Arguing for the Existence of God (Does/Did It Help?)
God the Father
I have been one of those who finds little use for the traditional arguments for the existence of God.
First, there are several that I simply cannot seem to understand like the ontological argument. I kind of understand what is being argued but I don’t understand how it “works” (which may be why so many atheist find these arguments easy to reject). Second, I am not much of an apologist. I can give reasons for why I believe but I don’t necessarily expect others to find those reasons personally convincing (e.g. I was healed from asthma as a child which some find amazing and others easily dismiss as being better explained this way or that).
I will say though that one “argument” really stayed with me when I went through the anti-god stage of my adolescence (I claimed to be a “deist”): the anthropic argument (I think that is the “official name”). It is similar to the teleological argument that says anything this complex must have had a designer. It is the argument that our existence is so fragile and so improbable that it must be that it was in such a place that life could exist. You may have heard it said that if the earth was only so many degree toward or away from the sun we would either be fried or freeze to death. Another is the mathematical odds of our existence and survival is so precise that a slip to the right or to the left would have us destroyed now or we would have been destroyed at some time in the past.
Another argument for God that I couldn’t shake is morality/moral law (e.g. this lecture by Ravi Zacharias). I know some like Sam Harris have argued that evolution explains morality. My only problem with that is my brain has evolved to the place where my chemical functioning that I call “thoughts” hasn’t allowed me to think Harris makes a lick of sense. Whether or not I am delusional I cannot make sense or good and evil without God.
What I am not postulating here is that any of these arguments are great or even good. Nor am I arguing for those that I found personally convincing. What I would like to hear is how many people out there found arguments for the existence of God that either brought them toward (or to) the Christian faith or preserved them from leaving it at some point. An argument doesn’t need to be irrefutable to be convincing. So how about you? Did arguments for God help you along the way?
Of course ontology has to do with “being”, and here is the very profound subject of Phenomenology (see the great Edmund Husserl). This thinking goes back to the great Western Philosophy & Philosophers.
I have read the testimonies of countless individuals who testify to becoming Christians because of the arguments for God. This would include famous Christians such as C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, Greg Koukl, etc. Apologetics has become my main enterprise over the last 7 years or so. While the arguments were not responsible for bringing me to Christ, they have strengthened my faith by leaps and bounds.
I don’t think the value of apologetics should be guaged by how many people convert, however. If that is our guage, they are an abismal failure. But on this criteria, so is the Gospel since most people who hear it don’t convert. The problem is not with the message, but with the listener. As Paul said, the primary problem of man is not knowledge, but moral rebellion.
What apologetics do for some people is clear away the arguments they have been spoon-fed that served as defeaters to their belief in God. Apologetics helps them to see that belief in God fits the facts of reality, allowing them to believe without experiencing cognitive dissonance or having to give up their intellectual integrity. But even if no one ever converted from the arguments, we are still told to be ready to give an answer. Those who listen to us will be judged for how they resopnd, but we are accountable to provide them with the reasons we believe what we do.
I’ve found William Lane Craig’s arguments especially in his debates to be very convincing especially in more recent times of doubts or questions.
Specific arguments that I’ve found helpful (no necessarily from WLC):
1.) The why is there anything rather than nothing argument
2.) Arguments from near death experience (this not so much for existence of God but for the existence of something like a spiritual reality instead of just matter)
3.) spiritual experiences, whether they be mystical experiences, demonic encounters, or supernatural healings or miracles.
4.) the appreciation/love of beauty
5.) Complexity of life and the universe
Those are off the top of my head. Yes apologetic arguments have helped me along the way.
Brian,
While I alluded to this in commenting about how apologetic arguments have affected me personally, I wish to make it more explicit that I think apologetic arguments benefit believers more than unbelievers (I’ve heard William Lane Craig say the same). Believers who are actively involved in the public square and the academy are often beseiged by critical arguments against their faith. While they might remain believers nonetheless, they often suffer from persistent doubts due to their own intellectual integrity. They know Christianity is true because of what they have experienced, but they are mentally torn because the arguments from the other side seem to be so powerful and cogent. Apologetics helps these people find relief from their doubts, makes them stronger in the faith, and it also allows them to translate the next “intellectual attack” on their faith into an evangelistic opportunity.
It does seem that arguments that support the rationality of God’s existence are better for those with “faith seeking understanding” than disbelief seeking faith. Of course, as Jason noted, there are some who come to Christ through these arguments.
Yes, agree with Jason.. nothing like sound logic and argumentation, but I myself favor presuppositional arguments toward those that tend toward unbelief. For them, the evidential arguments never seen to be enough?
*seem
I’ve used evidential, answered all of this guys questions, and he became a believer (still is, walking with the Lord
). Then, I talked to a guy at work, over a series of months (yrs), for hours. He had intellectual objections. I was able to answer those and spring them back on him. Eventually, one time, he said: “Okay, what if I believe that everything you’re saying is true, but I don’t want to believe; what then?” I said exactly, that’s the problem isn’t; you love yourself more than God. I told him this is always the issue according to scripture (we love the darkness rather than the light).
I would say in general, that apologetic arguements are better for the believer than the non-believer. Although, again, they can be helpful for the unbeliever too (I’m thinking of my first scenario above).
The seeker is always reader/thinker friendly. And we would be surprised how many are sometimes seeking. Note, sometimes. I like Pascal’s approach, the wager challenge can be a powerful tool! i.e. See if God is real? (Not the mere Pascal’s wager itself however) I hope I am making this clear? This can be both evidential & a presupp. Here is where the Church itself (the visible) can be a real Christian witness! We dare not forget the true mystical-spiritual or existential, here by grace regeneration can be born, and then faith! The Word is still Incarnate!
Arguments for the existence of God didn’t play any role in my coming to Christ (or the one time I really considered leaving). I didn’t even know about them until after I believed and when I first heard them I was really impressed by them. Then after thinking about them good and hard I saw that at best they logically accounted for the existence of a god but not necessarily the triune God of Scripture. That’s pretty much why I’ve come to appreciate presuppositional apologetics so much in the past couple of years. It starts with the Christian God and goes from there.
I tend to like presuppositional apologetics better as well. I can’t pretend like I don’t start with the assumption of the Triune God. But at a point in my life one thing that tied me to theism was the aforementioned arguments.
As a survivor of the hostile humanistic, relativistic, materialist academic environment, I personally have found great benefit to rational arguments for God’s existence. When you are in such an intellectual environment, it is easy to fear what you otherwise know to be true (i.e. your faith) has no rational basis. Arguments for God’s existence provide the the “hey, wait a minute!” impetus at that level and even the playing field.
Thanks for the post