The Cosmological argument for the existence of God
The Cosmological argument derives its title from the fact that it is derived from observing the world around us (the cosmos). It begins with what is most obvious in reality: the fact that things exist (as Descartes noted, if you doubt this then you, at least, must be existing in order to doubt!). It is then argued that the cause of those thing's existence had to be a "God-type" thing. These types of arguments go all the way back to Plato and have been used by notable philosophers and theologians ever since. Besides being philosophically evident, science finally caught up with theologians in the 20th century when it was confirmed that the universe had to have a beginning. So today the arguments are even powerful for non-philosophers. There are two basic forms of these arguments and the easiest way to think of them might be what are called the "vertical" and the "horizontal" forms. These titles indicate the direction that the causes come from. In the vertical form it is argued that every created thing is being caused right now (imagine a timeline with an arrow pointing up from the universe to God). The horizontal version shows that creation had to have a cause in the beginning (imagine that same timeline only with an arrow pointing backward to a beginning point in time).
The horizontal is a little easier to understand because it does not require much in the way of philosophy to grasp. The basic argument is that all things that have beginnings had to have causes. The universe had a beginning, therefore the universe had a cause. That cause, being outside the whole universe, is God. Someone might say that some things are caused by other things, but this does not solve the problem. This is because those other things had to have causes too, and this cannot go on forever. Why not? Let's take a simple example: trees. All trees began to exist at some point (for they have not always existed). Each tree had its beginning in a seed (the "cause" of the tree). But every seed had its beginning ("cause") in another tree. See where this is going? You can't have an infinite series of tree-seed-tree-seed because no series is infinite - they cannot go on forever. All series are finite (limited) by definition. There is no such thing as an infinite number because even the number series is limited (although you can always add one more, you are always at a finite number). If there is an end, it is not infinite. All series have two endings actually - at the end and at the beginning (if you don't see why this is true try to imagine a one ended stick!). But if there was no first cause, the chain of causes never would have started. Therefore there is, at the beginning at least, a first cause - one that had no beginning. This first cause is God.
The vertical form is a bit more difficult to understand, but it is more powerful because not only does it show that God had to cause the "chain of causes," in the beginning, He must still be causing things to exist right now. Once again we begin by noting that things exist. Second, while we often tend to think of existence as a property that things sort of own - that once something is created existence is just part of what it is - this is not the case. Consider a simple example - a triangle. We can define the nature of a triangle as "the plane figure formed by connecting three points not in a straight line by straight line segments." Notice what is not part of this definition: existence.
This definition would hold true even if no triangles existed at all. Therefore a triangle's nature - what it is - does not guarantee that one exists (like unicorns - we know what they are but that does not make them exist). Because it is not part of a triangle's nature to exist, triangles must be made to exist by something that else that already exists (such as myself drawing one on a piece of paper). But it also do not exist simply because of what I am - so I have to be given existence as well. This cannot go on forever (no infinite series, remember?). Therefore something that does not need to be given existence must exist to give everything else existence. Now apply this example to everything in the universe - does any of it it exist on its own? No. So, not only did the universe had to have a first cause to get started, it needs something to give it existence right now. The only thing that would not have to be given existence is a thing that exists as its very nature. It is existence. This thing would always exist, have no cause, have no beginning, have no limit, be outside of time, be infinite, . . . sound familiar? It should! It is God!
the Teleological argument for the existence of God?"
The word "teleology" comes from "telos" which means "purpose" or "goal." The idea is that it takes a "purposer" to have purpose, and so where we see things obviously intended for a purpose something had to have caused it for a reason. Design implies a designer in other words. We instinctively do this all the time. The difference between the Grand Canyon and Mount Rushmore is obvious - one is designed, one is not. The Grand Canyon was clearly formed by non-rational, natural processes, whereas Mount Rushmore was clearly created by an intelligent being - a designer. When we are walking down the beach and see a watch we do not assume that time and random chance produced it from blowing sand around. Why? Because it has the clear marks of design - it has a purpose, it conveys information, it is specifically complex, etc. In no scientific field is design considered to be spontaneous, it always implies a designer, and the greater the design, the greater the designer. Thus, taking the assumptions of science the universe would require a designer beyond itself (i.e. supernatural).
N ow the teleological argument applies this criteria to the whole universe. If designs imply a designer, and the universe shows marks of design, then the universe was created. Clearly every life form in earth's history has been highly complex. A single strand of DNA equates to one volume of the encyclopedia Britannica. The human brain is approximately 10 billion gigabytes in capacity. Besides living things here on earth, the whole universe seems designed for life. Literally hundreds of conditions are required for life on earth - everything from the mass density of the universe down to earthquake activity must be fine tuned in order for life to survive. The random chance of all these things occurring is literally beyond imagination - the odds are many orders of magnitude higher than the number of atomic articles in the whole universe! With this much design it is difficult to believe that we just got lucky. In fact top atheist philosopher Antony Flew's recent conversion to Theism was based largely on this argument.
In addition to being used to demonstrate God's existence, the teleological argument also exposes shortcomings in the theory of Evolution. The Intelligent Design movement in science applies information theory to life systems and shows that chance cannot even begin to explain its complexity. In fact, even single celled bacteria are so complex that without all of their parts working together at the same time they would have no survival potential - that means those parts could not have developed by chance. Darwin recognized that this might be a problem someday just by looking at the human eye. Little did he know that even single celled creatures have too much complexity to explain without a creator!
the Moral argument for the existence of God?"
The Moral argument begins with the fact that all people recognize some moral code (that some things are right, and some things are wrong). Every time we argue over right and wrong we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not free to arbitrarily change. Right and wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawgiver. Because the Moral Law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawgiver. This, it is argued, is God. In support, we see that even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else's. Although differences certainly exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are universal. If man was responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented. Further, it is not simply a record of what mankind does - rarely does one ever live up to their own moral code. Where, then, do we get these ideas of what should be done? Romans 2:14-15 says that the moral law (or conscience) come from an ultimate lawgiver above man. If this is true then we would expect to find exactly what we have observed. This lawgiver is God.
To put it negatively, atheism provides no basis for morality, no hope, and no meaning for life. While this does not disprove atheism by itself, if the logical outworking of a belief system fails to account for what we instinctively know to be true it ought to be discarded. Without God there would be no objective basis for morality, no life, and no reason to live it. Yet all these things do exist, and so does God. Thus, the moral argument for the existence of God.
