Arguments for the

Existence of God
Classical and Modern Proofs

Pascals Wager:

Pascals Wager attempts to justify belief

in God not with an appeal to evidence for
his existence, but rather with an appeal to
rational self-interest.
It is in our interest to believe in the Judeo-Christian God,
the argument suggests, and it is therefore rational for
us to do so.
Pascals Wager seeks to justify Christian faith by
considering the various possible consequences of belief
and disbelief in God.

 If we believe in the Judeo-Christian God, so the

argument runs, then if he exists then well receive an
infinitely great reward in heaven, while if he doesnt then
we will have lost little or nothing. If we do not believe
in God, we will receive an infinitely great punishment in
hell. If it turns out he doesnt exist, then well have
gained little or nothing.
The possible outcomes of belief in the Christian God,
then, are better than the possible outcomes of disbelief in
the Christian God. It is better to receive an infinitely
great reward in heaven or lose little or nothing than
it is to receive an infinitely great punishment in hell or
gain little or nothing.

1) It is possible that the God exists and it is possible that God doesnt.
2) If one believes in God then, if he exists, one receives an infinitely
great reward; if he does not exist, then one loses little or nothing.
3) If one does not believe in God then, if he exists, one receives an
infinitely great punishment; if he doesnt, one gains little or nothing.
4) It is better to receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing
than it is to receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or
nothing.
Therefore:
5) It is better to believe in God than it is not to believe in God.
6) If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to
follow that course of action and irrational to follow the other.
Therefore:
7) It is rational to believe in God and irrational not to believe in God.

Common Refutations of Pascals Wager:

1. Illicitly assumes a Christian God (i.e. it assumes that if God exists, then he is
definitively the Christian All-PKG God) and a Christian view of the criteria for
admission into heaven (i.e. that infinite rewards and punishments are
distributed on the basis of belief in the Christian God).
2. To many, its not true that if God doesnt exist you lose nothing by
believing for your entire life. Many people find solace in the Atheistic
worldview (e.g. joys of indulging in sin, creating ones own meaning in life,
freedom from religious commitments/judgements, realization of the finitude of
ones existence, etc.)

3. Assumes that we can just choose our beliefs. This implies that an atheist, for
example, could just decide tomorrow that she believes in God because shell
gain somehow. We form our beliefs on the basis of things like evidence,
reasoning, faith, and conjecture, not on selfish gambles and whims. If there is a
God who rewards for belief, the reward would only be granted for true belief.

The Teleological Argument (Argument from Design)

Teleological arguments (arguments by design) typically end by
positing the existence of a designer with intellectual properties
(knowledge, purpose, understanding, foresight, intention)
necessary to design the things exhibiting the special properties in
question
They focus on finding and identifying various traces of the
operation of a mind in natures temporal & physical structures,
behaviors & paths
After seeing a watch, with all its intricate parts--which work
together in a precise fashion to keep time--one must deduce that
this piece of machinery has a creator, since it is far too complex
to have simply come into being by some other means...

1. Human artifacts, like watches, are products of intelligent design.

2. The universe, in all its complexity, resembles a human (or
intelligently created) artifact.
3. The universe, then, is most likely a product of intelligent design.
4. But the universe is complex and gigantic compared to human
artifacts.
5. Therefore, there is probably a powerful and vastly intelligent
designer who created the universe.
Since watches are the products of intelligent design, and living things are like
watches in having complicated mechanisms which serve a purpose (e.g.
eyeballs to enable sight), living things are likely the products of intelligent
design as well.

Teleological Argument (Continued):

(1) It is an indisputable and yet remarkable fact that many
natural objects appear to have been designed for a purpose:
the eye for seeing, the hand for grasping, etc.
(2) The only reasonable explanation for this appearance of
purpose is that natural things are ultimately the product of an
immensely powerful supernatural intelligence, namely God.
IBE: If hypothesis H is the only reasonable explanation of a
remarkable fact F, it is reasonable to believe that H is true.
(3) Therefore, it is reasonable to believe is that God exists.

Abduction (IBE):
Abduction - a form of logical inference which seeks to find the
simplest and most likely explanation. In abductive reasoning, unlike
in deductive reasoning, the premises dont guarantee the conclusion
Abductive reasoning is AKA inference to the best explanation
Validating a given hypothesis through abductive reasoning is a form of
reasoning through successive approximation. Under this principle,
an explanation is valid if it is the best possible explanation of a
set of known data. The best possible explanation is often defined in
terms of simplicity and elegance.

Abduction (Examples):
You happen to know that Tim and Harry have recently had a
terrible fight that ended their friendship. Now someone tells you
she just saw Tim and Harry jogging together. The best
explanation for this that you can think of is that they made up. You
conclude that they are friends again.
Walking along the beach, you see what looks like a picture of
Winston Churchill in the sand. It could be that what you see is
actually the trace of an ant crawling on the beach. The much
simpler, and therefore (you think) much better, explanation is that
someone intentionally drew a picture of Churchill in the sand.
That, in any case, is what you come away believing.

Deductive arguments - arguments that are intended by

the arguer to be (deductively) valid--that is, to provide a
guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the
argument's premises (assumptions) are true.
For example:
1. If P, then Q
2. P
--------------------3. Therefore, Q

Inductive argument - arguments intended by the arguer

merely to establish or increase the probability of its
conclusion. In inductive arguments, the premises are
intended only to be so strong that, if they were true, then
it would be unlikely that the conclusion is false. Its
success or strength is a matter of degree, unlike with
deductive arguments.
Inductive arguments are either strong or weak.

Here is an inductive argument based on evidence:

The witness said John committed the murder. So, John
committed the murder.
Here is a stronger inductive argument based on better
evidence:
Two independent witnesses claimed John committed the
murder. John's fingerprints are the only ones on the murder
weapon. John confessed to the crime. So, John committed
the murder.
This last one is certainly good enough for a jury to convict John,
but neither is strong enough to be called valid. That is, neither
argument is valid in the technical sense of deductively valid.

1. If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.

2. Socrates is a man.
--------------------------------------------- Socrates is mortal.

1. It has snowed in Massachusetts every December in

recorded history.
----------------------------------------------------------- Therefore, it will snow in Massachusetts this coming
December.

1. The members of the Williams family are Susan, Nathan,

and Alexander.
2. Susan wears glasses, Nathan wears glasses, Alexander
wears glasses.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Therefore, all members of the Williams family wear
glasses.

1. Socrates was Greek.

2. Most Greeks eat fish.
------------------------- Socrates ate fish.

A Priori vs. A Posteriori

a priori proposition: a proposition whose justification doesnt

rely upon experience. The proposition can be validated by
experience, but is not grounded in experience. Therefore, it is
logically necessary.
a posteriori proposition: a proposition whose justification does
rely upon experience. The proposition is validated by, and
grounded in, experience. Therefore, it is logically contingent.

Examples of a priori propositions include:

"All bachelors are unmarried."
"7 + 5 = 12."
The justification of these propositions doesnt depend on

E.G. One need not consult experience to determine whether all

bachelors are unmarried, nor whether 7 + 5 = 12.
Note: Of course, experience is required to understand the
concepts "bachelor," "unmarried," "7," "+" and so forth. However,
the a priori/a posteriori distinction refers not to the origins of the
concepts but to the justification of the propositions. Once we have
the concepts, experience is no longer necessary.
Examples of a posteriori propositions include:
"All bachelors are unhappy."
"Tables exist."
Both of these propositions are a posteriori: Any justification of them
would require one's experience.

Ill-defined statements are neither true nor false. For

instance, "The universe is flavorful," cannot be true or false
without an appropriate definition of "flavorful" as applied to
"the universe."
Subjective statements are neither true nor false: "Blue is
the best color," for example, cannot be evaluated as either
true or false. Same with That guy looks handsome.
However, "Joe thinks blue is the best color," or even, "Most
Americans say blue is the best color" can be evaluated.

The Ontological Argument:

1. It is a conceptual truth (true by definition) that God is a being than which
none greater can be imagined.
2. Thus God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things
being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine
something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being
that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a
contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the
greatest possible being that can be imagined).
6. Therefore, God exists.

We can rephrase the argument:

1. Nothing greater than God-1 can be imagined.
2. God-2 exists.
3. God-1 is greater than God-2
4. If God-2 exists, then we can imagine something
greater (i.e., God-1).
5. But this is a contradiction--we cannot imagine
something that is greater than God-1
6. Therefore God-1 exists.

 Anselm equivocates about the definitions of God-1

and God-2. He presents the argument thus: If God-1
exists only in the mind, then we can imagine
something greater than God-1; however, in reality,
the God that exists only in the mind is God-2, not
God-1. There is no contradiction.

The ontological argument is an a priori

argument for the existence of God. Unlike
the argument from design, it does not start
from our experience of the universe. Rather,
it attempts to show that the existence or
being (ontos in Greek) of God can be
known based solely on reason.

Philosophical Think Tank: A think tank is an organization or group that

performs research, solves problems, and advocates solutions
concerning topics such as philosophy, social policy, political strategy,
economics, military, and the application of science and technology.
Form your own philosophical think tank: Break into groups of three
(3) to research, discuss, and analyze the famous ontological argument
for the existence of God. Once the argument is fully understood, your
group will be responsible for submitting a report on the argument
advocating a position. Is the ontological argument valid? Is it
sound? Should we believe this argument and use it as a possible
proof for the existence of God? What are your formal criticisms of
the argument? Where does it fall short? If you believe this is a
strong argument, explain why and help the public understand why
it should be believed.

The Cosmological Argument:

Version 1. Motion
(1) Objects are in motion.
(2) If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in
motion by something outside itself.
(3) There can be no infinite chain of objects in motion (of
movers and movees).
(4) Therefore, there must be a first unmoved mover.
So, God exists.

2. Causality
(1) Some events cause other events.
(2) If an event happens, then it must have been caused by
something outside itself.
(3) There can be no infinite chain of causes and effects.
(4) Therefore, there must be a first, uncaused cause.
So, God exists.

3. Contingency (A.K.A. the Nothing from Something Fallacy)

(1) Contingent things exist.
(2) Every contingent thing has a time at which it fails to exist.
(3) If everything were contingent, there would be a time at which
nothing exists, an "empty" time.
(4) Such an empty time would have been in the past.
(5) If the world were empty at some time, it would be empty forever
after that.
(6) Therefore, if everything were contingent, nothing would exist now.
(7) But things exist now.
(8) Therefore, there must be a non-contingent being.
So, God exists.

Samuel Clarke's Version of the Cosmological Argument:

(1) Every being that exists or ever did exist is either a
dependent being or a self-existent being.
(2) Not every being can be a dependent being.
(3) Therefore, there must exist a self-existent being.
So, God exists.

Argument from Evil: