The Argument for the existence of God


The evidence for the existence of God is divided into two categories; the natural world and the human experience. The point of this chapter is not to prove God's existence, as science will tell us, it is impossible to prove anything. Evidence form the aforementioned categories, can only increase our faith which in itself is also imperfect.

Many of the defenses for the existence of God from the section on the natural world fall under the category of Teleological arguments. Teleological arguments attempt to show that the universe was purposefully created. William Paley wrote one of the most famous versions of the teleological argument, entitled "The Watch and the Watch Maker" In his work Paley created a scenario in which a person finds a watch in the woods. The person would assume not only that the watch had a creator, but also that it was created for a purpose. Similarly, anyone looking at our universe would see that it is far too intricate, and symbiotic, not to have a purpose or creator.

Another argument from the natural world focuses on the Golden Ratio. The Golden Ratio is an irrational number; it is non-repeating and non-terminating, like Ð. This number was discovered throughout nature. Its reappearance is too frequent to be taken as coincidence.
The Anthropic principle states that the odds of the universe forming in a way to make intelligent life possible are slim yet intelligent life exists. Things like the perfect positioning of the earth from the sun or the creation of Hemoglobin molecules imply that the earth was created to support intelligent life.

The Kalam argument focuses on the beginning of the earth. It states that everything which began to exist had a cause outside of itself, and the universe began to exist. This argument uses the simple law of the necessity of cause and effect. Every effect had a cause. If the universe is an effect then it was caused by something.
In Nature we can find many degrees of perfection. There is non-being, then matter, which is lifeless, then vegetation, like matter but with life, next are animals, which have sensory perception, instinct and memory, then come human beings who have reason, free will, and abstract thought. But what comes after human beings? Logically a pure being would follow. The fact that we can call one thing better than another says that there is a gold standard. Only God could be that perfect standard.

We can also come to know God through the human person. One of the huge aspects of the human person is the religious experience. Bertrand Russel was a British philosopher and mathematician who accused the masses of using religion as a crutch. As Christians we accept that religion is a crutch. There are aspects of our imperfect lives which we can not face alone. The argument from religious experience addresses some internal human qualities which point to a need for God.

One of the human qualities that point to God's existence is man's need for meaning. "Creating our own meaning" does not hold back the fears and longing we have for direction in our lives. God gives purpose and direction to an otherwise depressing existence. Closely related is the mystery of death. No one knows what follows death, but what kind of cruel universe do we live in, if it creates life that fears its own existence. A God allows for death to be a natural part of life.

Similar to the mystery of death, the human need for happiness seems like another cruel irony created by the universe. As humans we seek a perfect happiness but can never achieve it. Yet again, God, being perfect, allows for that perfect happiness to be achieved.

The final characteristic of the religious experience is the pain of loneliness. Regardless of the number of friends, lovers, or family we have, a longing exists in all of us for a more direct connection with one being. We want to reveal ourselves totally to anther person, but because we do not know ourselves totally we can't. God is the only one who knows us completely and thus the only one who we can know completely.

Another argument for the existence of God from the human experience comes from our own conscience. A conscience is one's sense of right and wrong from knowledge, intuition, and personal experience. To form opinions we must know the facts, so we must gain knowledge. in my opinion the most human aspect of conscience is intuition, or gut-feelings. These feelings pull us on an emotional level that the others do not. Finally personal experience can develop or sway our conscience. Personal experience involves us directly to one side of an issue, in ways that knowledge and intuition can not. Conscience communicates to us what is right or wrong internally. If God does not exist and I am free to live however I wish, then why do I feel obligated to seek good?

The third section of the human experience comes from Natural law. Natural law says that actions are morally good if they are conducive to human nature. By the act of arguing over a moral issue, we accept that there is a set standard or set of rules that are being broken. Natural law is based on the fulfillment of certain human characteristics. this section addresses some of those characteristics or inclinations.

The first inclination is to seek happiness. In seeking happiness we seek good and God is the ultimate good. The second inclination stems from the first. To preserve oneself. Only by existing can we seek happiness. Humans also feel the need to preserve the species or unite sexually. Because of their sexuality humans reason differently. Closely related to sexual unification is the need to live in community with others. Driven by the previously mentioned pain of loneliness, human beings naturally gravitate to each other. Finally human Beings desire to use intellect and will to know the truth and to make free decisions. With knowledge we can make better decisions leading us to a greater happiness.


I like many of the arguments from the natural world and the human person. Among the arguments from the natural world, I like the "Watch and the Watch Maker." In this argument the logic is easy to follow. However, not matter unlikely, the argument still leaves room for probability in its argument. Following the analogy, it is still possible that the universe to be a product of evolution that built on itself over billions of years.

I think that the Golden ratio is interesting, but just a natural coincidence.

Simialrly to my problem with the "Watch and Watch Maker" I don't like that the Anthropic principle allows for probability in its logical reasoning. No evidence is absolute or perfect, but logic should rule out other options. It is much eaisier for me to agree with the Kalam Argument, because I know the simplicity of cause and effect in my own life. THe analogy takes what I know and applies it well to a concept that I didn't understand.

I also like the argument from the degrees of perfection. I never before thought that I when I argued that I automatically accepted a perfect standard. I do not like the progression from non-being to pure spirit, because in that progression each stage builds on the qualities of the previous stage, but we don't know what qualities a pure spirit or Being might have.

I like alot of the arguments from the human person, because they help me label many of the feelings I experience and see what they mean in my life. The exestential experiences such as man's need for meaning are the epitome of my point. By themselves these qualities seem unrelated to the religious experience The argument from religious experience helped me see that not only is it acceptable for religion to be a crutch, but also that we need a crutch because we seek perfection in an imperfect world.

I don't agree with the argument from conscience. I think that the moral rules we abide do come from intuition, knowledge, and perosnal experience, but I don't see how the existence of a conscience points to the esistence of God. These rules may come from a higher being, but a conscience tells us what to do with these laws not what they are. I don't think that Conscience is absolute either. People go against their conscience for selfish reasons.

Similar to other arguments, I like natural law, because it labels what I have already experienced. All of the human inclinations listed are part of my life in one way or another. Natural law also helps me direct my own morality on a very basic level. Overall I would say that the arguments that work best for me are ones that appeal to the feelings I couldn't place earlier, like natural law or religious experience. Other arguments work for some people, but probability doesn't work as evidence for me.




By Greg Powell