you are trying to argue that the world was created in 6 days that you use that very fact to support your argument. One of the possibilities is that the universe is infinite and has always and will always exist. Right now there are many theories of where the universe came from and if or how it began. I am sure that if you query most scientists, the world being created in 6 days will probably not be on the top of the list.
George’s reply 26 November
You say, “Just because Nature and DNA are complicated in no way does that mean that god must of created them. That is just your “opinion” George which differs greatly from fact. You can say that god is one of the possible explanations in the multitude of explanations that exist. There is no proof that god created anything and that is a fact!”
If there are other explanations of the cause of the complex information coded in the order of the nucleotides in the DNA molecule I would like to know one. It certainly can’t come from random processes or mutations. And it needs to be more intelligent than the human brain because we don’t understand how it works. Each nucleotide includes a particular nucleobase (adenine, thymine, guanine, or cytosine). Similar to how the order of letters in the alphabet can be used to form a word, the order of nucleotides in a DNA sequence forms genes, which in the language of the cell, tells cells how to make proteins. The human genome contains about 3 billion paired nucleotides. So each cell has 6 billion nucleotides.
God does not force us to believe in Him. Instead, He has provided sufficient proof of His existence for us to willingly respond to Him (Ps. 19:1-4; Rom. 1:20). There is plenty of evidence that God exists (Appendix A and B). This evidence is so strong that it’s more sense to believe in God than to believe He isn’t there. It takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe that God exists.
Appendix A: Arguments for the existence of God
Firstly, there are general arguments for the existence of God. These arguments don’t demonstrate that Christianity, specifically, is true. They show that belief in a supreme God and Creator is more rational for a person to believe than Atheism. These arguments include the following.
The Kalam cosmological argument
- All things that begin to exist have a cause of their existence.
- The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: The Universe has a cause of its existence.
You might wonder, where is God in this? But when you unpack what this cause must have been like, it must be outside time and space, be immaterial, extremely powerful, and most likely be a personal being. And this is a lot like the God of the Bible.
The Leibnizian cosmological argument
- Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
- If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
- The universe exists.
Conclusion 1: the universe has an explanation of its existence.
Conclusion 2: the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, and Conclusion 1).
The teleological (“Fine-Tuning”) cosmological argument
- The universe is finely tuned to make life physically possible.
- The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
- It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Conclusion: The fine tuning it is due to design. And the designer is lot like God.
These first three arguments reflect the thoughts of David in Psalm 19 and Paul’s words in Romans 1. “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Ps. 19:1-4).
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20).
The moral argument
- If God does not exist, objective moral values (right and wrong) and duties do not exist.
- Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: God exists.
This helps us see God’s moral nature. God is the foundation of moral values. Paul reflects the basic premise of the moral argument in Romans 2 when he says that the Gentiles who didn’t have the law of Moses, “are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them” (Rom. 2:14-15). The moral law is clearly perceived by all people.
There is an important misconception that often gets attached to the moral argument; That a person can only do morally good things if they believe in God. The moral argument does not say that a person must believe in God to be able to do morally good deeds. Indeed the verse just quoted from Romans even says this. What the argument says is that if any act is truly good or bad, it is because God exists and is the foundation of moral goodness. A non-believer can still do good things.
The ontological argument
- It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
- If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
- If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
- If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
- If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Conclusion: a maximally great being (God) exists.
Here, “maximally great being” means the best possible being (person) that could ever be described. This is the kind of being that has all the qualities that make a being great and excellent, and it has those qualities to the fullest possible extent. These would be qualities like moral goodness, power, knowledge, wisdom, and self-sufficiency. These are all the qualities typically associated with being God. The term “maximally great being” is used in the argument to avoid any misunderstandings that might occur because people often have their own assumptions or ideas about God based on past experiences. The term is used to avoid all that baggage people might attach to the word God.
This is a rather abstract argument to get your head around at first, but what it shows is that if it is even logically possible that God exists, then He exists necessarily, and it would be impossible that He doesn’t exist. In order to defeat this argument and show that God does not exist, the critic of the argument would have to show that it is logically impossible for God to exist – that there is not even the slightest possibility that He exists. The most controversial premise in this argument for philosophers who specialise in modal logic is premise 1. All the other premises (2-5) are just conclusions drawn from premise 1 and the rules of modal logic.
These arguments give a very strong cumulative case for the existence of God. Something that you might notice about these arguments is that there are premises in all of them that some people might not accept; either because they don’t want to accept the conclusion of the argument, or because they haven’t really heard or considered any evidence that might make them accept the premises. What we would do when sharing these arguments with people is also share the evidence that makes us believe the premises in them are true; and therefore, that the argument is true.
Appendix B: 6 Arguments for God’s existence
- The universe must have a cause. It was caused by a supernatural Creator.
- Design demands a designer. The universe looks designed. It demands a supernatural intelligent Designer.
- Life demands supernatural life-giver. Life doesn’t arrive from non-lifegiving chemicals.
- Moral law demands a moral law-giver.
- Free-will exists.
- Human reasoning.
Written, September 2019