Arguments for the Existence of God

Just last week I had lunch with a friend. While eating lunch he asked me, “Bobby, why are you so down?” I said, “Well, I have to write this paper for school, and I just don’t know what to do about it.” He said, “What’s the paper about?” I continued, “The paper is about the arguments for the existence of God, I didn’t realize there were so many! I’m having a hard time to deciding which ones to write about.” He said “Well, let’s hear the best two.” I smiled and said, “That would be the argument from design and the argument from morality.”

This conversation did not happen, but I hope it does one day. You see, my friend is a lawyer and enjoys wood working, but does not profess Christ as his Lord. I picked these two arguments to study because I think they would be most convincing to him. Let’s dive in.

The Argument from Design is fairly straight forward. The more complex a thing is, the more likely it was designed and is actually not by chance. Complexity suggests a designer is involved. The deductive argument goes like this:

            1. All complex designs imply a designer.

            2. The universe (especially life) has complex design.

            3. Therefore, the universe must have a designer.[1]

When we look around us, complex things need more of an explanation than simple things. For instance, if we were driving up the central valley of California and we saw a piece of land sprawling with field grass that would not require much of an explanation. A field of grass is simple, and fairly common in the central valley. But, if we were on the same road and saw the same field but with a farmhouse on it, this would require more explanation. The field is simple, but the Farmhouse is complex. The farmhouse is complex since it consists of a foundation, walls, a roof and probably electrical, plumbing and heating systems. This farmhouse is complex and implies that someone took effort to think through and design this home in all of its intricacies and then proceeded to build it. Whereas the field with its field grass is something that is simple and occurs naturally as the seasons change.[2]

This is the case with the universe as well. When we look at the universe, complexity is all around us. We see it in the grand cosmos and the solar system, we see complexity in forest ecosystem and ocean systems. We even see complexities in living things like animals and especially humans. All these complex things we see in the universe implies that they were thought out by a designer.

The main objection to this argument by design is that this world is by chance, that is, the universe was lucky, and what exists is just by chance. But remember, our argument is not an argument of chance but rather of design, which we know through repeated observation to have intellectual cause.[3] Even if this was an argument of probability (between chance and designer) it’s more probable that the universe was created by a designer than by chance.[4] The power of this argument is that we see complexity everywhere, and when we see this complexity it is closely associated with a designer.

The next compelling case for the existence of God is the argument from morality. It is as follows:

            1. All people are conscience of an objective moral law

            2. Objective moral laws implies a moral law giver

            3. Therefore, there must be a supreme moral law giver.[5]

            Most people would acknowledge that there are certain behaviors that are acceptable and other behaviors that are not acceptable. These certain behaviors are expected, meaning they are unsaid behaviors of how life ought to be lived. No one needs to explain them, they are a given. They do not describe how life should be lived, rather they prescribe how we should treat others.[6] This means that these behaviors are objective moral laws. Even if someone does not agree to this intellectually, they most certainly do practically. All people want to be treated a certain way. No one wants to be murdered, raped, taken advantage of, or lied to. So, whether people acknowledge an objective moral law or not, everyone lives as if they are a reality. Why is this? Because objective moral laws do exist! These moral laws transcend the human condition and stand on their own. Therefore, these objective moral laws imply that there is a moral law giver. If these moral laws imply a supreme moral law giver, we in fact see that moral laws exist, then we have good reason to believe that a supreme moral law giver exists.

My friend might appeal to culture and that each culture makes their own laws, and these laws are subjective laws based on social convention.[7] This fails to acknowledge that these moral laws are common throughout all cultures and throughout all times. The power of this argument is that all cultures through time have held to the same core morals (that murder, rape, stealing, lying are wrong). These laws are not subjective but objective, and they are not social conventions given their widespread acceptance throughout all cultures and time.

So, what do we make of these arguments? Could these persuade my friend in his unbelief? I think these arguments (design and morality) are clear, everyday examples of God’s truth and goodness which are on display for all to see. But it is the Lord’s work in the heart of man to call those who are His to Himself. God’s desire is that all will be saved. I pray that I can have this discussion with my friend and that I can clearly explain to him, and give him reason why I believe in the existence of God.

Bibliography

Geisler, Norman L. & Ronald M. Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2013.

Gould, Paul M. Cultural Apologetics: Renewing the Christian Voice, Conscience, and Imagination in a Disenchanted World. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019.

Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for the Biblical Faith. Downers Grove, IL: InverVarsity Press, USA, 2011.

[1] Norman L. Geisler, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences (Grand Rapids, MI; Baker Books, 2013), 14.

[2] This example is tailored to my friend’s since she recently traveled up the central valley.

[3] Geisler, 15.

[4] Geisler, 16

[5] Ibid.

[6] Geisler, 16-17.

[7] Geisler, 17.