10. The Argument From the Intelligibility of Nature and the Effectiveness of Mathematics
Nature — the natural world — is intelligible, in the sense that we can investigate and make sense of it; science works! Nature operates according to regularities which permit us to understand it and make general actions about it which hold across time and space. Moreover, nature admits of characterization in terms of laws which can be described mathematically; this is what Eugene Wigner referred to as “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics”.
The intelligibility of nature is evidence for theism insofar as God would desire an intelligible order that can be characterized formally by way of mathematics; the existence of such an order is surprising on non-theistic hypotheses, especially given what theoretical physics tells us of the other ways natural reality could have been.
A Statement of the Argument From the Intelligibility of the Nature and the Effectiveness of Mathematics
Nature is intelligible and can be described in the language of mathematics.
On theism, this is expected: God is, by conception, a supremely intelligent and rational mind; such a mind would value order and intelligibility (and would have the power to bring them about).
On atheism, the intelligibility and mathematical describability of nature is unexpected.
So, that nature is intelligible and can be described in the language mathematics is evidence for theism.
11. The Argument From Widespread and Enduring Belief In an Ultimate Being
That some proposition P is widely believed, particularly by relevant experts and great minds, is defeasible reason to believe P (given that such facts are often well-explained by P’s being true and difficult to explain if P is false).
It has been widely believed that God exists — and even more widely believed that some ultimate being exists (given that even in some religious traditions in which God is not explicitly posited, some kind of God-like ultimate something often is posited). Indeed, it seems safe to say that most humans who have ever lived have believed in God, or else something very God-like.
It’s unclear whether there are any relevant experts with respect to the question of God’s existence. However, plausibly, philosophers and history’s greatest minds (e.g., Aristotle, Plato, Newton, Leibniz, etc.) are the relevant experts — and, at least before the 20th century, most of them were theists. Even in contemporary philosophy, those philosophers who know the most about the arguments for God’s existence — philosophers of religion — are theists (and it does not seems that this can be accounted for solely by a selection effect (i.e., by the fact that philosophy of religion selects for philosophers who were theists before they carefully considered the arguments).
Moreover, the perseverance of theistic belief is some evidence for theism insofar as we should expect belief in God to persevere through history (despite persecution, social pressure, etc.) if God exists. However, such perseverance is at least somewhat surprising on atheism.
A Statement of the Argument From the Widespread and Enduring Belief In an Ultimate Being
There is, and has long been, widespread and enduring belief in an ultimate being.
On theism, this is unsurprising: we should expect God’s existence to be widely perceived if God exists (given that God would have reason to want people to know of his existence).
On atheism, widespread and enduring belief in an ultimate being is unexpected: if there is no such being, then it’s surprising that belief in God would have caught on at all.
So, widespread and enduring belief in an ultimate being is evidence for theism.
12. The Argument From Miracle Reports
There seem to be some well-evidenced miracle reports: that is, reports of events which defy naturalistic explanation. These range from reports of inexplicable healings, to Marian apparitions, to levitating monks and nuns. If one actually looks into these reports with an open mind, one will find that many are very hard to dismiss.
On theism, we should expect miracles — and, thus, compelling miracle reports: God would have reasons (e.g., an interest in making his presence known) for sometimes contravening the laws of nature.
But well-evidenced miracle reports are, at the very least, somewhat awkward aspects of reality for the committed naturalist. Perhaps they are less awkward for non-theistic supernaturalists; however, if one has to adopt non-theistic supernaturalism in order to account for miracle reports, that is itself a kind of dialectic victory for the theist.
The Arguments From Miracle Reports
There are well-evidence miracles reports.
On theism, such reports are unsurprising: God can, and would have reasons to, sometimes contravene the laws of nature.
If theism is false, then 1 is surprising (why should there be widespread belief in an ultimate being if there is no such being?).
So, that there is, and long has been, widespread and enduring belief in an ultimate being is evidence for theism.
13. The Argument From Near-Death Experiences
Near-death-experiences (NDEs), in the sense relevant here, are experiences of people who have come extremely close to bodily death (e.g., to the point of their heart ceasing to beat for some time) but, upon returning to consciousness, report having had various sorts of out-of-body experiences, meetings with deceased, relatives, feelings of profound peace, and so forth.
These experiences often seem to align striking ways with various religious and spiritual expectations about what is likely to come upon bodily death — and which are unexpected on atheism.
While I don’t put much stock in NDEs, I think that they are some part of a broad evidence base which results in theism comparing favorably to rival hypotheses about fundamental reality.
The Argument From NDEs
There are NDEs.
On theism, NDEs are expected because theism predicts an afterlife (NDEs point to an afterlife — and an afterlife is good, while the annihilation of persons is bad).
On atheism, NDEs are unexpected: we should expect bodily death mark the end of existence.
So, NDEs are evidence for theism.
14. The Argument From Beauty
Beauty is good. Plausibly, it is intrinsically good. So, God should be expected to create a beautiful world — and, indeed, the world in which find ourselves is indeed beautiful. By contrast, there is no reason to expect a fundamental indifference reality to produce beauty. So, the beauty of the world is a prediction of theism but is unexpected on atheism.
A Statement of the Argument From Beauty
There is a great deal of beauty in the world.
On theism, beauty is expected: beauty is good, and God would have reason to create a world with a lot of goodness.
On atheism, beauty is surprising: one shouldn’t expect an indifferent reality to create a beautiful world.
So, the world’s beauty is evidence for theism.
15. The Argument From Love
Love — which I understand as (approximately) willing the good of another, in conjunction with fitting feelings of affection, which give rise to a proper sense of attachment — is also, plausibly, another intrinsic good. Indeed, it is perhaps the greatest of the intrinsic goods.
Not only would God have reason to create a world in which there is love, but theism might entail the existence of love, insofar as love might be part of God’s essential nature (“God is love”).
But love is surprising on atheism, insofar as we can imagine that even if the behaviors associated with love might have been necessary for the survival and propagation of certain species, these behaviors could have served their adaptive function entirely in the absence of any experience of love at all (i.e., without love, given that love is essentially experiential).
So, the existence of love at all, some reason to think that God exists.
A Statement of the Argument From the Argument From Love
There is love.
On theism, love is expected — not only because love is good, but also because it is plausibly essential to God’s very nature.
On atheism, love is not expected: insofar as it is adaptive, that’s only because of a link between the experience of and certain behaviors — and such a link is itself surprising on atheism.
So, the existence of love is evidence for theism.
Conclusion
Bear in mind two points. First, none of these arguments is stated in its most rigorous form or developed at any length (countless papers and books have been written on most of them). Second, I’ve not claimed that any of these arguments is decisive, nor have I said exactly how much each should increase one’s overall confidence that theism is true (and one’s overall confidence in theism should reflect one’s assessment of one’s total body of relevant evidence, not just an isolated bit of it).
