How to talk to atheists and skeptics about the existence of God.

Outline

• The “First Cause” Argument ― For Philosopher Atheists

• Argument from “Design”

― For Scientific Atheists

• Pascal’s Wager

― For Skeptical Atheists

• Argument from “Desire”

― For Experiential Atheists

The arguments for God’s existence are like roads with

different starting points, all aiming at the same goal.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself.“

- C.S. Lewis

• Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

• Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

• Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Lay out the Logic

• Instead of proving God directly, this proves him indirectly, by refuting atheism.

• The argument is basically very simple and

commonsensical. ― We all share the instinct that says everything needs an

explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is.

• Perhaps we will never find the cause, but there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence.

Nothing happens without a reason

• The whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence. Each of these things must therefore have a cause. ― My parents caused me, my grandparents caused them, et cetera.

• But does the universe as a whole have a cause? Is there a first

cause, an uncaused cause, of the whole chain of causes? ― If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the

great cosmic chain. ― If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory

being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it.

• Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn't, then the

whole universe is unexplained ― Everyone and everything says in turn, "Don't look to me for the final

explanation. I'm just an instrument. Something else caused me."

The Uncaused Cause

• If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing.

• If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train.

Analogies

• Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself.

• If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. ― It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three

sides.

― A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being.

Contingency

• If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence.

― Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it. Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings.

― The universe contains only contingent beings.

― Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being.

Contingency

• The proofs don't prove God but only some vague first cause or other being

― It is true that the proofs do not prove everything the Christian means by God, but they do prove a transcendent, eternal, uncaused, immortal, self-existing, independent, all-perfect being.

• There is a self-contradiction in the argument

― The argument does not use the premise that everything needs a cause. But that everything in motion needs a cause, everything dependent needs a cause, everything imperfect needs a cause.

• It is often asked why there can't be infinite regress, with no first being like infinite negative numbers

― The answer is that real beings need causes, for the chain of real beings moves in one direction only, from past to future, and the future is caused by the past.

Responses from Atheists

Where there is design, there must be a designer.

• Premise 1: Where there is design, there must be a designer.

• Premise 2: There is the existence of design throughout the universe.

• Conclusion: The conclusion is that there must be a universal designer

Lay out the Logic

• For instance, suppose you came upon a deserted island and found "S.O.S." written in the sand on the beach. You would not think the wind or the waves had written it by mere chance but that someone had been there, someone intelligent enough to design and write the message.

• Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe?

Fat “Chance”

• The universe seems to have been specially designed from the beginning for human life to evolve.

― The physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe.

― The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe's expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10120.

― Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 10(123)

The Anthropic Principle

• The Evolutionist says that natural selection "explains" the emergence of higher forms without intelligent design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. ― However there is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or

altruistic love make it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then?

• Could the design that obviously now exists in man and in the human brains come from something with less or no design? ― Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states

that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause.

― If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must be intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence. Therefore there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe

Responses from Atheists

“If I were a bettin’ man …”

• If I believe that God exists and it turns out that He does, then I have gained heaven at the small sacrifice of foregoing the pleasures of sin for a season.

• If I believe and it turns out that God does not exist, then I gain nothing and have suffered the finite loss of the pleasures of sin I have foregone.

• If I do not believe and it turns out that God does, in fact, exist, then I have gained the pleasures of sin for a season at the expense of losing eternal life.

• If I do not believe and it turns out that there is no God, then I have the finite gain of the pleasures afforded by my libertine lifestyle.

• It is the height of folly not to "bet" on God, even if you have no certainty, no proof, no guarantee that your bet will win.

• The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy.

Betting on God

• The agnostic says, "The right thing is not to wager at all.“

• Pascal replies, "But you must wager. There is no choice. You are already committed [embarked]."

• The Wager works because of the fact of death.

Reply to Agnostics

• Once it is decided that we must wager; that not choosing is not an option, then the rest of the argument is simple.

― Atheism is a terrible bet. It gives you no chance of winning.

• If God does not exist, it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win after death and nothing to lose after death.

What’s the cost / benefit?

• But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is

to believe, and your only chance of losing it is to refuse to believe.

― If you believe too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if

you believe too little, you risk losing everything.

• But is it worth the price? What must be given up to wager that God

exists?

― Whatever it is, it is only finite, and it is most reasonable to wager

something finite on the chance of winning an infinite prize.

― Perhaps you must give up autonomy or illicit pleasures, but you will gain

infinite happiness in eternity

What’s the cost / benefit?

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

• Suppose a winning sweepstakes ticket is worth a million dollars, and there are only two tickets left. You know that one of them is the winning ticket, while the other is worth nothing, and you are allowed to buy only one of the two tickets, at random. Would it be a good investment to spend a dollar on the good chance of winning a million?

• Belief in God is pragmatically justified because we have nothing to lose and everything to gain from holding that belief.

Analogies

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was

made for another world." — C.S. Lewis

• Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds

to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

• Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in

time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

• Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more

than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this

desire.

Lay out the Logic

• Innate and externally conditioned (natural and artificial)

― We naturally desire things like food, drink, sex, sleep, knowledge, friendship and beauty

― We also desire (but not innately or naturally) things like sports cars, political office, flying through the air like Superman, the land of Oz, and a Texas Rangers world championship.

• We do not, for the most part, recognize corresponding states of deprivation for the artificial desires as we do for the natural desires.

― There is no word like "Ozlessness" parallel to "sleeplessness."

• The natural desires come from within, from our nature, while the artificial ones come from without, from society, advertising or fiction.

― The natural desires are found in all of us, but the artificial ones vary from person to person.

Two Kinds of Desires

• The existence of the artificial desires does not necessarily mean that the desired objects exist. Some do; some don't. Sports cars do; Oz does not.

• The existence of natural desires in every discoverable case means that the objects desired exist. No one has ever found one case of an innate desire for a nonexistent object.

Two Kinds of Desires

• "I am perfectly happy playing with mud pies, or sports cars, or money, or sex, or power“. ― We can only ask, "Are you, really?" But we can only appeal, we cannot compel. ― And we can refer such a person to the nearly universal testimony of human

history in all its great literature. Even the atheist Jean-Paul Sartre admitted that "there comes a time when one asks, even of Shakespeare, even of Beethoven, 'Is that all there is?'"

• “Your argument only proves that there is something else out there. It doesn’t

prove the God of the bible at all.” ― What it proves is an unknown X, but an unknown whose direction is known.

This X is more: more beauty, more desirability, more awesomeness, more joy.

• "Although I am not perfectly happy now, I believe I would be if only I had ten

million dollars, a Lear jet, and a new mistress every day." ― The reply to this is, of course, "Try it. You won't like it." It's been tried and has

never satisfied.

Responses from Atheists

Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels

hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well,

there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can

satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.

-C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

• God makes sense of the origin of the universe. ― First Cause Argument

• God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. ― Design Argument

• It makes sense to “bet” on the existence of God rather than not. ― Pascal’s Wager

• Everybody knows that this life cannot make you ultimately happy but it is this very desire for ultimate happiness that points to something else ― Desire Argument

Conclusion