What I want to do today is to write a brief summary of each of the arguments for the existence of God that I have come across in my studies; that seem to hold any water (I won’t be calling on the youtube video that argues for design just because a human hand can hold a banana). If I miss any that you believe to be a part of this review, please contact me and I will research the argument and update my post here.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0 – This argument focuses on the prime mover, or the uncaused first cause. The argument goes as such: everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause. Dr. William Lane Craig is the biggest proponent of this argument, and further develops the characteristics of this prime mover and shows that the God of Christianity is the best fit for this uncaused first cause.
The Contingency Argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPCzEP0oD7I – This is a bit of a spin on the Cosomological argument, and goes as such. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. The universe exists, therefore the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.
The Ontological Argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBmAKCvWl74 – This argument talks about the possibility of a maximally great being. If it is possible that this maximally great being, otherwise known as God, exists, then God does exist.
The Argument from Fine Tuning/Teleological Argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yt7hvgFuNg – This argument discusses the universe as a set of constants (universal constants such as the weak and strong atomic forces, the cosmological constant, and so on), if any of these constants were off by a little bit, then life would not be permissible
The moral argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU – This argument bring up something that could be a little controversial in today’s postmodern society. This argument posits this. If objective moral values and duties exist, then God exists. Objective moral values and duties do exist, therefore God exists.
These arguments should be a good starting point for a beginner in apologetics, who wants to examine some basic arguments for the existence of God. Since this should be out by around the new year, this could be a new beginning of faith or a new journey for a believer who wants to know why they believe what they believe. May God bless you, and I wish you all a happy new year!
Popular posts from this blog
I saw a video during my Sunday service about the floods of people that are coming to church for Easter or Christmas, maybe they only come once a year, or are interested in what all the hubbub is about. For those interested, it follows that they might have questions. Now, I have written plenty about scholarly questions to Christian faith, but does this mean that everyone should have these answers? Not necessarily, because many times the questions are not scholarly, but emotional. We should be able to answer these as well. These types of questions will be case by case, so a systematic rulebook of answers cannot be written here. However, the Bible does give us some guidelines in how to talk to one another. We are called in Colossians to let our speech be seasoned with salt and grace (Colossians 4:6). In 1 Peter 3:15, we are commanded to deliver our answers with gentleness and respect. These are general sweeping statements on how we are to conduct our speech, so let’s apply them to our …
Quite a few people have been convinced by the mass media that more science and education are the answer to everything, but is it really? Science is quite good at what it does, but it does have limitations and areas that its hands cannot reach. Now as I have stated before, I am a scientist, or at least a graduate student of chemistry, whichever title you would like to apply. I have no delusions about the limitations of science and where it cannot possibly reach. There are those who will have their own definitions of science, and honestly it is rather overused in the United States at least. Science is a field where hypotheses can be repeatedly tested to be proven or disproven. There are plenty of fields where science cannot carry out this rigorous testing and retesting, so I would not classify these fields as sciences. Take history for example, unless we figure out how to go back in time and verify events for ourselves, we are left with only the account…