The Existence of God: The Arguments from Consciousness and Reason

Proving God’s Existence

In this final series in my year of apologetics posts on this blog, I will make some philosophical arguments for God’s existence. I have deliberately saved this topic for last, in order to avoid giving the impression that one must first become convinced by philosophical arguments that the god of the philosophers exists before one can evaluate the evidence for Christian theism. In fact, people can and do become convinced that the God of Christianity is real without ever considering these philosophical arguments. There are good reasons to believe that Christianity is true, even if these philosophical arguments for God’s existence are unsuccessful. Nevertheless, I do believe that there are good philosophical arguments for God’s existence.

Can philosophical arguments prove God’s existence? Well, it depends on what one means by “prove.” There is no proof for the existence of God in the sense of a mathematical proof, in which the conclusion is 100% certain. But there are convincing proofs of God’s existence in the legal/historical sense of proving something beyond a reasonable doubt to be true. And that is the standard of proof we use for almost all of the knowledge we have. When combined together, the philosophical arguments for God’s existence allow us to reach the conclusion that God exists abductively, via inference to the best explanation. 

Now, by themselves, the philosophical arguments for God’s existence do not allow us to reach the conclusion that the loving, Triune God of Christian theism exists. At most, they allow us to reach that conclusion that a Supreme Being exists, leaving open the question of whether this God actually cares about us or not. But, as part of a cumulative case approach to Christian apologetics, proving God’s existence provides significant support for the reasonableness of the Christian worldview, and should make people more open to the possibility that the Christian gospel is true.

The Argument from Consciousness

In modern Western culture, there is a widespread assumption that belief in the existence of material entities is reasonable and certain, while belief in the existence of immaterial, spiritual entities is questionable and uncertain. Beliefs based on the natural sciences, which study the physical world, are thus often considered to be inherently more reasonable than religious beliefs, which have to do with spiritual reality. Philosophical materialists take this a step farther and claim that only matter exists; there are no souls, spirits, or gods at all.

The only problem with philosophical materialism is that it is self-evidently not true. There is at least one immaterial entity of which each of us is aware. And that is our own minds.

Minds are not physical objects. They cannot be seen, smelled, heard, tasted, or touched. Yet, they exist. We know this for certain. In fact, we can be more certain that our minds exist than we can that the material world exists. We have, in fact, no direct access to the material world. All we have access to are mental perceptions, and from these we infer that a material world exists. 

We cannot, in fact, be absolutely certain that a real material world exists. All of our mental perceptions could be an illusion; we could be in the Matrix. To believe that a real material world exists thus requires faith. My point is not that we should doubt that a real material world exists. Faith in the existence of a real material world is, I believe, reasonable faith. My point is that our knowledge of immaterial reality (our minds) is actually more certain than our knowledge of material reality. 

Now, some philosophical materialists have countered that modern neuroscience has shown that our thoughts and emotions are produced by brain activity in various regions of our brains. This, they argue, proves that our “minds” are just neurons firing in our brains, and that immaterial minds do not exist.

This argument, however, is nonsense. A neuron firing is a neuron firing. A thought is a thought. They are not the same thing. A neuroscientist who observes my brain activity is not seeing my thoughts. Even if it were true that our thoughts are completely caused by neurons firing in our brains, it would still be the case that our thoughts are immaterial realities that are distinct from our brain activity. Even if our minds are produced by brain activity, and even if our minds cannot exist without our bodies, it would still be the case that our minds are existing immaterial entities.

Some atheists, desperate to avoid the philosophical implications of immaterial minds existing, have argued that, just because immaterial thoughts exist, this does not prove that immaterial minds exist in which those thoughts inhere. It is not clear what they hope to gain by this argument. Even if immaterial thoughts exist independent of a unified mind, it would still be the case that knowledge of immaterial thoughts is more certain than knowledge of material entities. In any case, the entirety of human experience supports the belief that our thoughts do inhere in a unified mind, rather than being completely independent. 

Now, the argument from consciousness is not an argument for God’s existence in any direct sense. It is merely an argument against philosophical materialism. However, once we recognize that immaterial/spiritual entities exist, and that this is more certain than the existence of material entities, this should make us more open to the possibility that other spiritual entities, such as God, might exist. None of us have actual access to other people’s minds, but we all believe, based on what we observe of their material bodies, that other people’s minds exist. Similarly, even if we do not have direct access to the Being of God, it may be reasonable, based on what we observe of the material world, to believe that God, the Supreme Mind, exists.

The Argument from Reason

According to the atheist worldview, there is no rational Mind behind the universe. The universe is merely a brute fact. The universe has no meaning or purpose. Human beings and their minds were not designed. Human beings merely evolved from a purposeless process of evolution, brought about by random mutations and natural selection. Their existence is merely a random accident, brought about by blind, random chance. 

Now, if this is really the case, then what reason could we have for believing that human minds can rationally know truth? First of all, we would have no reason to believe that the universe is orderly, rational, and intelligible, rather than chaotic. But even if, for argument’s sake, we assume that the universe is intelligible, we would have no reason to believe that minds produced by random mutations and natural selection are capable of understanding it. Natural selection only preserves traits that are beneficial for survival, which means that, if our minds are merely a product of random mutations and natural selection, they are only equipped to help us survive, not to know truth. False beliefs could be just as beneficial to the survival of an organism as true beliefs. If our minds are produced by blind, indifferent, irrational forces, then, we can have no confidence that they are able to rationally know truth.

The upshot of all this is that atheism is a self-defeating doctrine. It makes philosophical claims about metaphysical reality, which, if true, would mean that human minds are not equipped to rationally know philosophical truths about metaphysical reality. If a Supreme Mind designed and created the universe, including human beings, though, then we have every reason to be confident that our minds are able to rationally know truth. Thus, if we seek to engage in rational discussion about philosophical matters, deism/theism is a more coherent and reasonable position to adopt than atheism.

Now, this by itself does not necessarily prove that God exists. A nontheist could, if they wanted, just accept that our minds are unable to know truth, and adopt a position of skeptical agnosticism. However, anyone who engages in rational discussion about philosophical matters is making implicit assumptions about the universe and human minds that only make sense if deism/theism is true. Thus, deism/theism is the most coherent philosophical position to adopt.