Many people wonder how one can believe in God in the 21st century. The same question was asked in previous centuries, too. Believers, on the other hand, can ask non-believers the same question: how can one not believe in God given that it is impossible to prove God’s non-existence rationally and logically. Nevertheless, our opponents demand rational arguments in favor of our point of view. Sadly, Christians cannot provide such arguments sometimes. We are so accustomed to the idea that God exists that we stop thinking about our faith; hence, we cannot maintain a healthy dialog about it. Here are five rational arguments to help every Christian to discuss the existence of God with atheists or agnostics.
1. Cosmological argument (Greek Kosmos, lit. order, universe). It is one of the most ancient arguments in favor of the existence of God. The history of this argument goes back to Aristotle (†322 BC), Plato (†347 BC), and other philosophers. Its basic premise is the concept of causality. Everything or almost everything in the world has a cause, an origin. Nevertheless, this chain of causation is finite, i.e., there must be the first cause, which is the source of all things. The first cause has to have the cause of its own existence in itself. This is the perfect and absolute Being who gave birth to the world, and we call him God.
2. Teleological argument (Greek Teleo, lit. finish, make perfect). One of the most ancient yet a very simple and convincing argument, which essentially boils down to the observed intelligent design of the world both in general and in its parts. The smart design of the world leads us to think of a sentient and powerful Being who created this world or set it in motion.
L.S.Berg, a prominent Soviet scientist (†1950), put it aptly, “The basic premise, which a researcher uses to understand the laws of nature, is that nature has laws, that it is fathomable and knowable; that there is a pre-established harmony between the laws of thinking and the laws of nature. Unless we make this assumption, true scientific exploration is impossible.” (L.S. Berg, The Theory of Evolution. Petrograd, 1922, pp. 67-68). Hence, science is based on the assumption of intelligent design of our world.
3. Ontological argument. It was first introduced by Anselm of Canterbury (†1109); however, some authors claim that Plotinus (†270) was the first to come up with that argument. It sounds weird and unusual but it has withstood scrutiny and criticism by many notable philosophers. Not everyone accepts this argument but it has become an integral part of the history of philosophy and religion. Here is how it goes: God is the all-perfect Being, the Ideal One. If we have this concept of a perfect Being in our brains, this Being can’t be non-existent because otherwise it wouldn’t be perfect. Non-existence is an imperfection, after all. Given that the non-existence of the Absolute Being is logically impossible, then it necessarily exists, and therefore there is a God. It is useful both for proving God’s existence and for improving your logical thinking skills.
4. Kantian argument from morality. The first premise of Immanuel Kant (†1804): The universe is subject to the law of causation. All events are tied to each other by cause and effect. One phenomenon or object exerts influence on the other. This is the fundamental law of nature. The second premise: If we humans are totally subject to the same law, then we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions because they are a mere effect of a chain of events and not a matter of our free choice. The third premise is: If we postulate moral responsibility of humans, which we have to do, we are led to admit that humans are free from the main law of the Universe. Conclusion: while we live in a cause-and-effect world, we are free to do what we choose to do. We have the experience of the existence in which laws of liberty, love, and reason prevail over blunt determinism. This kind of existence is called God in philosophers’ lingo.
5. Argument from religious experience. This argument is based on observed existence of religious experiences among people of all ages, occupations, and ethnic backgrounds throughout the history. Many a great scientist have had religious experiences, or a unique sensation of God’s presence. If all humans share an innate attraction to religion, there must be the object of religion, or better still, the One who kindles this thirst for the sacred, the thirst for the Living God.
In the end, there is no empirical way to prove the non-existence of God. On the contrary, there is an empirical way to check whether God really exists, and it was suggested by the Savior, Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God (Matthew 5:8). Cleanse your heart, and you shall see God. You shall know for a fact that He exists because there will be nothing that could block his Light from your view. The arguments we have listed here are great and useful in our discussions with atheists and may help us to bolster our own faith by means of God-given reason. With that said, all those arguments will not help us or those who look for God if they fail to see the light of eternal life in our eyes.
3 simple questions come to mind.
If there is a god,and god is supposed to be an all knowing, all powerful yet all loving god then why does he allow infants be born with terminal cancer or terminal heart defects. Is this the nature of a loving god?
The bible appears to be written from the creation of the world.It records god creating heaven and earth in the first sentence, Who wrote or recorded this? Man had not been created yet.
If god only created heaven and earth on the same day ,where did god reside before this ?
1) Why do children suffer? This is a “damned” question that quite a few people keep asking. From one generation to another, they are pestered by this horrendous thought like Ivan Karamazov: How can God let innocent babies suffer and die? Should they be punished for the Fall of their long gone ancestors? Is the promised future universal harmony worth a tear of just one child? These thoughts make the hearts of caring and truth-seeking people explode. More often than not, they lead them first to the denial of God’s love towards humankind, and then to disbelief. Continue reading the article following the link: https://blog.obitel-minsk.com/2019/08/why-do-children-suffer.html
2) According to experts, Genesis was written appr. between 1440 and 1400 BC, between the Israelites’ exit from Egypt and the death of Moses.
In this regard, quote from the book of Exodus is curious: And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven (Exodus 17:14).
Doubts about the author of the book of Genesis (as well as the time of writing this book) have been put forward by negative criticism already in modern times. At the same time, critics cannot agree on the author, and their statements are speculative in nature, since they are devoid of justification and are based solely on a subjective and formal approach to the text. Moreover, this approach completely ignores the main distinguishing feature of the book of Genesis – its inspiration of God and God-inspired author.
3) “The one Triune God, possessing all the highest perfections, and therefore enjoying the most perfect glory and bliss, although He did not need anyone or anything, but being infinitely good, He desired that other creatures appear and become partakers of His goodness: He called the universe from non-existence, and since then has ceaselessly cares for it “… God creates the world from nothing, not needing any preliminary material. Moreover, the world does not arise “before” or “after” the All-perfect Divine Being. The world arises together with the time He created, therefore the question of the time of creation is devoid of any meaning. God is “the Creator not only of things, but also of the time and age itself, in which things came into existence” (Orthodox Creed, Part 1, Question 33)
5 arguments in favor of God review
The author is right: many people rightly are surprised that others believe in the existence of a perfect being (“God”), given the lack of evidence for it.
The author asks, “how can one not believe in God given that it is impossible to prove God’s non-existence rationally and logically”? The author fails to show though that it is “impossible” to prove God’s non-existence. The author similarly fails to see that the burden is on the theist to show that God does exist, because one common atheist view/description/claim is “no known gods exist”. To counter that, one must show that at least one god is known to exist! So the burden is on the one claiming there IS such a thing. Without any such evidence, the other is right to say “as far as we know, there is no such thing”.
The author at least offers some class arguments on behalf of God, but apparently not aware of the flaws in them.
The Cosmological argument (CA) fails because 1. It fails to show that there must be a first cause, and 2. It fails to show that the first cause is God (a perfect being, or something like that). The author here likewise fails to show that a first cause caused itself (which is contradictory, prima facie), yet he asserts “the first cause has to have the cause of its own existence in itself”. Nothing shows there to be such an entity in reality. Worse, the author then claims that a first cause is therefore a “perfect and absolute Being”. Nothing shows any of that to be true. So the CA fails to prove God exists.
The Teleological argument (TA) also fails, since the world (the Earth, the other planets and stars, etc.) is not known to be intelligently designed. The evidence we have shows that no known intelligent thing caused the Big Bang moment. Contrary to what they author asserts, nothing about the World/Universe shows that the cause of it (the Big Bang Moment) is sentient, or a Being (person). The author only gets right the claim that the cause of the universe was powerful (had the power to cause the universe).
The author wrongly infers that because the world operates in certain regular ways (like how objects fall at a particular rate, i.e., “gravity”), that shows that they (and/or the world) was intelligently designed. Nothing shows that to be true. That is, that conclusion doesn’t follow (isn’t made probably) by the premise (of things like gravity).
The Ontological argument (OA) also fails. A thing cannot be defined into existence, which is what the OA tries to do. It basically says “God” is defined as “a necessarily existing being”. But there is no such known thing in reality. That is, no known object fits that definition. That some conceive of or imagine a being that is all powerful (part of what is meant by “perfection” here) doesn’t show that there is such a thing. It is false that the non-existence of a necessarily existing (all powerful, all loving…) being is impossible. Rather, the non-existence of such a being is probable. Nothing shows it to be likely, including this poor OA. The OA also sneakily tries to move from a “necessarily existing thing” (which says virtually nothing) to “an all powerful, all loving person”. That is, even if we knew that something was necessarily existing, it doesn’t do anything to show that that thing is also an all powerful all loving person. So the OA fails.
The Kantian Argument for morality also fails. It argues thusly:
1. We are free
2. That is, we don’t live in a world without freedom (here called “blunt determinism”)
3. Thus God exists
So, while 1 is generically true (the author doesn’t define freedom clearly), and thus 2 is true, nothing about that shows that 3 is true. The author is wrong that, for most philosophers, “This kind of existence is called God in philosophers’ lingo.” Rather, for most people, philosophers included, “God” typically refers to an all loving, all powerful, supernatural person. So again, the truths here about freedom (that we are “free”) and morality (that we ascribe moral responsibility and blame to some acts) do nothing to prove God exists (as a supernatural perfect person).
The last argument given is “Argument from religious experience.” (AFRE) It seems to go thusly:
1. Many people have claimed God exists (to have “religious experiences” (vague)).
2. That is, many have claimed to sense God’s existence/presence
3. All humans sense God (“share an innate attraction to religion”
4. Thus God probably exists (“there must be the objection of religion”)
The author reveals a huge bias at the end, saying “there is no empirical way to prove the non-existence of God. On the contrary, there is an empirical way to check whether God really exists”. That is, the author just said, “you can’t disprove God, but you can prove God”! That’s closed-minded, and false. There are empirical ways to disprove Zeus (the lack of evidence for any known physical being living on a cloud holding lightning bolts, etc.), and empirical ways to disprove a perfect being (e.g., rape, i.e., the Problem of Evil). Regardless, the Burden of Proof is on the theist asserting there is a god, and that hasn’t been met. That is, no evidence we know of proves God exists, and the above 5 arguments are all shown here to fail. The arguments listed here are not “great”, but in fact are flawed.