Evidence for God's existence

From A Storehouse of Knowledge

There are a variety of arguments and evidence for God's existence, ranging from indirect evidence leading to arguments for a "First Cause" to personal testimony of a personal God.

The arguments and evidence do not constitute logical, mathematical, nor scientific proof, but instead comprises facts and arguments which fit better with biblical claims than with atheistic or other claims.

The need for evidence

Christianity is not a religion based on blind faith, but has faith based on evidence.^[1]

This is apparent from the following examples:

• Gideon asked God for evidence of what God wanted him to do.^[2]
• When the disciple Thomas asked Jesus for evidence that it was truly him, although commending those that believe without evidence, Jesus provided the evidence that he sought.^[3]
• The Bereans were commended for checking that what the apostle Paul told them was correct.^[4]
• Paul based his preaching on the evidence of Jesus' death and resurrection when he said that without the resurrection the Christian faith was in vain.^[5]

Evidence in creation

Fine-tuned universe

There are many characteristics of the Earth which are "just right" for life to exist, but which are improbable if they came about by chance. A few examples of these are:

• The size of the sun does not significantly oscillate as do many other stars, which would make Earth unliveable.^[6]
• If the Earth was much further from or closer to the sun, water would freeze or boil.^[7] We are just the right distance from the sun.^[7]
• The orbit of the Earth is sufficiently close to circular—unlike some other planets—providing relatively stable temperatures. A more-elliptical orbit would have range of temperatures not conducive to life on Earth.
• The Earth spins at an ideal rate. Much slower and the days and nights would get too much hotter and colder respectively, and much quicker and weather conditions would be much more violent.^[6]
• The Earth has enough gravity to prevent the loss of its water into space.^[6]
• Enough of the planet's surface is covered with water to provide, via evaporation and precipitation, a good supply of water for life on land.^[6]

To some extent, these just right values can be explained by the anthropic principle, the observation that the values are just right where we are, because if they weren't we wouldn't be here. Since there are many stars in many galaxies, surely some of these will have planets with all the right values needed to support life. Only on such planets can there be intelligent beings that can take note of being some place special.

In addition to the Earth having special characteristics, the laws of nature themselves appear to be fine tuned.

• If the protons in atoms were a mere 0.2 percent more massive than they are, their instability would cause them to decay into simpler particles, and hence atoms would not exist.^[8]
• If the electromagnetic coupling constant were larger, then there would be no chemical bonding; and elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission^[9]
• If the electromagnetic coupling constant were smaller, then there would be no chemical bonding.^[9]

Since the anthropic principle is usually understood as a probabalistic argument, it is difficult to apply it to the laws of nature. There may be many planets with a variety of conditions, but there is only one universe with one set of physical laws.

There are some theories in physics that suggest there are many universes, each with different laws of physics. If this were the case, then the anthropic principle might also apply to the fine tuning of the laws of nature. These theories are highly speculative, and it is questionable whether hard evidence for such theories can even in principle be obtained. Nevertheless, a number of physicists have argued that the only answer to the fine tuning of our universe is the multiverse theory.^[10]

There are many ... examples of the universe’s life-friendly properties—so many, in fact, that physicists can’t dismiss them all as mere accidents.— Tim Folger^[11]

Complexity of life

The existence of life can be regarded as evidence that there must have been a very clever designer at work.

Living things are extremely complex with numerous features that appear to have been designed. However, since Darwin's Origin of Species the appearance of design in living things has been understood by evolutionists to be an illusion^[12] Darwin argued that the appearance of design could be explained by the processes of natural selection working on random variations, an undirected process that appeared to mimic a designing intelligence. Nonetheless, some still argue that the existence of living things is indicative of the existence of a designer.

In addition to the appearance of design, creationists point out that living things contain enormous quantities of genetic information, and that as far as is known, meaningful information can only come from an intelligent being. In doing so they are rejecting the explanations posited by evolutionary theory.

That this design and information needs an intelligent being as its source is recognised by some atheists who try to explain it by suggesting that perhaps life on Earth was designed by aliens.^{[note 1]} However, this only removes the problem another step, and fails to answer the question of who designed the aliens.

Beauty

The existence of beauty for which there is no known natural cause, and the ability to appreciate beauty, are also evidence for purposeful design by a god or gods. An example of the former is the tail of the peacock. Charles Darwin recognised this problem (which he said "makes me sick"), and later tried to explain it with his theory of sexual selection, which said that natural selection favoured beautiful tails because the peahens were attracted to them. However, recent research has shown that peahens are not more attracted to peacocks with more beautiful tails.^[13]

Jesus Christ

The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Who is God, is further evidence for the existence of God. That Jesus existed is attested by four different biographers as well as other sources. At least two of the biographers knew Jesus personally, and the other two wrote according to testimony provided by those who knew Jesus personally.

These four biographies are now contained in the Bible, comprising the first four books of the New Testament.

The Bible

Evidence from the Bible overlaps with evidence for the Bible. Some Christians employ a method of interpreting the bible called presuppositional apologetics which assumes that the Bible is inerrant and believe there are a number of reasons for considering the Bible to be what it claims to be in this respect.

Some, including Biblical presuppositionalists, believe the Bible has a consistent message throughout, despite being written over a period of at least 1,600 years by over 40 different authors from various walks of life.^[14]

Despite attempts to have the Bible eradicated^[15] and predictions that it would be obsolete, the Bible has not only survived, but is the best-selling book of all time and is available in more languages than any other book.

In addition, archaeology has demonstrated that the Bible is at times historical accurate.^[16]

The Bible, which has been demonstrated to be accurate in many testable historical claims, also claims that God exists and has been working in history. This includes claims that are best explained, if not can only be explained, if God exists, which is a central belief of Biblical presuppositionalists. In particular, the Bible documents numerous predictions of then-future events, many of which have already come true.

Christianity

In The Impossible Faith, James Holding argues that "...the only way Christianity did succeed is because it was a truly revealed faith...".^[17] He lists 17 factors about Christianity which should have resulted in the religion not catching on, and says that the fact that it did despite these factors is testimony of God's authenticity.

Included in his list is that Christianity went against society norms, such as drawing no distinction between males and females nor between slaves and free people. And it relied to a fair extent on the testimony of women (considered "bad witnesses" at the time) and people of low social standing.

Providing specific names and times and places that could be checked is also not something that a religion should do unless its claims are true, yet Christianity did that. It went further, and encouraged people to verify the claims, again not the mark of a false religion.

Christianity, as we can see, had every possible disadvantage as a faith. As I have recently noted, some religions thrive by being vague (Rastafarianism) or by having only philosophical demands, or demands beyond verification (Buddhism, Hinduism). Others staked a claim to survival by isolation (Mormonism) or by the sword (Islam). Christianity did none of these things and had none of these benefits, other than a late flirtation with the sword when it was already a secure faith and it was being used for political purposes, as indeed any religion could be -- not as a means of spreading the Gospel. Every disadvantage, and none of the advantages.
...
I propose that there is only one, broad explanation for Christianity overcoming these intolerable disadvantages, and that is that it had the ultimate rebuttal -- a certain, trustworthy, and undeniable witness to the resurrection of Jesus, the only event which, in the eyes of the ancients, would have vindicated Jesus' honor and overcome the innumerable stigmae of his life and death. It had certainty that could not be denied; in other words, enough early witnesses (as in, the 500!) with solid and indisputable testimony (no "vision of Jesus in the sky" but a tangible certainly of a physically resurrected body) and ranks of converts slightly after the fact (the thousands at Pentecost) who made it harder to not believe than to believe.^[17]

Richard Carrier criticizes Holding's argument, as it does not give assessment of probability and the threshold which he uses to make his decision:

However, how improbable would the success of Christianity have to be before we have to believe in the resurrection of Jesus to explain that success? Holding never says. Nor does he say how improbable Christianity's success really was. Yet without comparing those two estimates, it is not really possible to confirm the success of Holding's argument objectively. Many fantastically improbable things happen all the time, simply because so many things happen. For example, "that's about as likely as getting struck by lightning" is often used as a cliché of an event so improbable it never happens, yet over four hundred people are struck by lightning every year in the United States alone. Some people have been struck multiple times. Hence our intuition often fails us when estimating the improbable.^[18]

Testimonial evidence

Many people have testified to knowing God personally,^[19] and have described His impact on their lives. Many of these people have not only testified of their own experience, but of their family and friends noticing the changes in their lives.

In many cases, people have been delivered from pornography, homosexuality, anxiety, drug dependence, and other problems.^[20]

Biblical examples of people seeing or hearing God include:

• Moses (Exodus 33:11)
• Samuel (1 Samuel 3:4)
• Elijah (1 Kings 19:13)
• Jesus and John the Baptist (Mark 1:10-11)
• 12 Apostles (Acts 2:3-4).

Other approaches

Some Christians believe that claims of revelation are unnecessary to prove God's existence, preferring brute fact explanations, such as God's creation being evident to the senses, or even modal logic. See, Alvin Plantinga. Some Christians believe that, based on the doctrine of salvation by faith, revelatory evidence of God's existence is secondary to faithfulness in God's word, which is only minimally contingent on the faithful's ability to comprehend the object of faith. Fideists believe that faith, and hence salvation by faith, would be unnecessary were God's existence capable of logical proof. They therefore believe that such proofs are logically unsound and contrary to revelation by faith alone.

Philosophical arguments

Philosophers have proposed many arguments for the existence of God over the centuries and millenia:

• cosmological argument: the argument that the universe needs a cause, which we call God. The universe is argued to be the kind of entity which is not sufficient to explain its own existence, some external explanation is necessary. Historically, the major objection has been the idea of an infinite regress of causes (in a beginningless universe), obviating the need for any first cause. Thus, most variants of this argument involve attacking the rationality of the idea of an infinite regress of causes, and proposing the idea of a first uncaused cause (God) as superior. Variants include:
  • the argument in fieri - an in fieri cause, causes something to come into existence, to begin existing, but which after its commencement can continue to exist independently of that cause. Thus, a builder is needed to build a house, but once built the house will stand without the builder's intervention. So, God is argued to be necessary to explain the beginning of the universe's existence (creation), but after that initial creation the universe can sustain itself in existence.
  • the argument in esse - an in esse cause, causes something to remain in existence, to be existing, without the continue presence of which that thing would cease to exist. A fire requires the continued presence of air and fuel, the withdrawal of which will cause the fire to cease. So, God is argued to be necessary to explain the sustaining of the universe in existence. Whereas in fieri causation is generally temporal (the cause comes before the effect), in esse causation is atemporal (the cause and the effect are simultaneous). It is argued that, even if an infinite regress of in fieri causes is coherent, an infinite regress of in esse causes is not.
  • the argument from contingency draws a distinction between necessary beings (beings which must exist due to their very nature) and contingent beings (beings which might or might not exist). It is argued that the universe is a contingent being - it could have been other than it is, or it might not have existed at all. Contingent beings cannot explain their own existence, only necessary beings can do that. Thus, it order to explain the existence of the universe, there must exist a necessary being which created it (God).
  • the kalam argument originates in mediaeval Islamic theology, but in modern times has been popularised in Christian circles (especially by William Lane Craig). It is based on the principle that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. The universe began to exist, so it must have a cause external to itself (God); whereas God does not need a cause, since God never began to exist.
• teleological argument (or argument from design): unlike the cosmological argument, which seeks to prove the existence of God based on the bare fact of the universe's existence, the teleological argument points to certain perceived features of reality - the intricate balance of biological systems, the precisely tuned nature of the laws of physics - to point to the existence of a designer (God).
  • some of the earliest versions of this argument focused on evidence of design in biological systems. William Paley compared the eye to a watch - we believe a watch must have an intelligent designer, due to its complexity and precise arrangement of parts necessary for it to function; yet the same traits exist in biological systems, to an even greater extent - thus biological systems must have a designer also. The widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution lead to a reduction in this variant of the argument for a while, although it has more recently been revived by the Intelligent Design movement as an alternative to evolutionary theory
  • a more recent version is the argument from the fine tuning, which points to the very precise values various constants in the laws of physics have; if they had even slightly different values, life would be impossible. It is argued that such precisely tuned values could not have been explained by chance, and there must have been an intelligent designer (God) who chose them in such a way so as to make life possible
• ontological argument: this argument bases itself on the concept of God itself. It argues that the concept of God includes the idea of God's existence in such a way that from mere consideration of that concept we can rationally conclude that God must exist. The most famous variant is that of Anselm, who argued that God is defined as the most perfect being imaginable; but an existent God would be more perfect than a non-existent God, thus to be true to his own definition, God must exist. Descartes' variant does not refer to perfection, but argues that since the concept of God clearly contains the idea of necessary existence, it follows that God must posess necessary existence, and thus must exist. Kurt Gödel attempted to base an ontological argument on modal logic; others have followed in his footsteps (such as Alvin Plantinga), although their arguments differ in details
• moral argument: the existence of God is necessary for morality to be possisble. We ought to believe in whatever is necessary for morality. Hence, we ought to believe in God. If we ought to believe in something, it must be true. Hence God must exist.
• argument from religious experience: many people, whether mystics or ordinary religious believers, have claimed to have experienced God directly in religious experience. This is sufficient evidence to believe in the existence of God, just as the visual experience of a tree is sufficient evidence to believe in the existence of that tree.
• argument from degree: for every property that exists in varying degrees, there must exist an object which has that property in the greatest possible degree. Hence there must exist a being which possesses every property in the maximal possible degree, which is God.
• argument from miracles: There exists reliable testimonies of miracles (such as in the Bible). Thus, we can conclude these miracles occurred. The most reasonable expalantion of the occurence of these miracles is that God exists to cause them. Hence, we can conclude that God exists.
• argument from beauty: the experience of beauty leads inevitably to the conclusion that beauty somehow transcends material existence. Atheistic materialism cannot explain this experience, other than to reject it as fallicious. Theism can explain this experience, in that beauty is an aspect of God, and the beauties of this world are imperfect reflections of the perfect divine beauty. Hence the experience of beauty supports belief in God rather than atheism.
• argument from consciousness: Human consciousness cannot be fully explained by scientific materialism. The existence of God can more fully explain human conscious. Thus, from the existence of human consciousness, we should conclude that God exists, as the best explanation of its existence.
• argument from reason: Atheistic materialism cannot justify the validity of reason; yet atheistic materialism depends on reason for its own justification, thus atheistic materialism is self-defeating. But if God exists, then the validity of reason is justified. Thus belief in God is rationally preferable to atheistic materialism.
• argument from desire: whatever we desire, there exists some object which can fulfill that desire. Yet there exist desires in human beings which cannot be fulfilled by anything in this material universe. Thus, there must exist something beyond this material universe that can fulfill those desires, and that something is God.
• Christological argument: the life and person of Jesus Christ constitutes proof of the existence of God, as God's self-revelation to humanity. Different variants of this aspect point to different aspects of Jesus' life and person for their justification: his great wisdom, his claims to divinity, his proof of those claims through his miracles, especially his resurrection.
• argument from love: Many who have experienced love agree that there is something about it which is inherently non-material. Materialist atheism cannot explain this experience except by declaring it to be non-veridical. Theism can explain this experience, since God is immaterial, love is a major attribute of God, and non-divine love is an imperfect reflection of the perfection of divine love. Hence, we should believe in God as the best explanation for our own experience of love.
• trademark argument: due to Descartes, the only reasonable explanation for the idea of God is that God exists to cause us to have this idea.
• transcendental argument: Knowledge, science, reason and morality are only possible if God exists. Thus, to deny God's existence is self-defeating and self-contradictory, since in denying his existence you are making use of those faculties which can only exist due to his existence. Thus, God must exist. Well-known proponents of this argument include Immanuel Kant and Cornelius Van Til.
• pragmatic argument: we will be happier and live better and more fulfilling lives in we believe in God, therefore we ought to believe in God. Related to this is Pascal's wager - if God exists and we don't believe in him, we may be punished eternally, whereas if he exists and we believe in him, we may be eternally rewarded. Since the payoff for believing in him when he exists in infinite, and the downside for not believing in him when he exists is also infinite, we ought to believe in God - if our belief is wrong and he does not exist, we have not lost much (at the most, we might have avoided certain pleasures in life out of the belief that they offended God).

Bibliography

(Terms in italics in brackets are referenced in the References section.)

• Batten, Don, et al., Does God exist?, chapter 1 of the Creation Answers Book.
• Catchpoole, David, Peacock tail tale failure, 6 June 2008.
• Craig, William Lane, God Is Not Dead Yet Christianity Today 52(7), 3 July 2008.
• Creation Ministries International (CMI) The universe is finely tuned for life
• Folger, Tim, Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory, Discover, December 2008.
• Gefter, Amanda, , New Scientist 2685, 4 December 2008. original article (requires subscription) Text of article.
• Holding, James Patrick, The Impossible Faith (impossible faith)
• Holding, James Patrick, What is Faith? (what is faith)
• Holding, James Patrick, The Existence of Jesus: Foundational Points (existence)

Notes

References

(References refer to publications in the Bibliography, above.)

Further reading

• Testimony Share Christian testimonies.