Monday Thoughts: Arguments for God's Existence 3

I'll have to seriously abbreviate the other arguments for the existence of God because time flieth.

5.3 Arguments from Design
A second set of arguments for the existence of God has to do with the order of creation. If one finds a watch, William Paley (1700's) suggested, you assume that there must have been a watchmaker. You do not think for one moment that the watch has just happened to come about by chance. So it is with the order of nature. Paley suggested that even the eyeball is complex enough to suggest it must have had a designer.

Much has happened since the 1700's when Paley famously made this argument, an argument that had of course been made before in various ways by various people. Even in the 1700's, David Hume questioned how good an analogy the watchmaker example was. Then of course Charles Darwin argued that complexity was simply a matter of chance evolution. Today we have chaos theory, which suggests that although it is unlikely that any specific order would come together by chance, the likelihood that some kind of order will occur by chance is virtually certain over time. "You couldn't do that again if you tried," but by accident every once and a while, "truth is stranger than fiction."

Advocates of the "teleological argument," the argument from design, have not stood still either. Intelligent design theory has opposed the idea that the order of the world could have arisen strictly by chance. It argues on the contrary that there is "irreducible complexity" in the world that cannot be explained strictly on the basis of chance or evolution.

Similarly, the English philosopher Richard Swinbourne (1900's), while accepting evolution, has argued that even evolution proceeds according to certain laws. He argues that there are "laws of nature" that embody a design to the universe. Why do things consistently fall down instead of up? Why is it that "for every action there is an equal and opposition reaction"? He would say that the fact that the universe operates according to laws leads to the question of a Designer who created those laws and put them in play.

In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis advanced a moral argument for the existence of God. While different cultures have quite significantly different senses of what is right and wrong (as we will see in a later chapter), almost all cultures have such a sense. The content of morality may differ widely, but the fact of morality is a constant. Lewis suggested that such a moral structure to the universe implied a moral Creator.

Certainly Christianity believes that the complexity of the world is a result of an intelligent Designer and that. Similarly, Christians have traditionally believed that humanity was created in the image of God and thus that part of that imagine is a "moral" element. These beliefs seem very reasonable.

However, it is not at all clear that reason alone demands these beliefs. These are reasonable beliefs, but we ultimately affirm them by faith. It is not clear that science or logic compells us to draw these conclusions. Evolutionary psychologists would argue, for example, that what we are calling a moral nature is simply an evolutionary coping mechanism that has evolved over time. And Pojman would note that the telelogical argument does not necessarily point to a good designer.

But before we leave the subject of God's design, we should probably mention experiences of God and miracles. More than any argument, the most convincing ones individually are our experiences of God and our observation of what seems otherwise inexplicable. To be sure, individuals from other religions have experiences that they explain from within their religious frameworks. One must therefore be careful to base your faith in God purely on the basis of your personal experience.

Nevertheless, Christians regularly have experiences that substantiates for them the existence of the Christian God. Further, the Bible argues not only that "signs and wonders" were a part of Jesus' "ministry." It indicates that they accompanied the mission of the first generation of Christians. Many believers throughout the last 2000 years--and many today, particularly in third world Christianity--have witnessed events they could not explain as normal occurrences.

It would be difficult to argue, even if someone believed a good deal of the gospel record was legendary, that Jesus did not perform miracles. A skeptic might argue that the gospel accounts were embellished or that some of them were not historical. But clearly the ancients categorized Jesus in part as a miracle worker, a category into which they placed other ancient figures like Apollonius of Tyana, Honi the circle drawer, or Hanina ben Dosa. Regardless of how skeptical one is, the burden of proof is squarely on anyone who would deny that Jesus did things that observers categorized as miracles.

It is also beyond reasonable doubt that the apostles of Jesus performed miracles as a part of their mission as well. Paul reminds the Corinthians, who are hostile to him, that he performed miracles when he was there (e.g., 2 Cor. 12:12). The author of Hebrews similarly reminds his audience of the signs and wonders that accompanied those who brought the message of salvation (Heb. 2:4).

But of course the most important "miracle" of all, and the one most specifically related to the Christian God, is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. No reputable historian would even suggest that Jesus was not a real person or that he did not really die by crucifixion at the hands of the Romans. We would not be able to account for the comments in Tacitus and Josephus, let alone for the writings of the New Testament themselves, if this event did not happen.

It also seems difficult to account for the relevant facts if the followers of Jesus did not at least believe in the strongest of terms that Jesus had risen from the dead. Other individuals claimed to be messiah and died at the hands of the Romans. We have no religions in relation to them. No Jew would have expected the true messiah to die, let alone at the hands of the Romans. It is hard to imagine anything but a vastly demoralized group of Jesus followers after the crucifixion.

The account of the tomb, with its unique historical particulars, seems likely. For example, it is interesting that when Matthew records rumors about "what really happened," the empty tomb is assumed. Those who disbelieve claim that the disciples stole the body. This counter-argument assumes, however, that there was a tomb without a body.

If it seems likely from a purely secular perspective that there was an empty tomb, it also seems almost certain that a wide variety of individuals believed that they had seen Jesus alive after his death. Paul records the traditional list in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8: first Peter, then the other disciples, then over 500 people at once, then James, then the other apostles, lastly Paul. Paul knew these people, and his churches apparently knew about them as well.

By his own admission, Paul met with Peter and James in Jerusalem three years after he believed on Christ (Gal. 1:18-19). Paul mentions people like Peter, James, and Barnabas to the Corinthians, many of whom opposed him, as if they know who these people are (1 Cor. 9:5-6). This fact makes it very difficult to suggest that Paul was just making up the resurrection. The only reasonable conclusion is that these individuals did in fact claim, as Paul, to have seen Jesus alive after his death (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1).

We have no reason to doubt the traditions that point to martyrs deaths for most of these individuals. Peter and Paul in Rome, James in Jerusalem, according to tradition all but John died for their beliefs. We do not have to prove all of theses to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the key individuals who professed to have seen Jesus were so convinced that they surrendered their lives for that belief.

This discussion ultimately comes down to faith. If resurrections are possible, then the resurrection of Jesus is certainly an example. The evidence is there if one believes in the possibility. Of course if one does not believe in resurrections and miracles, then you can certainly come up with some other explanation. But to those with faith, it is more than reasonable to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead.

one more installment tonight, hopefully...

5.4 Arguments from Existence
argument from necessity
ontological argument