Other Arguments for God’s Existence

If you find a watch on the beach, you don’t wonder if a storm blew its intricate metal parts together in just the right way to put it together by chance. Did the wind somehow separate the silicon apart from the grains of sand, and the sun bake it just right to have a watch cover? And, what do you know, it even has the right time!

No, you know there was a designer. The Argument from Design – or teleological argument for God’s existence – suggests that the world is too intricate and well-designed simply to be here by chance. The Second Law of Thermodynamics suggests rather that things deteriorate when left alone. Dust settles. Metal rusts. Things break. It usually takes intentional effort for complexity to emerge from simplicity.

In the 1700s, William Paley suggested that the complexity of the world is a testament to the fact that we have a divine Designer. For example, he pointed to the intricacies of the eyeball. His question made a lot of sense – could something this wonderfully designed have simply happened by chance?

In the late 1800s, the theory of evolution presented a significant challenge to the way Paley formulated this argument. However, as we will see, whatever one thinks of evolution, there is an even more fundamental design to the universe that is extremely compelling. Read on to learn about the “fine-tuning” argument.

The most compelling version of the Argument from Design is called the fine-tuning argument. It notes that the laws of physics are so well-balanced that they must surely have been designed.

Here are some examples of the universe’s fine-tuning:

• Gravitational Constant: If gravity were slightly stronger or weaker, the universe would not work. Galaxies, stars, and planets could not form or support life as we know it. A stronger gravitational force would result in stars burning out too quickly, while a weaker force would prevent them from forming.
• Cosmological Constant: This constant relates to how fast the universe is expanding. If the constant were much larger, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for galaxies and stars to form. If it were smaller, the universe might have collapsed back on itself too quickly.
• Strong Nuclear Force: This force binds protons and neutrons together in atomic nuclei. A slight increase in the force’s strength would prevent hydrogen atoms from forming, and there would be no elements at all. A decrease would mean that atoms would be much more unstable and susceptible to breaking apart.
• Electromagnetic Force: The balance between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force is critical for the structure of atoms and molecules. They simply wouldn’t be able to form if this balance wasn’t just right.
• Ratio of Electron to Proton Mass: The mass ratio between electrons and protons is finely tuned to allow for the formation of atoms. Significant deviations from this ratio would disrupt stability of the atom.
• Matter/Antimatter Imbalance: If there had not been a slight matter/antimatter imbalance in the early universe, it would have all annihilated according to E = mc2, and there would be nothing left but energy in the universe.
• Amount of Matter: If the universe had more matter, it would never have spread out enough to form suns and planets. If it had less, it would have expanded too quickly to form suns and planets.

Such a finely tuned design suggests an incredibly intelligent Designer. There are only two alternative explanations. One is a shrug – “That’s just the way it is. No explanation. We wouldn’t be here to talk about it otherwise (the “anthropic” principle).” The other is the proposal of a multiverse. The idea here is that, beyond our universe, there are countless other universes, perhaps being generated regularly by some universe engine. We just happen to be in the one that worked.

An argument that can be very convincing on a personal level is when something miraculous happens. Perhaps you have a very serious illness that suddenly goes away. Perhaps a convergence of events comes together in a beneficial way that defies imagination. These are also examples of the “argument from design” in that there does not seem to be any natural explanation. God seems to have reached down into history and acted in a special way that works outside the normal laws of cause and effect.

Such events are often very powerful for us as individuals. In some cases, they can be powerful for others as well. In some cases, however, the power of the experience is not transferable. In other words, they can have great force for you but not so much to others.

The greatest miracle of all human history is, of course, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. We will explore this focal moment in human history in the next lesson.

The argument that brought C. S. Lewis to Christ is called the moral argument. Lewis was faced with the possibility that there was no objective basis for right and wrong, a very popular sentiment in the early 1900s. He could not bring himself to believe it. Right and wrong was real. Things like the Holocaust are truly wrong. The alternative is that we just don’t like them.

This line of thinking brought him back to God, “kicking and screaming.” If right and wrong are real, then what is their basis? He would eventually find their basis in God. The nature and character of God “ground” the nature of what is good.

Not all arguments work as well as others. One famous argument for the existence of God was formulated by Anselm in the 1000s. His argument might be expressed something like the following:

1. The greatest possible Being exists in my mind. I can conceive of such a Being.
2. Such a Being would not be the “greatest possible” if he did not exist outside my mind as well as inside my mind.
3. Therefore, God exists (in the world as well as in my mind).

Strong arguments have been made against this form of the argument. It seems to mix the “real world” with the world in my mind. (Anselm thought the world in my mind was the more real world. His Platonic leanings actually stand in the background of his argument.)

A more intriguing form of the argument has more recently been presented by Alvin Plantinga. It goes like this:

1. There is a possible world in which God exists.
2. If God exists in one possible world, God exists in all possible worlds.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Some find this form of the argument very persuasive indeed. Others would say that it is a circular argument. Again, not every argument for God’s existence is as persuasive