Adapted from the work of Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. acelli

Arguments for the Existence of God

Argument from design

God as the DesignerWhere there is a design there must be a

designerConsider the different nationalities,

personalities, likes, dislikes creativity etc. that exists amongst people

CONCLUSION: there must be a universal designer

The Human Brain• The human brain best represents this

argument– Most complex piece of design in the universe– Consider what the brain is responsible for

and capable of doing– Is it truly reasonable to think that the human

brain developed by chance—by chance it is more advanced than other animals???

– If it were developed by chance we would all be the same

Anthropic Principle• Universe has been specifically designed

from the beginning for human life to evolve• If the temperature of the primal fireball that

created the Big Bang was a trillionth of a degree off, the carbon molecule would not have developed

• The same is true for the development of the hemoglobin molecule

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/880958/the_catholic_churchs_view_on_big_bang_theory/

Atheism and Argument from DesignImprobable argument that the universe

was created by chanceRelatively few atheists among neurologists,

brain surgeons and astrophysicistsA universe designed and ruled by chance

has no intelligenceTherefore, there must be a cause for human

intelligence that transcends that universe

EvolutionBeautiful example of designScientific evidence of evolutionNo scientific evidence of natural selection

as the mechanism of evolution

NOTE: Catholics do believe in evolution—we are not creationists

The first cause argument

Principle of Sufficient ReasonEverything that is has some adequate or

sufficient reason why it isWe look for physical, psychological and

supernatural causesWe may never find the cause, but there

must be one if something existsNever deny this principle

The First Cause• The universe is a vast and complex chain of

causes• Without a first cause, there would be an

infinite number of causes• It would have to explain itself– If it didn’t, it would also need a cause, and

would not therefore be the first cause– It would have to transcend all other causes

• If we can prove there is such a first cause, we have proven there is a God

Why???• Without a first cause, the whole universe is

unexplained– Each thing would be explained only in the

“short run” or in relation to something else• The Principle of Sufficient Reason would be

violated• Consider a chain with many links: each link

is held by the one before it, but the whole chain is held by nothing

Contingent and Necessary Beings• Contingent: beings that need causes; their

essence does not contain the reason for their existence; DEPENDENT

• Necessary: a being whose essence is to exist

• The universe contains only contingent beings– If there is not independent being, there are no

dependent beings– Sine dependent beings exist, there has to be an

independent = GOD

STA’s First Version of the ArgumentCAUSE OF MOTIONThe chain of movers must have a first

mover because nothing move itselfMoving: any kind of change (not just

location)

STA’s Second Version of the ArgumentCAUSE OF A BEGINNING TO EXISTENCEIf there were no first cause of the

universe’s coming into being, then there could be no second causesSecond causes are dependent on the first

cause

STA’s Third Version of the ArgumentCAUSE OF PRESENT EXISTENCEIf everything could die, then eventually

everything would dieNOTHING COULD START AGAIN

Universal death since a being that has ceased to exist cannot cause anything else to exist

There must be a necessary being that cannot cease to be

STA’s Fourth Version of the ArgumentCAUSE OF GOODNESS OR VALUEMust be a first cause of perfection,

goodness or valueNeed a standard (the ideal) by which things

are rankedWithout a most-perfect being, there is no

standard to judge byAll of our judgments would be meaningless

ARGUMENT FROM CONSCIENCE

Obligation To Be and Do GoodEveryone knows that he is obligated to be

and do goodObligation could only come from God

Therefore, everyone knows God by this moral intuition = conscience

Conscience• Modern definition: feeling that I have done

or am about to do something wrong

• Traditional definition: knowledge of what is right and wrong—intellect applied to morality– Intuitive knowledge not rational or analytical– Knowledge of my absolute obligation to

goodness (justice, charity, virtue and holiness)– Second-place knowledge: moral facts (what’s

right/wrong)

Authority of ConscienceMust admit its authority for this argument

to workMost people admit the premise (though it

may be explained differently)Once you admit the premise of the authority

of conscience, you must admit the conclusion of God

The only possible source of absolute authority is an absolutely perfect will, a divine being

Why must the authority come from a divine being?

If the moral idea exists only in the mind of people, what right do they have to impose this idea of theirs on me?

There is no instinct that should always be obeyedInstinct doesn’t tell us what we ought to do

Society cannot determine conscience as it doesn’t mean something above human beings

Forming our ConscienceFirst obligation to our conscience is to form

itWe may not always hear the voice rightMust seek the truth

If our conscience seems to be going against the truth, it is not working properlyIn other words, don’t merely rely on the

feelings—rely on knowledge

JOURNAL TOPIC• Reflect on the following quotation from Peter

Kreeft’s article “Argument from Conscience”:

“Conscience tells you that you ought to do or not do something, while instincts simply drive you to do or not to do something. Instincts make something attractive or repulsive to your appetites, but conscience makes something obligatory to your choice, no matter how your appetites feel about it.”

The Argument from pascal’s wager

Pascal17th Century philosopher, scientist and

mathematicianLived in a time of great skepticism, and

thus forms his workMost philosophers think Pascal’s Wager is

the weakest of all argumentsDoesn’t prove God’s existence but argues it’s

safer to assume He does than to assume he doesn’t

The WagerSuppose you hear reports that your house is on fire and your children are inside. You do not know whether the reports are true or false. What is the reasonable thing to do—to ignore them or to take the time to run home or at least phone home just in case the reports are true?

Hedging Your Bets with GodIt is foolish not to “bet” on God, even if you

have no certainty or proof that your bet will winBelieving in God only as a bet is not deep or

mature or adequate faith, but it’s a start—it’s enough to “dam the tide of atheism”

Appeals to the instinct for self-preservation (to be happy and not unhappy)

Betting is Better than AgnosticismThe agnostic says it is better not to wager

at allIf you don’t wager, you have no chance of

winning—you automatically lose

Only One LOGICAL ChoiceOnce it is determined that not choosing

isn’t an option (because you can’t win if you don’t choose), there are two choices

1) God does not exist (atheism)2) God does exist (theism)

***atheism is a bad bet = no chance of winning

Theism = WinningIf you believe in God and He exists, you win

everythingIf you believe in God and He doesn’t exist,

you lose nothing

However, if you don’t believe, and He does exist, you lose everything!

Is it worth the price???• Whatever you must give up to bet on God

is finite (only of this world)• The prize is infinite (eternal happiness)

• Giving up illicit pleasures to gain infinite happiness is reasonable

• Living with peace, hope, joy, etc. makes this life good and the possibility of the next life VERY good

Practical Objection to the WagerThe listener just cannot bring himself to

believe

According to Paschal, if you’re unable to believe, it is because your passions are blinding youInstead of concentrating on the proofs of

God, diminish your passions