The existence of God scrutinized from a philosophical perspective.

1. PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

2. THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

3. The Ontological Argument
 This argument for the existence of God was invented by Anselm (1033-1109). Anselm defines God as
“that being than which no greater can be conceived.” God is the “Greatest Conceivable being” (GCB).
 Anselm argues that “a thing is greater if it exists both in the mind and in reality than if it exists merely in
the mind and the existence of the GCB is logically possible.”
 The notion that God does not exist is self-contradictory. According to Anselm this atheistic position is
necessarily false. It is so because that position is inconsistent with the definition of God, together with
certain other necessary truths.

4. The Anselmian Ontological Argument
 Things can exist in only two ways: in the mind and in reality.
 The GCB can possibly exist in reality, i.e. is not an impossible thing.
 The GCB exists in the mind.
 Whatever exists only in the mind and might possibly also exist in reality might
have been greater than it is.
 The GCB exists only in the mind.
 The GCB might have been greater than it is.
 The GCB is a being than which a greater is conceivable.
 It is false that the GCB exists only in the mind.
 Therefore, the GCB exists both in the mind and in reality.

5. The Anselmian Ontological Argument
Anselm meant the expression “x exists in the mind” to mean simply that somebody
imagines x, defines x, or conceives of x. The expression “x exists in reality” means
that x exists as a concrete individual thing and exists quite independently of
anyone’s ideas or concepts of it. Thus there are four modes of existence; x might
exist
 Both in the mind and in reality (e.g. Kwame Nkrumah);
 In the mind but not in reality (e.g. unicorns, or Harry Allotey’s 10th son);
 In reality but not in the mind (e.g. some as yet undiscovered but existing
chemical element); and
 In neither way (e.g. nuclear power in the year AD 1550).

6. The Anselmian Ontological Argument
Premise Two –– means that there is no contradiction or other sort of incoherence in the term
“Greatest Conceivable Being.” If so, the GCB ia a being that can possibly exist (this does not
mean that it does exist, of course), unlike impossible things like square circles or married
bachelors.
Premise Three –– simply means that someone – Anselm or whoever – has conceived of the
GCB; the GCB exists in the mind of that conceiver. Thus the GCB must have one of two of our
four modes of existence (i.e. two of the four have been eliminated): it either exists like Kwame
Nkrumah (i.e. both in the mind and in reality), or else it exists like my tenth son (i.e. just in
the mind).
Premise Four –– the basic idea is that things are greater if they exists both in the mind and in
reality than they would be if they existed merely in the mind.

7. The Anselmian Ontological Argument
If premises 5,2, and 4 are true, then premise 6 follows. If the GCB is a mere concept (like my
tenth son) and not an existing thing (like Kwame Nkrumah), then the GCB might have been
greater than it is. Mere concepts presumably have some powers and abilities – they can
sometimes help stimulate us to think more clearly or act in a certain way, for example – but
not clearly so many powers and abilities as existing things. Existing things are greater than
the mere concepts of them.
Existing things are greater than the mere concepts of them. If the GCB were a mere concept,
then it would still be true that the possibly existing thing that we are calling the GCB could
possibly exist (just as unicorns and my tenth son could possibloy exist); and that if it did
exist, it would be greater than it (the mere concept) in fact is.

8. The Anselmian Ontological Argument
Premise 7 –– The GCB is a being than which a greater is conceivable. Now since premise 7
is an explicit contradiction, then by reductio ad absurdum , we must search for whatever
premise above it in the argument is responsible for producing the contradiction. Realistically,
this means inspecting the argument’s assumptions, i.e. premises 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Anselm
would argue that since the first four are all necessary truths (or at least truths), the culprit
premise must be 5. We are allowed, then, by reductio ad absurdum, to negate premise 5.
The negation of premise 5 is premise 8. Now we know by premise 1 that things can exist in
only two ways, in the mind and in reality. And we know by premise 3 that the GCB exists (at
least) in the mind. And we know by premise 8 that it is false that the GCB exists only in the
mind. Thus, it follows that
Premise 7 –– the GCB exists both in the mind and in reality.

9. Platinga’s Modal Ontological Argument
 Premise 12 –– There is a possible world where maximal greatness is exemplified.
 Premise 13 –– There is some possible world in which there is a being that is maximally
great (from premise 12).
 Premise 14 –– Necessarily, a being that is maximally great is maximally excellent in every
possible world (by definition).
 Premise 15 –– Necessarily, a being that is maximally excellent in every possible world is
omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect in every possible world (by definition).
 Therefore, there is in our world and in every world a being that is omniscient, omnipotent,
and morally perfect (from

10. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

11. Introduction
 The cosmological argument is a family of arguments which seeks to
demonstrate the existence of a sufficient reason or first cause of the
existence of the cosmos. The roll of the defenders of this argument
reads like a Who ’ s Who of Western philosophy: Plato, Aristotle, ibn
Sina, al-Ghazali, Maimonides, Anselm, Aquinas, Scotus, Descartes,
Spinoza, Leibniz, and Locke, to name but some.
 The arguments can be grouped into three basic types: the kalam
cosmological argument for a First Cause of the beginning of the
universe, the Thomist cosmological argument for a sustaining
Ground of Being of the world, and the Leibnizian cosmological
argument for a Sufficient Reason why something exists rather than
nothing.

12. The kalam cosmological argument –– derives its name from the
Arabic word designating medieval Islamic scholasticism, the
intellectual movement largely responsible for developing the
argument. It aims to show that the universe had a beginning at
some moment in the finite past and, since something cannot come
out of nothing, must therefore have a transcendent cause, which
brought the universe into being.
 Classical proponents of the argument sought to demonstrate
that the universe began to exist on the basis of philosophical
arguments against the existence of an infinite, temporal regress
of past events.
 Today, the controlling paradigm of cosmology is the standard Big
Bang model, according to which the space-time universe
originated ex nihilo about 15 billion years ago. Such an origin ex
nihilo seems to many to cry out for a transcendent cause.

13. Thomist cosmological argument –– seeks a cause which is first, not in the
temporal sense, but in the sense of rank. Aquinas agreed that “If the world and
motion have a first beginning, some cause must clearly be posited for this origin
of the world and of motion.”
 A thing’s essence is an individual nature which serves to define what that thing
is. Now if an individual essence is to exist, there must be conjoined with that
essence an act of being. This act of being involves a continual bestowal of
being, or the thing would be annihilated. Essence is in potentiality to the act of
being, and therefore without the bestowal of being the essence would not
exist. For the same reason no substance can actualize itself; for in order to
bestow being upon itself, it would have to be already actual. A pure
potentiality cannot actualize itself but requires some external cause.
 Now although Aquinas argued that there cannot be an infinite regress of
causes of being (because in such a series all the causes would be merely
instrumental and so no being would be produced, just as no motion would be
produced in a watch without a spring even if it had an infinite number of
gears), and that therefore there must exist a First Uncaused Cause of being, his
actual view was that there can be no intermediate causes of being at all, that
any finite substance is sustained in existence immediately by the Ground of
Being.

14. Thomist cosmological argument ––
 This must be a being which is not composed of essence
and existence and, hence, requires no sustaining cause.
We cannot say that this being’s essence includes existence
as one of its properties, for existence is not a property but
an act, the instantiating of an essence. Therefore, we must
conclude that this being’s essence just is existence.
 In a sense, this being has no essence; rather it is the pure
act of being, unconstrained by any essence. It is, as
Thomas says, ipsum esse subsistens, the act of being itself
subsisting. Thomas identifies this being with the God
whose name was revealed to Moses as “I AM” (Exodus
3:15).

15. Leibnizian cosmological argument:
A statement of a Leibnizian cosmological argument might run as
follows:
 Every existing thing 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 is an existing thing.
 Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is
God

16. Leibnizian cosmological argument:
 Premise 1 –– merely requires any existing thing to have an explanation of its existence, either in
the necessity of its own nature or in some external cause. This premise is compatible with there
being brute facts or states of affairs about the world. What it precludes is that there could exist
things – substances exemplifying properties – which just exist inexplicably.
 Premise 2 –– is, in effect, the contrapositive of the typical atheist response to Leibniz that on the
atheistic worldview the universe simply exists as a brute contingent thing. Atheists typically
assert that, there being no God, it is false that everything has an explanation of its existence, for
the universe, in this case, just exists inexplicably. 5 In so saying, the atheist implicitly recognizes
that if the universe has an explanation, then God exists as its explanatory ground. This seems
quite plausible, for if the universe, by definition, includes all of physical reality, then it is hard to
see how it could have an explanation, or at least a better one, other than its being caused by
God.
 Premise 3 –– states the obvious, that there is a universe. Since the universe is obviously an
existing thing (especially evident in its very early stages when its density was so extreme),
possessing many unique properties such as a certain density, pressure, temperature, space–
time curvature, and so on, it follows that God exists.

17. A Focus on Kalam Cosmological Argument
So The Kalam cosmological argument may be formulated as follows:
 Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
 The universe began to exist.
 Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Conceptual analysis of what it means to be a cause of the universe then helps to establish some of the
theologically significant properties of this being.

18. A Focus on Kalam Cosmological Argument
Whatever begins to exist has a cause:
 It is rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from
nothing. Moreover, this premise is constantly confirmed in our experience. The conviction
that an origin of the universe requires a causal explanation seems quite reasonable, for, on
the atheistic view, there was not even the potentiality of the universe’s existence prior to
the Big Bang, since nothing is prior to the Big Bang. But then how could the universe
become actual if there was not even the potentiality of its existence? It makes much more
sense to say that the potentiality of the universe lay in the power of God to create it.
 Rather, premise 5 is a metaphysical principle: being cannot come from non-being;
something cannot come into existence uncaused from nothing. The principle therefore
applies to all of reality, and it is thus metaphysically absurd that the universe.
 If the universe could exist uncaused at a first moment of time, it could exist uncaused at
any moment of time. It follows that if the latter is metaphysically impossible, so is the
former.

19. A Focus on Kalam Cosmological Argument
The universe began to exist:
 An actual infinite cannot exist.
 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
 Therefore, an actual infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

20. A Focus on Kalam Cosmological Argument
The universe has a cause:
 If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who
sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and
enormously powerful.
 As the cause of space and time, this entity must transcend space and time and therefore
exist atemporally and nonspatially, at least sans the universe. This transcendent cause must
therefore be changeless and immaterial, since timelessness entails changelessness, and
changelessness implies immateriality.
 Such a cause must be beginningless and uncaused, at least in the sense of lacking any
antecedent causal conditions.

21. A Focus on Kalam Cosmological Argument
Finally, and most strikingly, such a transcendent cause is plausibly to be regarded as personal. Three
reasons can be given for this conclusion.
 First, a first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it,
and therefore it can be accounted for only in terms of a personal explanation.
 Second, the personhood of the cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality,
since the only entities we know of which can possess such properties are either minds or abstract
objects, and abstract objects do not stand in causal relations. Therefore, the transcendent cause of the
origin of the universe must be of the order of mind.
 Third, this same conclusion is also implied by the fact that we have in this case the origin of a
temporal effect from a timeless cause. If the cause of the origin of the universe were an impersonal
set of necessary and sufficient conditions, it would be impossible for the cause to exist without its
effect.
Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans
the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless,
and enormously powerful.

22. THE TELELOGICAL ARGUMENT

23. Introduction
 The Teleological Argument or proof for the existence of a deity is sometimes called the Design
argument. Even if you have never heard of either argument, you are probably familiar with the
central idea of the argument, i.e. there exists so much intricate detail, design , and purpose in the
world that we must suppose a creator. All of the sophistication and incredible detail we observe in
nature could not have occurred by chance.
 The basic premise, of all teleological arguments for the existence of God, is that the world exhibits
an intelligent purpose based on experience from nature such as its order, unity, coherency, design
and complexity.
 The Teleological Argument is the second traditional “a posteriori” argument for the existence of
God. Perhaps the most famous variant of this argument is the William Paley’s “watch”
argument. Basically, this argument says that after seeing a watch, with all its intricate parts, which
work together in a precise fashion to keep time, one must deduce that this piece of machinery has
a creator, since it is far too complex to have simply come into being by some other means, such as
evolution. The skeleton of the argument is as follows:

24. Introduction
The skeleton of the argument is as follows:
Premises:
1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design; they have a purpose.
2. The universe resembles these human artifacts.
3. Therefore: It is probable that the universe is a product of intelligent design and has a
purpose.
4. However, the universe is vastly more complex and gigantic than a human artifact is.
Conclusion: Therefore: There is probably a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who
created the universe.
Paley's Teleological Argument For The Existence Of God
"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the
creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and diety, has been clearly
percieved in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans1:19-20

25. The Intelligent Design Theory
 This theory holds that the complexity requires the work of an intelligent designer. The designer could
be something like the Supreme Being or the Deity of the Scriptures or it could be that life resulted as a
consequence of a meteorite from elsewhere in the cosmos, possibly involving extraterrestrial
intelligence, or as in new age philosophy that the universe is suffused with a mysterious but inanimate
life force from which life results.

26. Scriptural Roots and Aquinas’ Fifth Way
The scriptures of each of the major classically theistic religions contain language that suggests that there is evidence of
divine design in the world. Psalms 19:1 of the Old Testament, scripture to both Judaism and Christianity, states that
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” Similarly, Romans 1:19-21 of the
New Testament states:
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation
of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen
through the things he has made. So they are without excuse.
Perhaps the earliest philosophically rigorous version of the design argument owes to St. Thomas Aquinas. According to
Aquinas’s Fifth Way:
We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their
acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve
their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it
be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer.
Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call
God (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 3, Question 2).

27. Scriptural Roots and Aquinas’ Fifth Way
 Aquinas’s version of the argument relies on a very strong claim about the explanation for ends and processes:
the existence of any end-directed system or process can be explained, as a logical matter, only by the existence
of an intelligent being who directs that system or process towards its end.
 Since the operations of all natural bodies, on Aquinas’s view, are directed towards some specific end that
conduces to, at the very least, the preservation of the object, these operations can be explained only by the
existence of an intelligent being. Accordingly, the empirical fact that the operations of natural objects are
directed towards ends shows that an intelligent Deity exists.

28. The Argument for Simple Analogy
As expressed in this passage, then, the argument is a straightforward argument from
analogy with the following structure:
1. The material universe resembles the intelligent productions of human beings in
that it exhibits design.
2. The design in any human artifact is the effect of having been made by an
intelligent being.
3. Like effects have like causes.
4. Therefore, the design in the material universe is the effect of having been made by
an intelligent creator.

29. Paley’s Watchmaker Argument
"Teleological" = from the end or purpose exhibited by the universe
 The term teleological comes from the Greek words' telos and logos. Telos means the goal or end or purpose
of a thing while logos means the study of the very nature of a thing. The suffix ology or the study of is also
from the noun logos. To understand the logos of a thing means to understand the very why and how of that
thing's nature - it is more than just a simple studying of a thing. The teleological argument is an attempt to
prove the existence of God that begins with the observation of the purposiveness of nature. The teleological
argument moves to the conclusion that there must exist a designer. The inference from design to designer is
why the teleological argument is also known as the design argument.
i.) The basic premise, of all teleological arguments for the existence of God, is that the world exhibits an
intelligent purpose based on experience from nature such as its order, unity, coherency, design and complexity.
Hence, there must be an intelligent designer to account for the observed intelligent purpose and order that we
can observe.
ii.)Paley's teleological argument is based on an analogy: Watchmaker is to watch as God is to universe. Just as a
watch, with its intelligent design and complex function must have been created by an intelligent maker: a
watchmaker, the universe, with all its complexity and greatness, must have been created by an intelligent and
powerful creator. Therefore, a watchmaker is to watch as God is to universe.

30. Does the God of the Bible exist?
If there is a God who was the first cause of the universe, as the cosmological argument states, then what
kind of God is He? What sort of God exists? The teleological argument answers this question. He is an
intelligent cause.
The Universe Appears to Be Designed
 The teleological argument comes from the Greek word telos, meaning “purpose, end, or goal.” It is an
argument from design and purpose. Everything in the universe has a purpose and everything appears to
have been specially designed to fit that purpose.
Everything Designed Indicates a Designer
 If everything observable in the universe has a design and purpose, then why not the universe itself?
There cannot be poetry without a poet, there cannot be music without a musician, and there cannot be
design without a designer. The original or ultimate designer is God.
 Although not directly arguing for God’s existence in this manner, the Bible assumes this to be the case.
The psalmist wrote the following about the God of the Bible (Psalm 104:14-15).
 The biblical writers saw God behind the intricate design and balance of the universe (Prov. 20:12).
 The design of the human body is credited to God.
 The psalmist also noted how wonderfully the human body was constructed. He gave praise to God for
such a marvelous creation (Psalm 139:14)

31. Does the God of the Bible exist?
The Illustration from the watch
 First, the watch had to have had a maker. Second, the maker had a purpose in mind when
designing the watch. We make these conclusions even though we never saw the watch being
made, never saw the watchmaker, or have no idea how the work could be done. We determine this
because the end result, the watch, forces us to this conclusion.
 In the same manner, when we look at the universe, and its intricate design, we assume that it had a
Designer who wisely made it for a purpose. The belief in a Designer is not affected by the fact that
we did not see Him, did not observe His construction, and cannot understand how He did it. Indeed,
we believe in this Designer because the evidence forces us to that conclusion.
The value of the teleological argument is that it demonstrates that some intelligence made the universe
in its present form. The universe is too intricate to have randomly come together. Chance does not
explain the intelligent design that we find everywhere. It is too hard for us to imagine that the marvelous
design of everything in the universe is a product of mere chance. Consequently, the argument from
design gives evidence of the existence of a Creator as well as telling us something about His nature.

32. Limitations
 There May Be No Source or Ultimate Designer
 The Intelligence May Be Impersonal
 The Designer May Be Finite, Not Infinite
 There May Be Other Designers Who Exist
 The Designer May Owe His Power to Some Other Being Who
Created Him
 There Are Destructive Forces in the Universe and Processes
That Seem to Lack a Purpose