My Favorite Philosophical Proof for the Existence of God

Yesterday was our first Apologetics study at ASU and we had 15 students who have committed 8 weeks of studying Christianity’s most thought provoking questions. Two students helped facilitate last night’s existence of God discussion. We looked at the philosophical and biblical proofs as well as the lack of needing proofs. What is often overlooked in these intellectual arguments is the obvious principle; Information is not necessarily Transformation.

At any rate, our discussion last night on philosophical proofs kept me up pretty late and woke me up pretty early. I know you are thinking I’m weird. I asked the Facebook world what their favorite philosophical proof of God’s existence and got a variety of amusing and enlightening answers. One friend from Bruce thinks that girls in Oxford is a sufficient proof of God's existence; I appreciate his ontological humor. It appears that the teleological argument is still popular regardless of the convincing counter arguments that Nathan Bullock brought up last night in our study; unfortunately, many of these arguments depend on the infinity of time, which can’t be proven. Lucas from France used Cantor’s diagnolization method of computization... Numbers don’t work for me.. the biblical answer is that God reveals Himself to us (Romans 1:16-20) and nature gives evidence to God’s character (Psalm 19:1-2)(Acts 14:17)

Think about it:

1. beauty of a snowflake
2. majestic power of a thunderstorm
3. skill of a honeybee
4. refreshing taste of cold water (after P90X)
5. intricacies of the human eye
6. grandeur of the universe


While the teleological, moral, and ontological are all notable in their own way, there are too many counter-arguments that are convincing.

My favorite proof is the Kalam Cosmological argument. I have yet to hear a convincing counter argument to William Lane Craig’s Cosmological Argument. There has to be a necessary being for there to be contingent beings. Put differently, for every effect, there is a cause (as in falling dominoes); there is a first cause or an uncaused cause that had no beginning. Here is his logical formula:

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

I formed this cosmological argument last night that looks like this:

1. contingent beings did not exist in the beginning.
2. contingent beings presently exist.
3. therefore, there is a necessary being who created contingent beings.

Put differently:

1. matter did not exist in the beginning.
2. Matter presently exists
3. Therefore, there is a necessary matter maker.


One may counter argue that the number of past events is infinite. This syllogism answers that counter-argument.

An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
A beginningless series of events in time entails an actually infinite number of things.
Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.

Hilbert’s paradox of the Grand Hotel answers a counter to the first premise. You may have to google this one and put your thinking cap on.

I look forward to next week’s discussion on the truth of the Bible.

Is God Egotistical?

Main Entry: ego·tism
Pronunciation: \ˈē-gə-ˌti-zəm also ˈe-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin ego + English -tism (as in idiotism)
Date: 1714
1 a : excessive use of the first person singular personal pronoun b : the practice of talking about oneself too much
2 : an exaggerated sense of self-importance : conceit — compare egoism

Divine Egotistical Theology: (term i coined) suggests that God demands our worship because He worships Himself. This type of theology doesn’t place insecurities on God or deprive Him of needs that only man can provide in order to make Himself feel better about His Splendor and Power as oppositions of this theology suggests. However, using the term egotist gives false presumptions to the character of God. The term Egotism assumes imperfection. However, God is perfect!

A.W. Tozer once wrote in his book The Knowledge of the Holy “Overemphasizing one attribute of God may lead to obscuring another attribute of God equally as true.” We can’t over/under emphasize the Love of God vs. the Glory of God because they are paradoxical. A small misunderstanding and under/over emphasis has created large theological divisions in the evangelical world.

Worship is a commandment from God because it is our expression of love and value for God. Our worship is an overflow of our love for Him, not out of tyrannical demands to tell Him 5 times a day how good He is.. Worship is our natural response for the Goodness and Greatness of God. If worship from God is a demand, then so are the 10 commandments. hmmm. they are not the 10 demandments.. God commands us not to murder because it’s ultimately our best interest and it’s morally right. Of course there are many other reasons. A commander is a true leader while a demander need be nothing more than a petulant tyrant. The only result from a demand is forceful compliance.

Using terms to describe God such as egotistic, megalomaniac, narcissistic, vanity, and conceited carries on negative connotations. These connotations includes an undeserved arrogance. However, God is deserving and He alone is most worthy.

Who does God worship? Anything other than Himself would be idolatrous. God cannot look outside Himself for anything or anyone greater.

Egotism is wrong for us. However, just because is it wrong for us doesn’t mean it is wrong for God. Man can’t play God, but God can play God. To understand Divine Egotistical Theology, we must first begin at the perfection of God.

So is God an Egotist? Yes...No... Either way, it's certainly poor word choice for theological discussions especially for new believers. It’s good to remind ourselves often that the English language fails miserably is describing the characteristics of God. Put differently, God’s attributes are not subjected to the meanings of English words. Unfortunatly, we are trapped in a ‘human’ English frame of mind.

Romans 1:22-23:  "Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." This exchange that robs God of his glory is the very heart of sin. We want the glory that is God's alone.

Karl Barth defined God's glory as "his dignity and right, not only to maintain, but to prove and declare, to denote and almost as it were to make himself conspicuous and everywhere apparent as the One he is.