# Any other arguments for the existence of God?



## John Bunyan (Feb 12, 2012)

I'm familiar with the following arguments: ontological based on modal logic, teleological argument, cosmological argument from contingency, kalam cosmological argument, moral argument (based upon
moral values and duties, not the other one) and the argument from religious experience.

Are there any other arguments that I should read about? Also, is the Blackwell Companion for Natural Theology worth it if you are not a professional philosopher? I saw some pages of it and I think I can understand most of what it's written in it(except for those mathematical and/or more refined thoughts).


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 12, 2012)

Hi:

You missed the Transcendental Argument.

One cannot conceive of anything without presupposing God.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 12, 2012)

Christological argument
Christological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Transcendental
Transcendental argument for the existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## steadfast7 (Feb 12, 2012)

Though controversial, it's not impossible for someone to make an argument from direct personal encounter with God.


----------



## John Bunyan (Feb 12, 2012)

Thanks all. I'd still like to see the contribution of other's, so, everyone, feel free to keep answering the first question.

Also, the moral argument is a kind of transcendental argument, isn't it?




> Though controversial, it's not impossible for someone to make an argument from direct personal encounter with God.


What do you mean? Personal experience of God or something more like a theophany/revelation/prophet-like-activity?


----------



## steadfast7 (Feb 12, 2012)

John Bunyan said:


> What do you mean? Personal experience of God or something more like a theophany/revelation/prophet-like-activity?


 the argument from personal religious experience remains subjective, but a direct encounter with the living God is objective, if one believes that he could (or does) still reveal himself that way. What are your thoughts?


----------



## Unoriginalname (Feb 12, 2012)

John Bunyan said:


> Also, the moral argument is a kind of transcendental argument, isn't it?


If you choose to frame it that way, if you are looking for how you can know what is ethical, you are asking more about epistemology then ethics anyway.


----------



## John Bunyan (Feb 12, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> John Bunyan said:
> 
> 
> > What do you mean? Personal experience of God or something more like a theophany/revelation/prophet-like-activity?
> ...



I don't think claiming a direct encounter with God would advance theism - because, at least in my case, it isn't true. Your argument would go like an argument from miracles, them? Can you write the argument down, so that I may understand it better? I think your argument would be like the one from miracles/religious experience in some way (claiming that so many persons around the world have religious experiences/witness miracles that they're probably true), am I wrong? Is the argument claiming that I had a direct encounter with God? Please write the argument down.



Unoriginalname said:


> John Bunyan said:
> 
> 
> > Also, the moral argument is a kind of transcendental argument, isn't it?
> ...


I was thinking about the moral argument as exposed by William Lane Craig in his debates: if objective morality exists, than it can only be grounded on God.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 12, 2012)

*John*


> Also, the moral argument is a kind of transcendental argument, isn't it?



I've heard transcendental arguments for the existence of God made from the uniformity of nature, the laws of logic or morality.

Transcendental arguments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Transcendental Arguments

tran·scen·den·tal

1. Philosophy
a. Concerned with the a priori or intuitive basis of knowledge as independent of experience.


----------



## steadfast7 (Feb 12, 2012)

John Bunyan said:


> I don't think claiming a direct encounter with God would advance theism - because, at least in my case, it isn't true. Your argument would go like an argument from miracles, them? Can you write the argument down, so that I may understand it better? I think your argument would be like the one from miracles/religious experience in some way (claiming that so many persons around the world have religious experiences/witness miracles that they're probably true), am I wrong? Is the argument claiming that I had a direct encounter with God? Please write the argument down.



I think the search for arguments to establish the existence of God begins with a false assumption that rational argument is primary or sufficient to do so. But this is rarely ever the case with real human experience. Direct encounters with God which produce faith are in the form of a testimony: "I encountered the living God in time and space; here are the evidences." By and large, enduring and vibrant belief in God, which is the only real kind, is of this nature. In fact, all who are regenerate are met by God by means of direct encounter. 

Perhaps I could propose an "argument from regeneration" (?):
God encounters the regenerate
I am regenerate
God has encountered me


----------



## John Bunyan (Feb 12, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> John Bunyan said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think claiming a direct encounter with God would advance theism - because, at least in my case, it isn't true. Your argument would go like an argument from miracles, them? Can you write the argument down, so that I may understand it better? I think your argument would be like the one from miracles/religious experience in some way (claiming that so many persons around the world have religious experiences/witness miracles that they're probably true), am I wrong? Is the argument claiming that I had a direct encounter with God? Please write the argument down.
> ...



I understand your way of thinking, and I agree. How would your argument from regenaration look like?
Anything like: X kind of deep change in human beings can be explained only by God; regeneration is a X kind of deep change; I am regenarate; God exists?


----------



## Hilasmos (Feb 13, 2012)

Probably overlapping with elements of other arguments, but I like the flavor of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). He writes fairly extensively about it, but it has motivated this line of reasoning for me...

1. Naturalistic evolution is responsible for our cognitive faculties
2. Our cognitve faculties produce our beliefs 
3. [Therefore] Our beliefs are produced by naturalistic evolution
4. Naturalistic evolution is concerned with beliefs as they relate to survival not truth
5. [Therefore] We have no reason to affirm that any belief is true beyond its function in survial
6. Premise 5 is a truth affirmation
7. [Therefore] Naturalistic epistemology results in an undefeated defeater

Or something like that


----------



## John Bunyan (Feb 13, 2012)

Hilasmos said:


> Probably overlapping with elements of other arguments, but I like the flavor of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). He writes fairly extensively about it, but it has motivated this line of reasoning for me...
> 
> 1. Naturalistic evolution is responsible for our cognitive faculties
> 2. Our cognitve faculties produce our beliefs
> ...



Is premiss 6 necessary to the argument? That's probably ignorance on my part, but isn't (6) useless to the argument?


----------



## Hilasmos (Feb 13, 2012)

I am not overly fluent in all the "defeater" terminology that Plantinga uses, but I think premise 6 (or something related to it) just emphasizes the end result. By affirming naturalism you are affirming what defeats naturalism at the exact same time.

---------- Post added at 07:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 PM ----------

Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (1 of 6): by Alvin Plantinga - YouTube


----------



## Bald_Brother (Mar 7, 2012)

An Argument for God from Logic. This is a metaphysical argument, kind of along the lines of an Argument from Morality. I saw this the first time about a month ago. At first glance it is a sound argument, though I have a couple problems with it. The primary issue I have is, as the argument comes near the close, one of the propositions reads: 

"*If the laws of logic are necessarily existent thoughts, they can only be the thoughts of a necessarily existent mind*."

When I read that, I read:

"_If the laws are logic are *non-contingent* thoughts, then they are *contingent* on a *non-contingent* mind._"

It appears that argument falls to self-contradiction at first, though I think it is answerable. Apparently, Poythress is developing the same or similar argument in a book due in early '13. Hopefully it is better explained. I can think of a couple ways that the argument might work (for example, each are non-contingent in their "plane of existence" for lack of a better phrase), but I would rather it be worked out by someone smarter on the subject than I am.


----------



## John Bunyan (Mar 8, 2012)

Bald_Brother said:


> An Argument for God from Logic. This is a metaphysical argument, kind of along the lines of an Argument from Morality. I saw this the first time about a month ago. At first glance it is a sound argument, though I have a couple problems with it. The primary issue I have is, as the argument comes near the close, one of the propositions reads:
> 
> "*If the laws of logic are necessarily existent thoughts, they can only be the thoughts of a necessarily existent mind*."
> 
> ...



I have not yet read the article, but I believe that if the existence of something is contingent on the existence of a necessary being, than this 'something' is not really necessary. However, if the existence of this something is necessary (like he thinks is the case with logic), and this something is necessarily contingent on the action of a free being, than this being must be necessary.

Whate he seems to be trying to say is: 
I- Logic is, necessarily, the product of the thoughts of setient agents.
II- Logic's non-existence is impossible.
III- Logic exists
IV- The thinker whose thoughts originate logic must be, then, a being whose non-existence is impossible.
V- A being whom posses the property of aseity exists, and is eternal (because every moment in time is subject to the laws of logic).


----------

