Philosophical Proofs for the Existence of God

Philosophers, through the centuries, have put forward various arguments for and against the existence of God. Here are some of the major ones.

Photo by Josh Applegate on Unsplash

Can a belief in God be reasonable?

For a belief to be considered reasonable, it should be supported by good reasons. Western philosophers (who were firm in their theistic faith) have, through the centuries, put forward a number of arguments to support the existence of God. In this blog, the three basic and influential arguments based on reason for the existence of God will be discussed.

The ‘big three’ arguments are as follows:

1. The Teleological Argument (Argument from intelligent design)
2. The Cosmological Argument (Argument from contingency and necessity)
3. The Ontological Argument (A-priori argument based on the idea of God as a perfect being)

Teleological Argument

This argument posits the the existence of a designer (God) from a presupposition of design and purpose in the world.

It has been supported by a number of philosophers and schools of thought. (Greek/Western philosophers — Plato, Aristotle, William Paley, Henry Moore, A.I. Brown and Indian schools of thought — Nyaya-Vaisesika, Yoga and Advaita).

William Paley’s version of the argument, as put forward in his book ‘Natural Theology’ (p. 1802 AD) will be explained in some detail. The basis for Paley’s argument is his observation of the world, which makes it — i) a-posteriori and inductive and, ii) a probability argument rather than a proof

Some observations on which this argument rests are:

1. the biological world’s complexity (law of nature, the human body, etc.)
2. the regularity of occurrences like seasons and of the movement of celestial bodies
3. the purpose set by the designer (God) in all of this complexity

Paley’s inductive argument traces back the effect of appearance of design in the world to the cause of its designer, God.

Watchmaker Analogy

The analogy of the watchmaker is central to Paley’s explanation of the teleological argument. Just like a watch has intricate parts that work together to tell the time, the universe is composed of complex parts that work together to create and support life and order. Additionally, just like the intricate design of the watch requires a watchmaker to come into existence, the intricate design of the universe, too, has a creator behind it. This is suggested by the existence of order, complexity and purpose in the universe.

To extend defense against possible opposition to this argument, Paley points out that when we come across flaws in the design of a watch, which might stem from our ignorance or otherwise, we do not destroy the inference of a watchmaker. Similarly, our observation of flaws, or a lack of knowledge pertaining to the universe should not negate the inference that it has a designer/creator behind it.

Some other analogies offered in support of this argument are those of the perfect design of eye for vision, of the perfect regularity of orbits of celestial bodies, and of the adaptation of animals to their surroundings.

Hume’s Critique of the Teleological Argument

1. The assumption that the universe is perfect, or is optimally designed, is wrong. Hume claimed that the cause of the design is required to be only proportional to the effect (flawed design=flawed designer). So, even if we accept the belief that the universe was design, this would, in no way, point to the existence of the God from Christianity. The universe could have been designed by a different, lesser entity. So, at best, the imperfections and evil (like disease, crime, natural disasters etc.) present in the universe suggest an imperfect designer.
2. The analogy drawn between the universe and machines like watch is just flawed anthropomorphism. The properties of the universe and those of a watch are fundamentally different. We know have empirical evidence in support of the creation of watch by watchmakers but none in support of the creation of the universe by God.
3. There isn’t necessarily a purpose or order in the arrangement of the universe. Instead of being an intentional creation, it might simply be a product of chance and natural processes. So, it is probable that the universe orders itself into whatever seemingly orderly state it has come to be in.

The Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological argument, as put forward by Thomas Aquinas in his ‘Summa Theologica’, will be discussed here. The four ways/arguments through which he attempts to prove the existence of God are of motion, causation, contingency and degree. The Cosmological argument proposes that God is the ultimate explanation or cause of everything. It is a-posteriori and inductive, and is based on and begins from an empirical observation of the world.

1. Argument of motion: Aquinas observed that everything in the universe is in motion and that there must be a cause behind this motion. There needs to be an initial mover who set everything in motion, and this entity is God.
2. Argument of causation: Aquinas believed that everything in the universe must have a cause, but this chain of causation cannot go back infinitely. So, there needs to be an uncaused cause, or God.
3. Argument from contingency: Aquinas pointed out that everything that exists in the universe is contingent and could have not existed. So, there needs to be a necessary being, God, who is responsible for the existence of the things that do exist.
4. Argument from degree: Aquinas said that we are able to observe different levels of perfection in the world. Some things are more good, true and beautiful than others are. We have an innate sense of perfection which allows us to distinguish between things. He claimed that God is the standard of perfection, and is the source of all goodness. Things that are able to meet this highest level of perfection must have been created by God.

Criticisms from Hume and Russell

1. Bertrand Russell criticized Aquinas’ argument of contingency by pointing out that it commits the fallacy of composition (it assumes that what is true for the parts must also be true for the whole). Russell argues that just because each individual thing in the universe is contingent, does not imply that the whole of the universe, too, is contingent.
2. Hume and Russell claim that the words ‘necessarily being’ are meaningless as it is not based on empirical evidence or experience. It is just an idea/concept with no basis in reality. Calling a being ‘necessary’ is problematic as it implies a necessity that may not even exist in reality. The universe could be self-sufficient, or could itself be necessary. Moreover, there could be a number of ‘necessary’ beings instead of just one.

The Ontological Argument

As per the Ontological argument given by Saint Anselm, one can know that God exists merely by reflecting on the concept of God. The tools used by Anselm to construct his argument are only logical laws and definitions. This argument is, therefore, an a-priori and deductive one. There is no requirement of any empirical data. The basis of the argument are as follows: God’s existence can be deduced from the definition of God; once God is clearly and aptly defined, there can be no doubt regarding their existence. The predicate ‘exists’ is contained in the subject ‘God’. He claimed that the existence of God is a necessary truth, and not a contingent one.

His argument can be understood as the one given below:

Premise 1: God is the greatest conceivable being.

Premise 2: It is greater to exist in reality than to only exist in the mind.

Conclusion: Therefore, as the greatest conceivable being, God must exist in reality.

Criticisms for the Ontological Argument

The main criticisms of Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God include circular reasoning, defining God into existence, the fallacy of equivocation, the non-necessity of existence, and the possibility of multiple greatest conceivable beings. Some of these will be explained in detail.

Criticism by Gaunilo

11th century Benedictine monk Gaunilo was a contemporary of Anselm. He criticized the ontological argument in his work titled ‘On Behalf of the Fool’.

Through his ‘Lost Island’ objection, he argued that Anselm’s argument could be used to prove the existence of anything. Gaunilo’s argument is called reductio ad absurdum, which is a type of argument that aims to show how a certain argument/proposition leads to contradiction/absurdity. It can be understood through the argument given below:

Premise 1: It is possible to conceive of the perfect lost island.

Premise 2: It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in mind.

Conclusion: Therefore, the perfect lost island must exist in reality.

Anselm replied to this criticism by saying that necessary existence is a predicate only applicable to God and not to things.

Criticism by Kant

1. Confusing conceptual existence with real existence: Kant emphasized that real existence is not a property that is capable of being included in the concept of an object. Instead, it is something that needs to be demonstrated by empirical evidence.
2. Fallacy of Equivocation: Kant pointed out that Anselm uses the term ‘existence’ in two varying senses. In the first premise, it is used in a conceptual sense, whereas in the conclusion, it is used in an empirical sense.
3. Non-necessity of existence: Anselm assumed for existence to be a necessary attribute of God. Kant pointed out that existence cannot be a necessary attribute of any object/concept.

Conclusion

Even though these three traditional arguments/proofs for the existence of God try to use empirical evidence and logic to prove the existence of God, they are not immune to the seemingly strong and sound criticisms raised against them. It seems like a convincing philosophical proof for the existence of God is yet to be proposed.