Theism and Atheism are opposites. One believes that there is a God, the other does not believe in God. But there is more. The Theist and the Atheist both “know” that there is or that there isn’t a God. Unlike the Agnostic, who takes a carefully measured approach of “I don’t know because there is no way to tell. “
The Logic of the Proof of God’s Existence
Logically, a person making a claim about something is obliged to offer proof. The person who disagrees does not have to prove that something is not the case. If someone says that they are a great cook, that is a statement that can be proven only by cooking a meal. Just saying that someone is a great cook does not make them so. In this case, the proof is in the eating, or “putting your food where your mouth is.”
A more common example is a criminal prosecution. If the prosecution wants to prove that a defendant committed a crime, then the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The prosecutor must show that there was a crime and that the defendant committed it. The defense does not have to prove either that there was no crime, or that the defendant did not commit the crime. In other words, the defendant does not have to prove a negative.
Proving Gods existence is the same way from a logical point of view. Those making the claim that God exists have the burden to show that God does exist. The Atheist does not have to prove that God does not exist, although one can point out serious problems with the proof of God's existence.
Teleological and Ontological Arguments for the Existence of God
There are several rational arguments that claim that there is a God. The argument from design, also known as the teleological argument, is one of the most common and pervasive arguments for God's existence. It says that the universe is a finely tuned object, so there must be a fine-tuner. That fine-tuner is God. And by way of proof, the argument offers examples such as the habitable zone in space that exists and makes life possible. Another example is the finely tuned genome that has created human life on earth.
Another, perhaps more obscure argument is the Ontological argument. God is an idea of which nothing greater can be conceived. The greatest idea is the one that exists in the mind and in reality. God would be great if he was omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal; but the quality of his existence, makes all those other qualities subservient to actually being there. By existing, then God is perfect. If God didn’t exist, then all of those other qualities would not matter.
The first-cause argument says that nothing is caused by itself; anything can be made or caused by something else, except that the universe was caused by a first-causer. That would be God. And nothing caused God to exist; God has always existed. That is that something must exist that makes all of this possible; the universe didn’t create itself from nothing. That pre-existing exister must be God.
The unmoved mover is a variation of the first-causer argument. It says that everything that moves had to be moved by something else, and so on and so forth, except you would continue in an infinite regress unless you posit a mover that cannot be moved, that would be God.
Arguments Against God’s Existence
The problem of evil is perhaps that strongest moral argument against the existence of a benevolent God. If God is good and benevolent, why is there evil in the world? While this question has been debated by theologians and philosophers for centuries, it is not an argument against the existence of God; it is just a point that God may not be the benevolent being humans grew up believing. He may nevertheless exist, but not in the form that would be all-powerful and benevolent.
Faith and Betting
Finally, most theologians, philosophers and ordinary practitioners of religion concede that the universe may indeed work without the aid of a majestic God. But they have faith that the meaning of life can only be fulfilled with acceptance of some powerful force which is God.
Is it really over? The only way to think about God is through faith? One can consider a different way to think about God, from the perspective of being right or wrong, on a bet.
Consider the following: You either believe God exists or you do not. And there is no good test that will empirically answer the question. So can one answer the question? Suppose that after death, this question will be answered. What are the possibilities? Binary representation (1,0) can be used to illustrate this point:
- You believe, and you are right: +1
- You don’t believe, and you are wrong: -1
- You can’t tell either way: 0
The graph below shows how this can be represented.
The safest bet is the one that will yield a positive result: +1. That is the belief that God exists. Note, this does not prove that God exists, only that you have nothing to lose by believing in God, and a lot to lose if you do not. This argument was originally put forth by Blaise Pascal (1623-1661), philosopher and statistician.
 |
 |
