The Existence of God
See Life’s Ultimate Questions, by
Ronald Nash
Chapters 12 & 13
Noetic Structure
 Definition: A person’s beliefs plus the
relationships among those beliefs
 Some beliefs serve as the basis or foundation of
other beliefs
 The foundation beliefs are called basic beliefs
 The beliefs based on them are called non-basic
beliefs
 Your noetic structure is different from mine
 Beliefs about your past are different from beliefs
about my past
 Noetic structures are not wholly different
 Properly basic beliefs can be the same for two
persons
Some Properly
Basic Beliefs
Under the appropriate circumstances,
the appropriate belief is formed in
us
“I see a tree”
“I had
eggs and
bacon for
breakfast”
“I am now at the edge of the Grand Canyon”
When you have a basic belief, it makes no
sense for someone to say to you, “Prove it!”
Foundationalism’s
Strengths

Believing that one’s noetic structure is based
upon certain foundational beliefs (properly
basic beliefs) provides answers to important
questions
1. When should a belief be eliminated from a person’s
noetic structure?
 When that belief is neither a properly basic belief
nor a belief properly grounded on a basic belief
Foundationalism’s
Strengths
2. How should we judge the
strength of a non-basic
belief?

In terms of the degree of
support it receives from basic
beliefs
3. When should an argument
end?

When it arrives at properly
basic beliefs
Properly Basic Beliefs and God
 Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga
teaches that
 Believing in God is a properly basic belief
 We have a tendency to form beliefs such
as
 “God is speaking to me”
 “God has created all this”
 “God disapproves of what I’ve done”
 Christian philosopher Thomas Reid -This tendency or belief disposition
may be part of the image of God in
every human
A Capacity to Apprehend
God’s Existence
1. Begin by trusting the basic beliefforming dispositions with which
you are endowed . . .
 Until reasons for revising them
arise
2. If being appeared to by a pink rose
in the garden yields immediately
the belief “There is a pink rose,”
3. Then an encounter with God will yield the belief
“God is real,” without deliberation or inference
Does God’s Existence Need to
be Proved?
 No.
 However, an argument for God’s
existence can be one of the belieftriggering conditions that results in
the belief that God exists.
The Leaky
Buckets
Analogy
The Leaky Buckets Analogy
Consider these three
arguments
1. All students have long
hair. Therefore, Smith
has long hair.
 Necessarily true?
 Probably true?
2. Smith is a student.
Therefore, Smith has
long hair.
 Necessarily true?
 Probably true?
3. All students have
long hair. Smith is
a
student.Therefore,
Smith has long
hair.
 Necessarily
true?
 Probably true?
The Leaky Buckets Analogy
 So, it’s possible to have a
probably true argument formed
from individually weak
arguments
 And it’s possible to derive a
necessarily true argument from
individually invalid arguments
Four Types of Arguments for
God’s Existence
1. Cosmological
A. Causation
B. Necessity
C. Teleological
2. Prudential
3. Experiential
4. Moral
Cosmological
“Look at the world (cosmos), and
you will see that there is a God.”
Everything’s moving. Every being is contingent.
There must be a Prime
Mover.
Everything’s been
caused by other
things.
There must be a First
Cause.
There must be a being that is
necessary.
Every thing can be graded.
There must be a being that is
perfect.
Every thing appears to
have been designed.
There must be a designer.
Paley: The Watch
Analogy
 Walking in a field, you come
across a stone
 “Where did this come from?” is an
absurd question to ask about the
stone
 Walking in a field, you come
across a watch
 “Where did this come from?” is a
reasonable question to ask about
the watch
The Anthropic
Principle
 The universe seems to be designed
in such a way as to provide
 A home for humans (Gr. Anthropos)
 An observation post from which
humans can appreciate the grandeur of
the universe
 The universe is strangely amenable to
rational inquiry on multiple integrated
levels
 The universe seems to be designed
tutorially
 The deep intelligibility of nature upon
which science depends is the result of
intelligent design
Guillermo
Gonzalez
Prudential
 Pascal’s Wager
 Mathematician and philosopher
 If you were a betting person,
which belief has the best odds
going for it?
 A.
 B.
“There is a God”
“There is no God”
 A. If correct, payoff is unlimited
 B. If correct, payoff is limited
 “There is a God” has the best
odds
Experiential
 “There is a God, because I have had an
experience of God.”
 Highly convincing for the one having the
experience.
 Not as convincing for anyone else.
 Leo Tolstoy
 “Life is only bearable when I am believing that God
exists”
 William P. Alston
 If it makes sense to believe a person exists when
you have had shared experiences with that person,
 Then it makes sense to believe that God exists if
you have had shared experiences with God
 Prayers answered
 Guidance given
 Comfort received
Moral
 There is a moral law of human
nature




We didn’t invent it
We don’t totally benefit from it
We can’t escape it
We don’t keep it
 This law comes from Something
Behind the Universe
 It is trying to communicate with
us, personally
 It must be a person himself
Mere Christianity
-C.S. Lewis
Another Moral
Argument
 Unknown Source
 We live in a world containing
 Incredible good
 Malevolent evil
 Mere survival benefit is as
inadequate an explanation for
malevolent evil as it is for
incredible good
 There must be an incredibly
good being against which a
malevolently evil being is
struggling
Three Types of Arguments
Against the Existence of God
 The Empirical Argument
 The Linguistic Argument
 Evidential Arguments
The Empirical
Argument
The Invisible Gardener Story
- Antony Flew (1950)
 “Just how does what you call an invisible,
intangible, eternally elusive gardener
differ from an imaginary gardener or even
from no gardener at all?"
 "What would have to occur to constitute
for you a disproof of the existence of
God?"
The Linguistic
Argument
 A.k.a. Theological Noncognitivism -Michael Martin (also early William
Alston):, “What kind of definition
can we agree on which makes
sense of the claim ‘There is a
God?’”
 “How can an immaterial being
‘speak,’ or communicate messages
in any way, or, indeed, act in any
way?”
Evidential
Arguments
 Victor Stenger: God -- The Failed
Hypothesis
 “Science proves that the universe is just as
one would expect it to be if there were no
God.”
 “The laws of physics and of nature do not
suggest that a divine hand played a role in
creating the universe.”
 Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins offer
similar arguments.
The Problem of Evil
 Charles Templeton
 Christopher Hitchens
 George H. Smith
The Problem: How can these
three statements all be true?
• God is all good.
• God is all powerful.
• Evil exists.
Why, then, does evil exist?
“Either God isn’t all good, or God isn’t all
powerful.”
“So, why should I believe in a being who either
isn’t strong enough or good enough to put
an end to evil?”