Arguments of Natural Theology

Introduction

I have set all of the general arguments of natural theology into concise little syllogisms! To the end I have also attached pragmatic arguments for Christian belief. Saint Paul wrote that “what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” (Romans 1:19-20) As a result, Christian theologians have typically tried to prove the existence of God by arguing from natural phenomena. The tradition of arguing from phenomena evident to the senses or discernible by the intellect for the existence of God is called “Natural Theology.” Here, I give a simple syllogistic form to each of the different sorts of natural theological arguments. Kant categorized the arguments of natural theology this way: 

"The first proof is the physico-theological, the second the cosmological, the third the ontological proof. There are no more, and there can be no more." (Critique of Pure reason 2.3.4.) 

Physico-theological arguments are often called teleological or design arguments, they argue from the appearance of design in the structure of the natural world for a cosmic designer. There is a specific subclass of his arguments, sometimes called nomological  arguments, which seek to show in some manner that the regular nature of the universe is best explained by God, and they argue God somehow grounds physical laws, or actively sustains a sort of uniformity by divine fiat. Cosmological arguments seek to show that the world has a transcendent explanation in a divine “first cause.” Ontological arguments seek to show that the existence of God can be proven by an analysis of divine perfections. 

But Kant’s list is incomplete. Many philosophers and theologians believe in the existence of certain necessary abstract objects such as sets, or numbers. There is a class of arguments which seeks to show that such abstract objects are necessarily grounded by the existence of God which are commonly called Transcendental Arguments or Arguments from Necessary Truths. They have been defended in some form by Maximus the Confessor, Leibniz, and Cornelius Van Til. 

There are also Moral Arguments which endeavored to show that an objective morality  must necessarily be grounded in the existence of God.  Certain moral arguments are more inductive and seek to show that  some features of morality or human moral faculties are best explained by the existence of God. 

Teleological Arguments

The Fine Tuning Argument:

1. The fine-tuning of the initial constants of the universe has an explanation. (Premise)

2. That explanation is either design, chance or necessity. (Premise)

3. The explanation is not chance or necessity. (Premise)

4. Therefore the explanation of the fine-tuning is design. (From 2, 3) 

5. If  the explanation of the fine-tuning is design, then God designed the universe. (Premise)

6. God designed the universe. (From 4, 5) 

7. If God designed the universe, then God exists. (Premise)

8. Therefore, God exists. (Premise)

The Irreducible Complexity Argument:

1. Certain biological structures exhibit irreducible complexity i.e. they cannot have been produced by the mechanisms of evolution by natural selection. (Premise)

2. If irreducible complexity is a real phenomena, then biological life was designed.  (Premise)

3. Biological life was designed. (From 1, 2) 

4. If biological life was designed, then it was designed by God. (Premise)

5. Hence, God designed life. (From 3, 4)

6. If God designed life, then God exists. (Premise)

7. Therefore, God exists. (From 5, 6)

The Nomological Argument:

1. There is an explanation for why the universe is governed by orderly, intelligible, and regular natural laws. (Premise)

2. That explanation is either a personal explanation (PE) or an impersonal explanation (IE). (Premise)

3. The explanation is not an IE. (Premise)

4. Therefore the explanation is a PE. (From 2, 3)

5. If the explanation is a PE, it is theistic. (Premise)

6. Hence the explanation is theistic. (From 4, 5) 

Cosmological Arguments

The Kalam Argument:

1. Everything which has come into existence, has a cause of its existence. (Premise)

2. The world has come into existence. (Premise)

3. Hence, there is a cause of the existence of the world. (From 1, 2)

4. If the world has a cause, that cause is God. (Premise)

5. Therefore, God is the cause of the world. (From 3, 4)

The Contingency Argument:

1. Every being has a sufficient reason for its existence, either in its own necessity or in an external cause. (Premise)

2. Not every being could have an external cause. (Premise)

3. Hence, there is at least one being whose reason for existing is its own necessity. (From 1, 2)

4. A being which exists by reason of its own necessity is what we mean by God. (Premise)

5. Therefore, God exists. (From 3, 4) 

Ontological Arguments

Anselm’s Argument:

1. God is the greatest conceivable being. (Premise)

2. To exist in reality is greater than existing merely in the intellect. (Lemma)

3. God either exists merely in the intellect, or God exists in the intellect and in reality. (Premise)

4. If God exists merely in the intellect, then God would not be the greatest possible being. (Premise)

5. Hence, God does not exist merely in the intellect. (From 1, 4)

6. Therefore, God exists in the intellect and in reality. (From 3, 5)

Plantinga’s Argument:

1. Possibly, a maximally great being, MGB, exists. (Premise)

2. If a MGB possibly exists, then it exists in some possible world. (From 1)

3. Hence, a MGB exists in some possible world. (From 1, 2)

4. If a MGB exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. (Premise)

5. Hence, a MGB exists in every possible world. (From 3, 4)

6. If a MGB exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. (Premise)

7. Therefore, a MGB exists in the actual world. (From 5)

Descartes’ The Trademark Argument from his Third meditation:

1. I have an idea of God, and God is a perfect being. (Premise)

2. If I began to exist, my idea of God began to exist. (Premise)

3. I began to exist. (Premise)

4. Hence, my idea of God began to exist. (From 2, 3)

5. Everything which begins to exist has a cause. (Premise)

6. Hence, there is a cause of my idea of God. (From 4, 5)

7. Every cause must have as much reality as its effect. (Premise)

8. Hence, the cause of my idea of God must have as much reality as my idea of God. (From 6, 7) 

9. My idea of God contains perfection. (From 1)

10. Hence, the cause of my idea of God must contain perfection. (From 7, 9)

11. If a being contains perfection, then that being is God. (From 1)

12. Hence, God is the cause of my idea of God. (From 10, 11)

13. Therefore, God exists. (From 7, 11)

Moral Arguments

Argument from Objective Moral Facts

1. If God did not exist, then objective moral facts would not exist.  (Premise)

2. Objective moral facts do exist.  (Premise)

3. Therefore, God does exist. (From 1, 2)

Argument from Moral Ambiguity

1. If there were not divine revelation about ethics, then there would be no method to discern objective moral facts. (Premise)

2. But we have a method to discern moral facts.  (Premise)

3. Hence, there is divine revelation about ethics. (From 1, 2) 

4. But divine revelation presupposes that God exists.  (Premise)

5. Therefore, God exists. (From 3, 4)

Transcendental Arguments

Bahnsen’s Argument:

1. Objective moral principles, and rational thought exist. (Premise)

2. There is an explanation for why moral principles, and rational thought exist. (Premise)

3. The Christian God is the only possible explanation for the existence of objective morals and rational thought. (Premise)

4. Therefore, the Christian God exists. (From 1-3) 

Cornelius Van Til’s Argument: 

1. Rational thought has certain necessary preconditions, N. (Premise)

2. There is an explanation for N. (Premise)

3. The only possible explanation for N is the Christian God. (Premise)

4. Hence, the Christian God exists. (From 2, 3) 

5. Hence, the very use of rational thought entails the existence of the Christian God. (Premise)

6. If the very use of rational thought entails the existence of the Christian God, then anyone who uses rational thought is presupposing the existence of the Christian God. (Premise)

7. Hence, anyone who uses rational thought is presupposing the existence of the Christian God. (From 5, 6) 

8. An atheist must use rational thought to argue against the existence of the Christian God. (Premise)

9. Therefore, in arguing against the Christian God, the atheist presupposes the existence of the Christian God. (From 7, 8)

Anderson and Welty’s Argument: 

1. The laws of logic, L, are necessary truths about all truths and falsehoods. (Premise)

2. L are intrinsically intentional entities. (Premise)

3. If L are intrinsically intentional entities then they are thoughts. (Premise)

4. L are thoughts. (From 2, 3)

5. Every thought must be grounded by a mind. (Premise)

6. Hence, the L are grounded by a mind. (From 4, 5) 

7. If L are grounded by a mind, then they are grounded by a necessary mind. (Premise)

8. Hence, the L are grounded by a necessary mind. (From 6, 7)

9. God is defined as a necessary mind. (Premise)

10. Therefore, God exists. (From 8, 9) 

Pragmatic Arguments

Pascal’s Wager: 

1. If Christianity is true and you believe, then you gain infinite reward. (Premise)

2. If Christianity is true and you disbelieve, then you incur infinite punishment. (Premise)

3. If Christianity is false and you believe, you lose little or nothing. (Premise)

4. If Christianity is false and you disbelieve, you also lose little or nothing. (Premise)

5. It is rational to choose the action with the greatest expected benefit and least potential loss. (Premise)

6. Belief in Christianity has the greatest expected benefit and least potential loss when compared with disbelief. (From 1-4)

7. Therefore, it is rational to believe in Christianity. (From 5, 6) 

Moral Motivation

1. Christian believers tend to behave more morally than disbelievers. (Premise)

2. Even if something is false, we ought to believe it if it promotes moral behavior.  (Premise)

3. Therefore, we ought to believe in Christianity even if it is false. (From 1, 2) 

Existential Comfort

1. Human beings generally desire a life of hope, meaning, and purpose. (Premise)

2. Belief in God does provide hope, meaning, and purpose. (Premise)

3. If belief in God provides hope, meaning, and purpose, then it contributes significantly to well-being. (Premise)

4. If a belief contributes significantly to well-being, then we ought to adopt it pragmatically. (Premise)

5. Hence, belief in God contributes significantly to well-being. (From 2, 3)

6. Hence, we ought to adopt belief in God pragmatically. (From 4, 5)