Where is [g]od? I shall tell you. We have killed him, you and I . . . But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we all moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night and more night coming on all the while? . . . Who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves become gods simply to seem worthy of it?And Sartre:
God does not exist and we have to face all the consequences of this. The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain kind of secular ethics which would like to abolish [g]od with the least possible expense . . . something like this: [g]od is a useless and costly hypothesis; we are discarding it, but meanwhile, in order for there to be an ethics, a society, a civilization, it is essential that certain values be taken seriously and that they be considered as having an a priori existence. It must be obligatory a priori to be honest, not to lie, not to beat your wife, to have children, etc. etc. So we’re going to try a little device which will make it possible to show that values exist all the same, inscribed in a heaven of ideas, though . . . [g]od does not exist . . .Without god there's no source of a priori goodness, no foundation for any moral system.
It is certain and evident to our senses that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality, and nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, such as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves it. Thus whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.The "first mover" can't be the universe itself, because neither a thing in itself can't move itself nor can the complete chain of events start itself. Like a chain of dominoes, someone has to push the first one, no matter how complex the chain is.
Now if that by which it is put in motion is itself put in motion, then
this also must be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first (unmoved) mover, and consequently no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover, as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand.
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other.
And this everyone understands to be God.
Everything in the material universe needs some kind of explanation. Even miracles need a sufficient reason, and that reason is a miracle maker. He uses the example of a rabbit... If a rabbit suddenly appeared on your desk, you'd immediately start looking for a reason. Did it fall from the ceiling, jump up from the floor, magician pull it from a hat, or God just create a rabbit on your desk? There has to be a reason for its existence.
Way #2: Existence
In the world of sense we find that there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known, nor is it possible, in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for if so, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.Prof Kreeft's analogy for this one is a book (=existence).
Now in efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate cause is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, either will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
Me: There's a book that explains the entire universe.My children have existence because I gave it to them (in a way, really I just played one small part). I got my existence from my parents and so on. The same is true with the entire universe. Nothing that is created can create itself or else it must have existed before it created itself which is impossible.
You: I'd love to borrow it.
M: Well, I don't have it I have to get it from a friend.
M: Well, he doesn't have it, he has to borrow it from the library.
Y: When will that happen?
M: Well, it's not at the library they have to get it from the store.
Y: Is it coming out sometime then?
M: Well, no one really has it...
Way #3: Contingency
We find in nature things that are able to either be or not be, since they are found to come into existence and go out of existence, and con- sequently they are able to either be or not to be. But it is impossible for any of these beings to exist always, for whatever has a possibility not to be, at some time is not. Thus if everything has the possibility not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. But if this were true, then there would not be anything in existence now, because that which does not exist cannot begin to exist except by means of something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist, and thus even now nothing would be in existence—which is absurd. Therefore not all beings are merely possible but there must exist something whose existence is necessary.This one is tough. If there is no god, the universe could have no beginning - infinite. If the universe is infinite then all contingencies would be possible, including the end of all things. So, given an infinite amount of time everything ends and if everything ends then the universe would be nothing and it cannot restart itself because nothing comes from nothing. I've used a similar type argument using entropy, saying that everything is moving from more ordered to less ordered. Given an infinite universe there should be nothing left. Also, given that whole galaxies are moving (the so called "red shift") then given an infinite universe they should be an infinite distance away by now. The so called, god cannot have a beginning, he is a necessary being that has his existence of himself alone.
Way #4: Imperfection
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble, and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximumThis only works if one accepts a ranking of things. If humans are no better than vegetables, then one that holds that view, would reject this way out of hand. However, Prof Kreeft quips that if you hold that humans are not better than vegetables, please don't invite him over to dinner.
. . . so there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest, and consequently something which is uttermost being . . . And this we call God.
Way #5: Design
By far his most popular argument I've seen this argument used alone and Prof McGinn treated this as its type of argument for god.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always (or nearly always) in the same way so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not by chance but by design do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move toward an end unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence, as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.Prof Kreeft uses the arrow analogy, the universe is like an arrow flying along a specific trajectory, it's not random everything has a design or an end that is seeks. And the book analogy, the universe (I'd say most evident is DNA/RNA) is more like a book than an explosion in a print factory. He brings up a good point, the more design you find the less likely things have happened by chance. Like a letter 'S' written in the sand, sure wind/waves/the elements could form the letter, but if you find "SOS" you're more certain you're looking for an intelligence, even more so if you find the first page of Hamlet written in the sand.
Prof Kreeft shoots holes in the famous (possibly Bertrand Russell) quote about a million monkeys with a million keyboards for a million years, could type out Shakespeare. It's possible but no one says that's the explanation of Shakespeare, why would we make the same assumptions about the universe? Also, Prof Kreeft mentions that a mathematician actually crunched the numbers and said it would take more like a trillion monkeys a trillion years to get just the first paragraph.
One last comment, "intelligent design" scientists claim that irreducible complexity scientifically proves this point. Prof Kreeft says that he thinks Thomas would not have agreed, that this is a philosophical proof, not a scientific proof. Prof Kreeft thinks that Thomas would have accepted Darwinian evolution as the design tool that God used to make humans/life as we know it. As such he wouldn't get the intended insult of the metal bumper emblem of the fish with Darwin's name in it. He would think it's an argument for theism. I don't know about this last point and I disagree in general (based mostly on faith/theological interpretation of the Bible, I've written about it before), but that doesn't lessen the impact of the arguments, and I'm sure Francis Collins would agree with these assessments/arguments.