∴ syllogism.info A map of arguments in analytic philosophy

← all claims

God exists

Arguments for this claim

The Argument from Contingency

  1. Every contingent fact has an explanation (the Principle of Sufficient Reason).
  2. There is a Big Conjunctive Contingent Fact (BCCF): the conjunction of all contingent facts.
  3. ∴ The BCCF has an explanation. from 1, 2
  4. Any explanation of the BCCF must involve the causal activity of a necessary being.
  5. ∴ A necessary being whose activity explains all contingent facts exists. from 3, 4
  6. If a necessary being whose activity explains all contingent facts exists, then God exists.
  7. ∴ God exists. from 5, 6

The Leibnizian version of the cosmological argument. The main battlegrounds are the Principle of Sufficient Reason itself and the 'gap problem' of step 6: why the necessary being should be God rather than, say, a necessarily existing physical state.

Alexander R. Pruss, “The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument”, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed. W. L. Craig & J. P. Moreland, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. doi.org/10.1002/9781444308334

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. ∴ The universe has a cause of its beginning. from 1, 2
  4. If the universe has a cause of its beginning, then a personal, transcendent creator exists.
  5. ∴ God exists. from 3, 4

Revived from medieval Islamic philosophy by Craig. Step 4 is defended by conceptual analysis: a cause of all space, time, and matter must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and — Craig argues — personal, since only free agency can explain a temporal effect of a timeless cause.

William Lane Craig & James D. Sinclair, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument”, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed. W. L. Craig & J. P. Moreland, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. doi.org/10.1002/9781444308334

The Fine-Tuning Argument

  1. The fundamental constants and quantities of our universe are fine-tuned for the existence of life.
  2. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
  3. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity.
  4. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance.
  5. ∴ The fine-tuning of the universe is due to design. from 1, 2, 3, 4
  6. If the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design, then God exists.
  7. ∴ God exists. from 5, 6

Presented here in the popular trilemma form; Collins's own formulation is a likelihood argument (fine-tuning is far more probable given theism than given a naturalistic single universe). The chance disjunct is where the multiverse objection enters.

Robin Collins, “The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe”, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed. W. L. Craig & J. P. Moreland, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. doi.org/10.1002/9781444308334

Arguments against

This claim is the negation of God does not exist, which has 3 arguments for it.