An essay discussing the arguments for and against the existence of God.

Introduction.

Regardless of one's religious views, beliefs or preferences, none can deny the knowledge that there
are those that believe in God. A few of them know of his qualities; both inherent and attributed.
Even fewer know of the arguments that either support or disprove his existence. With the aim of
providing examples of both within this essay, I hope to show how the Ontological, Teleological and
Problem of Evil Arguments either prove or disprove the existence of a God; be it the theological
deity of the Bible, or another being, of unimaginable power.

The Ontological Argument.

An ontological argument for the existence of God attempts the method of A Priori evidence, which
uses intuition and reason alone, omitting the need for empirical, or tangible, proof. There have been
many versions of the argument proposed, with some very prominent proponents within
philosophical circles, such as Anselm, Descartes, Leibniz and Plantinga.
The differences among the argument's principal versions arise mainly from using different concepts
of God as the starting point. Anselm, for example, starts with the notion of God as a being than
which no greater can be conceived, while Descartes starts with the notion of God as being totally
perfect, and Leibniz with something having all "perfections".
The argument examines the concept of God , and states that if we can conceive of the greatest
possible being, then it must exist. The argument is often criticized as committing a bare assertion
fallacy, as it offers no supportive premise other than qualities inherent to the unproven statement.
This is also called a circular argument, because the premise relies on the conclusion, which in turn
relies on the premise.
The argument can loosely be defined as concerning a deity whose perfection is inherent within his
qualities, and with examples of his qualities, or rather the consequences of these qualities, we can
infer the creation of our universe – and all it's inhabitants – are the product of a “creator”; in this
case, God.
In order to attempt to disprove the existence of (a) God, one would have to take each quality or trait,
and then examine how it would either contradict one or more of the other traits, how it's presence is
lacking within our world, or it's physical and abstract impossibility.
– Anselm's argument.
Anselm was the first person to propose an Ontological argument, in the second chapter of his
works, the Proslogion; written in the 11th Century. Whilst not necessarily proposing an ontological
system, he was very much concerned with the nature of being, and therefore the intrinsic qualities
of such a stance. In his writings he made a tangible definition between necessary beings and
contingent beings; the former being those things that must exist, the latter those things that may
exist, but whose existence isn't necessary.
“1. If I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable, then I can think of no being greater
1a. If it is false that I can think of no being greater, it is false I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable
2. Being is greater than not being
3. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I can think of no being greater.
4. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable

Conclusion: If I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable, then I am thinking of a being that exists”
The above quote is a modern-day representation of the basic concept behind Anselm's argument,
and is the progenitor of the generic circular argument within theological philosophy.
 – Descartes' argument.
René Descartes is – arguably – one of the most famous names within philosophy, and as result of
the times in which he lived, one of the most influential minds in theological philosophy.
Whilst, in many ways, they share many of the same concepts, Cartesian Ontological arguments
differ from the Anselm formulation in several rather important ways.
“But if the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something that entails everything which I
clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for
another argument to prove the existence of God? Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one
that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number. And my understanding that it belongs to
his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number
that some property belongs to its nature.” Descartes, Meditation V

The intuition above, as derived from Meditation V, can be formally described as follows:

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of
that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists
In Meditations VIII-X, Descartes proposes an Ontological Argument nigh on identical to Anselm's,
employing the same reductionist method; the perfection of God logically requires existence.
– The Problem of Evil.
The Problem of Evil is the question – in the philosophy of religion and theology – of whether evil
exists and, if so, why. It also follows the assumption that if it does, it can be further categorised
beyond being evil, by distinguishing it into two types; moral and natural evil (originally separated
by Augustine of Hippo in the 4th Century AD).
This argument focuses explicitly on God's attributes, rather than Him, and the perfection inherent
within the concept of Him. Within the concept of the classical God of theism, there are four main
attributes; Omniscience, Omnibenevolence, Omnipresence and Omnipotence. Before examining
these four traits, it is best to refer to the “skeleton” of the argument, attributed to Epicurus, which
follows the logically valid form modus tollens;
“1. If a perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.

2. There is evil in the world.

3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.”

Using this, rather basic, argument, we can extrapolate this theory further, expanding on certain
points as we do so;
“1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to
prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil
from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).”
Versions such as these are referred to as the logical problem of evil. They attempt to show that the
assumed propositions lead to a logical contradiction and cannot therefore all be correct. Most
philosophical debate has focused on the propositions stating that God cannot exist with, or would
want to prevent, all evils. A common response is that God can exist with and allow evil in order to
achieve a greater good.
– – The Free Will Counter.
The free will argument is as follows: God's creation of persons with morally significant free will is
something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate evil and suffering without thereby
eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will and who can make moral
choices. Christian apologist Gregory A. Boyd claims that God's all-powerful nature does not mean
that God exercises all power, and instead allows free agents to act against his own wishes. He
argues that since love must be chosen, love cannot exist without true free will.
Gregory Boyd also maintains that God does not plan or will evil in people's lives, but that evil is a
result of a combination of free choices and the interconnectedness and complexity of life in a sinful
and fallen world.
– – The Argument of Limited Knowledge.
One argument is that, due to mankind's limited knowledge, humans cannot expect to understand
God or God's ultimate plan. When a parent takes an infant to the doctor for a regular vaccination to
prevent some childhood disease, it's because the parent cares for and loves that child. The young
child however will almost always see things very differently. It is argued that just as an infant
cannot possibly understand the motives of its parent while it is still only a child, people cannot
comprehend God's will in their current physical and earthly state.
Another suggestion is that, the Problem of Evil argument is logically flawed because it silently
assumes that people really can comprehend what God should do. In other words, for the Problem of
Evil to be valid, it must be proven that there can be no god which cannot be so comprehended.
– – Other arguments.
The fifth century theologian Augustine of Hippo maintained that evil was only privatio boni, or an
absence of good, much like darkness is an absence of light. An evil thing can only be referred to as
a negative form of a good thing, such as discord, injustice, and loss of life or of liberty. It is argued
that evil is not created by God, but that God created mankind who has the choice to commit evil
acts.

Concepts such as yin and yang argue that evil and good are complementary opposites within a
greater whole. If one disappears, the other must disappear as well, leaving emptiness. Compassion,
a valuable virtue, can only exist if there is suffering. Bravery only exists if we sometimes face
danger. Self-sacrifice is another great good, but can only exist if there is inter-dependence, if some
people find themselves in situations where they need help from others.

Another response to this paradox argues that asserting "evil exists" would imply an ethical standard
against which to define good and evil.

– – The Church's Response(s) to The Problem of Evil.

Augustinian theodicy focuses on the genesis story that essentially dictates that God created the
world and that it was good; evil is merely a consequence of the fall of man (The story of the Garden
of Eden where Adam and Eve disobeyed God and caused inherent sin for man). Augustine stated
that natural evil (evil present in the natural world such as natural disasters et cetera) is caused by
fallen angels, whereas moral evil (evil caused by the will of human beings) is as a result of man
having become estranged from God and choosing to deviate from his chosen path. Augustine
argued that God could not have created evil in the world, as it was created good, and that all notions
of evil are simply a deviation or privation of goodness. Evil cannot be a separate and unique
substance. For example, Blindness is not a separate entity, but is merely a lack or privation of sight.
Thus the Augustinian theodicist would argue that the problem of evil and suffering is void because
God did not create evil; it was man who chose to deviate from the path of perfect goodness.
This, however, poses a number of questions involving genetics: if evil is merely a consequence of
our choosing to deviate from God's desired goodness, then genetic disposition of 'evil' must surely
be in God's plan and desire and thus cannot be blamed on Man. Similarly, the idea of inherent sin
because our forebearers committed some sin seems incompatible with the teachings in the bible.
The Old Testament states "should the children's teeth be set on edge because their fathers ate sour
grapes?" It is not, however, because the Fall led all men to have what is known as concupiscence, or
the natural inclination to sin. This is removed at Baptism, so the children have a way to be
redeemed for their "father's eating sour grapes."
Irenaean theodicy was first created by Irenaeus but has been reformulated into its current state by
John Hick. It holds that one cannot achieve moral goodness or love for God if there is no evil and
suffering in the world. Evil is soul-making and leads one to be truly moral and close to God. God
created an epistemic distance (such that God is not immediately knowable) so that we may strive to
know him and by doing so become truly good. Evil is good for 3 main reasons:
1. Means of knowledge Hunger leads to pain, and causes a desire to feed. Knowledge of pain
prompts humans to seek to help others in pain.
2. Character Building Evil offers the opportunity to grow morally. “We would never learn the
art of goodness in a world designed as a hedonistic paradise” (Richard Swinburne)
3. Predictable Environment The world runs to a series of natural laws. These are independent
of any inhabitants of the universe. Natural Evil only occurs when these natural laws conflict
with our own perceived needs. This is not immoral in any way.
The Teleological Argument.
A teleological argument, or argument from design, is an argument for the existence of God or a
creator based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design, or direction — or some combination
of these — in nature. The word "teleological" is derived from the Greek word telos, meaning "end"
or "purpose". Teleology is the supposition that there is purpose or directive principle in the works
and processes of nature. Immanuel Kant called this argument the Physico–theological proof. This
argument is the counter-part of the Ontological Argument, in so much as it is the A Posteriori form
of the argument concerning God's existence, whilst the Ontological Argument is the A Priori form.
As such, this argument became very popular with philosophers such as Locke, Berkeley and Hume;
all Empiricists.

Although there are variations, the basic argument can be stated as follows:
1. Nature exhibits complexity, order, adaptation, purpose and/or beauty.
2. The exhibited feature(s) cannot be explained by random or accidental processes, but only as
a product of mind.
3. Therefore, there exists a mind that has produced or is producing nature.
4. A mind that produces nature is a definition of "God."
5. Therefore, God exists.
Other forms of the argument assert that a certain category of complexity necessitates a designer,
such as the following...
1. All things that are designed were preconceived, intended, purposed or contrived.
2. Preconception, intention, purpose, and contrivance necessitate an intellect, mind or will.
3. All things that are irreducibly complex display intention and preconception.
 4. The universe contains non-man made things that are irreducibly complex.
5. Those things display intention and preconception.
6. Those things necessitate an intellect, mind or will.
In the first argument, nature can be exemplified by the universe as a whole, its physical constants or
laws, the evolutionary process, humankind, a particular animal species or organ like the eye, or a
capability like language in humans. Sometimes the argument is specifically based on the fact that
physical constants are fine-tuned to allow life as we know it to evolve.
While most of the classic forms of this argument are linked to monotheism, some versions of the
argument may substitute for God a lesser demiurge, multiple gods and/or goddesses, or perhaps
extraterrestrials as cause for natural phenomena, although reapplication of the argument would still
lead to an ultimate cause.
– – The British Empiricists.
The 17th Century Dutch writers Lessius and Grotius argued that the intricate structure of the world,
like that of a house, was unlikely to have arisen by chance. Their arguments proved popular in
England. The empiricist philosopher John Locke, writing in the late 17th century, revived the
Aristotelian view the only knowledge humans can have is a posteriori (i.e., based upon sense
experience) and that there is no a priori knowledge whatsoever. In the early 18th century, the
Anglican Irish Bishop George Berkeley came to believe that Locke's view opened a door that led to
atheism. In response to Locke, he advanced a form of "radical empiricism" (not to be confused with
William James' use of the words "radical empiricism", mentioned below) in which things only exist
as a result of their being perceived (and God fills in for humans by doing the perceiving whenever
humans are not around to do it). In his Alciphron, Berkeley gave a teleological argument in which
the order of nature is the language or handwriting of God.
David Hume in the mid-18th century, presented arguments both for and against the teleological
argument in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. The character Cleanthes, summarizing the
teleological argument, likens the universe to a man-made machine, and concludes by the principle
of similar effects and similar causes that it must have a designing intelligence. Philo is not satisfied
with the teleological argument, however. He attempts a number of refutations, including one that
arguably foreshadows Darwin's theory, and makes the point that if God resembles a human
designer, then assuming divine characteristics such as omnipotence and omniscience is not justified.
He goes on to joke that far from being the perfect creation of a perfect designer, this universe may
be "only the first rude essay of some infant deity... the object of derision to his superiors."
– – Paley's Watch.
The watchmaker analogy, framing the argument with reference to a timepiece, dates back to Cicero,
whose illustration was quoted above. It was also used by, among others, Robert Hooke and Voltaire,
the latter of whom remarked: "L'univers m'embarrasse, et je ne puis songer Que cette horloge
existe, et n'ait point d'horloger (The universe embarrasses me; I cannot think that the watch exists,
but does not have a watchmaker)". Today the argument is usually associated with theologian
William Paley, who presented it in his Natural Theology (1802). As a theology student, Charles
Darwin found Paley's arguments compelling; he later developed his theory of evolution in his 1859
book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured
Races in the Struggle for Life, which offers an alternate explanation of biological order. In his
autobiography, Darwin wrote that "The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which
formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been
discovered." Even so, Darwin held that nature depended upon "designed laws" and commended Asa
Gray for pointing out that Darwin's work supported teleology.
 – – The Fine-tuning Argument.
A modern variation of the teleological argument is built upon the anthropic principle. The anthropic
principle is derived from the apparent delicate balance of conditions necessary for human life. In
this line of reasoning, speculation about the vast, perhaps infinite, range of possible conditions in
which life could not exist is compared to the speculated improbability of achieving conditions in
which life does exist, and then interpreted as indicating a fine-tuned universe specifically designed
so human life is possible. This view is shared by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler in The
Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986).
John Polkinghorne pointed out in 1985 that just one factor among many in the cosmos, the
difference between expansive and contractive forces in the expanding cosmos according to then-
currently accepted theory, depends upon an extremely fine balance of the total energy involved to
within one in 1060 , a sixty-one digit number equivalent to taking aim from Earth and hitting an
inch-wide target at the farthest reaches of the observable universe. George Wald, also in 1985, wrote
in the same context that the conditions for something as fundamental as the atom depend on a
balance of forces to within one in 1018. Proponents of the fine-tuned universe form of teleological
argument typically argue that taken together, the various fine-tuned balances appear quite
improbable, and hint strongly at something designed rather than accidental.
Many highly regarded scientists, mathematicians, philosophers and a few theologians have weighed
in on both sides in debate. A counter-argument to the anthropic principle is that one could
manipulate statistics to define any number of natural situations that are extremely improbable, but
that have happened nevertheless. By the critics' view a key problem in terms of being able to verify
whether the hypothesized probabilities are correct, is that the improbable conditions were identified
after the event, so they cannot be checked by experiment. And very importantly, there is no ability
to sample a large enough set of alternatives (indeed we know of no other cosmos to sample) in order
to be able to properly attach any odds or probabilities to these natural situations in the cosmos.
Moreover, observations of the cosmos to date indicate that the conditions on Earth are but one of
widely varying conditions on many, many planets in many, many star systems, all 228 of which to
date do not appear to have met the conditions necessary for life. An analogy from common
experience where the odds can be readily calculated is given by John Allen Paulos in Innumeracy:
Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences (1989), that the probability of a very mundane event
such as that of getting any particular hand of thirteen cards in a game of bridge is approximately one
in 600 billion. It would be absurd to examine the hand carefully, calculate the odds, and then assert
that it must not have been randomly dealt. This perspective on the issue of improbability appears to
bolster the position that characteristics of Earth that allow it to sustain life could be just a fortunate
and/or accidental "hit", so to speak.
Another variant makes an argument centring on consciousness. Physicist John Wheeler's assertion
that the universe seems to require an observer reflects on design not as an external phenomenon, but
intrinsic to consciousness. There thus is no search for a criterion of intelligence outside the universe
being imposed on it or capable of revealing whether an intelligence has been injected into it; but
rather, that consciousness recognizes itself as present in all of existence. Alfred Whitehead had
made a similar argument in the early twentieth century. In defence of Whitehead's approach,
Charles Hartshorne has written that the panentheism implicit in this argument evades the logical
difficulties of the arguments from design of traditional theists. He asks how can a universe that is
considered outside of the deity display the design of the being that is outside of? But in Whitehead's
view, echoing that of George Berkeley, our very act of what he calls prehension provides us with
first-hand evidence of the deity.
 – – The Intelligent Design Movement.
In the wake of the "fine-tuned universe" observations and arguments published in the 1980s, the
Intelligent Design Movement picked up some of the above concepts, added some additional ones
such as irreducible complexity (a variant of the watchmaker analogy) and specified complexity
(closely resembling a fine-tuning argument) and attempted to cast the resulting combined form of
the teleological argument as scientific rather than speculative. The vast majority of scientists have
disagreed with the assertion that it is scientific, as have the findings of a federal court in the United
States in a 2005 decision, which ruled that the "intelligent design" arguments are essentially
religious in nature.
Proponents of the Intelligent Design Movement such as Cornelius G. Hunter, have asserted that the
methodological naturalism upon which science is based is religious in nature. They commonly refer
to it as 'scientific materialism' or as 'methodological materialism' and conflate it with 'metaphysical
naturalism'. They use this assertion to support their claim that modern science is atheistic, and
contrast it with their preferred approach of a revived natural philosophy which welcomes
supernatural explanations for natural phenomena and supports theistic science. This ignores the
distinction between science and religion, recognised by both scientists and the clergy, that
developed in the centuries since the scientific revolution, that science is obliged to restrict its
attention to the natural world, not through any atheistic intent, but because developing a more
complete understanding of nature required testing explanations against the natural world. This
viewpoint was encapsulated by Stephen Jay Gould in his concept of Non-overlapping Magisteria
(NOMA),that proposes that science and religion should be considered two compatible,
complementary fields, or "magisteria," whose authority does not overlap.
– – Objections and Counter Arguments.
Complexity does not imply design. The first (and therefore second) premise assumes that one can
infer the existence of intelligent design merely by examining an object. The teleological argument
assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. It is argued that this is non-
sequitur logic. Life or objects are described as "orderly" or "ordered", which implies that an
intelligent designer has ordered them. However, in reality, there are examples of systems that are
non-random or ordered simply because it is following natural physical processes, for example
diamonds or snowflakes.
The design claim is often challenged as an argument from ignorance, since it is often unexplained
or unsupported, or explained by unscientific conjecture. Supporters of design assume that natural
objects and man-made objects have similar properties, therefore both must be designed. However,
different objects can have similar properties for different reasons, such as stars and light bulbs.
Proponents must therefore demonstrate that only design can cause orderly systems or the argument
is invalid.
It is often claimed that a designed organism would contradict evolutionary theory. As most
professional biologists support the theory of biological evolution by means of natural selection, they
reject the first premise, arguing that evolution is not only an alternative explanation for the
complexity of life but a better explanation with more supporting evidence. Living organisms obey
the same physical laws as inanimate objects. A range of chemical reactions could take place,
forming other chemicals with complex properties and ways of interacting. Over very long periods
of time self-replicating structures could arise and later form DNA. This has in fact been
demonstrated artificially via the Avida program, which can construct complex programs without
being given any design (similar programs have had similar results with building machines). Thus
biologists commonly view the design argument as an unimpressive argument for the existence of a
god. Dennis Polis, who accepts evolution as sound science, points out, however, that the physics
underlying evolution is deterministic (since quantum randomness occurs only in observations which
were not possible until recently). Thus, the idea of fundamental randomness, on which the naturalist
interpretation of evolution rests is incompatible with the physics biologists agree to be fundamental.
He also notes that evo-devo confirms a number of falsifiable claims made by Aristotle teleology for
his teleology.
The argument doesn't necessarily prove the existence of God. Another argument states that even if
the argument from design proved the existence of a powerful intelligent designer, it would not prove
that the designer is God. Voltaire observed in his Traité de métaphysique:
“... from this sole argument I cannot conclude anything further than that it is probable that an intelligent
and superior being has skillfully prepared and fashioned the matter. I cannot conclude from that alone that
this being has made matter out of nothing and that he is infinite in every sense.”

David Hume pointed out that the argument does not necessarily lead to the existence of one God. In
his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, the character Philo argued (p. 108), amidst other
counterarguments to the teleological argument, "why may not several deities combine in contriving
and framing the world?"
Contradictory premises lead to infinite regress. Critics such as Richard Dawkins often argue that the
teleological argument would in turn apply to the proposed designer, arguing any designer must be at
least as complex and purposeful as the designed object (in Dawkins' words, "The Ultimate 747", a
reference to Hoyle's analogy to a windstorm sweeping through a junkyard and constructing a 747
Boeing Plane). This, they say, would create the absurdity of an infinite series of designers.
The counter-argument of an "undesigned designer," akin to Aristotle's unmoved mover, is common.
This argument states that since the designer exists outside of the natural laws of the universe, he is
therefore exempt from any laws requiring a design to have a designer. However this does not
explain why the improbable event of the designer's existence does take place. While the designer
might not require a cause, he still requires a reason as to why he exists, since he could just as well
not exist at all.
The assertion of inconsistencies in the “Design” of the universe. Whilst the Universe can at first
seem be purposeful and ordered, it has been asserted that upon closer inspection its true function
becomes questionable. Some scientists such as Richard Dawkins, a high-profile advocate of
atheism, reject the claim that the Universe serves any actual function, claiming that the Universe
merely 'mimics' purpose. For example, predators appear perfectly 'designed' to catch their prey,
whilst their prey seem equally well 'designed' to evade them. Likewise, apparent inconsistencies in
the design of organisms have been brought to attention by critics of the teleological argument. Some
use such arguments to point towards natural selection as a 'blind' biological designer, as opposed to
God.
Proponents of teleology have argued against this objection on various grounds. For example,
William A. Dembski says that such arguments are based upon presumptions about what a designer
would or would not do, and so constitute a "theological rather than scientific claim." "Not knowing
the designer," he continues, they "are in no position to say whether the designer proposed a faulty
compromise among those [design] objectives." (Dembski 2004, pp. 58–9)
Additionally, the claim of an apparent inconsistency between the "design" of predators and prey
ignores the balance of the ecosystem. Dembski counters, "In criticizing design, [critics] tend to
place premium on functionalities of individual organisms and see design as optimal to the degree
that those individual functionalities are maximized. But higher-order designs of entire ecosystems
might require lower-order designs of individual organisms." (Dembski, 2004, p. 61)

Word Count: 5050

Bibliography
AQA - philosophy AS and A2
Ontology – Central Problems in Philosophy by Dale Jacquette
OCR – Philosophy of Religion AS and A2
www.philosophyonline.co.uk – contains further resources on the site.
www.philosophyofreligion.info