adapted from the work of peter kreeft and ronald k. acelli arguments for the existence of god
TRANSCRIPT
Adapted from the work of Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. acelli
Arguments for the Existence of God
Argument from design
God as the DesignerWhere there is a design there must be a
designerConsider the different nationalities,
personalities, likes, dislikes creativity etc. that exists amongst people
CONCLUSION: there must be a universal designer
The Human Brain• The human brain best represents this
argument– Most complex piece of design in the universe– Consider what the brain is responsible for
and capable of doing– Is it truly reasonable to think that the human
brain developed by chance—by chance it is more advanced than other animals???
– If it were developed by chance we would all be the same
Anthropic Principle• Universe has been specifically designed
from the beginning for human life to evolve• If the temperature of the primal fireball that
created the Big Bang was a trillionth of a degree off, the carbon molecule would not have developed
• The same is true for the development of the hemoglobin molecule
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/880958/the_catholic_churchs_view_on_big_bang_theory/
Atheism and Argument from DesignImprobable argument that the universe
was created by chanceRelatively few atheists among neurologists,
brain surgeons and astrophysicistsA universe designed and ruled by chance
has no intelligenceTherefore, there must be a cause for human
intelligence that transcends that universe
EvolutionBeautiful example of designScientific evidence of evolutionNo scientific evidence of natural selection
as the mechanism of evolution
NOTE: Catholics do believe in evolution—we are not creationists
The first cause argument
Principle of Sufficient ReasonEverything that is has some adequate or
sufficient reason why it isWe look for physical, psychological and
supernatural causesWe may never find the cause, but there
must be one if something existsNever deny this principle
The First Cause• The universe is a vast and complex chain of
causes• Without a first cause, there would be an
infinite number of causes• It would have to explain itself– If it didn’t, it would also need a cause, and
would not therefore be the first cause– It would have to transcend all other causes
• If we can prove there is such a first cause, we have proven there is a God
Why???• Without a first cause, the whole universe is
unexplained– Each thing would be explained only in the
“short run” or in relation to something else• The Principle of Sufficient Reason would be
violated• Consider a chain with many links: each link
is held by the one before it, but the whole chain is held by nothing
Contingent and Necessary Beings• Contingent: beings that need causes; their
essence does not contain the reason for their existence; DEPENDENT
• Necessary: a being whose essence is to exist
• The universe contains only contingent beings– If there is not independent being, there are no
dependent beings– Sine dependent beings exist, there has to be an
independent = GOD
STA’s First Version of the ArgumentCAUSE OF MOTIONThe chain of movers must have a first
mover because nothing move itselfMoving: any kind of change (not just
location)
STA’s Second Version of the ArgumentCAUSE OF A BEGINNING TO EXISTENCEIf there were no first cause of the
universe’s coming into being, then there could be no second causesSecond causes are dependent on the first
cause
STA’s Third Version of the ArgumentCAUSE OF PRESENT EXISTENCEIf everything could die, then eventually
everything would dieNOTHING COULD START AGAIN
Universal death since a being that has ceased to exist cannot cause anything else to exist
There must be a necessary being that cannot cease to be
STA’s Fourth Version of the ArgumentCAUSE OF GOODNESS OR VALUEMust be a first cause of perfection,
goodness or valueNeed a standard (the ideal) by which things
are rankedWithout a most-perfect being, there is no
standard to judge byAll of our judgments would be meaningless
ARGUMENT FROM CONSCIENCE
Obligation To Be and Do GoodEveryone knows that he is obligated to be
and do goodObligation could only come from God
Therefore, everyone knows God by this moral intuition = conscience
Conscience• Modern definition: feeling that I have done
or am about to do something wrong
• Traditional definition: knowledge of what is right and wrong—intellect applied to morality– Intuitive knowledge not rational or analytical– Knowledge of my absolute obligation to
goodness (justice, charity, virtue and holiness)– Second-place knowledge: moral facts (what’s
right/wrong)
Authority of ConscienceMust admit its authority for this argument
to workMost people admit the premise (though it
may be explained differently)Once you admit the premise of the authority
of conscience, you must admit the conclusion of God
The only possible source of absolute authority is an absolutely perfect will, a divine being
Why must the authority come from a divine being?
If the moral idea exists only in the mind of people, what right do they have to impose this idea of theirs on me?
There is no instinct that should always be obeyedInstinct doesn’t tell us what we ought to do
Society cannot determine conscience as it doesn’t mean something above human beings
Forming our ConscienceFirst obligation to our conscience is to form
itWe may not always hear the voice rightMust seek the truth
If our conscience seems to be going against the truth, it is not working properlyIn other words, don’t merely rely on the
feelings—rely on knowledge
JOURNAL TOPIC• Reflect on the following quotation from Peter
Kreeft’s article “Argument from Conscience”:
“Conscience tells you that you ought to do or not do something, while instincts simply drive you to do or not to do something. Instincts make something attractive or repulsive to your appetites, but conscience makes something obligatory to your choice, no matter how your appetites feel about it.”
The Argument from pascal’s wager
Pascal17th Century philosopher, scientist and
mathematicianLived in a time of great skepticism, and
thus forms his workMost philosophers think Pascal’s Wager is
the weakest of all argumentsDoesn’t prove God’s existence but argues it’s
safer to assume He does than to assume he doesn’t
The WagerSuppose you hear reports that your house is on fire and your children are inside. You do not know whether the reports are true or false. What is the reasonable thing to do—to ignore them or to take the time to run home or at least phone home just in case the reports are true?
Hedging Your Bets with GodIt is foolish not to “bet” on God, even if you
have no certainty or proof that your bet will winBelieving in God only as a bet is not deep or
mature or adequate faith, but it’s a start—it’s enough to “dam the tide of atheism”
Appeals to the instinct for self-preservation (to be happy and not unhappy)
Betting is Better than AgnosticismThe agnostic says it is better not to wager
at allIf you don’t wager, you have no chance of
winning—you automatically lose
Only One LOGICAL ChoiceOnce it is determined that not choosing
isn’t an option (because you can’t win if you don’t choose), there are two choices
1) God does not exist (atheism)2) God does exist (theism)
***atheism is a bad bet = no chance of winning
Theism = WinningIf you believe in God and He exists, you win
everythingIf you believe in God and He doesn’t exist,
you lose nothing
However, if you don’t believe, and He does exist, you lose everything!
Is it worth the price???• Whatever you must give up to bet on God
is finite (only of this world)• The prize is infinite (eternal happiness)
• Giving up illicit pleasures to gain infinite happiness is reasonable
• Living with peace, hope, joy, etc. makes this life good and the possibility of the next life VERY good
Practical Objection to the WagerThe listener just cannot bring himself to
believe
According to Paschal, if you’re unable to believe, it is because your passions are blinding youInstead of concentrating on the proofs of
God, diminish your passions