1. Argument from Reason, or, Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG)
Summary:
A. Objective Reason (logic, morality, universal laws) exists.
B. Reason could not be relied upon if it were not universal.
C. An omnipotent, intelligent force must have determined universal Reason.
D. Therefore, God exists.
B. Reason could not be relied upon if it were not universal.
C. An omnipotent, intelligent force must have determined universal Reason.
D. Therefore, God exists.
C.S. Lewis, British writer and lay-theologian, 1898-1963
“Unless I believe in God, I can’t believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”
— C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity, The Macmillan Co., 1945 (1942)
“There are all sorts of different reasons for believing in God, and here I’ll mention only one. It is this. Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen for physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a bye-product, the sensation I call thought. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk-jug and hoping that the way the splash arranges itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can’t believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”
— C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity, The Macmillan Co., 1945 (1942)
“[A theist] is not committed to the view that reason is a comparatively recent development molded by a process of selection which can select only the biologically useful. For him, reason–the reason of God–is older than Nature, and from it the orderliness of Nature, which alone enables us to know her, is derived. For him, the human mind in the act of knowing is illuminated by the Divine reason.”
— C.S. Lewis, Miracles, London & Glasgow: Collins/Fontana, 1947
“If Naturalism is true we have no reason to trust our conviction that Nature is uniform. It can be trusted only if quite a different Metaphysic is true. If the deepest thing in reality, the Fact which is the source of all other facthood, is a thing in some degree like ourselves – if it is a Rational Spirit and we derive our rationality from It–then indeed our conviction can be trusted.”
— C.S. Lewis, Miracles, London & Glasgow: Collins/Fontana, 1947
“As I have said, there is no such thing (strictly speaking) as human reason: but there is emphatically such thing as human thought– in other words, the various specifically human conceptions of Reason, failures of complete rationality which arise in a wishful and lazy human mind utilizing a tired human brain. The difference between acknowledging this and being sceptical [sic] about Reason itself, is enormous. For in the one case we should be saying that reality contradicts Reason, whereas now we are only saying that total Reason–cosmic or super-cosmic Reason–corrects human imperfections of Reason… To say that Reason is objective is to say that all our false reasonings could in principle be corrected by more Reason.”
— C.S. Lewis, In Christian Reflections, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967
“Unless I were to accept an unbelievable alternative, I must admit that mind was no late-come epiphenomenon; that the whole universe was, in the last resort, mental; that our logic was participation in a cosmic Logos.”
— C.S. Lewis, Surprised By Joy, Harcourt Brace, 1955
“What exists on its own must have existed from all eternity; for if anything else could make it begin to exist then it would not exist on its own but because of something else. It must also exist incessantly: that is, it cannot cease to exist and then begin again. For having once ceased to be, it obviously could not recall itself to existence, and if anything else recalled it it would then be a dependent being. Now it is clear that my Reason has grown up gradually since my birth and is interrupted for several hours each night. I therefore cannot be that eternal self-existent Reason which neither slumbers nor sleeps. Yet if any thought is valid, such a Reason must exist and must be the source of my own imperfect and intermittent rationality. Human minds, then, are not the only supernatural entities that exist. They do not come from nowhere. each has come into Nature from Supernature: each has its tap-root in an eternal; self-existent, rational Being, whom we call God. Each is an offshoot, or spearhead, or incursion of that Supernatural reality into Nature.”
— C.S. Lewis, Miracles, London & Glasgow: Collins/Fontana, 1947
“Unless I believe in God, I can’t believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”
— C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity, The Macmillan Co., 1945 (1942)
“There are all sorts of different reasons for believing in God, and here I’ll mention only one. It is this. Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen for physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a bye-product, the sensation I call thought. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk-jug and hoping that the way the splash arranges itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can’t believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”
— C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity, The Macmillan Co., 1945 (1942)
“[A theist] is not committed to the view that reason is a comparatively recent development molded by a process of selection which can select only the biologically useful. For him, reason–the reason of God–is older than Nature, and from it the orderliness of Nature, which alone enables us to know her, is derived. For him, the human mind in the act of knowing is illuminated by the Divine reason.”
— C.S. Lewis, Miracles, London & Glasgow: Collins/Fontana, 1947
“If Naturalism is true we have no reason to trust our conviction that Nature is uniform. It can be trusted only if quite a different Metaphysic is true. If the deepest thing in reality, the Fact which is the source of all other facthood, is a thing in some degree like ourselves – if it is a Rational Spirit and we derive our rationality from It–then indeed our conviction can be trusted.”
— C.S. Lewis, Miracles, London & Glasgow: Collins/Fontana, 1947
“As I have said, there is no such thing (strictly speaking) as human reason: but there is emphatically such thing as human thought– in other words, the various specifically human conceptions of Reason, failures of complete rationality which arise in a wishful and lazy human mind utilizing a tired human brain. The difference between acknowledging this and being sceptical [sic] about Reason itself, is enormous. For in the one case we should be saying that reality contradicts Reason, whereas now we are only saying that total Reason–cosmic or super-cosmic Reason–corrects human imperfections of Reason… To say that Reason is objective is to say that all our false reasonings could in principle be corrected by more Reason.”
— C.S. Lewis, In Christian Reflections, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967
“Unless I were to accept an unbelievable alternative, I must admit that mind was no late-come epiphenomenon; that the whole universe was, in the last resort, mental; that our logic was participation in a cosmic Logos.”
— C.S. Lewis, Surprised By Joy, Harcourt Brace, 1955
“What exists on its own must have existed from all eternity; for if anything else could make it begin to exist then it would not exist on its own but because of something else. It must also exist incessantly: that is, it cannot cease to exist and then begin again. For having once ceased to be, it obviously could not recall itself to existence, and if anything else recalled it it would then be a dependent being. Now it is clear that my Reason has grown up gradually since my birth and is interrupted for several hours each night. I therefore cannot be that eternal self-existent Reason which neither slumbers nor sleeps. Yet if any thought is valid, such a Reason must exist and must be the source of my own imperfect and intermittent rationality. Human minds, then, are not the only supernatural entities that exist. They do not come from nowhere. each has come into Nature from Supernature: each has its tap-root in an eternal; self-existent, rational Being, whom we call God. Each is an offshoot, or spearhead, or incursion of that Supernatural reality into Nature.”
— C.S. Lewis, Miracles, London & Glasgow: Collins/Fontana, 1947
James Anderson & Greg Welty, professors of philosophy & theology
“If the laws of logic are metaphysically dependent on God, it follows that every logical argument presupposes the existence of God. What this means is that every sound Theistic argument not only proves the existence of God but also presupposes the existence of God, insofar as that argument depends on logical inference. Indeed, every unsound theistic argument presupposes the existence of God. And the same goes, naturally, for every antitheistic argument. The irony must not be missed: one can logically argue against God only if God exists.”
— James Anderson & Greg Welty, “The Lord of Noncontradiction,” in Philosophia Christi volume 13, No. 5, 2011 p337
“If the laws of logic are metaphysically dependent on God, it follows that every logical argument presupposes the existence of God. What this means is that every sound Theistic argument not only proves the existence of God but also presupposes the existence of God, insofar as that argument depends on logical inference. Indeed, every unsound theistic argument presupposes the existence of God. And the same goes, naturally, for every antitheistic argument. The irony must not be missed: one can logically argue against God only if God exists.”
— James Anderson & Greg Welty, “The Lord of Noncontradiction,” in Philosophia Christi volume 13, No. 5, 2011 p337
St. Thomas Aquinas, Italian friar, priest, philosopher, & theologian, 1225-1274
“The fifth way [the existence of God can be proved] is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”
— St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, Q2, A3, Second and Revised Edition, translated by Fathers of the English Dominican, 1920
“The fifth way [the existence of God can be proved] is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”
— St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, Q2, A3, Second and Revised Edition, translated by Fathers of the English Dominican, 1920
Elmer Leon Towns, American professor of theology & pastor, 1932-
“First, man’s intellect must have an adequate explanation. It could not evolve from matter, and it could not come from anything that is described as non-intellect. Matter and intellect are essentially different in nature, i.e., matter is classified by its physical properties while mind is described by its non-material existence and is measured by its result. Since an effect cannot be greater than its cause, matter cannot be greater than mind. Since man with his mind can control matter, and man can modify the makeup of matter, while the reverse is not true, then mind is greater than matter. Therefore, mind cannot be the result of matter, and the existence of the mind (with memory, discernment, choice, and reason (leads us to accept the First Cause as possessing mind. And since man has similar rational facilities, then man must have received his mind from God.”
— Elmer L. Towns, Theology for Today, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2002 p39
“First, man’s intellect must have an adequate explanation. It could not evolve from matter, and it could not come from anything that is described as non-intellect. Matter and intellect are essentially different in nature, i.e., matter is classified by its physical properties while mind is described by its non-material existence and is measured by its result. Since an effect cannot be greater than its cause, matter cannot be greater than mind. Since man with his mind can control matter, and man can modify the makeup of matter, while the reverse is not true, then mind is greater than matter. Therefore, mind cannot be the result of matter, and the existence of the mind (with memory, discernment, choice, and reason (leads us to accept the First Cause as possessing mind. And since man has similar rational facilities, then man must have received his mind from God.”
— Elmer L. Towns, Theology for Today, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2002 p39
2. Argument from Consciousness
Summary:
A. The universe is intelligible, and we are capable of grasping it.
B. Our ability to understand the universe either comes from a greater intelligence, or random chance.
C. It is not from chance.
D. Therefore, God.
B. Our ability to understand the universe either comes from a greater intelligence, or random chance.
C. It is not from chance.
D. Therefore, God.
Peter John Kreeft, American professor of philosophy, 1937-
A. We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.
B. Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.
C. Not blind chance.
D. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.
— Peter Kreeft, “The Argument from Consciousness,” 20 Arguments for God’s Existence (website)
“When we experience the tremendous order and intelligibility in the universe, we are experiencing something intelligence can grasp. Intelligence is part of what we find in the world. But this universe is not itself intellectually aware. As great as the forces of nature are, they do not know themselves. Yet we know them and ourselves. These remarkable facts—the presence of intelligence amidst unconscious material processes, and the conformity of those processes to the structure of conscious intelligence—have given rise to a variation on the first argument for design.”
— Peter Kreeft, “The Argument from Consciousness,” 20 Arguments for God’s Existence (website)
A. We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.
B. Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.
C. Not blind chance.
D. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.
— Peter Kreeft, “The Argument from Consciousness,” 20 Arguments for God’s Existence (website)
“When we experience the tremendous order and intelligibility in the universe, we are experiencing something intelligence can grasp. Intelligence is part of what we find in the world. But this universe is not itself intellectually aware. As great as the forces of nature are, they do not know themselves. Yet we know them and ourselves. These remarkable facts—the presence of intelligence amidst unconscious material processes, and the conformity of those processes to the structure of conscious intelligence—have given rise to a variation on the first argument for design.”
— Peter Kreeft, “The Argument from Consciousness,” 20 Arguments for God’s Existence (website)
Stephen C. Meyer, PhD, American philosopher, 1958-
“I’d say human consciousness certainly supports a theistic view of human nature. Judaism and Christianity clearly teach that we are more than just matter–we’re not a ‘computer made of meat,’ in the words of Marvin Minsky, but we’re made in God’s image.
“We have the capacity for self-reflection, for representational art, for language, for creativity. Science can’t account for this kind of consciousness merely from the interaction of physical matter in the brain. Where did it come from? Again, I think theism provides the best explanation.”
— Stephen C. Meyer, PhD (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan,2004 p84
“I’d say human consciousness certainly supports a theistic view of human nature. Judaism and Christianity clearly teach that we are more than just matter–we’re not a ‘computer made of meat,’ in the words of Marvin Minsky, but we’re made in God’s image.
“We have the capacity for self-reflection, for representational art, for language, for creativity. Science can’t account for this kind of consciousness merely from the interaction of physical matter in the brain. Where did it come from? Again, I think theism provides the best explanation.”
— Stephen C. Meyer, PhD (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan,2004 p84
J.P. Moreland, American philosopher & theologian, 1948-
“As philosopher Geoffrey Medell said, ‘The emergence of consciousness, then, is a mystery, and one to which materialism fails to provide an answer. ’Atheist Colin McGinn agrees. He asks, ‘How can mere matter originate consciousness? How did evolution convert the water of the biological tissue into the wine of consciousness? Consciousness seems like a radical novelty in the universe, not prefigured by the aftereffects of the Big Bang. So how did it contrive to spring into being from what preceded it?’
“Here’s the point: you can’t get something from nothing. It’s as simple as that. If there were no God, then the history of the entire universe, up until the appearance of living creatures, would be a history of dead matter with no consciousness. You would not have any thoughts, beliefs, feelings, sensations, free actions, choices, or purposes. There would be simply one physical event after another physical event, behaving according to the laws of physics and chemistry.
“How, then, do you get something totally different–consciousness, living, thinking, feeling, believing creatures–from materials that don’t have that? That’s getting something from nothing! And that’s the main problem.
“If you apply a physical process to physical matter, you’re going to get a different arrangement of physical materials... And if the history of the universe is just a story of physical processes being applied to physical materials, you’d end up with increasingly complicated arrangements of physical materials, but you’re not going to get something that’s completely non phyiscal. That is a jump of a totally different kind.
“At the end of the day, as Phillip Johnson put it, you either have ‘In the beginning were the particles,’ or ‘In the beginning was the Logos,’ which means ‘divine mind.’ If you start with particles, and the history of the universe is just a story about the rearrangement of particles, you may end up with a more complicated arrangement particles, but you’re still going to have particles. You’re not going to have minds or consciousness.
“However–and this is really important–if you begin with an infinite mind, then you can explain how finite minds could come into existence. That makes sense. What doesn’t make sense–and which many atheistic evolutionists are conceding–is the idea of getting a mind to squirt into existence by starting with brute, dead, mindless matter. That’s why some of them are trying to get rid of consciousness and that we’re just computers.”
— J.P. Moreland, PhD (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan,2004 p278-279
“As philosopher Geoffrey Medell said, ‘The emergence of consciousness, then, is a mystery, and one to which materialism fails to provide an answer. ’Atheist Colin McGinn agrees. He asks, ‘How can mere matter originate consciousness? How did evolution convert the water of the biological tissue into the wine of consciousness? Consciousness seems like a radical novelty in the universe, not prefigured by the aftereffects of the Big Bang. So how did it contrive to spring into being from what preceded it?’
“Here’s the point: you can’t get something from nothing. It’s as simple as that. If there were no God, then the history of the entire universe, up until the appearance of living creatures, would be a history of dead matter with no consciousness. You would not have any thoughts, beliefs, feelings, sensations, free actions, choices, or purposes. There would be simply one physical event after another physical event, behaving according to the laws of physics and chemistry.
“How, then, do you get something totally different–consciousness, living, thinking, feeling, believing creatures–from materials that don’t have that? That’s getting something from nothing! And that’s the main problem.
“If you apply a physical process to physical matter, you’re going to get a different arrangement of physical materials... And if the history of the universe is just a story of physical processes being applied to physical materials, you’d end up with increasingly complicated arrangements of physical materials, but you’re not going to get something that’s completely non phyiscal. That is a jump of a totally different kind.
“At the end of the day, as Phillip Johnson put it, you either have ‘In the beginning were the particles,’ or ‘In the beginning was the Logos,’ which means ‘divine mind.’ If you start with particles, and the history of the universe is just a story about the rearrangement of particles, you may end up with a more complicated arrangement particles, but you’re still going to have particles. You’re not going to have minds or consciousness.
“However–and this is really important–if you begin with an infinite mind, then you can explain how finite minds could come into existence. That makes sense. What doesn’t make sense–and which many atheistic evolutionists are conceding–is the idea of getting a mind to squirt into existence by starting with brute, dead, mindless matter. That’s why some of them are trying to get rid of consciousness and that we’re just computers.”
— J.P. Moreland, PhD (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan,2004 p278-279
Paul Davies, PhD, English physicist & professor, 1946-
“What does it mean? What is Man that we might be party to such privilege? I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate. The physical species Homo may count for nothing, but the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here.”
— Paul Davies, The Mind of God, Touchstone, 1992 p232
“What does it mean? What is Man that we might be party to such privilege? I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate. The physical species Homo may count for nothing, but the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here.”
— Paul Davies, The Mind of God, Touchstone, 1992 p232