6 Philosophical Reasons God Exists. (Part 1)

Welcome to Apologetics Thursday (#Sometimes Friday)! I hope that you have been enjoying these posts. Thinking about and understand why belief in God Is a valid and reasonable thing to have is very important in a Christian walk. Which is why I’m excited about today’s topic. But before we get into the 6 Philosophical arguments for the existence of God. I would like to introduce the man whose work this article is based on, the apologist William Lane Craig. I mentioned one of his books in my post, Top 5 Apologetics books for 2019. If you haven’t heard of Him, I would suggest that you get to know his stuff. I will let him introduce the six arguments and then we will break them down a little more.

Often when people think about an argument, they think about one statement or thought that proves a point. Now this works for simple questions that only require a small amount of evidence to prove. However, God is very big and very not visible. Consequently, if you were going to make an argument for his existence, you’re going to need to look at the evidence from several different parts of reality. Because of this, we will be building a case for God, with these six arguments. Now it’s important to note that this is not a case for the Christian God specifically. This is just to show that there is a creator God. Once we have established that, Jesus is right around the corner.

Number 1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Let’s start off with a question that might help us get a bearing on the God question. Where did the universe come from?

When you think through this question you can come up with two basic answers. Either the universe has always existed (it’s naturally eternal). Or the universe has a cause (something or someone created it). This was a big argument in scholarship for a really long time. However, in 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered hard evidence that the universe was expanding. After this discovery people realized that the universe has been expanding from a signal point. This was hard evidence that the universe did have a beginning, which practically ended the debate. Even Einstein, who liked the eternal universe idea, after seeing the evidence said to the press:

“I now see the necessity of a beginning.”

Albert Einstein

Since then Science and Philosophy have continued to find strong evidence that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning.

So based off of that evidence let’s start off our case for God with the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2: The universe began to exist.

3: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

Before we discovered that the universe had a beginning. Many people didn’t even consider God as a possibility. After all, if the universe has been around forever then God didn’t create it. And if God didn’t create the world, then every mainstream religion is wrong, because they all say he did. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is important because it shows that God is, in fact, an option and he should be treated as such.

So now that God is an option let’s start getting rid of possibilities.

Number 2. The Contingency Argument 

We’re going to get rid of some of the other options by asking another question. Why do things exist?

Well, as we mentioned above, there are two reasons why things exist. Here’s the first reason: Things exist because they were brought into existence by something (they have an external cause). An example of this would be you. You exist because of your parents, they were your cause.

Here’s the second reason: Some things exist because they have to exist (out of the necessity of its own nature). An example of this would be something like numbers. Numbers are not caused they just are. Simply because there will always be something to count; even if nothing existed there would still be 1 nothing. So now that we have some background here is the Contingency Argument.

1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence. Either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is an external, transcendent, personal cause.

3: The universe exists.

4: Therefore, The universe has an explanation of its existence and that is an eternal, transcendent, personal cause.

Like we saw in the last argument the universe had a cause, so the first premise is sound. But why does that cause have to be eternal, transcendent, and personal? Well, if the universe exists because of an external cause, then logically it does not exist because of its own nature. That leaves us with a big question. What is big enough to create the universe? Well, there is nothing within the universe that has that kind of capability, which means that it was created by something outside of the universe. Hence why the cause must be transcendent. The first cause must be eternal because if it wasn’t then it would have needed a cause, and then that would need a cause, and then that would need a cause, and so on forever. The question then becomes: If the causes go back forever, how did we even get here? This was first observed by Aristotle. Who concluded that there must be, what he called, an unmoved mover.

“It is clear then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time, outside the heaven. Hence, whatever is there, is of such a nature as not to occupy any place, nor does time age it; nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outermost motion.”

Aristotle, De Caelo, I.9, 279 a17–30

Latter the, unmoved mover, argument was taken up and expounded on by Aquinas (a Christian philosopher).

Now in order to be fair I need to say that the idea of a personal first cause is still largely debated. Right now there are two different ideas as to what kind of thing caused the universe.

Before we get into what they are, we need to take a break and define two terms. The first is intelligent and the other is non-intelligent. When I describe something as intelligent, what I’m saying is that it has the ability to make its own choices (like a human). When I say something is non-intelligent, I’m saying that it has been programmed to do whatever it does (like a tree).

Okay, so now that were on the same page, I’m going to present both points of view. In the next article, I will explain why the first cause must be personal. But first here are the two ideas we’ll be looking at.

1. The first cause is a non-physical, eternal, transcendent, intelligent, personal, being.

2. The first cause is a non-physical, non-intelligent, eternal, transcendent, natural process

Now the second one can be broken up into two kinds of natural processes.

A. a non-physical, non-intelligent, eternal, transcendent, natural process. Specifically tuned to create physical life.

B. a non-physical, non-intelligent, eternal, transcendent, natural process. Specifically tuned to create lots of random physical things.

I think that this is the heart of the God debate. Often people say that it’s between religion and science. However, I think that as we continue to look at the evidence, we will see that it’s really an argument between two different world views. One that believes there is an intelligent, personal, being, beyond space, and time. And one that believes everything within and without of the universe is a non-intelligent natural process. Naturalism vs. Theism.

Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this article and want to read the next post, then follow above and like below.

12 thoughts on “6 Philosophical Reasons God Exists. (Part 1)

  1. That’s a pretty big leap of faith. Then who created god? You must use the same reasoning to explain, and religion is making some very big claims while leaving out steps 2 and 4. How, if you know so much about it, and why?


    1. Hey jim, how’s it going?
      Whatever caused the universe can not have a cause itself. It must be an “unmoved mover” (or uncaused causer). That’s generally exsepted in all communitys. So by definishion whatever started the universe didn’t need someone to create it.
      Were saying that the best exsplainashion as to what that is, is God.
      What do you mean “leaving out steps 2 and 4”?


      1. 1. God created the universe
        2. How—still waiting
        3. We have this earth and materials
        4. Why would “god” do such a thing or need such a thing? He already has everything he could ever want, need, desire, own. Why would he need to create subjects to worship him?
        Making scientific claims from “generally accepted” schools of religious thought is really the best answer? Who could possibly disagree with that? That is an expected answer from a group that has no answer.


      2. Taking a scientific THEORY, and religionizing it? That is grasping at straws. Do you also accept the scientific explanation for when life begins regarding abortion?


      3. Lol lets take one topic at a time.

        I used the word generaly. Because Most of scholarship (this includes athiast) belive that whatever caused the universe has always exsisted. And so didn’t have a beginning. There are some who disagree with that but that is the general consensus.
        I’m interest, What do you think started the universe?


      4. The universe is a brute fact. Can anyone prove it has not always existed in some form? Matter/energy (interchangeable) cannot be destroyed or created. We cannot see beyond the time it supposedly came into existence. Those are guesses.
        The light hitting the Hubble from the deep field exposures was emitted 10billion light years ago. I hardly think YWHY and Jesus could wait 13 billion + years sitting in their throne high in the heavens just to put man on the earth 6000 years ago. Nice little story, but actual answers to these question are forming as we speak.


      5. Ok, So you belive that the universe is eternal.
        Have you done any resurch on the problems with that? Or have you only looked at the evidence from Hubble?


      6. I’ve followed the major ideas for quite some time and the changes over the years. I don’t really depend on the expert opinions any more. I tend to look at data. Your approach to change criteria to appease an answer doesn’t fly. Who is to say that god is the first cause not caused upon himself (if there actually were an abrahamic god at all) why him and not somebody nice?


  2. That is a question I’m hopping to get to in a few weeks.
    Just to be clear, I did not “changed any criteria” This article was about the two leading ideas in scholarship. Naturalism and Theism.
    Next week I’m going to talk about why I think theism is the better of the two ideas.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s