For anyone who would like to participate, please answer the following three questions:
What do you consider to be the best (most convincing) argument for the existence of God?
Why do you find this argument convincing?
What refutations have you considered, and why do you not find them convincing?
I don’t know a lot of philosophical jargon, so if you could answer in layman’s terms, that would be appreciated.
Many thanks,
Arguments for the existence of what God?
What follows is a scientific proof I devised for supernatural creation. It does not prove the existence of God as conceived by the Jewish and/or Christian faith.
Scientific Proof of Supernatural Creation
The efficacy of this proof depends upon the following three premises:
The Universe is finite. (Note: “Universe” means the total of all matter and energy that exists.)
The first law of thermodynamics holds, i.e. , within a closed system matter (and its equivalent, energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.
The second law of thermodynamics holds, i.e., the total energy within a closed system is continuously decreasing in its level of availability. In other words, entropy is increasing within any closed system. (Or in layman’s terms, the system is “running down”).
Notes on the premises:
The first premise in generally accepted within the scientific community. In fact a finite Universe is implied by the widely accepted “big bang” theory. This theory states that all matter and energy existed within a very small volume of space, smaller than a molecule of water, and since that time has been expanding, resulting in the Universe as we know it.
The first and second laws of thermodynamics are considered to be the most widely‑accepted generalizations known to science.
The Proof:
Since the Universe is finite, it is, itself, a closed system. Thus the first and second laws of thermodynamics apply to it.
Either the Universe always existed, or else it came into being (either instantaneously or over a period of time), or it is still coming into being.
The idea of the Universe always existing contradicts the third premise. For an infinite amount of time would have passed, plenty for entropy to have increased to the extent of inert uniformity. Thus the Universe did not always exist, but had a beginning, or is still coming into being.
If the Universe (total of all matter and energy) had a beginning, then its matter and energy couldn’t have come into being within itself. For this would contradict premise 2. The same applies if the Universe is still coming into being.
**Conclusion: **
Since the Universe had a beginning, and its matter and energy could not have arisen within itself, then it must have come into it from outside itself, from outside nature itself. That which is outside nature is the Supernatural. Thus the production of matter and energy within the Universe had a Supernatural Source.
Note:
Of course, this conclusion in no way implies the characteristics of the Supernatural Source, whether personal or impersonal, and if personal, whether benign or malignant.
Because absolutely nothing can come from Absolutely Nothing, Something has always existed. This Something is causeless, and therefore eternal and indestructible. It is either: more like an Idea than a Rock, or more like a Rock than an Idea. ie. God is either material, or spiritual.
Theists believe the intangible is more real than the tangible. Atheists believe the opposite. For example, I believe the truth “twice two is four” will not only outlast the material universe, but is utterly independent of it. If this simple truth is more real than a rock, all truth is more real. If nothing else, then, God is Truth.
Paidion,
Thanks for your post.
You’re right, I should have been more specific. I’m really looking for the best argument for the existence of an Intelligent Creator of the universe. Your proof doesn’t do that exactly, but it would probably be something a theist would find useful.
I am concerned that your proof is based on the assumption of a finite universe, which I believe is still in debate among physicists and philosophers. Also, since nobody knows much about what was going on “before” the big bang (if it even makes sense to ask that question), how do you know that current laws of physics would apply at the “time” that the universe came into existence?
Also, what have others said to counter your proof, and why do you not accept their arguments?
AllanS,
Intuitively, I agree with your first statement. This makes perfect sense to me as a non-philosopher. However, it seems like a restatement of the First Cause Argument, and I understand that argument has been refuted. Aren’t we still left with the notion that either this universe or some other entity has always existed or came from nothing?
I like your idea that God is Truth and your way of getting there. (I also hope that God is Love).
Thanks,
I’m not a philosopher either, but I would like to ask you a question.
Even when I doubt the existence of a personal God, I know there’s something.
How has the first (or non-contingent) cause arument been refuted?
It seems to me that science can take us no deeper then sub-atomic particles, and no further then the big bang.
Between sub-atomic particles there’s empty space, and before the big bang there had to be something that caused it.
Unless there’s some intelligence, why are there any sub-atomic particles in empty space, and what caused the big bang?
Science can’t tell us why sub-atomic particles exist, what caused the big bang, or why our universe seems fine tuned for the existence of life, and it seems to me that the only non-Theistic answer to those questions is that everything that can exist does exist–the multi-universe theory.
It’s conceeded in this theory that it’s incredibly unlikely that our universe should exist, that chemical compounds should evolve into organic life, and that consciousness should arise from organic processes, but statistical probabilities are said to be meaningless, because everything that can exist does exist in some universe.
My question is, why?
Why should any universe exist?
Why should mindless laws cause anything?
And why should minds like ours be contemplating these questions in a mindless multiverse?
These are just my own vague thoughts at the moment, and not a phllosophical argument, so I apologize if it’s off topic.
Good Questions
Paidon got me thinking of what evidence causes me to believe in a first cause or the evidence of a creater. For me it is the law of irreducible complexity. ie. the eye or even some parts of the basic cell. Remove one part and the eye does not work, all parts had to be there from the get go. Evolution cannot seem to answer why or how this could come about. Why do we even see anything?
Just my point of view 
It interests me that we have all these needs…food, shelter, companionship, etc. And there is something to meet it. We also seem to have imbred within us the need for God, something more beyond this life. Perhaps this God shaped hole in all of us means there really is a God to meet our need? It’s my hope anyway. It also feels, I realize this is a feelilng, that there can be no right and wrong w/o God, not that this makes God real. Anything goes, ones own happiness is supreme. That just doesn’t feel right, intuitively. It seems like there is good behavior and bad, that should be put in check by someone, but who? I’m impressed with Jesus that He gives His life for others and tells us when we lose our life we really gain it. Something also feels intuitively right about this.
Boooooooooooook! 
I’m well into the last quarter of posting up an ~700 page book on this topic here in the “Philosophical” category (the link to the first Table of Contents of which can be found at the bottom of any of my forum signatures, including this one) (and also over at the Cadre Journal).
But I posted up a more informal and personal version of the key argument that I find most persuasive (and why, with consideration of refutations) back around the time of my birthday last year. It isn’t nearly as long, but it’s still a bit of a monograph (25 pages). The paper starts here at the Cadre with “The Argument from True Love” (but soon shifts into a more fundamental version of the Argument from Reason).
Michael,
Thanks for your post. Good questions. I will try to address them (with the caveat that I probably don’t know any more than you do).
You can google Cosmological Argument or First Cause Argument and find numerous articles and videos that provide the refutation of this argument. I think that one of the problems we all have in dealing with ‘origins’ is that we don’t really know what ‘time’ is. I would have to admit that I don’t understand it myself. If you ask me what time it is, I can tell you; but if you ask me ‘what is time?’, I have no idea. The bottom line is that physicists do not know if the universe had a beginning, or if it always existed, or if it even makes sense to talk about a ‘beginning’ of time (or what may have existed ‘before’ time).
So, given that we don’t know if the universe had a beginning, we are then faced with the same two possibilities for the universe as we are with a Creator. They either came from nothing or have always existed. If the universe must have a cause, then a Creator must have a cause, and you don’t really get anywhere by inventing a Creator to solve the problem of whence came the universe.
From the articles I have read, the apparent “fine-tuning” of the universe is one of the topics still being debated by scientists, and this gets into another topic that is difficult for most of us to really understand, namely probability. I remember having fun in my college statistics classes, and I used to be able to figure out things like the probability of a full house in poker, but I wouldn’t be able to do it now. However, I do at least have an appreciation for the difficulty in setting up a probability problem in the right way, and I think that one of the main problems with the “fine-tuning” argument is that nobody has any idea how to calculate the probability of the universe existing. Obviously, in hindsight, the probability is 100%, since it exists. This is similar to shuffling a deck of 52 cards and laying them out one at a time, face-up on a table. The probability of the cards coming out in exactly that sequence is 1 in 52!, which is 1 in 8 times 10 to the 67th power. Seems like a real long-shot, but hey – it just happened!
I agree. These are mind-boggling questions, and I don’t know the answers. The ultimate question is “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Nobody knows. If someone brings a God (or Creator) into the picture, the question remains: “Why is there a God rather than nothing?” Nobody knows.
URPilgrim,
Thanks for this post. One of the things that is revealing to me with the “irreducible complexity” debate is that the people using this argument no longer talk about the eye, or the heart, or things that are easy for most of us to visualize; and they have instead moved to microscopic things like the bacterial flagellum. To my simple mind, if all five senses and the whole cardo-vascular system can be produced by natural selection over millions of years, then I’m sure this little propelling device of the bacterium can too.
Charles Hartshorne argued that the fundamental question of philosophy is why there is something rather than nothing. He argued (as mentioned here) that since something obviously exists (the first of six a priori truths in his cummulative argument for God is “Something exists,” [the second, “Experience occurs,” and on he goes]) that something also MUST exist necessarily, and the task of philosophy is to find out what necessary existence is by unconvering and exploring what is true a priori (and there must be some a priori truths if something exists necessarily).
To the suggestion that theism is false given the necessary existence of the material cosmos, CH argued that the material cosmos is insufficient to explain itself. When you get to the attributes of necessary existence per se, you get to personal/conscious sentient being.
For me, there’s no one knock-down argument. It’s a cummulative case. If I had to pick one ‘argument’ over others, I’d go with Hartshorne’s version of the ontological argument.
Tom
Thanks Amy. Good points.
I also like the teachings of Jesus and the story of his self-sacrificing love. Many people argue that the teaching on enlightened self-interest – i.e., treat others the way you want to be treated – is the basis of morality, and does not require a god for its foundation. Most people do seem to long for something (or someone) beyond this world. That could be something that a God has put in us, or it might be due to the fact that there are lots of problems in this world and we don’t have much chance of living here forever in perfect bliss. The scientific answer to why there are things to meet our needs is Natural Selection. Milions of children starve to death in the world every year, and this is difficult to understand if food was put here on earth to meet our needs by an intelligent (and caring) being.
Hi Boxer,
I agree that treating others with love, the way we’d want, is the basis of morality. Reminds me of God’s law which is to love and is perhaps his invisible quality that we can, even if we don’t see Him, know is right. But, I don’t understand how love can be upheld w/o a God. I think it’s in love, or God, that all things hold together. I’ve heard some argue that it’s in everyone’s best interest to treat others right, that it benefits the one doing good, but is this really true? I don’t think so. I think this is why we need the reassurance of the resurrection that when we really do give up our life here, not at all in our best interest if this is the only life we’ve got, we’ll be rewarded from one that sees what we are doing. We need to live as if there is one that sees what we do and is a rewarder of those that seek Him. Otherwise, that I can see, it’s every man for himself. Too bad for the low man on the bottom of the totempole. God makes it so the last are first. No one else I know can do that. God, as one that exalts the weak, sees things that aren’t right made right and he is outta this world amazing!!
with “The Argument from True Love” (but soon shifts into a more fundamental version of the Argument from Reason).
Thanks Jason. By “True Love”, do you mean self-sacrificing love? And are you saying that such a love could not possibly have developed through natural causes?
That, too. But it’s the “self” per se that I do not believe could have possibly developed through natural causation. An instinct that leads to the sacrifice of the organism, yes. But I’m talking about something more than instinct, thus more than automatic reaction to stimuli.
Thanks Jason. The existence of a self (and consciousness) is definitely something that’s hard to explain.
Thanks Tom. This seems very similar to Jason’s argument that the ‘self’ could not have arisen through natural means, and I agree that personal/conscious sentient being is dificult to explain if the natural world is all that exists.
The One Who Wields A Sword
Quíet, resérved, she stánds on her gúard,
stéel in her hánd, fócusing ín;
then léaping and sláshing, her héart thudding hárd,
her swéat flying frée from her háir with a spín–!
And whén she has fínished, she dóes it agáin.
Óver and óver with ríght hand and léft
she wórks through her fórms, untíl her last bréath;
then sínks to a cróuch. Her stréngth has been cléft,
her stráining deféated by óncroaching déath:
her spírit still wílling, her bódy in páin
púshed to new límits, but óvercome thén.
Whát is the wísdom which fróm her we gáin?
…
Néstled withín her is áll I belíeve.
Hére she has shówn us a trúe revelátion
unlócking deep mysteries, íf we recéive
and exámine each áspect of éach implicátion.
…
she chose.
she tried.
she did…
…she died.
She wóuld have contínued, if shé had been áble;
but ténsions prévented her, wéaring her dówn.
Múscles aflúttering; bréathing unstáble;
swéat trailing óver her skín like a gówn.
Áll these resúlts we will cáll the Reáctions.
Théy were indúced. They brútely respónd.
Súff’ring of thése will be knówn as the Pássions:
pléasures or páins; háteful or fónd.
Hów were these pássions prodúced?
Whát gave exháustion her vóice?
Tráce back the cháin of indúcement:
théy were reléased by her chóice.
Áction prodúces reáction.
Reáctions set lóose one anóther.
Chíldren effécting–búilding and wrécking;
and shé willfully is their móther.
Yet…
shé hersélf was óvercóme
whéther or nót she wánted to bé.
Her pówer was nót the ábsolute Óne.
Her wíll was unáble to kéep herself frée.
Sóoner or láter she hád to succúmb
éven to fórces unléashed by her wíll;
suppréssed irresístably, óver and dóne,
bódy and mínd… yíelded and stíll.
…
Thése observátions are knówn to us áll;
in évery tíme and pláce.
Mythical rhythms withín us do fáll,
whatéver our créed or ráce.
What she can teach us
is what I will sieve.
…for nestled within her
…is all I believe…
The last half of this lecture (by Prof. Gerald Schroeder) is very interesting.