There have been many attempts made to prove the
existence of God but none have been definitive or inarguable. Some have pointed
out that even if definitive proof existed that would not be enough. Knowing is
not the same as believing.
There are three classical arguments
for the existence of God. Argument to most people carries
the idea of an angry exchange of words sometimes leading to a physical
altercation, but there is also an understanding of the word from a classical legal
background. Ancient orators (the forerunners of attorneys) and their
descendants, modern scholars, professors, and attorneys offered arguments
on numerous subjects, giving persuasive statements for or against a particular
matter or understanding of a subject. Modern lawyers present closing arguments
to a jury at a trial.
The three classical arguments for the existence of God are
the ontological, cosmological, and the teleological. The English-language word ontology
is derived from the Greek words ὄν or ὄντος (being, that which
is) and λογία (word, study). The English-language word cosmology is
derived from the Greek words κóσμος (order, arrangement, or adornment) and
λογία. The English-language word teleology is derived from the
Greek words τέλος (end, aim purpose, goal, finality) and λογία.
The Ontological Argument says that since we can
conceive of a perfect being, then God must exist. The weakness here is that
we can also conceive of H.P. Lovecraft’s extremely complex mythology of ancient
gods like Nyarlathotep, Yog-Sothoth, or Cthulhu but that does not mean that
they actually exist.
The Cosmological Argument says that everything in
the universe has a cause and that there must be a first cause, which
is God. The weakness here is how to explain how God can be an uncaused
cause. To say that God caused himself is just talking in a circle and does not
answer the objection.
The Teleological Argument: is generally considered
to be the strongest of the three. This
is also known as the argument from design. This argument points to the
apparent order, purpose, and complexity of the universe as strong evidence pointing
to an intelligent designer. This argument often mentions the fine-tuning of
physical constants which must be the way they are for the existence of life,
and of multiple complex biological systems which must all function correctly
together the very first time or the organism will not be viable. The weakness
here is that this argument can point but cannot prove. It can
only define a degree of probability.
This argument cannot answer numerous objections. Was God
designed by another designer who also had a designer who also had a …? Are
there other designers creating other universes? Do suffering and natural
disasters show God to be cruel or evil? Does the designer care at all about
what he designed? Do we so much want to see design that we see it when it is
not really there? Does the apparent presence of design point to the God of the
Judeo-Christian tradition or to some other deity? Every one of these questions and objections
and many others have been brought up over the centuries and have led to the
development of the field of apologetics.
Apologetics absolutely cannot prove the existence of God.
What it seeks to do is to find and explore every possible provable fact which
adds to the probability of the truth of the Judeo-Christian tradition. There
are literally thousands of these provable facts. Do not expect any of this to
convince a true confirmed skeptic.
One can easily get bogged down in all
the arguments, but I believe that the point of apologetics can be summed up by
a line from the Jean-Pierre Jeunet secular comedic film masterpiece, Amelie: “When
the finger’s pointing at the sky, only a fool looks at the finger.”
The field of apologetics attempts to
pile facts upon facts to raise the probability of God’s existence to the point
at which even hostile total skeptics have to admit that it is at least a viable
argument.
Posts
