Arguments for the existence of God. Ontological Argument Anselm

Arguments for the existence of God

Arguments for the existence of God

Ontological ArgumentOntological Argument

Anselm

Ontological Argument•God (that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-conceived) by definition must be perfect.

•Perfect beings must exist, rather than be merely potential beings.

•Therefore, God must exist.

Objections to the argument

•The first premise begs the question; it assumes God from the very beginning.

•The second premise makes the dubious leap from the concept to the existence of God (Gaunilo - most perfect island).

•The conclusion doesn’t necessarily prove the Christian God.

Most perfect island

Scriptural Support•Psalm 14:1(This is the reference Anselm used)

•Genesis 1:1 (The Bible assumes, rather than seeking to prove, God’s existence)

•Matthew 5:48 (God is perfect)

CosmologicalArgument

CosmologicalArgument

Thomas Aquinas

Cosmological Argument

• From MOTION to a PRIME MOVER

• From CAUSATION to a FIRST CAUSE

• From CONTINGENT BEINGS to a NECESSARY BEING

• From IMPERFECTION to a PERFECT BEING

• From evidence of PURPOSIVE DESIGN to a DIVINE DESIGNER

THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CAN BE EXPRESSED IN EACH OF THE FIRST THREE

WAYS.

THE MORAL ARGUMENT IS SUGGESTED BY THE FOURTH WAY.

AND THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT IN THE FIFTH WAY.

MOTION TO PRIME MOVER

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

CAUSATION TO A FIRST CAUSE

•EVERY EFFECTS HAS A CAUSE (UNIVERSAL LAW OF CAUSATION).

•THEREFORE CANNOT BE AN INFINITE REGRESSION OF CAUSES.

•THEREFORE, THERE MUST BE A FIRST CAUSE

CONTINGENT BEINGS TO A NECESSARY BEING

•THERE IS AN EXPLANATION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF EVERY (CONTINGENT) THING. (THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON)

•ALL THE WORLD IS MADE UP OF CONTINGENT THINGS.

•THEREFORE, A NECESSARY BEING MUST EXIST TO ACCOUNT FOR THE WORLD’S EXISTENCE

OBJECTIONS TO THE ARGUMENT

• THE FIRST PREMISES CAN’T BE PROVEN. BOTHE THE UNIVERSAL LAW OF CAUSATION AND THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON ARE ASSUMED RATHER THAN PROVEN.

• THE SECOND PREMISES CAN BE CHALLENGED BY OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS, SUCH AS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, A SUPERHUMAN CONTINGENT BEING, OR SEVERAL GODS.

• THE CONCLUSIONS CONTRADICTS THE FIRST PREMISE.

SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT

•JOB 38:1-41:34

•PSALM 115:4-9

•ISAIAH 44:9-20

•ISAIAH 46:5-9

•JEREMIAH 10:1-10

MoralArgument

MoralArgument

Immanuel Kant

MORAL ARGUMENT•All (sane adult) people have a sense of morality.

•All people fall short of their own moral standard of perfection

•Immortality would be required in order to achieve this inherent human desire for imperfection and wholeness.

•Therefore, God must exist in order to provide immortality.

BETTER SUGGESTION

•All (sane adult) people have a moral standard.

•Moral standards are objective, not subjective.

•Therefore, there must be a Supreme Moral Lawgiver.

OBJECTIONS TO THE ARGUMENT

•The first premise can be challenged by arguing that human moral consciousness comes from conditioned response, cultural conditioning, or evolutionary instinct.

•The second premise can be challenged by asserting that moral standards are subjective.

•The conclusion does not necessitate a deity.

SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT

•All Scriptures claiming a moral law, such as:

•Romans 2:14-16

•Matthew 5:48

•Exodus 20:1-17

TeleologicalArgument

TeleologicalArgument

William Paley

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT•The universe (micro and macro) shows extensive evidence of purposive design.

•Purposive design doesn’t happen by accident

•Therefore, there must be a Divine Designer

Paley’s Version

Taylor’s Version

OBJECTIONS TO THE ARGUMENT

•Premise one can be challenged by pointing out disteleological elements (the problem of evil, storms, earthquakes, etc.

•The second premise can be challenged by alternative explanations, such as the theory of evolution.

•The conclusion does not prove the Christian God.

Scriptural Support

•Psalm 8:3

•Psalm 19:1-2

•Romans 1:20-23

Argumentfrom

experience

Argumentfrom

experience

William James

Argument from experience

•An event (miracle, salvation, sign, healing) is too extraordinary to be caused by natural events.

•There must have been a supernatural cause.

•Therefore, God must have caused the event.

OBJECTIONS TO THE ARGUMENT

•The first premise can be doubted, because other psychological and scientific causes can also explain the event when properly understood.

•Other causes can be suggested for the second premise, such as natural causes that are unknown to the observer.

•The conclusion does not prove the Christian God, because all world religions have claims of miracles, etc.

Scriptural Support

•1 Kings 18 (Elijah calls down fire)

•Acts 4:1-20 (Healing of lame beggar)

•Acts 9:1-19 (Conversion of Paul)

Personal Experience

Pascal’sWager

Pascal’sWager

Blaise Pascal

Pascal’s Wager

Objections to Argument

•This argument could be used by each world religion and cult

Scriptural Support

•Proverbs 16:25

•Malachi 3:10

•Matthew 7:24-27

•Luke 12:16-34

•Luke 16:19-30