Arguments for Arguments for the existence the existence

of Godof God

Pocket handbook ofPocket handbook of

Christian ApologeticsChristian Apologetics

Peter Kreeft & Ronald TacelliPeter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli

Pop QuizPop QuizList List SEVEN SEVEN of of

the the NINENINE Arguments Arguments

given for the given for the existence of existence of

God in this God in this section of section of

teachingteaching

1. The argument from 1. The argument from

efficient causalityefficient causality2. The 2. The DesignDesign argument argument

3. The 3. The Kal māKal mā argument argument

4. The 4. The OntologicalOntological argument argument

5. The 5. The MoralMoral argument argument

6. The argument from 6. The argument from

ConscienceConscience7. The argument from 7. The argument from DesireDesire8. The argument from 8. The argument from

AtheisticAtheistic experienceexperience9. 9. Pascal’s WagerPascal’s Wager

Arguments for Arguments for the existence the existence

of Godof God

Pocket handbook ofPocket handbook of

Christian ApologeticsChristian Apologetics

Peter Kreeft & Ronald TacelliPeter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli

Why do you Why do you believe in God?believe in God?What evidence can you What evidence can you give me to show that give me to show that

God exists?God exists?

Can you actually demonstrate, or argue Can you actually demonstrate, or argue for, the existence of God?for, the existence of God?In Christian apologetics this discussion has In Christian apologetics this discussion has an important place.an important place.Kreeft says of those arguing for God’s Kreeft says of those arguing for God’s existence, existence, ““they have also believed that an effective they have also believed that an effective rational argument for God’s existence is an rational argument for God’s existence is an important first step in opening the mind to important first step in opening the mind to the possibility of faith.”the possibility of faith.”

These arguments need These arguments need to be thought through to be thought through by Christians - the by Christians - the proofs are helpful in our proofs are helpful in our own lives as well as in own lives as well as in encountering others encountering others who have no faith in who have no faith in God.God.

The argument from efficient causalityThe argument from efficient causalitySome things cause other Some things cause other

things to be - beginning to be things to be - beginning to be

or continuing to be - e.g. a or continuing to be - e.g. a

man playing drums causes man playing drums causes

music to be produced.music to be produced.

QuestionQuestion: are all things caused to : are all things caused to

exist by other things right now, at exist by other things right now, at

this moment? If they are then this moment? If they are then

imagine if there is no uncaused imagine if there is no uncaused

being, no God, then nothing could being, no God, then nothing could

exist. This is because everything exist. This is because everything

needs something outside of itself needs something outside of itself

to exist.to exist.

So even things which are causing So even things which are causing other things to exist now still need other things to exist now still need to have been caused to exist in to have been caused to exist in the first place - they can give the first place - they can give being to something only if they being to something only if they have been given being. have been given being. On this hypothesis everything that On this hypothesis everything that exists needs to have been caused exists needs to have been caused to existto exist..But we have a problem - beyond But we have a problem - beyond everything there is nothing: surely this everything there is nothing: surely this is silly, everything that exists was is silly, everything that exists was caused by, and depends on, nothing.caused by, and depends on, nothing.It would appear there must be It would appear there must be something uncaused, on which all something uncaused, on which all things needing a cause are things needing a cause are dependent.dependent.

Existence is like a gift given Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect - if there is from cause to effect - if there is no one who has the gift it no one who has the gift it cannot be passed on to cannot be passed on to others.others.If all the class are meant to If all the class are meant to read a book but no one has read a book but no one has the book then no one will ever the book then no one will ever get it.get it.If there is no God who has If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal existence by his own eternal nature - then this gift of nature - then this gift of existence cannot be passed existence cannot be passed on.on.On this argument because we On this argument because we have existence, we get our have existence, we get our existence from somewhere, existence from somewhere, we argue from God, who did we argue from God, who did not need to receive existence.not need to receive existence.

So who made God?So who made God?This is a common question from non-This is a common question from non-Christians.Christians.How would you answer it?How would you answer it?The following is taken from an article by Peter S. The following is taken from an article by Peter S. Williams Williams http://http://www.bethinking.org/who-are-you-god/beginner/who-made-god.htmwww.bethinking.org/who-are-you-god/beginner/who-made-god.htm

The question ‘Who made God?’ is an objection to The question ‘Who made God?’ is an objection to belief in God. It comes from a misinterpretation of an belief in God. It comes from a misinterpretation of an argument for God’s existence called the argument for God’s existence called the ‘cosmological argument’. The cosmological argument ‘cosmological argument’. The cosmological argument says that when we think carefully about how things says that when we think carefully about how things are caused, we can see that there must be a First are caused, we can see that there must be a First Cause (which is then identified as being God). Many Cause (which is then identified as being God). Many atheists attack a false version or ‘straw-man’ of the atheists attack a false version or ‘straw-man’ of the cosmological argument that goes something like this:cosmological argument that goes something like this:Every thing has a cause.Every thing has a cause.The universe (the sum total of material The universe (the sum total of material reality) is a thing.reality) is a thing.Therefore the universe has a cause Therefore the universe has a cause (God).(God).

Atheists have raised the following question. If every Atheists have raised the following question. If every thing has a cause, then God must have a cause. But if thing has a cause, then God must have a cause. But if ‘God’ has a cause, how can he be God?‘God’ has a cause, how can he be God?

Can you see the problem? If we deny that God has a Can you see the problem? If we deny that God has a cause, then we would contradict the statement that cause, then we would contradict the statement that ‘every thing has a cause’. However, without denying ‘every thing has a cause’. However, without denying that God has a cause, the argument falls apart. that God has a cause, the argument falls apart. Wouldn't we be better off if we rejected the idea that Wouldn't we be better off if we rejected the idea that ‘every thing needs a cause’, ditch God, and simply ‘every thing needs a cause’, ditch God, and simply say that the universe exists without having a cause? say that the universe exists without having a cause? This is the point of the ‘Who made God?’ question.This is the point of the ‘Who made God?’ question.

However, we can formulate a valid cosmological argument that avoids this problem:

Every dependent thing needs something to depend upon.The universe (the sum total of material reality) is a dependent thing.Therefore the universe needs something to depend upon (God).

This argument avoids the ‘Who made God?’ problem by replacing ‘every thing needs a cause’ with ‘every dependent thing needs something to depend upon’. Once this is done, we can answer the ‘Who made God?’ question by saying that God simply exists without having a cause, because God is not a dependent thing. God is an independent thing.

In other words, the answer to the ‘Who made God?’ question is: ‘No one made God, because God isn’t the sort of being that needs to be made’.

The existence of an un-made maker (God) answers the question: ‘What made the universe?’ The cosmological argument shows that to avoid accepting this answer, atheists must show that denying the premise ‘the universe is a dependent thing’ is at least as reasonable as affirming it.

The Design argumentThe Design argument

Popular culture says…Popular culture says…

Just to make you think…Just to make you think…

From an atheist’s perspectiveFrom an atheist’s perspective

The Design The Design argumentargument

For many people the For many people the beauty and order of the beauty and order of the world around us touches world around us touches us deep within. But still the us deep within. But still the question has to be asked question has to be asked as to whether what we as to whether what we see around us is the result see around us is the result of intelligent design / of intelligent design / conscious purpose? conscious purpose? There are many different There are many different variations of this argument variations of this argument - here we shall show the - here we shall show the main thrust of them.main thrust of them.

1. 1. The universes displays great The universes displays great intelligibility in what we observe intelligibility in what we observe and the way these things relate and the way these things relate to one anotherto one another - they exist and - they exist and coexist in intricately beautiful coexist in intricately beautiful order and regularity which order and regularity which appears amazing to the appears amazing to the observer. In nature many observer. In nature many different things work together different things work together to produce a valuable end, like to produce a valuable end, like all the organs in our body all the organs in our body working to produce life and working to produce life and health.health.

2. 2. The intelligent order is either The intelligent order is either produced by chance or produced by chance or intelligent design.intelligent design.

3. It cannot be by chance 3. It cannot be by chance as less (or no) order does as less (or no) order does not produce more order.not produce more order.4. Therefore the universes 4. Therefore the universes is the product of intelligent is the product of intelligent design.design.5. Design only comes from 5. Design only comes from a mind, a designer.a mind, a designer.6. Therefore the universe is 6. Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent the product of an intelligent designer.designer.

QuestionQuestion: but what if we only : but what if we only think there is order, it is a product think there is order, it is a product of our minds. Even though we of our minds. Even though we cannot think utter chaos and cannot think utter chaos and disorder maybe that is how things disorder maybe that is how things really are.really are.

AnswerAnswer: only by our minds do we : only by our minds do we know reality. If we agree know reality. If we agree something cannot exist in thought, something cannot exist in thought, we cannot go ahead and say that we cannot go ahead and say that it might exist in reality. In effect by it might exist in reality. In effect by doing that we would be claiming doing that we would be claiming to be thinking what we claim to be thinking what we claim cannot be thought.cannot be thought.

This is also called “the This is also called “the teleological argument”.teleological argument”.The universe could have been The universe could have been different from the way that it is different from the way that it is in many ways. It could have in many ways. It could have had different laws of physics; it had different laws of physics; it could have had a different could have had a different arrangement of planets and arrangement of planets and stars; it could have begun with stars; it could have begun with a more powerful or a weaker a more powerful or a weaker big bang.big bang.The vast majority of these The vast majority of these possible universes would not possible universes would not have allowed for the existence have allowed for the existence of life, so we are very fortunate of life, so we are very fortunate indeed to have a universe that indeed to have a universe that does. does.

With an atheistic world-With an atheistic world-view, there is no way to view, there is no way to explain this good fortune; explain this good fortune; the atheist must put this the atheist must put this down to chance. On the down to chance. On the view that God exists, view that God exists, though, we can explain though, we can explain why the universe is the why the universe is the way that it is; it is because way that it is; it is because God created the universe God created the universe with beings like us in mind. with beings like us in mind. This argument, if it is This argument, if it is successful, strongly successful, strongly suggests the existence of suggests the existence of a Creator that takes an a Creator that takes an interest in humanity.interest in humanity.

http://www.gotquestions.org/teleological-argument.html If designs imply a designer, and the universe shows marks of design, then the universe was designed. 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 has approximately 10 billion gigabytes of 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.

One of the main elements in the Teleological Argument is known as the “Anthropic Principle”. This principle sees the universe as designed specifically to support life. Many environmental parameters are so precisely tuned to support life that to alter any one of them, even the slightest, would disallow conditions for life here on Earth. For example, life on Earth would not be possible if:

The axial tilt of the Earth were greater or less

The distance of the Earth from the Sun were greater or less

The Earth’s gravitational interaction with the Moon were greater or less

If the Earth’s surface gravity were greater or less

If the length of the day were longer or shorter

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 particles in the whole universe! With this much design, it is difficult to believe that we simply an accident. In fact, top atheist/philosopher Antony Flew's recent conversion to theism was based largely on this argument.

From: From: http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htmhttp://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm

Following the triumph of Darwin’s Following the triumph of Darwin’s theory, design theory was all but theory, design theory was all but banished from biology. Since the banished from biology. Since the 1980s, however, advances in 1980s, however, advances in biology have convinced a new biology have convinced a new generation of scholars that generation of scholars that Darwin’s theory was inadequate to Darwin’s theory was inadequate to account for the sheer complexity account for the sheer complexity of living things. These scholars—of living things. These scholars—chemists, biologists, chemists, biologists, mathematicians and philosophers mathematicians and philosophers of science—began to reconsider of science—began to reconsider design theory. They formulated a design theory. They formulated a new view of design that avoids the new view of design that avoids the pitfalls of previous versions.pitfalls of previous versions.

Intelligent DesignIntelligent Design

Called intelligent design Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design earlier versions of design theory (as well as from the theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach design), this new approach is more modest than its is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God’s trying to infer God’s existence or character existence or character from the natural world, it from the natural world, it simply claims "that simply claims "that intelligent causes are intelligent causes are necessary to explain the necessary to explain the complex, information-rich complex, information-rich structures of biology and structures of biology and that these causes are that these causes are empirically detectable."empirically detectable."

The Kal m argumentāThe Kal m argumentāThe Arabic word Kal m literally means speech but āThe Arabic word Kal m literally means speech but ācame to denote a specific form of philosophical came to denote a specific form of philosophical theology - one containing demonstrations that the theology - one containing demonstrations that the world could not be infinitely old and must therefore world could not be infinitely old and must therefore have been created by God. Christians and Muslims have been created by God. Christians and Muslims appeal to this.appeal to this.

The argument is built on three The argument is built on three premises:premises:1. Whatever begins to exist has 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into a cause for its coming into beingbeing2. The universe began to exist2. The universe began to exist3. Therefore, the universe has 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into a cause for its coming into beingbeingMost people accept Premise 1.Most people accept Premise 1.Premise 2 - did the universe Premise 2 - did the universe begin to exist? Natural science begin to exist? Natural science in the Big Bang theory in the Big Bang theory supports the idea. supports the idea. Philosophical arguments are in Philosophical arguments are in favour too: can an infinite task favour too: can an infinite task ever be finished or completed?ever be finished or completed?

If to reach an end you had to If to reach an end you had to take an infinite series of steps take an infinite series of steps could you ever get there?could you ever get there?Of course not, not even in Of course not, not even in infinite time.infinite time.If it always was then it is If it always was then it is infinitely old - and therefore an infinitely old - and therefore an infinite amount of time must infinite amount of time must have existed before today - so have existed before today - so an infinite number of days must an infinite number of days must have been completed in order have been completed in order for us to arrive at the present for us to arrive at the present time . But, this then parallels time . But, this then parallels the idea of an infinite task being the idea of an infinite task being completed.completed.

The Ontological argumentThe Ontological argument

Designed by Anselm of Designed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) - an Canterbury (1033-1109) - an intensely philosophical proof intensely philosophical proof for God’s existence. It has for God’s existence. It has long been argued over.long been argued over.1. It is greater for a thing to 1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and reality exist in the mind and reality than in mind alone.than in mind alone.2. God means “that than 2. God means “that than which a greater cannot be which a greater cannot be thought”thought”

3. Suppose God 3. Suppose God exists in the mind but exists in the mind but not in reality.not in reality.4. Then a greater 4. Then a greater than God could be than God could be thought - one that thought - one that has all the qualities of has all the qualities of our thought of God our thought of God and with existence and with existence too.too.5. But this is 5. But this is impossible for God is impossible for God is “that than which a “that than which a greater cannot be greater cannot be thought”thought”6. Therefore God 6. Therefore God exists in the mind and exists in the mind and reality.reality.

The Moral argumentThe Moral argument

1. Real moral obligation 1. Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really is a fact. We are really truly obligated to do truly obligated to do good and avoid evil.good and avoid evil.2. Either the atheistic 2. Either the atheistic view of reality is view of reality is correct or the correct or the “religious” one is“religious” one is3. But the atheistic 3. But the atheistic one is incompatible one is incompatible with there being a with there being a moral obligationmoral obligation4. Therefore the 4. Therefore the “religious” view of “religious” view of reality is the correct reality is the correct one.one.

The moral argument appeals to The moral argument appeals to the existence of moral laws as the existence of moral laws as evidence of God’s existence - evidence of God’s existence - there couldn’t be such a thing there couldn’t be such a thing as morality without God; to use as morality without God; to use the words that Sartre attributed the words that Sartre attributed to Dostoyevsky, “If there is no to Dostoyevsky, “If there is no God, then everything is God, then everything is permissible.” That there are permissible.” That there are moral laws, then, that not moral laws, then, that not everything is permissible, everything is permissible, proves that God exists.proves that God exists.

Premise 1 does not mean that Premise 1 does not mean that there are people who claim they there are people who claim they have to perform certain duties, or have to perform certain duties, or to avoid others, but it is claiming to avoid others, but it is claiming that as humans we have to that as humans we have to perform certain duties because of perform certain duties because of the way things really are not based the way things really are not based upon desires or the way we feel. It upon desires or the way we feel. It is not the belief in moral values that is not the belief in moral values that is a fact but the moral value itself is a fact but the moral value itself that is an objective fact.that is an objective fact.So if we agree with moral So if we agree with moral obligation - does atheism accord obligation - does atheism accord with this fact? with this fact? NoNo! Atheists tell us ! Atheists tell us we are chance products of events we are chance products of events which are blind to human purpose which are blind to human purpose or striving.or striving.

So for an atheist we have to So for an atheist we have to ask, in what is moral good ask, in what is moral good rooted?rooted?If moral standards are rooted If moral standards are rooted in human will and desire in human will and desire (which atheists would argue (which atheists would argue comes arbitrarily due to our comes arbitrarily due to our evolution) then there is no evolution) then there is no basis for judging these basis for judging these desires. There is also desires. There is also no no obligation to do good of any obligation to do good of any kindkind - a desire to do good is - a desire to do good is simply your own and not to simply your own and not to be imposed upon anyone be imposed upon anyone else.else.This really is the basis for This really is the basis for moral subjectivism.moral subjectivism.

The moral argument seeks to The moral argument seeks to prove the existence of God prove the existence of God from the fact that there are from the fact that there are moral laws.moral laws.Moral laws have the form of Moral laws have the form of commands; they tell us what commands; they tell us what to do. Commands can’t exist to do. Commands can’t exist without a commander though, without a commander though, so who is it that commands us so who is it that commands us to behave morally?to behave morally?To answer this, we only need To answer this, we only need to look at the authoritative to look at the authoritative nature of morality. Commands nature of morality. Commands are only as authoritative as is are only as authoritative as is the one that commands them; the one that commands them; a command of a ruler carries a command of a ruler carries more authority than a more authority than a command of a citizen.command of a citizen.

Moral commands, though, Moral commands, though, have ultimate authority; have ultimate authority; they are to be obeyed they are to be obeyed under all circumstances. under all circumstances. Their authority transcends Their authority transcends all human authority, and all human authority, and they must therefore have they must therefore have been commanded by a been commanded by a being whose authority being whose authority transcends all human transcends all human authority.authority.The existence of moral The existence of moral laws, the argument laws, the argument concludes, thus concludes, thus demonstrates the demonstrates the existence of a being that is existence of a being that is greater than any of us and greater than any of us and that rules over all creation.that rules over all creation.

Moral subjectivism is common Moral subjectivism is common today - there are no universally today - there are no universally binding moral obligations, we binding moral obligations, we simply follow our own simply follow our own conscience.conscience.Is admitting to a conscience a Is admitting to a conscience a tacit confession of believing in tacit confession of believing in God?God?Most people would say you Most people would say you should not disobey your own should not disobey your own conscience - even if it is conscience - even if it is disagreement with other disagreement with other peoples.peoples.This makes conscience your This makes conscience your moral absolute - where does moral absolute - where does such an idea of obeying your such an idea of obeying your conscience come from?conscience come from?

The argument from ConscienceThe argument from Conscience...is one of the only two arguments for the ...is one of the only two arguments for the existence of God alluded to in Scripture, the existence of God alluded to in Scripture, the other being the argument from design (both in other being the argument from design (both in Romans). Both arguments are essentially simple Romans). Both arguments are essentially simple natural intuitions. The simple, intuitive point of natural intuitions. The simple, intuitive point of the argument from conscience is that everyone the argument from conscience is that everyone in the world knows, deep down, that he is in the world knows, deep down, that he is absolutely obligated to be and do good, and this absolutely obligated to be and do good, and this absolute obligation could come only from God. absolute obligation could come only from God. Thus everyone knows God, however obscurely, Thus everyone knows God, however obscurely, by this moral intuition, which we usually call by this moral intuition, which we usually call conscience. Conscience is the voice of God in conscience. Conscience is the voice of God in the soul.the soul.

1. From something less than me 1. From something less than me - - naturenature2. From me - 2. From me - individualindividual3. From others equal to me - 3. From others equal to me - societysociety4. From something above me - 4. From something above me - GodGodConsidering each of these:Considering each of these:Premise 1:Premise 1:How can I be absolutely How can I be absolutely obligated to something less obligated to something less than me- like animal instinct or than me- like animal instinct or practical survival needs?practical survival needs?Premise 2:Premise 2:Am I absolute? Can I demand Am I absolute? Can I demand absolute obedience from absolute obedience from anyone? If I am absolutely anyone? If I am absolutely obligated to myself, can I obligated to myself, can I choose to let myself out of such choose to let myself out of such obligation?obligation?

Premise 3:Premise 3:What right does society have to obligate me, to What right does society have to obligate me, to impose their values on me? Does a certain impose their values on me? Does a certain number of individuals agreeing and joining number of individuals agreeing and joining together make it absolute? Is society “God”?together make it absolute? Is society “God”?Premise 4:Premise 4:The only real source of absolute authority is The only real source of absolute authority is something who is superior to me - this morally something who is superior to me - this morally binds me and demands complete obediencebinds me and demands complete obedience

God is the only adequate source and ground for God is the only adequate source and ground for moral obligation which we feel when we need to moral obligation which we feel when we need to

obey our conscience - obey our conscience - conscience thus is conscience thus is defined as the voice of God in our souldefined as the voice of God in our soul..

The argument from DesireThe argument from Desire1. Every natural, innate desire 1. Every natural, innate desire

within us corresponds to some within us corresponds to some

real object that can satisfy that real object that can satisfy that

desire.desire.

2. But, there exists in us an innate 2. But, there exists in us an innate

desire that nothing in time, desire that nothing in time,

nothing on earth, no creature can nothing on earth, no creature can

satisfysatisfy

3. Therefore there must exist 3. Therefore there must exist

something greater than time, something greater than time,

earth, creatures that can satisfy earth, creatures that can satisfy

this desire.this desire.

4. This something is what people 4. This something is what people

call “God” and “life with God call “God” and “life with God

forever”forever”

Considering each premise:Considering each premise:11 - there are 2 kinds of desires, - there are 2 kinds of desires, innate and externally conditioned, innate and externally conditioned, or natural and artificial.or natural and artificial.NaturalNatural desires - food, sleep, sex, desires - food, sleep, sex, friendship, knowledge, beauty - friendship, knowledge, beauty - (we avoid hunger, loneliness, (we avoid hunger, loneliness, ugliness, and ignorance.) ugliness, and ignorance.) This This comes from withincomes from withinArtificialArtificial - cars, political office, - cars, political office, superman like powers, Leicester superman like powers, Leicester City winning the premier leagueCity winning the premier leagueThese desires are on different These desires are on different levels - we do not see deprivation levels - we do not see deprivation of the artificial in the same way as of the artificial in the same way as the natural. the natural. This comes from This comes from without -without - society, fiction, society, fiction, advertising etc.advertising etc.

Natural desires are to be Natural desires are to be found in each one of us found in each one of us but the artificial ones vary but the artificial ones vary from person to person.from person to person.The existence of artificial The existence of artificial desires does not desires does not necessarily mean that necessarily mean that they exist - sports cars they exist - sports cars do, being like Superman do, being like Superman does not. does not. With natural desires they With natural desires they do all exist - no one has do all exist - no one has ever found a natural ever found a natural desire for a nonexistent desire for a nonexistent object.object.

When we look at premise 2 we can only ask if When we look at premise 2 we can only ask if someone really is happy with money or sex or someone really is happy with money or sex or playing games - we can ask “Are you really playing games - we can ask “Are you really happy with that?” but we cannot compel.happy with that?” but we cannot compel.Even the atheist Jean Paul Satre admitted, Even the atheist Jean Paul Satre admitted, “there comes a time when one asks, even of “there comes a time when one asks, even of Shakespeare, even of Beethoven, ‘Is that all Shakespeare, even of Beethoven, ‘Is that all there is?’”there is?’”CS Lewis sums this up in the following quote:CS Lewis sums this up in the following quote:

““The Christian says, 'Creatures are The Christian says, 'Creatures are not born with desires unless not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.arouse it, to suggest the real thing.

If that is so, I must take care, If that is so, I must take care, on the one hand, never to on the one hand, never to despise, or to be unthankful despise, or to be unthankful for, these earthly blessings, for, these earthly blessings, and on the other, never to and on the other, never to mistake them for the mistake them for the something else of which they something else of which they are only a kind of copy, or are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage. I must keep echo, or mirage. I must keep alive in myself the desire for alive in myself the desire for my true country, which I shall my true country, which I shall not find till after death; I must not find till after death; I must never let it get snowed under never let it get snowed under or turned aside; I must make it or turned aside; I must make it the main object of life to press the main object of life to press on to that country and to help on to that country and to help others to do the same.”others to do the same.”

The argument from Atheistic experienceThe argument from Atheistic experience

1. There is the 1. There is the music of Johann music of Johann Sebastian BachSebastian Bach2. Therefore there 2. Therefore there must be a Godmust be a GodYou either see this You either see this one or you don’tone or you don’t

Pascal’s WagerPascal’s WagerThis is a different type of This is a different type of argument - and is not a proof argument - and is not a proof for the existence of God but a for the existence of God but a help for searching for God in help for searching for God in the absence of such proof.the absence of such proof.Pascal assumed that logical Pascal assumed that logical reasoning of itself could not reasoning of itself could not prove the existence of God - prove the existence of God - there was good reasoning on there was good reasoning on both sides. So if we cannot both sides. So if we cannot prove it, and if it is so prove it, and if it is so important, then we need to important, then we need to “wager”. The question “wager”. The question becomes: becomes: “Where are you “Where are you going to place your bet?”going to place your bet?”

Suppose you hear reports that your house is Suppose you hear reports that your house is on fire and your children are inside. You do not on fire and your children are inside. You do not know whether the reports are true or false. know whether the reports are true or false. What is the reasonable thing to do—to ignore What is the reasonable thing to do—to ignore them or to take the time to run home or at least them or to take the time to run home or at least phone home just in case the reports are true?phone home just in case the reports are true?

Suppose someone terribly precious to you lay Suppose someone terribly precious to you lay dying, and the doctor offered to try a new dying, and the doctor offered to try a new "miracle drug" that he could not guarantee but "miracle drug" that he could not guarantee but that seemed to have a 50-50 chance of saving that seemed to have a 50-50 chance of saving your beloved friend's life. Would it be your beloved friend's life. Would it be reasonable to try it, even if it cost a little reasonable to try it, even if it cost a little money? And suppose it were free—wouldn't it money? And suppose it were free—wouldn't it be utterly reasonable to try it and unreasonable be utterly reasonable to try it and unreasonable not to?not to?

• Place it with God - and even if he doesn’t you lose Place it with God - and even if he doesn’t you lose nothing.nothing.

• Place it against God - if he does exist, you lose Place it against God - if he does exist, you lose everything.everything.

• The argument is that if you win, you win everything, if The argument is that if you win, you win everything, if you lose, you lose nothing.you lose, you lose nothing.

• This can seem very selfish, but has been This can seem very selfish, but has been reformulated to apply to a higher moral motive: reformulated to apply to a higher moral motive: If If there is a God of infinite goodness, and he justly there is a God of infinite goodness, and he justly deserves my allegiance and faith, I risk doing the deserves my allegiance and faith, I risk doing the greatest injustice by not acknowledging him.greatest injustice by not acknowledging him.

• The wager should not coerce The wager should not coerce belief - but can be an belief - but can be an incentive to search for God - incentive to search for God - it can motivate the prayer of it can motivate the prayer of the sceptic:the sceptic:

• ““God I don’t know whether God I don’t know whether you exist or not, but if you do, you exist or not, but if you do, please show me who you please show me who you are.”are.”

• Pascal suggests 3 kinds of Pascal suggests 3 kinds of people:people:

• - those who have sought - those who have sought God and found him God and found him ((reasonable and happyreasonable and happy))

• - those who are seeking and - those who are seeking and have not yet found have not yet found ((reasonable and unhappyreasonable and unhappy))

• - those who neither seek nor - those who neither seek nor find (find (unreasonable and unreasonable and unhappyunhappy))

"Ask, and it will be "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and given to you; seek, and

you will find; knock, you will find; knock, and it will be opened to and it will be opened to you. For everyone who you. For everyone who asks receives, and the asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, one who seeks finds, and to the one who and to the one who

knocks it will be knocks it will be opened.opened.