The cosmological argument and cumulative case for God's existence

Existence of God

On Using Arguments to Establish the Case for God

McCloskey states in his article that the problem with most theists is that they come to believe in God based on other factors and reasons other than proofs alone.1 He may be referring to subjective factors like faith and personal evidence, which he possibly might abandon as true proofs and for good reason. However, he does acknowledge that there are three "proofs" that motivate the theist to believe in God -- the cosmological proof, teleological proof, and the argument from design -- all of which he describes as defective.1.

It's probably worthwhile to consider these "proofs" in light of the Cumulative Case approach in the PointeCast presentation. The Cumulative Case is noteworthy because it accepts that there is not one argument that can prove the existence of God but only "a series of arguments that when cumulatively put together offer a very strong case for God."2 Hence, instead of claiming only one argument or "proof" as the most plausible explanation, the cumulative approach builds the case carefully by putting together three arguments in a coherent manner.

These three arguments, or their premises and supporting statements thereof, are in fact the three "proofs" that McCloskey says lead theists to their theism. These are the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments.2 Each has its own set of premises that support reasons for thinking that (1) the Universe is created by a self-existent being; (2) that it is perfectly designed; and (3) that its designer is morally perfect, respectively2. Put together, the cumulative case can be summarized as: "A personal, moral, intelligent creator of the Universe is the best explanation for the universe we experience." 2

3. On the Teleological Argument

McCloskey says that for a powerful, intelligent, perfect planner of the universe to exist, there must be "genuine indisputable examples of (His) design and purpose"1 He claims that in fact, as suggested by the Theory of Evolution, there is no evidence of such design or purpose.1 He doesn't elaborate, but he seems to imply that evolution is indisputable and hence a "very conclusive objection."1 First of all, the Theory of Evolution is just a theory or a tentative explanation of a phenomenon. As such, it is not infallible. Even the top evolutionary experts agree that evolution is by no means a complete theory, with gaps still waiting to be filled. Second, as someone writing from the late 60's, McCloskey would not have known about some future discoveries in modern science that continue to challenge the so-called "indisputability" of the theory of evolution.

Assuming that for argument's sake, evolution is true, it actually leads to the existence of a designer, rather than as McCloskey implies, "displaced the need"1 for one. Evolution cannot seem to proceed at random but rather through a series of events that follow a logical order. Evolution can be thought of as the mechanism by which the cosmos was created, guided by intelligent design and planning.4 Evans illustrates this using shoe production as a model. The machine is the mechanism that makes the shoe, but the machine itself is devised to do so by the shoe designer.4

If the conclusion of the matter were that there exists a perfect designer and planner of the universe, then the next step for the theist would be to know more about the Creator's purpose and character to make sense of the rampant evil in a world supposedly under His rule and order.4

4. On the Problem of Evil

To McCloskey, the presence of evil constitutes strong evidence against God.1 He stresses this claim repeatedly in his paper through the logical form of the problem: (a) God is perfect and benevolent; (b) Evil exists and is persistent; (c) Therefore God does not exist. According to Evans, a theist might respond to this claim using the soul-making and free will arguments.5

In the first instance, the occurrence of evil is sometimes necessary for the result of a greater good. Evans illustrates this using a heroic soldier who might sacrifice his life for the sake of his comrades.5 Similarly, natural evils (e.g. illnesses) are perhaps necessary in order for a person to cultivate certain virtues.5 From a theistic perspective, then, there is no utterly pointless evil. Experiencing evil can be viewed as a test of faith. This judgment is simply based on a believer's personal evidence of God's goodness (i.e., the evidential form of the problem of evil), which is as valid as the atheistic argument.5

In his free will argument, Evans states that "it is logically possible for God to create free beings who always choose to do right, but it is not logically possible for God to create beings who inevitably do right."5 In other words, it is entirely up to man whether to use his freedom for good or evil. If man deliberately chooses to engage in morally evil acts that result in injury to innocent persons, then the resulting evil is due to man and not God.5 If God easily arranges man to be biased to always choose to do what is right (as what McCloskey suggests what God might do) then that is not true free will at all. As Evans puts it, God does not intend to control men so they can be His robots; He wants men to love and serve Him freely.5

5. On Atheism as Comforting

In his paper, McCloskey concludes that atheism is more comforting than theism1. To someone who seems to be suffering pointlessly, McCloskey suggests it's better for him not to believe in God rather than wrack his brains trying to figure out why God allows the suffering. Atheism leads to self-reliance and self-respect, allowing man to give and seek comfort where it can be given and visibly found. 1

Craig, on the other hand, believes that life without God is absurd.6 If there is no God, then man and the Universe are doomed, because that means life has no ultimate significance, value, or purpose.6 Is there any comfort in these? None. There is no comfort in believing that one's existence -- joys and sufferings included -- is meaningless. If it were so, then there's no point in doing good rather than evil. If there is no immortality with God, then there is no Judgment and Hitler won't be any less of a saint than Mother Theresa. In a world without God, morality loses its value and we cannot condemn crime and war as evil or say that love and peace are good.6 Everything becomes subjective and we can do as we please. This leads to chaos, and there is no comfort in chaos. Further, if the Universe is doomed, then it doesn't matter whether the Big Bang and Evolution theories are true or not. It doesn't matter if we can make the earth more sustainable or to seek ways to cure cancer or develop a swine flu vaccine. In a world without God, man's life is reduced to that of an insect -- no meaning, purpose, or hope.

Hence, atheism, according to Craig, is absurd. Theism, specifically Biblical Christianity, makes more sense out of life because it offers life with meaning and purpose.6

Notes:

1. H.J. McCloskey, " On Being an Atheist," Question 1 (February, 1968): 50-54

2. Lesson 18, Philosophy of Religion, PointeCast Presentation, 2009.

3. C. Stephen Evans, Philosophy of Religion, (InterVarsity Press, 1985), 52-59

4. Ibid., 65-66

5. Ibid., 133-139

6. W.L. Craig, "The Absurdity of Life Without God," PDF file, source unknown.