Existence of God
Note: The primary purpose of this website is to guide you to heaven. It was written to provide evidence that there is a God interested in the salvation of your soul. Jesus Christ is that God and he established the Catholic Church to lead you to a moral life and heaven. This section details philosophical and science-based arguments for God’s existence.
Posted: 1/27/2020 Updated: 4/5/2020
Table of Contents for this Section
Cosmological Arguments for God and his Attributes from Philosophy (Causation & Actualization)
Cosmological Argument for God from Science (Kalam)
Why Start Here?
The existence of God is the logical starting point to answer the question: “How to Get to Heaven?” Without God, the phrase “he/she is in a better place” after death has no meaning.
During the era known as Christendom in the Christian West (4th through 19th centuries), the existence of God in the person of Jesus Christ was presumed. But in the 17th century, the philosophical concept of religious skepticism began to creep into Western thought.
Skepticism was epitomized by the concept of the “brain in a vat,” or its modern-day counterpart of The Matrix. (“I think, therefore I am,” but I’m not too sure about you.) Skeptics claimed there was no objective way to show that the universe or anything except your mind existed. Once this way of thinking emerged, the truths of the Christian God came into question.
Today, the philosophical descendants of the skeptics have influenced the culture to the extent that few Westerners believe absolute religious truth exists. The philosophies that dominate the culture and overlap with each other include:
• Scientism or Naturalism – The only reliable way of knowing is through science. “One can’t prove that God doesn’t exist. But science makes God unnecessary. … The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator.” – Stephen Hawking
• Moral Relativism – There are no moral standards that are universally applicable. Each culture, and ultimately, each individual sets its own standards. “Who am I to judge.”
• Radical Moral Autonomy – The capacity of the will to be a law to itself, with little regard for the common good and the will of God. “My body, my choice!”
This website attempts to counter these articles of secular faith by providing evidence that there exists a personal God who created all reality and wills our eternal happiness, but only if we do his will.
Why is God Hiding?
So, the first task is to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a personal God exists. But before making arguments for God’s existence, it might be useful to explain why God is not obvious to us.
“And why does God need arguments, anyway? … Why can’t he just reveal his true self, clearly and unequivocally, and settle the question once and for all?” – Greta Christina, atheist author
If you’ve read the summary of “How to Get to Heaven” on the homepage, you may recall that an earthly life is natural for you, but a life of holiness is not. It requires the acceptance of God’s grace to do his will, which requires your free will, the second greatest gift after life itself. The absolute knowledge of God’s existence and an unambiguous understanding of what he requires for your salvation constrains your free will, making you a slave to God, instead of his son or daughter.
A simple illustration of how this constraint operates in everyday life is when you are driving along a stretch of road with a speed trap. You and the other drivers know where the cop is when you see the taillights of the cars ahead of you lighting up. You’re not free to go faster than the speed limit because you know you’re being watched. Analogously, God wants you to love him freely, without forcing his will on you by his manifest presence.
Blaise Pascal addressed this issue hundreds of years ago in Pensées (430).
“[He is] willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart. … There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.”
So, if a personal loving God exists, it is likely he chose to remain hidden from your everyday experience. If you don’t already believe in God, it will be necessary for you to have a change of heart and seek him out. Probably the best way is to befriend a true believer who can witness the faith to you. In the meantime, this website can help to give you information that may open the door to faith.
Categories of Arguments and Logical Inference
Of the many proofs or arguments for the existence of God, there are two main categories – ontological and cosmological. The ontological proof is a priori (before the fact). God is deduced from first principles; the argument starts with a conception of God. The cosmological proof is a posteriori (after the fact). God is deduced from experience and/or experiment. That is, it starts with our understanding of reality, based on our own existence and observations.
This website presents examples of three cosmological arguments – two purely philosophical arguments and the science-based Kalam argument. The argument from causation (Dr. Augros) proves the necessary existence of God at any instant of time. The latter portion of the argument from actualization (Dr. Feser) demonstrates certain attributes of God. The Kalam argument proves God’s existence based on the necessity of a beginning of time.
All arguments for God’s existence utilize logic, a science that applies the principles of correct reasoning. A very important tool of logic is the syllogism, consisting of (1) a major premise, (2) a minor premise and (3) a conclusion. The classic example of a syllogism is:
1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
The well-known character in the classic 1960s Star Trek TV show, Mr. Spock, was known for his impeccable logic.
Here, then, are the cosmological arguments from philosophy (Causation & Actualization) and science (Kalam).
Cosmological Arguments for God and His Attributes from Philosophy
Argument for a First Cause
The argument from causation proves the existence of God at any instant of time. It does not depend on any particular theories of modern science, but only on a common-sense notion about the world (cause & effect) and a logical application of human reason.
The initial syllogism (Deduction 1) for this argument is:
1. If caused causes could exist without a first cause, they would constitute a middle with nothing before it.
2. But it is impossible for there to be a middle with nothing before it.
3. Therefore, there cannot be caused causes with no first cause.
One example that illustrates this point is a lamp dangling from a chain, secured to the ceiling by a hook. In this thought experiment, we know that no matter how long the chain is, even infinitely long, there must be a hook securing it to the ceiling. Otherwise, the chain would collapse and the lamp would fall to the floor. Applying this logic to the syllogism, all the links in the chain would be components in the “middle” of the chain and couldn’t support the lamp without the “first cause” of the ceiling hook.
A second example is a line of dominoes, each one leaning against the one to its right. If I didn’t tell you anything else, you would know that something was missing, because otherwise all the dominoes would fall simultaneously. The missing fact is that the last domino on the right is leaning against a supporting object (e.g., a brick). Even if I replaced the supporting object with an infinitely long line of dominoes, that wouldn’t prevent the collapse. So, in this case, the dominoes are the “middle” and the brick is the “first cause.” A circle of dominoes wouldn’t work either; a supporting object is still required.
These examples can be extended to a causal series in time. Imagine that the universe is digital, like a movie film strip passing in front of a lamp, which projects an image onto a screen. We see the movie as a continuous reality on the movie screen, but each and every frame image required an act of creation for the movie to be real in our minds. A movie film reel where only the first frame had an image and the rest were blank wouldn’t work. Therefore, a “first cause” is required for the “existence” of each and every causal series at any moment in time.
So, a common-sense analysis of the above thought experiments shows that the initial syllogism must be correct and a first cause must exist.
Argument for God (Cause & Effect) – Dr. Augros
In this section, I will use the argument of Dr. Michael Augros detailed in his book, Who Designed the Designer. His approach is based on the arguments of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and other great thinkers.
This chart presents a summarized version of the deductions and concludes that God exists, based on Augros’ arguments. It also shows that God must have supreme intelligence (14).
Argument for God – Cause & Effect
| No. | Deduction | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Caused causes must have a first cause. | A middle (links & dominoes) without a first cause is impossible. |
| 2 | One cause is uncaused by any other cause. | In any series of causes, one is primary (i.e., uncaused) – the ceiling hook, not the links; the brick, not the dominoes. |
| 3 | There is at least one first & uncaused cause. | Deductions 1 & 2 (1& 2, going forward). |
| 4 | There is at most one first & uncaused cause. | If there were two self-existing causes, one must have a distinctive feature that required a combiner. The latter must be the only first cause. |
| 5 | There is one & only one first uncaused cause (D). | 3 & 4. |
| 6 | Everything that exists depends on D for existence. | 1-5. |
| 7 | D cannot be or have any motion (or change). | D can’t be motion because it would require something else that has motion. But D is self-existing and requires nothing else. Also, D can’t have motion because it is not possible for the same thing to give & receive motion at the same time. |
| 8 | D is the cause of all motion (or change). | 6 & 7. |
| 9 | D cannot move (or change). | 7 & 8. |
| 10 | D is not matter; matter is not D. | All matter can move (or change); the first cause cannot (9). |
| 11 | D is the cause of the existence of matter. | 6 & 10. |
| 12 | D is not a body (i.e., non-dimensional). | Since every body is changeable & has potential, unlike D (9). |
| 13 | D contains all actual things (actualities) within itself. | “Nothing gives what it does not have,” or “You can’t get blood from a stone.” Also, 6. |
| 14 | D is intelligent. | D has no limitations & contains all actualities (13). Supreme intelligence is an unlimited actuality. |
| 15 | The world is designed by D for purpose & beauty. | The world has purpose & beauty, both products of design by a supreme intelligence. Also, 14. |
| 16 | D is a god. | A supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed, created & sustains the universe exists (1-15). This is a definition of a god. |
| 17 | D is God. Therefore, God exists. | An intelligent immortal who alone is uncaused & who gives existence to all other things besides himself exists (5, 6 & 16). This being is God. |
Arguments for Specific Attributes of God – Dr. Feser
The examples of chains and dominoes above also represent the totality of all the hierarchical (or ranked) series making up the entire universe, from subatomic particles to galaxies. According to Dr. Edward Feser in his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God, a hierarchical series must terminate in an uncaused cause that is the source of the existence of everything else that is.
This chart presents a portion of Feser’s deductions, based on the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. It shows God’s attributes (48).
Argument for God – Potential & Actual
| No. | Deduction | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| 1-18 | There is only one purely actual actuator (D). | Refer to book. (Note: Arguments 1-18 work with the philosophical concepts of actual & potential.) |
| 21 | D is immutable or incapable of change. | To change, D must have unrealized potential. Being purely actual, it has no potential. |
| 23 | D is eternal, existing outside of time. | If D existed in time, then it would be capable of change, which it is not. |
| 25 | D is immaterial. | If D were material, then it would be changeable and exist in time, which it does not. |
| 27 | D is incorporeal. | If D were corporeal, then it would be material, which it is not. |
| 29 | D is perfect. | If D were imperfect in any way, it would have some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have. |
| 32 | D is fully good. | For something to be less than fully good is for it to have a privation. D, being purely actual, can have no such privation. |
| 35 | All power derives from D. | To have power entails being able to actualize potentials. Any potential that is actualized is either actualized by D or by a series of actualizers which terminates in D. |
| 37 | D is omnipotent. | To be that from which all power derives is to be omnipotent. |
| 40 | The forms or patterns manifest in all the things it causes must in some way be in D. | Whatever is in an effect is in its cause in some way, whether formally, virtually, or eminently (the principle of proportionate causality). D is the cause of all things. |
| 44 | D has intellect or intelligence. | These forms or patterns can exist either in the concrete way in which they exist in individual particular things, or in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect. They cannot exist in D in the same way they exist in individual particular things. So, they must exist in D the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect. |
| 47 | D is omniscient. | Since it is the forms or patterns of all things that are in the thoughts of this intellect, there is nothing that is outside the range of those thoughts. For there to be nothing outside the range of something’s thoughts is for that thing to be omniscient. |
| 48 | There exists D that is the cause of the existence of things, which is one, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, fully good, omnipotent, intelligent, and omniscient. | See previous arguments. |
| 50 | So, God exists. | For there to be such a cause of things is just what it is for God to exist. |
Common Objections to Arguments for God & Responses
Objection 1: “If everything has a cause, then what caused God?”
Response: This objection is an example of a fallacy known as the “straw man.” It gives the impression of refuting an argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented. All serious philosophers, when presenting arguments for God, construct their arguments to demonstrate that not everything needs a cause and that God is self-explanatory. On the other hand, all things in the universe are not self-explanatory, and they require God to keep them in being.
Objection 2: “The cosmological argument proposes a ‘god of the gaps’ in order to explain something which in fact either is, or eventually will be, better explained via a naturalistic scientific theory.”
Response: A “god of the gaps” assertion is typically made by non-believers to disparage metaphysical (reality beyond the physical senses) arguments for God. They claim, “All you have done is found something not explained by science and filled it in with God.” This attitude is a trademark of scientism, the hubristic belief in the power of science to explain all of reality. This objection is often used when sound philosophical arguments cannot be falsified. Many scientists are sympathetic to the “god of the gaps” accusation, I believe, because they don’t want to appear unsophisticated to their peers.
Objection 3: “The fundamental laws of nature are best regarded as an unexplained ‘brute fact’ rather than as something in need of any explanation, theological or otherwise.”
Response: A “brute fact” in philosophy is something that cannot be explained. Surprisingly, this defense is often used by scientists who cannot explain how the fundamental laws of physics originated and advise us to accept that they just are! This seems like a weak approach from professionals whose business is to find explanations. Be that as it may, I found the analysis of philosopher VJ Torley to be compelling:
“Given that (i) a hierarchical series of purely derivative causes must ultimately terminate in some Uncaused Cause; (ii) the laws of nature constitute an explanatory hierarchy; and (iii) terms which are themselves unexplained are incapable of explaining anything else, … [Someone] who contends otherwise must therefore attack premise (i), (ii) or (iii).”
Objection 4: “No one can claim to have a proof or demonstration that God exists, since so many people doubt or deny his existence even after hearing the alleged proofs.”
Response: Liberals can’t understand why conservatives can’t accept the science-based fact that climate change is caused by humans. Conservatives can’t fathom why liberals can’t accept the science-based fact that the unborn are human beings. Neither comprehends why many 19th-century Southern whites were so passionate about upholding human slavery and were willing to die for their belief. In every case, belief is tied up with one’s own concept of what makes each of us a good person. So, why is it so difficult to accept arguments for God? Because it requires each of us to confess that he’s not “good” after all. It requires conversation of heart to humbly admit, “There is a God . . . and I’m not Him.” This answer also helps to explain why so “few” are saved.
Objection 5: “The reality of suffering and other kinds of evil shows that God does not exist.”
Response: Of the many objections to God’s existence, his toleration of suffering and evil is most difficult to comprehend. The classic answer is that God allows suffering to bring about a greater good. Whatever his reasons, the reality of suffering doesn’t change the evidence for a God who is one, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, fully good, omnipotent, intelligent, and omniscient. I can only assume it was one of the reasons he sent his son to suffer and die for us, so we who can never really understand why he permits suffering, would know that it is necessary for salvation.
Objection 6: “Even if it is proved that there is a First Cause, which is omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and so forth, this would not by itself show that God sent prophets to ancient Israel, inspired the Bible, is a Trinity, and so forth.”
Response: True. The philosophical arguments establish God’s existence and describe some of his necessary attributes. Other sections of the website will demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt, to those who are truly seeking him, that the God of Christianity is true.
Cosmological Argument for God from Science (Kalam)
Disclaimer
The goal of this website is to get you to heaven, and that starts with the assertion that God exists. Philosophical arguments were presented elsewhere that used common-sense notions and logical deductions designed to demonstrate the existence of God and his attributes. Understanding those arguments doesn’t require a high level of knowledge and expertise. Unfortunately, a thorough understanding of the Kalam cosmological argument and its alternatives does.
Therefore, no attempt will be made to provide a full analysis of the subject. Instead, I will try to present the argument in a simplified manner. Links will be added if you want to explore the subject in more detail. But be warned, you could spend dozens of hours on the Internet exploring this fascinating subject and still end up in confusion, just like many of the experts.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)
The Kalam cosmological argument originated with the writings of Al-Ghazali, an 11th-century Islamic scholar. It has been recently popularized by Dr. William Lane Craig (WLC). He had a famous debate with cosmologist Dr. Sean Carroll in 2014, which is accessible online. I will also utilize an analysis by Fr. Robert Spitzer (RS), a Catholic priest who holds a PhD in Philosophy. He has a website titled Credible Catholic.
The syllogism for the KCA is:
Premise 1. If the universe began to exist, then there is a transcendent cause that brought the universe into existence.
Premise 2. The universe began to exist.
Premise 3. Therefore, there is a transcendent cause that brought the universe into existence.
Premise 1 – Causation
What the argument is attempting to show is that there is a “transcendent cause,” a cause beyond space and time, that brought the universe into being from nothing. A reasonable person would think this was at least a solid starting point from which the discussion can proceed, but he would be wrong! SC contends,
“The real problem is that these are not the right vocabulary words to be using when we discuss fundamental physics and cosmology … So if you want to know whether something is possible in cosmology or physics you ask, … “Can I build a model where the universe had a beginning but did not have a cause?” The answer is yes. It’s been done.”
SC is referring to one of a number of unproven and probably unprovable theories that may apply during the first instant of time (Planck epoch) and “beyond” (vacuum fluctuations, the multiverse, the bouncing & oscillating universes, etc.). His contention is that the first moment of time may be timeless, or our universe may be a continuation of some alternative universe in which past time is infinite and/or time runs backward.
First, be aware that there is absolutely no evidence for any of these theoretical models. As of today, the Big Bang is widely accepted by most cosmologists because it fits the observable data subsequent to the singularity. Second, none of these models explains why there is something rather than nothing, unless you define the most powerful phenomena in the universe as “nothing.”
The Big Bang & the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth (BVG) Proof
The Big Bang theory replaces an older model, favored by atheistic scientists, called the Steady State Model. The older model stated that the universe has no beginning or end, but matter is being continuously created to maintain the observed features of the expanding universe. Atheists claimed that, since the universe always existed, God was not required to create it.
The Big Bang is a colloquial expression describing a theory that the universe began about 13.8 billion years ago. Cosmologists believe it is an elegant model describing the expansion of the universe after the initial singularity. Fr. Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest, a cosmologist and colleague of Albert Einstein, proposed the theory in 1927.
This NASA illustration shows the progression of our universe, from the Big Bang (on the left) to the present day (on the right).
The BVG proof is a well-accepted concept that presents a challenge to cosmologists who assert that the singularity was infinite in extent or the entryway to other universes. The proof is robust in that it is applicable to any universe, multiverse or higher dimensional space universe with an average Hubble expansion greater than zero (i.e., like the Big Bang). It states that all those universes must have a beginning.
One proposed way to escape the implications of the BVG proof is the multiverse. The idea is that our universe and many others were born from a giant inflating universe. However, an absolute boundary to all past expansive states (i.e., universes) is imposed by the Law of Entropy, requiring a beginning of past time in the multiverse.
Evidence from Entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics)
It is also possible to escape a beginning even when the BVG proof is applicable, either by (a.) a bouncing or cyclical universe, or (b.) an eternally static (asymptotically static) universe. The bouncing or cyclic universe postulates that our universe may cycle between a contracted and expanded state. A modified version envisions a universe that oscillates between two epochs of time, one running forward and the other running backward. The eternally static universe postulates that the universe prior to the Big Bang was static into the infinite past, and then inflated to its present configuration.
The evidence from entropy explains, in part, why these hypotheses are extremely unlikely. Entropy is built into our universe and every conceivable universe. It is a measure of the disorganization of a system and always increases with time in a closed system. It is why corpses decay and fruits rot over time, but never the reverse. But, if the universe did not have a beginning, then it has been around for an infinite time. In a sense, the universe is then itself a perpetual motion machine, which is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Looking at this in another way, scientists accept the fact that our observable universe is low entropy (i.e., well-organized). This is evidenced by the fact it is organized into billions of galaxies, each consisting of billions of stars, many of which have planetary systems, and at least one of which contains life. Scientists also agree that in the next trillion years or so, our universe will experience “heat death” or maximum entropy (i.e., disorganized). At that point, there will be minimal organization of matter … no galaxies, no stars, no planets, no life! Conversely, at the Big Bang, the universe began with very low entropy, an extremely unlikely circumstance. The odds of this very low entropy universe occurring by chance was calculated by Dr. Roger Penrose and is equivalent to “the odds of a monkey typing Shakespeare’s Macbeth by random tapping of the keys in a single attempt.” In order to explain this, scientists had to hypothesize the bizarre theories described above to avoid an intelligent creator.
Anthropic Coincidences (Fine-tuning)
Anthropic (human) coincidences describe a multitude of facts about the universe which could be otherwise and, if they were, human life would not exist. They are typically defined by a set of constants. Since small variations in these constants significantly reduce the likelihood of human existence, an explanation for the “fine-tuning” of the universe is required. The following are a few of the constants that are fine-tuned for humanity’s existence and the consequences if they were different:
• Strong nuclear force constant – If larger, no hydrogen would form; if smaller, no elements heavier than hydrogen would form.
• Weak nuclear force constant – If larger, too many heavy elements form; if smaller, too few heavy elements.
• Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant – If larger, more massive stars form and burn out too quickly for life; if smaller, less massive stars form, producing too few heavy elements for life.
• Ratio of electron-to-proton mass – If larger or smaller, chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry.
• Ground state energy level for He – If larger or smaller, would contain insufficient carbon & oxygen for life.
Theists believe there is an intelligent creator who designed the universal constants for life. Atheistic scientists, who generally acknowledge the evidence for fine-tuning, are left with models that include an infinite number of universes (the multiverse or the higher dimensional universes of string theory), where our universe is one of a relatively few universes that allow human life. Arguments from the BVG proof and from entropy were previously explained and showed that the multiverse model is inadequate.
Moreover, scientists like “elegant” hypotheses (see Occam’s razor) for reasons described by AW:
Elegant Hypotheses: “Since there are always infinitely many different hypotheses which fit any set of data, there must be some prior beliefs which we use to decide between them. … all else being equal, scientists prefer hypotheses which are simple, uniform, common-sensical and aesthetically pleasing.”
It seems that those scientists who resort to the infinite past or to the multiverse are force-fitting preconceived notions to reality, with little regard for any deep connection to potentially observable and measurable facts.
Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing?
This classic formulation (Latin: ex nihilo nihil fit) would seem to provide the final nail in the coffin of naturalistic explanations for the creation of the universe. But scientists are very intelligent and clever – smart enough to perceive the straitjacket they’ve put on, and clever enough to propose a definition of “nothing” that sounds plausible when explained using the jargon of science’s high priests.
NOTHING (Ex. 1): Dr. Lawrence Kraus, cosmologist and science writer, wrote an astonishing book in 2012 titled, “A Universe from Nothing.” In a contemporaneous radio interview, he explains that “both nothing and something are scientific concepts, and our discoveries over the past 30 years have completely changed what we mean by nothing.” Let that sink in for a minute. Science has changed the meaning of nothing. It is now “a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles [vacuum states] that pop in and out of existence in a time scale so short that you can’t even measure them.”
The New York Times book reviewer David Albert was also astonished by this claim. He wrote:
“But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields!”
NOTHING (Ex. 2): Dr. Alexander Vilenkin (the “V” in BVG) analyzed all of the proposed models of infinite universes in 2012 and summarized:
• “Inflationary spacetimes are past-incomplete [i.e., have a beginning per the BVG proof]”
• “Cyclic spacetimes are either incomplete or lead to thermal death.”
• “Asymptotically static & oscillating universes suffer from quantum instability.”
“Therefore, [he concluded] … I fully agree with Stephen [Hawking] that the most promising approach appears to be the quantum nucleation of the universe from nothing.”
Thankfully, Vilenkin expanded his explanation in a 2015 video interview as follows:
“the question, an extremely intriguing question, why these laws, who gives the laws [of general relativity & quantum mechanics], it’s a deep mystery and I don’t have much to say about that. I would like to.” So, the quantum nucleation he described in 2012 didn’t arise out of nothing, rather it arose from the laws of nature, for which he has no explanation.
I rest my case.
Conclusion
My own conclusion parallels that of Dr. Aron Wall (AW), a cosmologist and a Christian, who stated:
“We don’t know for sure whether the Universe began, but to the extent that our present-day knowledge is an indicator, it probably did.”
Therefore, these arguments lead to only one common-sense and scientifically-based conclusion. The universe began to exist and was created from an authentic nothing by an intelligent and omnipotent transcendent cause we call God.