Can anyone give me some facts to help defend the existence of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Holly3278

Guest
Hey everyone. I am looking for a list of facts that I can use to help defend the existence of God. The type of facts I am looking for are facts about the universe and especially the earth. For example, I saw a fact once that said that if the earth was even 1 foot further away from the sun than what it is that we would freeze to death and that if it was 1 foot closer we’d burn up. I am not sure how much truth there is to that but anyway, that is the type of facts that I am looking for. You know, the type of facts that demonstrate the complexity of creation. Facts about the human body and physics in general are also gladly accepted.
 
You might want to look into philosophical theology or natural theology. The kind of defense you are proposing is actually very harshly criticized by the Church’s theologians for various reasons. I recommend:

-The Last Superstition
-Aquinas

Both are by Ed Feser. Check out his blog, here.
 
  • Something * cannot create itself out of nothing. There has to be something to call matter into existence.
  • Entropy has to be reversed.
 
All of those facts about the universe are one argument for God - the weakest of all arguments, called the “teleological” (from teleos, “purpose” or “function”). I am a poor defender of it, and it is the most easily refuted of all arguments for God, by another argument called “the argument from poor design”. From what I know, the earth would have to be at least 100,000 miles closer to or further away from the sun for any difference to arise, statistically (that’s a ~0.1% difference [we’re 98 million miles away] which is well within the tolerance of all natural macroscale processes).

There are also (you can look them up, or I can give them in a simple syllogism here. I will put the first sentence of the syllogism after each argument so you can tell which ones you’ve heard before or are interested in. Those that you are interested in I will write out the syllogisms for. I probably will write out the syllogisms for all of them, but can’t fit them in one post due to the length limit, only a listing a short description of each.


  1. *]The Cosmological Argument (Everything that began to exist - this is the strongest of all arguments. However, the only possible refutation of it deals with time and special relativity and reverse causality, so, if you’re dealing with a professional philosopher or physicist, this is indefensible unless you’re learned enough to discourse on that level. At a popular level, it is irrefutable. It comes in several different flavors too, Kalam/Islamic [the strongest], Aristotelian, Thomist.)

    *]The Ontological Argument (The greatest conceivable being must exist in all possible worlds. This is a very strong argument. Irrefutable at any level, although mocked at many.)

    *]The Argument from Morality (Everyone knows right and wrong. Why? This is a pretty strong argument. When used in conjunction with another argument, it is very strong, as one must assert materialism to refute this argument, and the other arguments can not be refuted by a materialist; so, say, AfMorality, Cosmological, and AfReason make a one-two-three knockout.)

    *]The Argument from Beauty/Love/some other epiphenomenon (see AfMorality above.)

    *]The Argument for the Unmoved Mover/to Pure Act (Some things are changed, what is changed is changed by a changer, an infinite regress is impossible. This is my personal favorite.)

    *]The Argument from First Cause (All things are caused, what is caused is caused by something else, an infinite regress is impossible.)

    *]The Argument from Degrees (Varying degrees of perfection exist, which are measured according to the ultimate perfection.)

    *]The Argument from Contingency (Everything we see could conceivably not exist, if it was possible for everything not to exist there would have been a time when nothing existed [because of coming in to existence], from nothing comes nothing, therefore there is a being that is not contingent.)

    *]The Principle of Sufficient Reason (Why is there instead of not? Or why is there something, instead of nothing? Weak, but strong in conjunction with other arguments.)

    *]The Anthropic/Teleological/Fine-tuned Universe Argument (Humanity’s/life’s/the Universe’s/the laws of physics’ existence is best explained by God.)

    *]The Argument from Reason/Transcendental (Mere material is not capable of reason; we have reason; therefore we are not mere material. This is impossible to refute at the popular level, but is relatively useless against a semi-trained philosopher who will go off talking about “emergent properties” [that is, “science doesn’t know but I’m sure it will learn”], so it gets more complex than you will be able to learn easily. This, combined with AfMorality, were the two bases of CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity.)

    *]The Argument from the Hard Problem of Consciousness/Qualia (Qualia exist, therefore materialism is incorrect.)

    *]The Christological Argument (Christ existed, and was resurrected. Something resurrected him.)

    *]The Argument from Properly Basic Belief/from Warrant (God is a properly basic belief, like believing in other minds, while neither assertion can be proven.)

    *]The very relativistic “will to believe” argument: “Believing in God ‘works’ for a believer in some [therapeutic] way, therefore believing in God is good, therefore God exists”. Formulated by William James, Psychologist, author of Varieties of Religious Experience (good book). Horrible argument. Logically unsound. Entails strong relativism. Never use under any circumstances.
 
Holly3278 said:
Hey everyone. I am looking for a list of facts that I can use to help defend the existence of God. The type of facts I am looking for are facts about the universe and especially the earth. ****For example, I saw a fact once that said that if the earth was even 1 foot further away from the sun than what it is that we would freeze to death and that if it was 1 foot closer we’d burn up. ****I am not sure how much truth there is to that but anyway, that is the type of facts that I am looking for. You know, the type of facts that demonstrate the complexity of creation. Facts about the human body and physics in general are also gladly accepted.
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact that Earth’s orbit isn’t a perfect circle, I wouldn’t advise using this argument as people would never be able to survive climbing ladders or digging trenches.
 
Saint Thomas, The Five Ways.

Here’s one site that lists them but there are many others and I’m sure better.

Summa contra Gentiles is always a good read and help too, but the Five Ways are specifically for establishing belief in the existence of God as such and how we can know it for certain.
 
Nature being full of (natural) life seemed as an obvious (partial) explanation itself, but yeah, barely any of that left.
And no need to “defend the existence” (of God) not only regarding towards who somehow think they are themselves the, or their pleasure is, sole purpose of the universe or such. God is. Though partially depending more or less on which philosophical approach is taken, God isn’t is true too. A lot of it has to do with psyché. And an arguement of many being that (in relation to human activity) it is psyché which (systematically) shapes matter and that there can’t be psyché without matter yet there was matter before human psyché ergo there was psyché before matter and that psyché is God. Not saying that every such arguement is ultimately valid, partially depending on premise/s (at time and place), and it can get confusing quickly, but there is solid base to these things and not (all of it) being intellectual masturbation, and not all being about intellectual interpretation of things.
 
Holly3278 said:
Hey everyone. I am looking for a list of facts that I can use to help defend the existence of God. The type of facts I am looking for are facts about the universe and especially the earth. For example, I saw a fact once that said that if the earth was even 1 foot further away from the sun than what it is that we would freeze to death and that if it was 1 foot closer we’d burn up. I am not sure how much truth there is to that but anyway, that is the type of facts that I am looking for. You know, the type of facts that demonstrate the complexity of creation. Facts about the human body and physics in general are also gladly accepted.
Click to expand...
I like the website, Reasonable Faith, by the Christian Philosoper William Lane Craig.

If you look under the popular articles section, you can find a fair range of interesting stuff. It has the benefit of being popular versions of up to date stuff that current philosophers and scientists are discussing.

Here is an article from that site, 5 Reasons God exists and Three Reasons it Matters.

It includes a different form of the teleological argument that you mention, as well as scientific and philosophical evidence that the universe had a beginning, evidence from the existence of objective moral values and duties, and evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection.
 
I was struggling with this for a bit recently. One thing that helped me was watching “Case for the Creator” by Lee Strobel. He also has “Case for Christ” both are great documentaries that show that it requires more faith to be an atheist.

Also, I did a little bit of research on Quantum mechanics. Basically, protons, neutrons,and electrons are made of even smaller particles called Quarks. These particles don’t act according to known laws of physics. Sometimes they can be in 2 places at once. They interact with other particles for no known reason, act differently when being observed, and also they are known to pop in and out of existence. By that last one alone scientists have proven that the universe can be created from nothing. I would be careful in doing more research, Scientists don’t want to admit God, so they come up with theories of multiple universes to explain away God. And New Age people will use Quantum mechanics to convince people that they can control particles with their minds and therefore create their universe being their own gods. But the heart of the matter is still there. Science proves that all existence is created from nothing. Even if there were multiple universes, by that logic you have to accept that anything is possible. So why not God? Or maybe he created the multiple universes. We’ve already known that God created everything from nothing, and is outside of time. Science is just finally catching up.
 
PermanentMarker said:
You might want to look into philosophical theology or natural theology. The kind of defense you are proposing is actually very harshly criticized by the Church’s theologians for various reasons. I recommend:

-The Last Superstition
-Aquinas

Both are by Ed Feser. Check out his blog, here.
Click to expand...
Really? I did not know that this type of argument was one that is very harshly criticized by the Church’s theologians. Thanks for making me aware of that.
 
Holly3278 said:
Really? I did not know that this type of argument was one that is very harshly criticized by the Church’s theologians. Thanks for making me aware of that.
Click to expand...
It depends what you mean. If you mean design arguments in general, like the fine-tuning of the universe for life, or scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning, then these are perfectly acceptable to Catholics. St. Bonaventure, for example, liked to argue for the beginning of the universe, while Thomas Aquinas used a form of the teleological argument. I wouldn’t want you to get the idea that you are not allowed to use these kind of arguments from some fear that Church theologians don’t like them.

Some forms of the design argument are bad of course, and those are criticized, but that is no reason to avoid learning about the good ones.

I mean, St. Paul says in the Bible that men can know from nature alone that God exists, it makes sense that we can have arguments to back that up.

Modern Physics, Ancient Faith, is by a Catholic physicist Stephen Barr.
 
Bryan77 said:
I was struggling with this for a bit recently. One thing that helped me was watching “Case for the Creator” by Lee Strobel. He also has “Case for Christ” both are great documentaries that show that it requires more faith to be an atheist.

Also, I did a little bit of research on Quantum mechanics. Basically, protons, neutrons,and electrons are made of even smaller particles called Quarks. These particles don’t act according to known laws of physics. Sometimes they can be in 2 places at once. They interact with other particles for no known reason, act differently when being observed, and also they are known to pop in and out of existence. By that last one alone scientists have proven that the universe can be created from nothing. I would be careful in doing more research, Scientists don’t want to admit God, so they come up with theories of multiple universes to explain away God. And New Age people will use Quantum mechanics to convince people that they can control particles with their minds and therefore create their universe being their own gods. But the heart of the matter is still there. Science proves that all existence is created from nothing. Even if there were multiple universes, by that logic you have to accept that anything is possible. So why not God? Or maybe he created the multiple universes. We’ve already known that God created everything from nothing, and is outside of time. Science is just finally catching up.
Click to expand...
Electrons are not made up of quarks. Your ideas on QM are similarly misinformed.
 
Holly3278 said:
Really? I did not know that this type of argument was one that is very harshly criticized by the Church’s theologians. Thanks for making me aware of that.
Click to expand...
It’s not criticized because it’s wrong or unorthodox or bad doctrine - St Paul even uses a version of it, severely truncated, in Romans 1:19-20, and St Thomas uses it as the fifth of his Five Ways - but merely because it’s easy to criticize and not much harder to refute.

They wish to use the strongest arguments for God, because, if a weak one is put forth, how easy is it for the atheist to say, “is that the best you have?” and never try to think of it again? An atheist doesn’t want to believe in God, as the atheist doesn’t have to worry about sin or damnation. No one wants to be convicted of sin: so, when doing apologetics in natural theology, you start out strong, and then, if you’re evangelizing a learned man, built a cumulative case. The teleological argument can be useful as part of a cumulative case in some circumstances, although against physics/science types it’s useless (because you have to break down their pet theories designed specifically to keep God’s foot out of the door even when it is inevitable - such as “chaotic inflation” - first,* which is harder than evangelizing them using other arguments and methods) and is generally the one of the last you’ll pull out.

*Some scientists held to the steady-state/eternal theory even after Hubble demonstrated the Big Bang conclusively because they believed the Big Bang was too close to religious creation, and would inevitably result in respect for religious accounts of creation, which got it correct thousands of years before science did, and most philosophers kept getting it wrong (including Plato and Aristotle) until they were religious philosophers working with a revelation.

When arguing for Christianity in specific, and events such as the Resurrection, there are no proofs, only cumulative cases.

I also highly recommend William Lane Craig (Protestant) and Peter Kreeft (Catholic) for stuff on the Internet. For books, there’s Alvin Plantinga (Protestant), Richard Swinburne (Orthodox), Thomas Aquinas (Catholic), Etienne Gilson (Catholic), Edward Feser (Catholic), and many others (ask if you want recommendations for dead trees). Edward Feser is one of my favorites for beginning philosophy or natural theology, because he’s an Aristotelian Thomist.
 
Dan_McVay said:
Electrons are not made up of quarks. Your ideas on QM are similarly misinformed.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, I’m not an expert. I just did some basic research, and may have gotten a few details wrong. John Polkinghorne was a quantum physicist who became an Anglican priest.
 
Khalid said:
All of those facts about the universe are one argument for God - the weakest of all arguments, called the “teleological” (from teleos, “purpose” or “function”). I am a poor defender of it, and it is the most easily refuted of all arguments for God, by another argument called “the argument from poor design”. From what I know, the earth would have to be at least 100,000 miles closer to or further away from the sun for any difference to arise, statistically (that’s a ~0.1% difference [we’re 98 million miles away] which is well within the tolerance of all natural macroscale processes).
Click to expand...
That’s the modern teleological argument, the original and undefeated argument is the Thomistic version. Very different arguments, the modern one is as you say poor and I’d move to say the argument is insulting to intellectuals. Feser gives the best explanation in Aquinas, and demonstrates the vast differences it has with modern design arguments.
 
Hello- This may not be exactly what you are looking for, but I found it very useful in my own walk.
A book titled “Saints Who Raised the Dead” by Father Hebert. It has over 400 such incidents which are authenticated by the Church, via different councils on qualification for a person’s Sainthood, etc.
Father Hebert does a great job of explaining the historical facts and proofs- who witnessed it, etc.
He uses this as a means of strengthening believer’s Faith. That such miracles have happened literally hundreds of times- documented- by great persons of holiness.

Of course, most atheists will deny all of his evidence and historical footnotes- but it hard to argue with it all when the entire book is in front of you.
God Bless,
Ken L.
“Top Ten Most Influential Christians”, author
 
Holly3278 said:
Hey everyone. I am looking for a list of facts that I can use to help defend the existence of God. The type of facts I am looking for are facts about the universe and especially the earth. For example, I saw a fact once that said that if the earth was even 1 foot further away from the sun than what it is that we would freeze to death and that if it was 1 foot closer we’d burn up. I am not sure how much truth there is to that but anyway, that is the type of facts that I am looking for. You know, the type of facts that demonstrate the complexity of creation. Facts about the human body and physics in general are also gladly accepted.
Click to expand...
There is a great book “New proofs for the existence of God, contributions of contemporary physics and Philosophy”. It is excellent and very scientific which is good for the sceptical who seem to only accept scientific evidence. It is by Robert Spitzer Ph D.and is available from Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
 
The book by Spitzer is admittedly good for materialist atheists who seem to spit on philosophy, or arguments dealing with ideas, and only want “scientific facts” (not to mention that philosophy is the basis of EVERY BRANCH of science, and theology is the queen of them).

Any ideas on which arguments you want to hear more about?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top