Ten Top Arguments for the Existence of God

Ten Top Arguments for the Existence of God

I’ve recently written an 8-part series on arguments for the existence of God. Those posts are in-depth examinations of eight different arguments for God’s existence. Here, I want to lay out some of them in a much briefer form and share what I think are ten of the best.

Note the order of the title: I’m calling this “Ten Top Arguments” rather than “The Top Ten arguments” because I don’t think these ten arguments are necessarily better than all others. There are dozens of different arguments for God’s existence conceived by different minds that work in different ways. They focus on a variety of aspects of reality, and each of them speaks to a person with a different kind of mind. The person with the logical mind will probably be most drawn to arguments based in logic and science; the person with the artistic mind will probably be most drawn to arguments based on experience and aesthetics. What convinces one person may not convince another. So for that reason, it’s impossible to give an objective ranking.

That being said, I am presenting these in the form of an ordered list, going from #10 to #1. Then I’ll note what I think are some challenges and strengths of each argument. The rankings don’t mean a whole lot—they’re just what I feel like today, really. If you asked me to order this list again next week, I might do it differently. So don’t put too much stock in these rankings.

One thing that’s very important to keep in mind when evaluating these arguments: They don’t prove God exists, and they’re not intended to prove God exists. There are obviously possible alternative explanations. Rather, these arguments try to show that God is the best explanation for some phenomenon or aspect of reality.

#10) The argument from mathematics. I haven’t written about this one, because math isn’t my best subject. But I find it very interesting nonetheless. This argument basically says:

1. The structures and laws of the universe can be neatly described in terms of mathematics that intelligent creatures are capable of discovering and comprehending.
2. If the universe is the result of random chance, there’s no reason to think it should be so neatly and rationally explainable by mathematical equations. It would be an extremely improbable coincidence.
3. A better explanation is that the universe was designed with rational, understandable laws by a Creator who wanted us to discover those laws.

Challenges: You probably need a thorough knowledge of complex mathematics to really appreciate and wrestle with this argument. I don’t fall into that category. But someone who does could use it effectively.

Strengths: The argument makes a good point that not many ponder: It’s amazing that we’re able to discover so many truths about the universe just by writing equations on paper. It’s how Einstein discovered his theory of relativity, for example. Mathematical equations are a huge part of how we do architecture, engineering, and computer science. If the universe is the result of random chance, why should we expect it to be at all rational or orderly, let alone comprehensible by intelligent creatures with a pencil and paper?

#9) The evolutionary argument against naturalism. I wrote about this argument here. This is not an argument for God’s existence per se, but an argument against naturalism—the belief that the natural world is all there is. If you want a more concise and entertaining version of this argument, this video gives a great summary in under 4 minutes. The short version:

1. If the theory of naturalistic evolution is true, that means every part of any creature—including human beings—is a result of random genetic variation and natural selection. All of these have adapted via the evolutionary process to maximize a creature’s ability to survive. This includes our brains.
2. If the theory of naturalistic evolution is true, then the physical and chemical processes in our brains are entirely responsible for the formation of our beliefs.
3. Therefore, if the theory of naturalistic evolution is true, those belief-forming processes are optimized to maximize our ability to survive—not necessarily to discover truth. 
4. Sometimes true beliefs may hinder our ability to survive, and false beliefs may enhance it. The evolutionary process would condition our brains to favor the false belief.
5. Therefore, we should not trust the physical and chemical processes in our brains to lead us to true beliefs.
6. Therefore, if our brains tell us that the naturalistic theory of evolution is true, we should not trust them.

Challenges: The evolutionary argument against naturalism doesn’t go all the way to arguing that God exists. If true, it only demonstrates that something beyond the natural universe exists. It could also be argued that, even though one can come up with some examples of instances where knowledge of truth hinders survival, in most cases knowledge of truth does have survival value. However, this can be countered by pointing out that while this may be true for knowledge of truth about the physical world, there’s no reason to believe it’s the case for philosophical beliefs like naturalism.

Strengths: The argument bypasses the creation-evolution issue by granting that evolution is true and then exploring the implications. It does not require someone to deny the theory of evolution at all. In fact, the implication is that evolution makes more sense if God guided the process than if it happened randomly. This turns the usual perception of evolution as disproving theism on its head.

#8) The argument from beauty. I wrote about this argument here. This argument is not often used by philosophers, and when it is, it takes many different forms. Here’s one form:

1. If objective beauty exists, then there must be an ultimate standard by which we can judge how objectively beautiful something is.
2. Objective beauty exists.
3. Therefore, there must be both a source of beauty and some ultimately beautiful thing against which we can measure the beauty of any other thing.
4. That ultimately beautiful thing is God, who created the world with beauty to reflect his own beauty.

Challenges: Its strength for some is also its weakness for others. It heavily relies on human intuition rather than hard facts or data, and requires the arguer to clear the hurdle of showing that objective beauty exists. Another big hurdle is to justify why the source of beauty and the ultimately beautiful being must be God. I think it can be done, though.

Strengths: Unlike most arguments for God’s existence, this one doesn’t appeal to hard science and logic, but aesthetics. It shows God as an artist rather than an architect or lawmaker. The argument from beauty could really speak to someone who appreciates things like art and music more than science.

#7) The argument from contingency. I wrote about this argument here. I best like the form used by William Lane Craig in this video:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. The explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

Challenges: When you see tongue-twisters like “by the necessity of its own nature” embedded in the simplified form of an argument, you can bet it’s a pretty complex one. Indeed, it’s probably the most philosophically difficult of these arguments to understand and make. The hardest part is explaining what it means for something (God) to exist by the necessity of its (his) own nature.

Strengths: The argument from contingency doesn’t rely on scientific theories that are subject to change as its close cousin, the kalam cosmological argument, does. It’s a purely philosophical argument, although science and math can be brought into the picture to defend it. It even allows, theoretically, for the possibility of an eternally existing multiverse, which can be helpful in the case of someone who otherwise doesn’t see why they should believe in God rather than (or in addition to) a multiverse.

#6) Argument from innate desire. I wrote about this argument here. Philosopher Peter Kreeft presents it in this form:

1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, Earth, and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

Challenges: It requires a person to honestly search their own heart’s desires to fully appreciate the argument. Many people are quick to impulsively dismiss the idea that they truly desire a perfect world. It’s also a challenge to show that all desires must have an object that potentially satisfies them. Adequately specifying what one means by “innate desire” goes a long way toward that end.

Strengths: It appeals to aspects of our human nature that resonate deeply within our hearts. It also reasons from experience: every one of our innate, core desires has some object that fulfills them, so why should our desire for something outside of this world be the one exception?

#5) Argument from religious experience. I haven’t posted an article on this one yet, but here’s a link (see #18) to a good explanation of one form of it by Peter Kreeft. Here’s how he formulates it:

1. Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the divine.
2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience.
3. Therefore, there exists a divine reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced.

Challenges: Some might be surprised that I rank this argument so highly, because all sorts of objections can be raised against this argument. Indeed, some might consider it one of the weakest arguments since experience varies so much from person to person. The Christian can easily get caught up in trying to explain why Christian religious experiences lead to a true knowledge of God while other religions’ experiences don’t. However, a Christian doesn’t have to deny the reality of other people’s religious experiences, but merely challenge interpretations of them (e.g. Muhammad may have believed he was communicating with an angel, but could have been communicating with an evil spirit, and here are some reasons why that’s the best explanation, etc.).

Strengths: There are a wide variety of religious experiences to focus on for this argument, including 1) personal encounters with God; 2) miracles; 3) changed lives as a result of religious conversion; and more. Personal experience is an extremely powerful form of knowledge, and personal stories speak to people’s hearts. If you ask any theist why he or she believes in God, the vast majority will cite some kind of experience as the reason.

#4) The kalam cosmological argument. I wrote about this one here. This argument is pretty straightforward:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Challenges: The science behind some objections to this argument is complex and hard to grasp. I’d recommend reading some good Christian apologists’ responses to such objections. Also, some people misunderstand the argument to be claiming that everything has a cause, and then proceed to ask, “What’s the cause of God’s existence?” It may take a little work to clarify what the argument is really saying.

Strengths: It’s probably the most logically simple and straightforward argument of all these. Premise #1 is backed up by common sense, premise #2 has strong scientific backing, and premise #3 is a sound logical conclusion of both. You can even extend it from premise #3 and deduce some attributes of the First Cause, such as its timelessness and immateriality and personal nature.

#3) The moral argument. I wrote about this argument here.

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Challenges: It relies entirely on human intuition, and there are a few people who would simply deny that objective moral values and duties exist. Also, many people misunderstand the argument and think it claims atheists cannot be morally good people. This misunderstanding may have to be corrected.

Strengths: It appeals to one of the most basic forms of knowledge we all possess: moral knowledge. Nearly everyone agrees that it’s objectively wrong to commit genocide or rape. And you need only find one moral value/duty that you and your conversational partner can agree is objectively true for this argument to work. It’s also the most straightforward, intuitive, and experience-based explanation for objective moral values and duties than competing philosophical theories.

#2) Argument from the fine-tuning of the universe for life. I wrote about this argument here.

1. The laws and constants of the universe are finely-tuned to incomprehensibly precise values; if they were any different, no life (and in many cases, no coherent structures) could exist at all.
2. This fine-tuning is due to either design, necessity, or chance.
3. The fine-tuning is not due to necessity or chance.
4. Therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design.
5. Therefore, there must be a designer of the universe, whom we would call God.

Challenges: The theist will likely have to deal with the objection that our universe could be one of many in a multiverse, and will have to explain why God is the better explanation. (The multiverse would itself probably have to be finely-tuned, for one.) Premise #1 of the argument involves hard scientific data involving very large numbers and very specific laws (though you don’t necessarily need to memorize the numbers).

Strengths: The data on which this argument rests is rock-solid. Almost every scientist agrees that the universe is fine-tuned for life in the way described. The odds against a life-permitting universe are indisputably incredible; random chance is not a viable alternative. The only viable alternative for the skeptic is the dubious multiverse theory, and the skeptic must show that that is more plausible than the existence of God.

#1) Argument from the resurrection of Christ. I have not yet written about this argument in detail, though I plan to. Although this argument requires some time and effort, it is my favorite argument. Here is a very skeletal and incomplete version:

1. Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the Son of God, and that he would be crucified and rise again after three days. If Jesus really did rise from the dead, then his claims are proven true, and not only does God exist, but Jesus is the Son of God.
2. There is good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Historical evidence indicates that Jesus’ tomb was indeed found empty, and Jesus’ followers came to believe something that radically contradicted the Jewish worldview they’d grown up with: that God could become a man, and their promised Messiah could die and rise again. We have this information attested by multiple historical sources, many independent from one another. They believed this so sincerely that they were willing to suffer and die for it. Such a radical change in character and worldview can only be explained by a life-changing experience.
3. The best explanation of the historical evidence is that Jesus really did rise from the dead.

Challenges: The argument is, of course, based on evidence that’s 2,000 years old. Compared to looking into an event that happened in 1933, you don’t have a lot to go on when investigating an event that happened in AD 29-33. There are also many people who simply refuse to consider that miracles are possible in the first place and will accept any naturalistic explanation, no matter how implausible, over the miraculous. Still, for someone with a truly open mind who is willing to consider the evidence available for the best explanation, there is still a strong case to be made.

Strengths: Unlike most of these arguments, which are either based on philosophical logic, human perception, or scientific data, this argument is based on actual historical events that can be investigated. It’s also, of course, the very argument that convinced the first Christians to believe. Thus, if it’s true, then it not only proves that God exists, but it proves that Christianity is true. It appeals to actual historical events that can be investigated.

Conclusion

So those, I think, are ten of the top arguments for the existence of God. Do you have any arguments that you think should be on this list? Any of these arguments that you think are terrible? Comment below, leave a note on my social media accounts, or send me an email! And subscribe so you can get notifications of each new post!