Arguments for Gods existence

Introduction

Since my first chapter about proofs and disproofs of God had such a great effect, I am constantly trying to make better statements and to clear things up therin. It showed that many have found my argumentation way to complex or heavy. So in this chapter i will try to name some arguments for Gods existence as they often can be heard. Again I will say here that there is no way to proove God or to disproove him and therefore neither part of this essay is intended to bring You to a religion or to make You loose it. The intention is rather to show the weaknesses of the arguments and to show You that there are alternatives. In other words I want to show the reader that there is really no proof. Hopefully then he will realise that many people think different things and not because they are stupid or because they are evil, but rather because they choosed a conclusion he did not choose.
What I present here are however not so much the „proofs“ as rather arguments. The difference is that in my first chapter the ideas where rather logically fomulated while here we will talk about the „every day reasons to believe“ we can hear so often from „normal people“.

Argument of design

The argument of design is rather simple. Yet people when hearing the sheer greatness of numbers connected to it are most oftenly in awe at the power of God. Basically the argument is based on the observation of how fine tuned the universe must have been to be existent and give support for life. The idea behind it is that such finetuning can’t be done by chance as it is too improbable, therefore an intelligent designer had to do it.
The argument is valid in the statement that this universe would not have supported the life of humans if variables were different from the ones we have. It is clearly evident that indeed the universe is fine tuned. However there are numerous flaws to the argument.

Chances for supporting life
One of the main flaws is the idea that the universe could only support life if the variables were finetuned like this. As a matter of fact there is a wide variety of ranges one could manipulate the constants of the universe and still get a universe which could support life. It would not support humans perhaps but it would support life in general. However this is not usually said in the argument. Rather it is said that the universe could have no life at all if the variables were different. This is incorrect.
There could be millions of possible universes and we are but one of them. And if there had been another one then the inhabitants of that universe would perhaps ponder about the same question

Surprise at the fine tuning ?
„People regard this fine tuning with awe and are suprised at how well formed all constants and variables are. This can only be done by a designer“
There is quite a flaw in that statement in the sense that there is no real reason to be surprised at all at these constants. You see quite obviously we are alive. So as everybody can see the requirements to sustain life are met. It is a quite normal and nesseccary thing that the requirements are met else there would be no life. Why then should we be surprised at that ? It is a quite normal thing. Had the requirements not been met then obviously we wouldm‘t be surprised either because we wouldn‘t exist. This is also called the anthropic principle.

Invalidy of the probability claim
Attached to the fine tuning we hear often that the probability for this universe to exist is so infinitesimal small that it is near impossible. Therefore the designer had to be present.
Well first of all it is important to say that this universe is however far we calculate not impossible to exist. It may be „very improbable“ by „human“ standards, but not impossible. As a matter of fact it also is abslutely unimportant how high the chance for the universe is simply for the following reason. Suppose You have a chance of 1 in 10^10^10^10. Then in 10^10^10^10 – 1 cases we simply wouldnt have been notified because we wouldnt exist. This is similar to a lottery in a higher stage. When You play in it there is no real chance to win the jackpot. However who would in the case he won assume that one of the employees of the lottery willingly selected him to win?
The mere fact that we exist could just as well tells us that this infinitesimal small chance occured.

What about the designer ?
Ok when we say that the universe is so finetuned and that all is so special that a designer was needed to do that then we create a new problems. First of all it is quite obvious that the designer does not really need to be superior or allmighty. Just think of an experiment of scientists in which they themselves dont know the result. God could be a being that has tried for eternaty to create universes and perhaps allways failed. However this God would not be the God people worship. He would rather be imperfect. If we believe in a God that resembles allightiness and allknowing, then we can savely assume that he would have to be even more "finetuned" then the universe is. But then we have the problem that God was "supposedly" not created. So we have something even more delicate and perfect that was not created. Why then should this universe be which is far less perfect ?

Argument of justice

This argument is rather simple and unfortunatly it shows more of human nature and thinking then some are willing to admid. Basically it states that there is injustice in the world. There is evil and obviously many things here on earth are unfair. However people believe that the universe has to be just as a whole. There has to be a final universal justice and therefore God must exist to give that justice. The end of that idea is that all those innocent in this world and behaving correctly must of course get a reward in form of an everlasting paradise while all those that did not behave correctly fase eternal punishment in hell.
However there is no real logical base on which to put the conclusion that there is a paradise elsewhere or a God.
If we take a look at the world we will see that there are people killing, stealing, lieing and doing all sorts of bad or injust things. However as we can see this we also can see that this happens everywhere in the world. So there is no reason to believe that injustice at one place must lead to a supreme justice at another place.
Suppose You are wandering around and find an apple tree without apples. Below You find half of the apples wrotten. Do You then conclude that the other half has to be in perfect shape to „make up“ for the rotten half ? Obviously not. Yet that is the basis of the argument : an optimistic view without any rational or logical basis.
Of course people can see nowadays that all the world is in the same „situation“. In former times many dreamed of the paradise on earth where the justice would reside. However when knowledge came people transfered that to paradise in heaven. An unreachable (during Your lifetime at least) place. However there is again no real logical reason to believe that. If we go more into psychology we find the reason why this idea is so appealing to many people. It is the deep feeling of unfairness and lonelines that drives them to this argument. The question what sense the life would have for them if it was spend in poorness and injustness. This is what makes people „hope“ and „dream“ of a better life later or in another place or for a final „justice“.
However as mentioned above there is no real logical basis to this argument it is rather an optimistic view. Even if it had a basis or was valid then still we would face the simple problem that it doesn’t explain why there would be one god. There could be a gremium of gods like in a court. There could also be a „natural“ selection of just and unjust persons. Also the question arises why hell should be eternal if the amount of evil done in this world can only be limited. So in a way one has to pay indefinetly for a finite amount of injustice he does, which would itself be injust again.

Argument of morality

This is an argument found often within the „simpler“ people that seek and follow guidance to archieve good morals. Basically they think that humans could not know what good or bad is if not someone told them. And since it is nessessary to be good or at least it should be aspired there has to be a God to tell them the difference between good and evil so they can‘t err. There are some flaws with this argument however. First of all the question of course arises if there is an absolute morality at all or if this is all only relative? Secondly if there exists an absolute morality then the question is if it encompasses all the things mentioned for example in religious scriptures or if those are related more to social and historical circumstances.
However we will assume that a final absolute moral exists. Now we face more or less 3 different problems when we just ask the question what morality or the good is.
The first claim heard very often is that God decides what is good and what is bad. This however would mean that it doesn’t matter what he calls morally good. In other words if he said stealing and killing would be good then it would be so. However normal people would not agree with that (i hope). Morality would be meaningless because an action would not fullfill the initial requirements for it to be morally correct but only the command of God. Simple examples for this kind of morality and the results of it can be found in history with holy wars and inquisitions.
The second problem comes when people claim that God tells us what is good, but not only by decision but simply he tells us what really is good. This implies however that goodness exists seperate from god. In that case he would be obsolete. There would be no need for God to exist inorder to have a morality.
The third problem arises when people say that God is good. He in a way personifies goodness.
I deal with part this in my later chapter about attributes of God called „Moral Perfection and Freedom (to choose)”

Pascals Wager

Pascals wager is not so much an argument for god but rather a sort of “gain-loss caluclation“ concerning the belief in god. Basically it states „If You dont believe in God then in case he exists You would go to hell, but in the case I believe in God and he doesnt exist I loose nothing.“
There is God There is no God
I believe in God Gain of paradise No loss at all
I dont believe in God Eternal hell No gain at all
The resumee of this argument is that it simply is best to believe in God. However there are some flaws with this argument as well.
One flaw (which perhaps doesn‘t count much for common folk) is that the argument assumes that the chances for god to exist or not to exist are equal (50 / 50). There is however no reason to believe that.
One flaw which is far more important is that the believe in God doesn‘t save one from hell if he really existed. As a matter of fact every religion doesn‘t only state it is needed to believe in God but also in his scriptures. Therefore of course the wager is not ablicable in this case.
As an example we could reformulate it the following way:
Christianity is correct Islam is correct
I am a christian Paradise A finite hell (not eternal because I believe in God)
I am a muslim Eternal hell Paradise
According to this of course one would have to become christian in order to avoid the greatest loss.
Also important is to note that different religions propagate a different God. The god of muslims is NOT the same as the christians god (or as they understand him), neither as the God of other religions.
So what we get here is that pascals wager is more or less meaningless in the way most theists use it, because they just leave behind the differences in their religions.
When we leave aside the differences of religions then still we face the problem that the idea that God exists and I don‘t believe it doesn‘t need to end in hell. After all who (besides the religions) says that there is hell? A God that punishes the tricked or those that simply can‘t see the truth is just like a God who allowes only his own followers to enter the paradise. We could also ask how good a God is that punishes those that simply don‘t have enough „reason or intellect“ to believe in him. After all there could also be a God who just lets all people go to heaven if they were good without regard to their belief.
What the result of all this is is that believe in God doesn‘t guarantee paradise, and furthermore believe in God doesnt make a God reality.