The Cosmological Argument For The Existence Of God

The existence of God and whether or not God intervenes is a highly debated subject. Three worldviews on the epistemology of God that are considered to have logical and valid arguments are: theism, deism, and agnosticism. Theism and deism both involve a belief that God exists, however theists will argue that God is personal or intervenes in our lives whereas deists would disagree. Agnostics hold the view that we cannot be sure that God exists. Of these, theism may be the most probable worldview.

One action that is often attributed to God is the creation of the universe. Due to the complexity of the universe’s design and how it came into existence, it can be suggested that it was created by a timeless and/or immaterial, rational being (i.e. God). Among academics, this is often known as the teleological argument and cosmological argument. This is demonstrated in the debate between and William Lane Craig and Antony Flew, in 1998. Craig demonstrates the self-contradiction of the infinite possibilities of the past; rather there are finite events and the universe (something) likely came from nothing. As such, it is likely that the cause of the universe exists, and is God. Craig discusses the order and

intricacies of the universe and how a life-permitting universe is incredibly improbable. It follows that it is more likely God deliberately created the universe, caring enough to make it finely-tuned. This fine-tuning is demonstrated through science. For example, changing the gravity constant by a minute amount will have severe consequences on planetary systems.
Those in favour of agnosticism may argue that we cannot know whether or not God exists because we cannot be sure that anything exists outside of our minds. Common arguments for this uncertainty involve perceptual error which makes it difficult to be certain that the universe exists let alone its creator. This is the main argument of many agnostic “atheists”, including Antony Flew. He emphasizes we are unable to answer whether God exists or has caused the universe because the lack of solid facts.
It could also be argued that deism is more probable than theism as there is no definitive evidence of divine intervention. Supposed mystical experiences and corresponding religious beliefs, that may support theistic views, are occasionally dismissed as coincidence. They may further argue trying to count on God is useless. This is seen in the movie Do You Believe? where Joe has been dead for at least eight minutes, yet ends up living. Although it is a fictional movie, the doctor refuses it being a miracle. He suggests that he just doesn't know yet, favouring other possible explanations rather than God personally helping.
However, the existence of God can act as the basis for reality and morality.

If it is possible that God may not exist, as agnosticism suggests, it can be difficult to agree on epistemology as Dr. Phil Fernandes suggested in his video on the existence of God. He asserts that our ability to reason and hold moral responsibility depends upon God. Moral truths are generally considered to exist as objective moral values, rather than subjective morals which could insinuate that anything is morally permissible. Additionally, Fernandes suggests morals cannot come solely from biological processes as that too would make “immoral” acts such as murder permissible. Any distinction between right and wrong as absolute may suggest there is something beyond the chemical and physical; a

God.
Just as with morals, it seems improbable that humanity is capable of rational thought and forming logic, purely from physical and biochemical processes. If that is the case, the idea of collections of particles transmitting signals that trigger responses to form logical conclusions from premises can seem strange. If logic is due to laws of nature, it seems unlikely that both correct and incorrect logic can exist as a product of a law. That would also suggest rationality is derived from something non-rational. Taking into account that “reality” may be within or minds or it may truly exist, both correct and faulty logical statements can be perceived by and deduced by us of which we can be certain through logical analysis. Our ability to reason appears to indicate the existence of a cause and source of rationality, which can be attributed to God.
Furthermore, God’s interaction with us may not be so clear-cut. If God were to make miracles happen all the time, answering all prayers, it could lose its significance or become difficult depending on the abilities of God. This is even validated by the depiction of God in Godfellas. As Bender interacts with God, they note how difficult being God can be: if you help people too much they become dependent and fail to act on their own; if you help them too little they lose faith. God concludes that “when you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.” This explains why it is easy for some to dismiss possible experiences with God, just as Dr. Farrell does when Joe is “given a second chance” in Do You Believe? To him, scientific or medical explanations are favoured over theism because he can easily observe them. However, as other characters in the movie demonstrate, occurrences which are so far-fetched are even more unlikely to be purely coincidental. Rather, these unexplainable events are more likely to be caused by something greater, God.
Ultimately, theism appears to be the most plausible worldview. The belief that God is an entity that can and does help us is a belief that is not only plausible, but favourable to many: bringing comfort to those in difficult situations. Perhaps we should learn from We’re No Angels: “All I know is something might give you comfort. And maybe you deserve it. If it comforts you to believe in God, you do it.”