I feel that Richard Swinburne presents the most convincing modern argument for the existence of God.

Like all teleological arguments, his is inductive, meaning that he is not attempting to prove or disprove anything. Rather, he is offering evidence that supposedly supports one hypothesis (the Design Hypothesis) over an alternative hypothesis (the Atheistic Single-Universe Hypothesis). His argument, by it's nature, cannot be "right" or "wrong", simply "strong" or "weak".

In brief, he argues that the apparent regularities observed in the world strongly support the existence of a very powerful free non-embodied rational agent.

I especially like his argument because it does not show that any such designer is omnibenevolent, omniscient, or even omnipotent.

If you would like to read his full argument, you may access it here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8QJdrxDom1BQnRwN2RVNjNqOEk

Another argument that I like, but I find it slightly more flawed is Robin Collins' Scientific Argument for the Existence of God: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8QJdrxDom1BVzczSUhGdjFLMEk

Collins suggests that the world is apparently very finely tuned: so much so that he infers that is is probable that it was designed. (Like Swinburne, Collins' argument is inductive and can only be considered strong/weak.)

However, Collin's Scientific argument can be objected to in several ways (which he addresses in the full text). There could be a more fundamental law, other forms of life could exist, and the anthropic principle (we are here, so our existence must not be terribly improbable) are all effective objections.

Anyone have thoughts on these or other arguments FOR the existence of God?

This post was edited by Jp2050 on Oct 12 2012 06:36pm

I always thought God (to Christians) meant something outside of the observable universe and not part of it. It seems these arguments go against that.

On another note, it reminds me of how ancient people would use gods to explain unknown occurrences in nature, just change the subject to physics and the time period to right now.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Oct 12 2012 06:57pm

The argument from design is stupid because there doesn't have to be a designer in order for the universe to exist, as the universe isn't a 'design'. Is there a designer behind a tree? No, it naturally exists through immutable natural laws. We observe natural laws, and to assume that they came from a 'rational' being is purely anthropocentric in assuming that since humans create things, God must create the universe as well. To say that the universe was designed with life in mind is no proof for God, as the universe as we know it could not be any other way. These arguments are also not taking into account if the universe is eternal or had to have a beginning. If the universe is eternal, then what place does god have in the creation of it? And, if it had a beginning, why assume one excess link in the causal chain of the universe instead of assuming that the universe created itself?

This post was edited by AEtheric on Oct 12 2012 07:08pm

I believe, and I feel most theists will concur, that the universe had a beginning.

A begininginless universe is not possible because that means the past consists of an infinite series of past events, and an actual infinity cannot exist in reality. (Only in abstract thought, such as numbers).

An argument based on a causal chain of events (yet denying the existence of a creator/designer) simply pushes the problem up another level: what causes the initial cause? If the initial event was not causal, it must be necessary. The only conceivable necessary being is a "free non-embodied rational designer".

I've always found the teleological argument one of the weakest arguments for the existence of God, in any of its forms including the two you posted.

I think discussion of the existence of God is mostly outside of our logical analysis abilities.

There are two arguments that I consider to be worth serious analysis and critique:

Kalām cosmological argument (William Lane Craig's version)

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The argument relies two sub-sets of arguments:


1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

and

1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
2. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

I find that the premises "The universe began to exist" and "An actual infinite cannot exist" not compelling enough for me to accept their truth as a fact and thus my ability to accept this argument.



Head and shoulders above all other modern religious philosophers, and in my opinion possibly the second greatest philosopher of religion in history, behind Augustine (not including the deeply profound but indirect works of Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein), is Alvin Plantinga. He formed a unique modal ontological argument:

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

This is hands down the most compelling logical argument for belief in God. You may need to read up on modal language to understand some of the terminology.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 12 2012 07:42pm

Prove that infinity cannot exist. All that is, is a baseless denial.

2nd boldface: That's actually what I was trying to say for the argument of a creator. It creates one excess cause in the chain of cause and effect. What causes the initial cause of the creator? And if there is no creator, then we take it down one notch and see that the universe could cause itself without the excess link. The assumption of a creator is unnecessary because the universe could have created itself.

3rd boldface: No. You say that, but where is the reasoning or logic behind it? All I see is more baseless conjecture.

I will address Plantinga's modal argument in my reply:

Any ontological argument, modal or otherwise, is definitional and unconvincing in my view.

Including existence within the definition of God does not yield a convincing proof of God's existence.

While Plantinga's argument is sound and hard to refute, I still find it unfulfilling. I struggle with the concept (of modal logic) that maximal greatness must be exemplified in every possible world or none.

"2nd boldface response": A necessary being contains within itself logical necessity for its own existence. A definitional argument, I admit, but sound if and only if a logically necessary being is possible.

For the rest: I respond tomorrow.

How do 3 and 4 logically follow from the rest?

From the subtle context clues, I have sussed out that 3 might be a premise or something.