Arguments for the existence of GOD

Yesterday we looked briefly at two arguments for the existence of GOD: the Ontological and Cosmological arguments. Today we will look at the TELEOLOGICAL (intelligent design) and MORAL arguments.
TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: This argument has come roaring back into prominence in recent years. As mentioned in my first blog, eminent scientists such Dr Dean Kenyon have turned to intelligent design as an explanation for the breathtaking complexity of the DNA (instruction manual) and mico-machinery of a single cell. Evolution’s mechanism of natural selection and mutation can’t explain where the complex information (instruction manual) came from for the first cell let alone add all the new complex information to go from “goo to you”. In addition, the incredible degree of cosmic fine tuning in the universe has led scientists to conclude that such a delicate balance of physical constants and quantities as is requisite for LIFE cannot be explained in any other way than intelligent design. By “LIFE”, scientists mean that property of all organisms to take in food, extract energy from it, grow and adapt to their environment, and reproduce. In the absence of fine-tuning, not even atomic matter or chemistry would exist, let alone planets where life might evolve. Prominent atheist, Richard Dawkins’ (author of The God Delusion) red herring “who designed the designer” has no bearing on the fact that the best explanation of the obvious appearance of design in the universe is a designer. Therefore of the only three possible alternatives/explanations: physical necessity, chance or design – the most plausible of the three is the hypothesis of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
MORAL ARGUMENT: This is a very convincing argument particularly the argument for God on the basis of the objectivity of moral values and duties.
A very straight forward formulation of this argument is as follows:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2.Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore God exists.
When we talk of moral values we mean, is it good or bad (evil) whereas with moral duties, is it right or wrong. To say that something is objective is to say that it is independent of what people think or perceive e.g. the Holocaust was objectively wrong even though the Nazis thought it was right. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or evil independetly of whether any human believes it to be so.
As Richard Dawkins says “There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference …. We are machines for propogating DNA… It is every living objects sole reason for being”.
Without GOD there is NO basis for the objective moral values that do exist. We also know that God’s moral law is “written on the hearts” of all men as “their conscience bears witness to them” Romans 2:14-15. hence even the Richard Dawkins of this world know that murder is morally wrong but their world view can’t explain why.
In summary, on an atheistic , naturalistic world view, there is no basis for affirming the existence of objective moral values and duties.
In short, the moral argument brings us to a personal, necessarily existent being who is the locus and source of moral goodness.
The Moral Argument with the Cosmological and Teleological arguments provide powerful evidence for the existence of GOD.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.