The Evidence for God
Anselms Ontological argument
This is the weakest of the arguments. It was first used by St Anselm (1033 – 1109)
This is based on the following premises:
Therefore:
God exists.
Why?
No. 1 shows that God has all the greatest attributes. No. 2. Shows us that the concept of God exists in our mind. No. 3. Shows that real existence is greater than existing in the mind, but as No. 1. Has shown that God has the greatest attributes, so God must exist in reality.
This is a fallacious argument. It relies on a linguistic trick. It is not necessary to move from "God exists in the mind" to "God exists in reality" at all. If we consider that unicorns horns are the greatest, we can use the same argument to prove that unicorns exist. This shows how badly flawed this argument is.
Aquinas's Cosmological argument
This is a popular argument at the moment. It is, in simple terms, the idea that there must be a First Cause. Everything that is seen around us is caused by something else. So, if we go right back there must be a First Cause. The universe must have come from somewhere. In modern scientific terms, what caused the Big Bang that formed the universe? Aquinas claimed that God must have been the First Cause.
While what happened before the Big Bang is controversial in science and many say that it is a truly unknowable concept, what remains clear is that it need not be a supernatural cause. The potential seeds for new universes happen in every square centimetre of the universe in the form of virtual particle pairs. This means that if we define God as the First Cause we demote Him instantly to two virtual subatomic particles if we accept that hypothesis.
What is being suggested is an intelligence existed and directed the formation of the universe, I am sugesting that it was a quantum fluctuation, or something similar.
So, on the question of the first cause, we have.
1. Something all Good, all Mercy all Love that
existed before the universe.
2. A continuation of what we observe now and what we know
occurred at least to a tiny portion of a second after the big
bang to a point just before that second.
Given that there is evidence for 2. available to us now, and no evidence for 1. Which is the more possible explanation?
For 1. We need to work out how God came into being. He is greater than the universe, so saying "Empiricism isn't effective because you can't explain the first cause" is silly. You are proposing that a thing greater than the universe is the first cause. You then speculate that this entity is eternal, and so intelligence, goodness, mercy and love existed before the universe. That is totally unwarranted.
I say that a quantum fluctuation caused the universe and that there has been no such thing as intelligence, goodness, mercy and love until humans arrived. I claim that for the first 6 billion (roughly) years only physical laws have directed the evolution of the universe. I claim that when life started on this planet there was no intelligence existing. I claim that intelligence only arrived in the universe with the first multicelled animals. I claim that concepts such as goodness, mercy and love have only been around as long as humans have.
I know that one point that could be raised against this is "what caused the virtual particles?" and to a certain extent that is a valid argument, but what this does point out is by accepting a First Cause does not mean we must accept God as being it.
Paleys Teleological
William Paley put forward the argument that the intricacy of living things and the fact that we can tell the difference between living things and non-living things. In modern times Behe has updated this with his ideas on intelligent design.
Richard Dawkins has put forward a very persuasive argument against Paleys argument in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" and behe's arguments are known to be based on out of date information. In his book "Darwins Black Box" he uses the phrase "Publish or Perish" because he claims that the items he covers have not been covered in the scientific press. This is totally false, and here is a webpage showing the many papers that Behe ignored. This shows that this argument is flawed, or at best needs a massive reconsideration before being accepted as a real argument.
Kants moral argument
Kant and others, notably C.S. Lewis have made the claim that Morals are evidence of God.
One place where this has been summarised is a Church leaflet about Apologetics where it says:
1. There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a) Moral arguments would make no sense, but we assume they do. (b) All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g. "The Nazi's were wrong."). (c) It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all assume that it is. (d) We would not make excuses for breaking the moral code, as we all do.
2. But a universal moral code requires a Universal Moral Lawgiver, since the source of it: (A) Gives moral commands (as law givers do). (b) Is interested in our behaviour (as moral persons are).
3. Further, this universal lawgiver must be absolutely good: (a) Otherwise all moral effort would be futile in the long runsince we are sacrificing our lives for what I not ultimately right. (b) The source of all good must be absolutely good, since the standard of all good must be completely good.
4. Therefore there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver=God
Relative arguments about which is the best of various options are perfectly reasonable. If we aren't talking about morals, but about football teams we can see that arguments about which team is best do make sense. So, why is it that ehen we come to moral arguments we get the position that if the morals are not universal, then arguments about them make no sense?
Now, firstly, I would say that there is no universal moral law. The position we are now in is that we have a concensus about what is moral, not an absolute standard. What is the universal moral law about the death penalty? What about the universal moral standard about animal welfare? What about the universal moral standard about stem cell research?
The death penalty is law in America, but banned here. In America it has supporters and detractors, the same as here. I see no universal moral code on this point. If there were such a code, then the death penalty would be either right or wrong and anyone would be able to know if they were right or wrong.
Animal welfare is another hot issue. Many deplore the way that animals are treated in Asia, where animals are kept in small cages and ones that we would call pets are eaten as food. How does that fit in with the universal moral code? The Asians would claim that it is perfectly moral to do this. Then we must consider the position of vegetarians some of whom say that the moral position of meat eaters as deplorable. Then there is the vegans some of whom who would say that vegetarians are not treating animals in a moral way. Which of these groups is the one holding the univerasal moral position? And why should we consider that any of these is universal?
The fact that we could argue about the relative positions of the various groups on this issue shows that relative arguments about this subject are valid, unlike point 1.a tries to say.
I think I have shown that the question of animal welfare is a relative, not universal moral question. that does not mean, as point 1.b says, it is meaningless to take any particular position. The particular example this person uses, about the Nazi's is an emotive one, but I would just like to point out that there are many that sympathise with the Nazi position. I do not agree with them, but I cannot truthfully say that I have the absolutly correct moral position. I could never know this.
In 50 years we will either have stem cell research or it will be banned. Whichever it is, we must ask is that because it fits into the universal code? It is a poor Universal Code that has to rely on Human Law before it is decided.
Point 1.c says that we do not need to keep promises or treaties if there is no universal moral code. This fails to take into account the fact that we will want to make more than one promise or treaty. If I make a promise to Mr Smith, and I hope to make other promises with him and others it will be necessary to show that I can keep my promises. If I do keep my original promise, then I know that Mr Smith will trust me in future. If other people know myself and Mr Smith then by keeping my promise to Mr Smith will ensure that I can make promises to other people, and I will be trusted. I do not want people to think that I take the position we keep promises just for personal gain. I have my own personal moral code which includes 'keep promises'. I would disagree with anyone who claimed that was part of a universal code, though.
The 10 commandments are not universal. I reject the first one at least. I make no excuses for rejecting it. On the animal welfare subject, I eat meat, but I am not embarrassed to say so. I am against the poor treatment of animals in the Far East. It may be valid to say that these two positions are contradictory, though I do not think so. Saying my position is contradictory does not mean that either of the positions is universally right or wrong, just that they may not sit well togethre as part of the same moral system. So, point 1.d is invalid. If I do not need to justify my rejection of worshipping God, then it is not possible to say that absolute moral arguments require somebody to excuse breaking them.
As I think I have shown there are many instances where there is no universal right or wrong, we can accept that this means there is no universal code, if by universal, we mean covering everything. I would also claim that there is no universal moral code at all. On every subject there are people who will disagree and it is not possible to say which position is the universal right or wrong.
It is possible that some will say that we cannot know what the universal moral code is because God is the one that knows what is truly Right and Wrong, but that begs the question of Gods existence. If we must assume God knows the code, but we cannot know it fully, then it is a fallacy to use this argument to prove Gods existence.
So, without the universal moral code this whole argument fails. Let us assume that there is a universal moral code though. We can then try and find out if there must be a universal law giver. We know that humans do not have a universal moral position on many subjects, but we can imagine a race of creatures where a universal moral code could be developed, decided upon and then implemented by commitees over many years. That would be a code with no single creator. In fact it is possible that the committees could decide at random, so that when any moral decision came up, a random decision was taken and that becomes universal moral code, so there would not be any real creation as we understand it.
This also covers point 3. This hypothesis shows that the creators need not need to be All Good, or even concerned about outcomes.
The above shows that this whole argument, though needing more careful explanation than the others is also a poor argument for Gods existence.
Back to Essays page