Apologetics: Kreeft Chapter 3 - Existence of God

Arguments for
the existence
of God

Pocket handbook of
Christian Apologetics
Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli
Saturday 19 November 2011

Can you actually demonstrate, or
argue for, the existence of God?
In Christian apologetics this
discussion has an important place.
Kreeft says of those arguing for
God’s existence,
“they have also believed that an
effective rational argument for
God’s existence is an important
ﬁrst step in opening the mind to
the possibility of faith.”
These arguments need to be
thought through by Christians - the
proofs are helpful in our own lives as
well as in encountering others who
have no faith in God.

The argument from efﬁcient causality

Some things cause other things to
be - beginning to be or continuing
to be - e.g. a man playing drums
causes music to be produced.
Question: are all things caused to
exist by other things right now, at
this moment? If they are then
imagine if there is no uncaused
being, no God, then nothing could
exist. This is because everything
needs something outside of itself to
exist.


So even things which are causing other
things to exist now still need to have been
caused to exist in the ﬁrst place - they can
give being to something only if they have
been given being.
On this hypothesis everything that exists
needs to have been caused to exist.
But we have a problem - beyond everything
there is nothing: surely this is silly, everything
that exists was caused by, an depends on,
nothing.
It would appear there must be something
uncaused, on which all things needing a
cause are dependent.

Existence is like a gift given from
cause to effect - if there is no one
who has the gift it cannot be
passed on to others.
If all the class are meant to read a
book but no one has the book then
no one will ever get it.
If there is no God who has
existence by his own eternal nature
- then this gift of existence cannot
be passed on.
On this argument because we have
existence, we get our existence
from somewhere, we argue from
God, who did not need to receive
existence.

The Design
argument

For many people the beauty and
order of the world around us
touches us deep within. But still
the question has to be asked as
to whether what we see around
us is the result of intelligent
design / conscious purpose?
There are many different variations
of this argument - here we shall
show the main thrust of them.


1. The universes displays great
intelligibility in what we observe and
the way these things relate to one
another - they exist and coexist in
intricately beautiful order and
regularity which appears amazing to
the observer. In nature many
different things work together to
produce a valuable end, like all the
organs in our body working to
produce life and health.
2. The intelligent order is either
produced by chance or intelligent
design.

3. It cannot be by chance as less
(or no) order does not produce
more order.
4. Therefore the universes is the
product of intelligent design.
5. Design only comes from a
mind, a designer.
6. Therefore the universe is the
product of an intelligent designer.


Question: but what if we only think
there is order, it is a product of our
minds. Even though we cannot
think utter chaos and disorder
maybe that is how things really are.
Answer: only by our minds do we
know reality. If we agree something
cannot exist in thought, we cannot
go ahead and say that it might exist
in reality. In effect by doing that we
would be claiming to be thinking
what we claim cannot be thought.


The Kalām argument
The Arabic word Kalām literally means speech but came to
denote a speciﬁc form of philosophical theology - one
containing demonstrations that the world could not be inﬁnitely
old and must therefore have been created by God. Christians
and Muslims appeal to this.


The argument is built on three
premises:
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
Most people accept the first
premise.
Premise 2 - did the universe begin
to exist? Natural science in the Big
Bang theory supports the idea.
Philosophical arguments are in
favour too: can an infinite task ever
be finished or completed?

If to reach an end you had to take
an infinite series of steps could you
ever get there?
Of course not, not even in infinite
time.
If it always was then it is infinitely old
- and therefore an infinite amount of
time must have existed before today
- so an infinite number of days must
have been completed in order for us
to arrive at the present time . But,
this then parallels the idea of an
infinite task being completed.


The Ontological argument

Designed by Anselm of Canterbury
(1033-1109) - an intensely
philosophical proof for God’s
existence. It has long been argued
over.
1. It is greater for a thing to exist in
the mind and reality than in mind
alone.
2. God means “that than which a
greater cannot be thought”


3. Suppose God exists in
the mind but not in reality.
4. Then a greater than God
could be thought - one that
has all the qualities of our
thought of God and with
existence too.
5. But this is impossible for
God is “that than which a
greater cannot be thought”
6. Therefore God exists in
the mind and reality.


The Moral argument

1. Real moral obligation is a fact.
We are really truly obligated to do
good and avoid evil.
2. Either the atheistic view of
reality is correct or the “religious”
one is
3. But the atheistic one is
incompatible with there being a
moral obligation
4. Therefore the “religious” view of
reality is the correct one.


Premise 1 dos not mean that there are
people who claim they have to perform
certain duties, or to avoid others, but it
is claiming that as humans we have to
perform certain duties because of the
way things really are not based upon
desires or the way we feel. It is not the
belief in moral values that is a fact but
the moral value itself that is an objective
fact.
So if we agree with moral obligation -
does atheism accord with this fact? No!
Atheists tell us we are chance products
of events which are blind to human
purpose or striving.


So for an atheist we have to ask, in
what is moral good rooted?
If moral standards are rooted in
human will and desire (which
atheists would argue comes
arbitrarily due to our evolution) then
there is no basis for judging these
desires. There is also no obligation
to do good of any kind - a desire
to do good is simply your own and
not to be imposed upon anyone
else.
This really is the basis for moral
subjectivism.


The argument from Conscience

Moral subjectivism is common today -
there are no universally binding moral
obligations, we simply follow our own
conscience.
Is admitting to a conscience a tacit
confession of believing in God?
Most people would say you should not
disobey your own conscience - even if
it is disagreement with other peoples.
This makes conscience your moral
absolute - where does such an idea of
obeying your conscience come from?


1. From something less than me -
nature
2. From me - individual
3. From others equal to me - society
4. From something above me - God
Considering each of these:
Premise 1:
How can I be absolutely obligated to
something less than me- like animal
instinct or practical survival needs?
Premise 2:
Am I absolute? Can I demand
absolute obedience from anyone? If I
am absolutely obligated to myself,
can I choose to let myself out of such
obligation?

Premise 3:
What right does society have to obligate me, to impose their
values on me? Does a certain number of individuals agreeing
and joining together make it absolute? Is society “God”?
Premise 4:
The only real source of absolute authority is something who is
superior to me - this morally binds me and demands complete
obedience


Premise 3:
What right does society have to obligate me, to impose their
values on me? only a certain number of individuals agreeing
God is the Does adequate source and ground for
and joining together make it absolute? Iswhen we need to
moral obligation which we feel society “God”?
Premise 4:
obey our conscience - conscience thus is
The only real source of absolute authority is something who is
deﬁned -as the voice of Goddemands soul.
superior to me this morally binds me and
in our complete
obedience


The argument from Desire

1. Every natural, innate desire within us
corresponds to some real object that
can satisfy that desire.
2. But, there exists in us an innate
desire that nothing in time, nothing on
earth, no creature can satisfy
3. Therefore there must exist
something greater than time, earth,
creatures that can satisfy this desire.
4. This something is what people call
“God” and “life with God forever”

Considering each premise:
1 - there are 2 kinds of desires, innate
and externally conditioned, or natural
and artificial.
Natural desires - food, sleep, sex,
friendship, knowledge, beauty - (we
avoid hunger, loneliness, ugliness, and
ignorance.) This comes from within
Artificial - cars, political office,
superman like powers, Leicester City
winning the premier league
These desires are on different levels -
we do not see deprivation of the
artificial in the same way as the natural.
This comes from without - society,
fiction, advertising etc.

Natural desires are to be found
in each one of us but the
artiﬁcial ones vary from person
to person.
The existence of artiﬁcial desires
does not necessarily mean that
they exist - sports cars do,
being like Superman does not.
With natural desires they do all
exist - no one has ever found a
natural desire for a nonexistent
object.


When we look at premise 2 we can only ask if someone
really is happy with money or sex or playing games - we
can ask “Are you really happy with that?” but we cannot
compel.
Even the atheist Jean Paul Satre admitted, “there comes
a time when one asks, even of Shakespeare, even of
Beethoven, ‘Is that all there is?’”
CS Lewis sums this up in the following quote:


“The Christian says, 'Creatures are not
born with desires unless satisfaction for
those desires exists. A baby feels hunger:
well, there is such a thing as food. A
duckling wants to swim: well, there is such
a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire:
well, there is such a thing as sex. If I ﬁnd in
myself a desire which no experience in this
world can satisfy, the most probable
explanation is that I was made for another
world. If none of my earthly pleasures
satisfy it, that does not prove that the
universe is a fraud. Probably earthly
pleasures were never meant to satisfy it,
but only to arouse it, to suggest the real
thing.

If that is so, I must take care, on
the one hand, never to despise, or
to be unthankful for, these earthly
blessings, and on the other, never
to mistake them for the something
else of which they are only a kind
of copy, or echo, or mirage. I must
keep alive in myself the desire for
my true country, which I shall not
ﬁnd till after death; I must never let
it get snowed under or turned
aside; I must make it the main
object of life to press on to that
country and to help others to do
the same.”


The argument from Atheistic experience

1. There is the music of
Johann Sebastian Bach
2. Therefore there must be
a God
You either see this one or
you don’t


Pascal’s Wager
This is a different type of argument -
and is not a proof for the existence
of God but a help for searching for
God in the absence of such proof.
Pascal assumed that logical
reasoning of itself could not prove
the existence of God - there was
good reasoning on both sides. So if
we cannot prove it, and if it is so
important, then we need to “wager”.
The question becomes: “Where
are you going to place your
bet?”


Place it with God - and even if he doesn’t you lose nothing.
Place it against God - if he does exist, you lose everything.
The argument is that if you win, you win everything, if
you lose, you lose nothing.
This can seem very selﬁsh, but has been reformulated to apply
to a higher moral motive: If there is a God of inﬁnite
goodness, and he justly deserves my allegiance and
faith, I risk doing the greatest injustice by not
acknowledging him.

The wager should not coerce belief
- but can be an incentive to search
for God - it can motivate the prayer
of the sceptic:
“God I don’t know whether you
exist or not, but if you do, please
show me who you are.”
Pascal suggests 3 kinds of people:
- those who have sought God and
found him (reasonable and happy)
- those who are seeking and have
not yet found (reasonable and
unhappy)
- those who neither seek nor ﬁnd
(unreasonable and unhappy)


The wager should not coerce belief
"Ask, and it will be
- but can be an incentive to search
for God - to you; seek,prayer
given it can motivate the and
of the sceptic:
you will find; knock,
“God I don’t know whether you
exist orit will be opened to
and not, but if you do, please
show me who you are.”
you.suggests 3 kinds of people:
For everyone who
Pascal
- asks receives, and the
those who have sought God and
one who seeks finds,
found him (reasonable and happy)
- those who are seeking and have
and to (reasonablewho
not yet found the one and
knocks it will be
unhappy)
- those whoopened. nor find
neither seek
(unreasonable and unhappy)


Apologetics: Kreeft Chapter 3 - Existence of God

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Apologetics: Kreeft Chapter 3 - Existence of God

Similar to Apologetics: Kreeft Chapter 3 - Existence of God (16)

More from Richard Chamberlain

More from Richard Chamberlain (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Apologetics: Kreeft Chapter 3 - Existence of God