Traditional Proofs for God’s Existence II: The Cosmological and Ontological Arguments
Intro: A recap from last time…
The Argument from Causation - The Cosmological Argument
The Greek word, cosmos, means “universe.”
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Job 12:10 - In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind.
Colossians 1:16 - For by him [Christ] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Revelation 4:11 - “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”
Major proponents: Plato, Aristotle, Maimonides, Anselm, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, et. al.
An explanation of the argument
Notes:
“Because effects always depend on some cause, and a cause must exist if its effect exists…It is therefore impossible that, in the same manner and in the same way, anything should be both the one which effects a change and the one that is changed…We do not find that anything is the efficient cause of itself. Nor is this possible, for the thing would then be prior to itself, which is impossible.” – Thomas Aquinas
“No fact can be real or existent, no statement true, unless there be a sufficient reason why it is so and not otherwise.” –Gottfried Leibniz
Critique of the argument
-Why can’t the universe just have existed forever? -Why can’t the universe have started itself? -To say that each individual thing in the universe has a cause does not allow you to leap to the conclusion that the universe as a whole has a cause. -The argument, at most, shows a first cause but not a personal, Trinitarian God. -What is the cause of that first cause (God)? If you say, “it has none,” why can’t you just say that same thing about the universe?
Further thoughts
-Why the universe cannot be eternal. -The argument is not meant to show who God is, just that there must be a first cause that is not part of the material universe. -The concept of God is unlike the concept of a physical universe (that must function according to physical laws).
The Argument from Being - The Ontological Argument
The Greek word, ontos, means “being.”
Psalm 90:2 - Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
Acts 17:27–28 - that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for “ ‘In him we live and move and have our being’…
Exodus 3:14 - God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”
Proponents: Anselm, Descartes, Leibniz, Edwards, Plantinga, et. al.
An explanation of the argument
Notes:
-Anselm’s argument
1. Can you think of a being that has every desirable quality to the highest degree?
2. Would this being be greater if it exists in reality or just in your mind?
Conclusion: Therefore, this being must exist.
-Unicorn example
Critique of the argument
-Guanilo and the island. -Existence cannot be predicated. (Kant)
“But if we wish to think existence through the pure category alone, then we must not be surprised that we cannot indicate any mark whereby to distinguish existence from mere possibility.” –Immanuel Kant
Further thoughts
-God is unique and his being is unlike other things that exist. -The argument is NOT that if you can think of God he must exist. The argument is that if you think of the greatest being and then think that he might not exist, you have contradicted yourself.
“If that than which a greater cannot be thought can be thought of as not existing, this very thing than which a greater cannot be though is not that than which a greater cannot be thought. But this is contradictory…But how did he [the fool who denies God’s existence] manage to say in his heart what he could not think? Or how is it that he was unable to think what he said in his heart?” – St. Anselm
“But granted I can no more think of God as not existing than I can think of a mountain without a valley, nevertheless it surely does not follow from the fact that I think of a mountain with a valley that a mountain [actually exists]…Likewise, from the fact that I think of God as existing, it does not seem to follow that God exists…From the fact that I am unable to think of a mountain without a valley, it does not follow that a mountain or valley exists anywhere, but only that, whether they exist or not, a mountain and a valley are inseparable from one another. But from the fact that I cannot think of God except as existing, it follows that existence is inseparable from God, and that for this reason he really exists. Not that my thought brings this about or imposes any necessity on anything; bur rather the necessity of the thing itself, namely of the existence of God, forces me to think this. For I am not free to think of God without existence, that is a supremely perfect being without a supreme perfection, as I am to imagine a horse with or without wings.” –Rene Descartes
-It’s opposite is impossible.
“That there should absolutely be nothing at all is utterly impossible. The mind can never, let it stretch its conceptions ever so much, bring itself to conceive of a state of perfect nothing…Indeed, we can mean nothing else by “nothing” but a state of absolute contradiction. And if a man thinks that he can think well enough how there should be nothing, I’ll engage that what he means by “nothing” is as much something as anything that ever he thought in his life…So that we see it is necessary some being [i.e. God] should eternally be.” –Jonathan Edwards
-Alvin Plantinga’s version of the argument.
Final thoughts
1. Do you understand the four proofs for God’s existence that we have studied over the past two weeks (teleological, moral, cosmological, and ontological)?
2. Which proofs do you think are the most persuasive and why?
3. What are some problems that all the proofs share?
4. How effective are these arguments at encouraging people who already have faith? Howe effective are they at convincing an atheist of God’s existence?