The Classical Arguments for the Existence of God

 

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.

Follow the Finger

 

Apologetics, derived from the Greek word, ἀπολογία, translated in English as "defense," consists of logical arguments and the presentation of provable facts which are intended to explain or justify religious doctrines and is aimed at defusing objections to the faith. This occurs in every religious tradition but, for our purposes, refers to Christian Apologetics.
            

It is difficult to understand how people can ignore or entirely discount some of the facts brought to light by Christian Apologetics, but some always do, sometimes vehemently. Some will insist that apologeticists are misinterpreting facts or taking them out of their proper context. Others outright reject any supernatural interpretations of any facts.

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 film masterpiece, Amelie: “When the finger’s pointing at the sky, only a fool looks at the finger.” 

            Amelie is a quirky, but beautiful, French-language comedy and is not a Christian film. I, admittedly, am quoting the film totally out of context. The quote is a perfect fit for the point I am making in this post.

The Fine Structure Constant: 1/137

 

In physics, the fine structure constant, a,  is 1/137, or 0.0072973525693, the reciprocal of which is 137.03599084. Paul M. Sutter, an astrophysics professor at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, has said, “It’s a measure of the strength of the interaction between charged particles and the electromagnetic force … if it had any other value, life as we know it would be impossible …”

a was first noticed in 1916. Going back, physicists began to see it in many earlier calculations. The speed of light, atoms, numerous physical constants, gravity, stars, Fibonacci numbers, dark energy, parts of Einstein’s field equations, and electromagnetism are a few. It occurs almost uniformly around the subject of physics.

http://www.fine-structure-constant.org/

Some see from this that the ultimate nature of reality is mathematical. Others deny this but say that we can exist only because of the fortunate occurrence of the exacting physical conditions necessary for our reality, the anthropic principle. They would say that mathematics is a strictly human invention used to describe reality.

To those who see reality as mathematical, this is one of the arguments for the existence of God. They say there is an external reality totally independent of man. 1/137 cannot prove that God exists (none of the proofs can do that), but some see it as a finger pointing to him. (See this post:  https://saintsontheloose.blogspot.com/search/label/Amelie )