“Proofs” of the existence of God

Someone recently handed me the following pamphlet that “scientifically proved the existence of God”:

Obviously there are a lot of problems with it:

• There is no reason that physics mandates that the universe cannot have existed for infinite time so it is not necessary that there was some initial creator.

• It argues that the Christian God, unlike some other Gods, is sufficient for being capable of being that which began the universe, but nowhere does it explain why that God is necessary. Why can’t Allah, for example, be the original entity?

• Then the reasoning becomes circular when the author veers from “physics” by citing facts about entities from the bible from within the bible…

• Finally, “ELITES ARE SUPRESSING THIS KNOWLEDGE” is a very manipulative way to get people to accept your arguments.

I think there are other more interesting so-called proofs of God’s existence. I’m not here to deny that God exists, just to point out flaws in certain interesting lines of reasoning.

We have the Ontological Argument, which argues:

axiom 1) God has every positive property to the greatest degree

axiom 2) God exists as an idea in the mind

axiom 3) existence in reality is greater than existence only in the mind

proposition 4) If God can possess existence in the mind (a positive property), it would be greater if it also possessed existence in reality

proposition 5) Since axiom 1, God must exist in reality

I think the problem with this argument is that is takes “existence” to be a property rather than something more fundamental like a precondition to having properties. Taking the argument at face value, can’t we prove that the perfect anything exists: a perfect mouse has every positive property to the greatest degree… the perfect mouse must exist??

We have the Aquinas Ways:

1) all objects are either moving or stationary

2) all objects that are moving are being moved by another moving object

3) this regresses as every moving object is moved by a moving object is moved by a moving object, etc.

4) we cannot have an infinite regression

5) so something must be the first mover that itself is not moving

6) this everyone understands to be God

This argument smuggles in the axioms that both we cannot have infinite regression in time (debatable) and that the original mover must be God (why can’t it be another entity?)

We have the Teleological Proof:

The Universe contains so much complexity and impressive organization to allow for life to develop. There must be a higher cause that designed the world for us.

Imagine a puddle that proclaims “the shape of the ground fits me so perfectly that it must have been designed by a higher power.” Obviously the puddle is what fits the ground, not the ground that fits the puddle (Douglas Adams). In a similar way, the universe may not be precisely engineered for complex intelligent life to occupy it, but the other way around.