50 Key Concepts in Theology

Proofs for the Existence of God
Arguments that attempt to demonstrate beyond question that God exists.
One of the main preoccupations of theology has been whether it is
possible to prove the existence of God. These proofs have fallen into two
broad categories: analytical proofs modelled on mathematics, and empirical
proofs that argue that God can be deduced from our experience.
The most famous analytical proof was the ‘ontological argument’ first
devised by St Anselm and subsequently revised by Descartes, Leibniz and, in
our own age, Charles Hartshorne and Alvin Plantigna. In a nutshell, the
ontological argument states that it is contradictory to think that a perfect being
would not exist. This is because a non-existent perfect being would be
imperfect, and therefore absurd. Thus a perfect being exists necessarily by
virtue of its perfection.
The classic version of the argument runs in three stages, like this: (1)
God, by definition, must possess all the perfect attributes. (2) Existence is
more perfect than non-existence. (3) Therefore God must possess the attribute
of existence. It was this version of the argument that Immanuel Kant
demolished so spectacularly in his Critique of Pure Reason. He said that
‘existence is not a predicate’ that can be added to the concept of a thing. In
other words, existence is not an ‘attribute’ that God can possess alongside his
omnipotence, omniscience and so on. So when we say ‘God is’, we are not
adding anything real to our understanding of him.
Although Kant’s critique left the ontological proof in ruins for two
centuries, there was a revival of interest in the argument in the twentieth
century. Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000) argued that we only need to exclude
God’s impossibility or meaninglessness in order to establish his reality. God’s
impossibility can be excluded because the idea of God must include his
existence. (The idea of a non-existent God, says Hartsthorne, is not an idea of
God.) It is not necessary to think the idea of God, but if we do, we necessarily
assume God’s reality.
The best-known empirical argument for God is the so-called ‘argument
from design’. If we look around at the world, with all its complex organisms
and physical structures, it exhibits qualities of design: order, regularity and
purpose. These features point to the existence of a designer/God.
David Hume attacked the design argument (The Dialogues Concerning
Natural Religion), saying that we cannot use an analogy from human
experience of design and apply it to God. In one of his many witty arguments

---

against the design theory, Hume offers a reductio ad absurdam, saying that the
world has qualities of vegetative propagation, rather than mechanical design.
This would point towards the existence of a vegetable God spawning a
vegetable cosmos.
The debate about the design argument runs and runs. Although Darwin’s
evolutionary theory seemed to put paid to the idea that complex biological
structures must have been designed by God, the development of the
‘anthropic principle’ in cosmology has (in some people’s minds, at least)
given the design argument new scientific credibility.
The argument from design is enjoying a controversial revival in right-
wing Christian circles, where it is argued that the universe exhibits ‘intelligent
design’. This idea has been rubbished by neo-Darwinists like Richard
Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. The debate goes on.
The problem with ‘proofs’ for God’s existence is that they tend to be
religiously unsatisfying and reduce the issue of God to a logical puzzle. It
may also be argued that proof of God’s existence diminishes faith, as Douglas
Adams put it in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: ‘“I refuse to prove that
I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”’
THINKERS
Thomas Aquinas (1224–74) offered ‘five ways’ to prove God’s existence,
including arguments from design and first cause (see ‘The cosmological
argument’ below).
Søren Kierkegaard (1813–55) argued that the existence of God cannot be
proven by reason. Instead, one should have faith in God even if this belief
seems to be absurd.
Charles Darwin (1809–82) invented the theory of evolution, which said
that nature had not been created but had evolved from primitive biological
forms.
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that the analytical proofs for God’s
existence all collapse into the ontological argument, which he ‘disproved’ (see
above). He was less critical of the design argument, but did not think that the
establishment of ‘a designer’ was sufficient to prove the existence of God.
William Paley (1743–1805) devised the watchmaker argument (see
below) in his Natural Theology (1802).
IDEAS

---

The anthropic principle states that the physical conditions of the universe
are precisely those required for carbon-based life to flourish. This points to
the improbability of human life merely being a coincidence.
The cosmological argument, first advanced by Aristotle, said that God
must be ‘the first cause’ of all the events and entities in the universe.
Pascal’s wager: Blaise Pascal’s argument that belief in God is rational
because the risks of not believing in God (possible damnation) outweigh the
risks of believing in him.
The teleological argument: another term for the design argument.
The watchmaker argument: a version of the design argument, which
reasoned that if you found a watch lying on a beach, you would assume the
existence of a watchmaker.
BOOKS
John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
(Oxford University Press, 1986)
Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God (Oxford University Press,
1979)

---