Proofs of God

God Is Real – Arguments for the Existence of God

Written by Coordinator

arguments for the existence of God

Arguments for the existence of God go back hundreds of years, and even 2,000 years ago the ancient Greeks debated the subject and offered “proofs”. Practically speaking, it is not possible to “prove” that God is real without first accepting, implicitly or explicitly, that a Supreme Being or God is even a possibility. Some have said that the fact that so many people have an instinctive notion or awareness of God is evidence itself that God is real.

In philosophy and logic, there are two kinds of proof: those based on experience, also called empirical, inductive or a posteriori arguments; and those based on logic, also called deductive or a priori arguments. Logical arguments are based on the acceptance of initial facts or statements, from which one may logically deduce certain conclusions. A third category, called subjective arguments, focuses on mankind’s subjective experience of God in history and in personal experience. “Arguments” are similar to “proofs” of the existence of God; they are efforts to argue that God is real, and if they are convincing, can be considered “proofs.”

Most agree, however, that the reality of God cannot be proved by either experience or logic, but rather it is up to each individual to accept the reality of God by a “leap of faith.” The Apostle Paul wrote in Hebrews 11, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Basically faith is belief in the reality of the invisible, although many believe that the visible world, the beauties of creation etc., are powerful evidence of a designer, creator God.

Much of the following content is based in part on this Wikipedia page. For a drill-down on the “miracle of DNA” and how it could not have evolved by accident, read this article on our site.

Empirical arguments for the existence of God

Argument from beauty

One form of the argument from beauty is that the elegance of the laws of physics, which have been empirically discovered, or the elegant laws of mathematics, which are abstract but which have empirically proven to be useful, is evidence of a creator deity who has arranged these things to be beautiful and not ugly. But even more relevant for most people is the beauty of the natural world – magnificent sunsets, gorgeous flowers, the ocean, waterfalls, birds, other animals, the face of a loved one, and so much more. The world is more beautiful than it has to be because God made it so.

Argument from consciousness

The argument from consciousness claims that human consciousness cannot be explained by the physical mechanisms of the human body and brain, therefore, asserting that there must be non-physical aspects to human consciousness. This is held as indirect evidence of God, given that notions about souls and the afterlife in Christianity and Islam would be consistent with such a claim.

The notion of the soul was created before modern understanding of neural networks and the physiology of the brain. Decades of experimentation led cognitive science to consider thought and emotion as physical processes, although the experience of consciousness still remains poorly understood. The hard problem of consciousness remains as to whether different people subjectively experience the world in the same way — for example, that the color blue looks the same inside the minds of different people, though this is a philosophical problem with both physical and non-physical explanations, and is ultimately unanswerable.

Argument from design

The teleological argument, or the argument from design, asserts that certain features of the universe and of living things must be the product of an intelligent cause.[38] Its proponents are mainly Christians.[39] 

Another version of this is the argument based on order, the orderliness of the universe, which could not be accidental. This is explained in this article on this website.

Rational warrant

Philosopher Stephen Toulmin is notable for his work in the history of ideas[40] that features the (rational) warrant: a statement that connects the premises to a conclusion.

Joseph Hinman applied Toulmin’s approach in his argument for the existence of God, particularly in Hinman’s book The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief.[41] Instead of attempting to prove the existence of God, Hinman argues you can “demonstrate the rationally-warranted nature of belief”.[42]

Hinman uses a wide range of studies, including ones by Robert Wuthnow, Andrew Greeley, Mathes and Kathleen Nobel to establish that mystical experiences are life-transformative in a way that is significant, positive and lasting.[43] He draws on additional work to add several additional major points to his argument. First, the people who have these experiences not only do not exhibit traditional signs of mental illness but often are in better mental and physical health than the general population due to the experience.[44] Second, the experiences work. In other words, they provide a framework for navigating life that is useful and effective.[45] All of the evidence of the positive effects of the experience upon people’s lives he, adapting a term from Derrida, terms “the trace of God”: the footprints left behind that point to the impact.

Finally, he discusses how both religious experience and belief in God is, and has always been, normative among humans:[46] people do not need to prove the existence of God. If there is no need to prove, Hinman argues, and the Trace of God (for instance, the impact of mystical experiences on them), belief in God is rationally warranted.

Inductive arguments

Some have put forward arguments for the existence of God based on inductive reasoning. For example, one class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the existence of God present a fairly high probability, though not absolute certainty. A number of obscure points, they say, always remain; an act of faith is required to dismiss these difficulties. This view is maintained, among others, by the Scottish statesman Arthur Balfour in his book The Foundations of Belief (1895). The opinions set forth in this work were adopted in France by Ferdinand Brunetière, the editor of the Revue des deux Mondes. Many orthodox Protestants express themselves in the same manner, as, for instance, Dr. E. Dennert, President of the Kepler Society, in his work Ist Gott tot?[47]

Logical arguments for the existence of God

Aquinas’ Five Ways (Arguments) 

Main article: Five Ways (Aquinas)

In article 3, question 2, first part of his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas developed his five arguments for God’s existence. These arguments are grounded in an Aristotelian ontology and make use of the infinite regression argument.[48][49] Aquinas did not intend to fully prove the existence of God as he is orthodoxly conceived (with all of his traditional attributes), but proposed his Five Ways as a first stage, which he built upon later in his work.[50] Aquinas’ Five Ways argued from the unmoved mover, first cause, necessary being, argument from degree, and the argument from final cause.

  • The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.[48]
  • Aquinas’ argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.[48]
  • The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God.[48]
  • He also argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good—a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness.[48]
  • The argument from final cause asserts the view that non-intelligent objects are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that these objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God.[48]

Cosmological argument

The cosmological argument, or “first cause” argument asserts that since everything that begins to exist has a cause, and since the universe began to exist, the universe must have had a cause which was itself not caused. This ultimate first cause is identified with God. Christian apologist William Lane Craig gives a version of this argument in the following form:[51]

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The Universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Ontological argument

The ontological argument has been formulated by philosophers including St. Anselm and René Descartes. The argument proposes that God’s existence is self-evident. The logic, depending on the formulation, reads roughly as follows:[52]

Whatever is contained in a clear and distinct idea of a thing must be predicated of that thing; but a clear and distinct idea of an absolutely perfect Being contains the idea of actual existence; therefore since we have the idea of an absolutely perfect Being such a Being must really exist.[52]

Thomas Aquinas criticized the argument for proposing a definition of God which, if God is transcendent, should be impossible for humans to understand.[53] Immanuel Kant criticized the proof from a logical standpoint: he stated that the term “God” really signifies two different terms: both idea of God, and the reality of God. Kant concluded that the proof is equivocation, based on the ambiguity of the word God.[54] Kant also challenged the argument’s assumption that existence is a predicate (of perfection) because it does not add anything to the essence of a being. If existence is not a predicate, then it is not necessarily true that the greatest possible being exists.[55] A common rebuttal to Kant’s critique is that, although “existence” does add something to both the concept and the reality of God, the concept would be vastly different if its referent is an unreal Being. Another response to Kant is attributed to Alvin Plantinga, who says that even if one were to grant that existence is not a real predicate, necessary existence, which is the correct formulation of an understanding of God, is a real predicate.

Subjective arguments for the existence of God

Arguments from historical events or personages

Arguments from testimony

Arguments from testimony rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, possibly embodying the propositions of a specific revealed religion. Richard Swinburne argues that it is a principle of rationality that one should accept testimony unless there are strong reasons for not doing so.[63]

  • The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages. A variation of this is the argument from miracles (also referred to as “the priest stories”) which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God.
  • The majority argument argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of God’s existence.
Arguments grounded in personal experiences
  • The Argument from a proper basis argues that belief in God is “properly basic”; that it is similar to statements like “I see a chair” or “I feel pain”. Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither provable nor disprovable; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.
  • In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that human reason is able to perceive the suprasensible. Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding. Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to a person’s consciousness and unites them to one another.[64] God’s existence, then, cannot be proven (Jacobi, like Immanuel Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality), it must be felt by the mind.
  • The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher, who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which people feel religious truths. According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are inessential.[65]

#  #  #

Top photo by Davide Cantelli on Unsplash

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar