Moral Arguments For The Existence Of God Philosophy Essay

The question of the existence of God is one of the crucial issues that have refused to go over the ages. One of the greatest and probably the most famous and influential theologian of the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas proposed the “Five Ways” arguments for the existence of God (McGrath 2011, p35) and these arguments provide the theological foundation for knowing God through the creation. There are arguments and reasons given by evolutionists, atheist, philosophers, and so on, as to why they believe there is no God. So, it will be necessary to discuss the negative emphasis of atheism world view in denying the existence of theistic God, so as to do justice to this essay from a polemist view.

The argument from design by William Paley (1743-1805) is known as teleological argument and is among the most widely discussed of the philosophical arguments for existence of God. Paley, an evidential apologist argues that, there exist a clear signs of design within the natural order. Thing do not simply exist; they appear to have been designed with some form of purpose in mind (McGrath 2011, p183). However, Charles Darwin, an English naturalist (1809-82) offered alternative explanation of this apparent design in nature and this severely eroded the credibility of Paley’s approach (McGrath 2011, p73).

The moral argument begins from human values, such as truth, goodness, and nobility. Where do these values come from? What caused them? Aquinas said there must be something which is in itself true, good and noble, and that; this is what brings into being our ideas of truth, goodness, and nobility. Aquinas suggests that the origin of these ideas is the moral God, the original Cause. Atheists shy away from this argument calling it an illusion or wishful thinking (McGrath2011, p 184, 325, 430).

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

These different apologetic issues will be discussed in this essay to lead to a conclusion that is logical and true. The aim is to convince the reader God exist from merely what has been created and from the adequate evidences outside of the Scripture and purposely persuading from philosophical view about theistic God of the Bible. The task is not just to show the invalidity in the arguments for atheism but to also show the impossibility of the atheistic position.

DISCUSSION

Geisler (1976, p215-216) explained that some traditional atheists like Jean-Paul Sartre believe that there never was, is, or will be a God. Geisler mentioned the mythological atheist like Nietzsche who was a radical anti-philosopher that believed the God-myth was once alive but died and is no longer workable and he modelled this for some men. Giesler also gave the example that Thomas Altizer popularized dialectical atheism with the paradox that God was once really alive but he died in the incarnation and crucifixion of Christ and modern times have only just realised that this is so. The last example that Geisler used is Paul Van Buren, a semantically/linguistically atheist who claimed that God-talk is dead, so religion is dead. These views have pointed philosophy to the very place of its modern task.

According to Aquinas cosmotological argument which begins from observation that things in the world are in motion or change and that everything needs a cause except for the self-caused Being. This theist argument is usually based on Thomistic principle of existential causality which claims that every finite, contingent, and changing being has a cause and that there is an infinite, necessary, and unchanging Being Who does not need a cause (Jeffcoat 1975, p3). The ontological argument is about man’s universal intuitive belief in God, an idea of an absolutely perfect Being can be conceived; and because that idea exist then He exit, and it is not as a result of cultural conditioning according to Anslem (McGrath 2011, p180-182). These arguments proof God to be the Cause of the universe and the greatest Being. The classical teleological argument set out to proof God as the Designer of the universe while the Moral argument proof God to be the law Giver and these two arguments will be the major focus of this essay. This is all in an attempt to show the numerous avenues to extrapolate the existence of God.

The design or purpose (telos) argument has typically been divided into the cosmic design and organismic design (Manson 2003, p27). The cosmic design argument focuses on the order, planning, and design in a system is an indication of intelligence, purpose and specific intent on the part of the originating cause, so the universe evinces purposely design there must be a designer (Thompson 2003, p67-68). William Paley argues that things exist because of a purpose or need or function. For example, if one were to discover a watch lying on ground and were to examine it closely, the sign inherent in the watch would be enough to force the conclusion that there must have been a watch maker. Paley continued in his line of argument to suggest that the design inherent in the universe should be enough to force the conclusion there must have been a Great Designer (Thompson 2003, p69). Dawkin (1986), said natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet essentially non random process that Darwin discovered is now understood as explanation of the existence and form of all life. It has neither mind nor purpose and no vision inferring to a blind watch maker.

Thompson (2003, p70) explained that the disagreement between the theist and the atheist is not whether design demand designer, rather the point of contention is whether or not nature is adequate designed to substantiate the conclusion that a Designer does in fact exist. This is where the teleological argument is of benefit. Our universe operates in accordance with the exact scientific laws. The precision of the universe, the exactness of these laws allow scientist to launch rockets to the moon, with the full knowledge that, upon their arrival, they can land within a few feet of their intended target. So also the astronomers are able to predict solar/lunar eclipses years in advance. So, this precision, complexity, orderliness, within the universe are not in dispute, but writers such as Ricci, Sartre, Dawkins, etc are not prepared to concede design because the implication is that it will demand for a Designer. Is there evidence of design, atheist claims that no such evidence exist.

Thompson (2003, p70-76) detailed how the atheist have busied themselves by measuring light, distance, speed, estimated the one billion galaxies in the universe, the sun giving energy, the earth rotating and etc. Yet while the size of the universe is impressive, the inherent design is even much more. The design is that the earth is placed rightly from the sun to provide life-sustaining climate for the inhabitants. The moon, ocean, tides etc, could these exacting requirements with delicate balance needed to provide the right conditioning to permit life have happened just by accident? Dawkins (1982, p94:130) admitted that the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer (Thompson 2003, p76).

The organismic design argument is explained by Manson (2003, p27-28) starting with observation of organisms features that adapt to the environments in which they live and that enables them to function properly. Design of the human body is an intentional planning looking at the structural master piece within its ingenious system and highly endowed organisation. Is this a blind chance or rather a result of Master Designer? The cells, tissue, organ and system, this is obviously an intelligent design. The physical body has been marvellously designed and intricately organised for the purpose to facilitate human existence upon the planet earth (Jackson 1993). Thompson(2003, p77-109) discussed the reproductive method of cells, mitosis, meiosis, the genetic code, DNA, genes, chromosomes, genotypes, phenotypes, the integrated relationship between muscles and bones, the wonders of the skin, nails, hair, and etc. The eye is one of the forceful evidence within the human body, even Darwin (1859, p170) struggled and admitted the different amount of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection is absurd. Jastrow (1981, p96-98,101) said no designer of telescope could have done a better. He said the fact of evolution is not in doubt; nonetheless it is hard to accept that evolution of the eye is a product of chance considering the extremely complex mechanism of the eye.

The skeletal system has different bones axial, appendicular, long, short, flat and irregular bones, their functions of rigid support, protection devices, etc. Gillen (2001, p41) said our bones act as the levers and fulcrums for our activities and a brilliant Designer is behind it. The circulatory system cause the heart to pump or beat, the small patches of tissue, the cardiac pacemaker producing electrical current to certain nerves fibres that stimulate muscular contraction that send the blood flowing through the body. A cleverly designed network of arteries branching from veins, even evolutionists Miller and Goode (1960, p68) said it is hard to imagine a better job of engineering. One writer noted the amazingly the ear, although about the size of hazelnut contains as many circuits as the telephone system. Psalmist (94:9) says God planted the ear and formed the eyes. Hearing and seeing are not developments of an eons-long evolutionary process. Proverb (20:12) says that Jehovah made both the hearing ear and the seeing eye. Our eyes and ears are transmitters that sense light and sound around us and turn them into electrical impulses that the brain can interpret. The circulatory system contains solid material, red cell, white cells and platelets with each having different functions.

Thompson (2003, p129-143) continued by asking how can the brain arrive here by Darwanian mechanism? The brain arguably is the most unique organ in the entire body, not merely by its physical make up (three pounds weight, spongy, soft matter in a small space) but because of what it does how it does it. The brain carries out multitudes of tasks; it conceives the chemical signals and immediately recognises and decodes. Brain keep the body at homeostasis, signal the heart to beat and the lung to respire, it measures hormone level in the blood stream and make necessary adjustment and relay any pain or sensation that one might feel during those few short seconds. The brain and the associated nerves carry out many physiological functions simultaneously with such marvellous precision yet it crams all our education, memories, communications, skills, emotions. Brain keeps our heart beating, breathing, smelling, relating, speaking, action, loving, etc. Scientists have admitted that by mechanism, they have not worked it out and there is a huge amount that they don’t know (Tattersall 1998, p69-70). The brain exceeds the most powerful computer and even computer did not arrive at the planet by time, natural law and chance. Time will not permit examine the digestive, reproductive systems which also provide clear and compelling evidence of design. From macro to micro organisms, such designs speak eloquently of a Grand Designer.

Scientists have tried to fashion numerous artificial organs but the effort has been limited success. Mader (1979, p367) said no synthetic spare part however well engineered can match the capacity of the original natural sophisticated organ. Artificial body parts are made of plastic, titanium and so on and it involves many surgeons and costing millions and hours of work only to extend the life few months or years at best. Instead of accepting the existence of God, they developed two-pronged approaches which suggest adaptation or random chance and secondly they claim non-design or poor-design. A faulty machine does not necessarily reflect upon the designer if the user fails to follow the correct instruction. Same thing that man fell in Genesis 3, evil was introduced and consequently because of disobedience degenerative process begin which eventually result in death (Romans5:12).

Finally, moral argument acknowledged that actions have consequences. It is a fact that what you believe have implications. Gardner (1988, p57-64), a humanist said what a person believe profoundly influence how the person act. Carnell (1948, p316, 315) said if we are to act meaningfully not haphazardly, then he/she must rationally count the cost and think before acting. Right judgement and proper action always go together. Where do we draw the line? By what standard are our choices to be measured and judged? The choices that we being required today and the consequences that those actions bring along can be right or wrong; should we encourage homosexuals, surrogacy, abortion, euthanasia, etc. Our mere intuition or emotions cannot meaningfully answer those questions. Some of the questions facing us are new and the past provide little or no guide. So, moral and ethics are important. Simpson (1967, p346), an evolutionist said humans are the only creatures of the earth that are concerned unequally with morality. Animal do not operate with any ethical code, they have no conscience.

Morality means habit or custom according to its Latin word mores. Ethic is from Greek word meaning character. Jackson (1995 15:50) define morality as the character of being in accordance with the principles or standard of right conduct. Ethics is defined by standard dictionary as the discipline dealing with what is good and bad or right and wrong; a group of moral principles or a set of values. Ethics then is generally viewed as the system or code which attitude and actions are determined to be either right or wrong. Ethic is the science of conduct and fundamental problem of ethics is determining what constitute proper conduct (Carnell 1948, p315). Moral or ethical philosophy deals with right conduct, ethical duty and virtues i.e. hoe we ought to behave.

The origin of human ethics must then be explained. Its either it originate from the mind of God their Maker or they are anthropocentric i.e. originate from man himself (Geisler and Corduan, 1988, p109-122). Carnell (1948, p 320-321) said, it is either that the law that rules the mind is supreme, or the mind which makes the mind is paramount. But the mind does not make the law; it is the law that makes the mind. Theists submit to the Law Giver but atheists defend the position of the law. So, how can the atheist or infidel explain the origin of morality since they don’t have an eternal Mind with which goodness coexisted as an intrinsically Moral Being. Man is not capable of discerning moral truth. Darwin (1889, 1:64, 282)draw a grand conclusion that the mind of man, developed from as low as that possessed by the lowest animals cannot be trusted to locate and leave by moral truth. Dawkins (Bass 1990, 12[4]: 60, 86) indirectly explained that a society based on the concept of godless evolution would be a very nasty place to live. If there is no purpose in the universe as Simpson and others have asserted, then there is no purpose for morality and ethics which we know is irrational. Sartre (1961, p485), a French Existential philosopher simply put that, in the absence of God, everything is allowed because there is no one to provide us with any values or command that could legitimize our behaviour. Tolstoy (1964, p31-32) said without religion, there can be no real, sincere morality just as without roots there can be no real flower. God has the soul of every living thing (Job12:10).

CONCLUSION

Geisler (1976, p223-225) evaluated that these atheist contributions have helped to build an adequate world view and have helped to eliminate some contradictory concepts of God. It has also provided a corrective for some misconceptions of God and His relations to the world; putting theist theologians on guard against hermeneutics and putting refinements of theism. This non-human Designer of human organs must be God, so God exists. What we believe will influence behaviour and harmonize the conduct and character accordingly. Only theocentric approach can provide the objective, absolute set of moral and ethic due to the unchanging nature of the Almighty God. The rest of the atheism arguments are invalid in that they are either based on misconception or else overlooks some possibility that would affirm theism. Eventually, each of is going to meet the righteous judgement of God who will render everyone according to his works (Romans 2:5-6). God’s activities of day four of creation week show that He certainly is due more honour than the universe He created (Genesis 1, Hebrew3:3-4, Psalm 19:1).