Chapter 1

Go to chapter 2

One of the most important questions asked of Christians has to do with the very foundation of Christianity, the existence of God himself. Belief in the existence of God is often assumed to be in the realm of superstition and opinion, which is thought to automatically rule out the possibility of the discovering of any good evidence for that belief. Without evidence, the question "why" one believes God exists must be followed by an appeal to subjective statements like "because it feels right" or "I felt a burning in my bosom that tells me it is true."¹ The problem with such subjective appeals is they are not typically convincing to anyone but the person having the "feeling." Similar subjective claims are often made by people of different belief systems. The real problem is that some, if not most, of such subjective claims are in direct contradiction. According to the law of non-contradiction,² two contradictory claims about the existence of God (or about anything) cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. So an appeal to what is subjective is not convincing when this question is asked by someone who holds science and logic in high esteem, as do many of the members of the Internet population. An appeal to the evidence and logic is a good way to answer this question. Of course, one must actually present the evidence for the existence of God to fully answer this question.

Before venturing deeper into the matter, it should be noted that presenting evidence for the existence of God does not automatically lead us to the God of the Bible. To show who the God that exists is, additional arguments must be made. In the final analysis of the qualities of the God that exists, one can do nothing but conclude that He is the God of the Bible. Such an analysis is made in the answer to the second question in this book, "Why is the Christian God more ‘right’ than any other God?"

There are a number of different types of arguments used in support of the existence of God. The most popular are the teleological argument (or argument from design), the moral argument (or argument from moral law), the ontological argument (or argument from a perfect/necessary being) and the cosmological argument (or argument from cause). For each of these types of arguments, there are several forms, all of which cannot be covered in this brief handling of the subject. I will be concentrating on two very similar teleological arguments and one cosmological argument to show the existence of God.

The first teleological argument I will present to show the existence of God can be presented in a very informal way and is effective in give-and-take conversations where you don’t have an extended amount of time to present your argument. The argument is as follows:

1. All order that began to exist has an orderer.

2. The universe has order and began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has an Orderer.

Chaos theory is often invoked when "total randomness" is mentioned. It is claimed order comes from chaos, thus order can spring from total randomness.⁴ The two are not the same thing, total randomness implies no laws or order at all. Total randomness will always be totally random with no chance of change. Chaos theory attempts to show underlying order to apparently random systems⁵ and operates under the laws of nature which, as we determined, are ordered and thus, require an orderer themselves.

Believe it or not, there are few people who will object to the first part of the second premise. Their objection goes something like, "No order exists at all in the universe and thus, the universe has no orderer." Such a statement refutes itself because that very statement is an example of an ordering of letters and words into a sentence that someone else can understand. Another objection states that no order truly exists but our brain simply imposes order on a totally random universe. Such an objection is refuted by the fact that if our brains can impose order, the brain itself must be an example of order, thus, order exists in the universe.

Another objection to the second premise is the universe itself has always existed, making false the part of the premise that asserts the universe began to exist. Order that has always existed is in no need of an orderer because the order always was. In other words, an orderer or beginner cannot be invoked if there was no beginning. The problem with this objection is modern cosmology shows us the universe has not always existed but began to exist at the Big Bang.⁶ Philosophically, the universe could not have always existed, because of the impossibility of traversing an Actual Infinite to get to our present time (or any specific time).⁷

Given that the two premises of the argument are shown, the conclusion, the universe has an Orderer, is shown.

Because of recent scientific advancements and the almost unquestioned adherence to anything with the label of "science" by many of the Internet community, I will mention one more teleological argument which relies heavily on those recent advances:

1. All designs imply a designer.

2. There is great design in the universe.

3. Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe.⁸

It is hard to object to the second assertion, especially given recent advancements in this area. The more we look, the more we find evidence that not only was the universe fine-tuned for life but for life on earth. A few examples of this design can be found in the constants of the universe, like the weak nuclear force coupling constant. If the value of this constant was even a little larger, there would be too many heavy elements in the universe to support life. If it was even a little smaller, there would not be enough heavy elements to support life. If the electromagnetic coupling constant was even a little different, no chemical bonding could occur. If the ratio of protons to electrons was even a little different, electromagnetism would dominate gravity, which would prevent galaxy, star, and planet formation. There are dozens more examples of these constants set "just so" to support life in the universe.¹⁰

Given that the two assertions are shown, the conclusion, a Great Designer of the universe exists, is shown. The almost guaranteed follow-up question to this argument is, "What designed the Designer then?" That question is answered in the third question in this book, "If God created the universe, then who created God?"

The last argument I will present to answer the question of the existence of God is a cosmological argument. Though there are several forms, I will present the Kal¯m argument:
 

1. What begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Most people will grant the first premise. To grant the existence of uncaused events would seem to be a denial of common sense about the way things work. Even David Hume, a skeptic of this argument, had to admit he could not believe something might arise without a cause.¹¹

Often particles involved in quantum tunneling are proposed as examples of uncaused things. Modern science is quite unsure if quantum tunneling is caused, so such an argument cannot be proposed against this premise. In addition, quantum tunneling does not involve any but extremely small particles. The larger the particle, the faster the particle blinks out of existence, which would disqualify the universe as a possible quantum event.¹² Quantum mechanics also requires the preexistence of space and time and could not have caused the universe because space and time came into existence with the universe at the Big Bang, as previously discussed.

The second premise, the universe began to exist, was shown previously. In review: the problem with an objection to this premise is modern cosmology shows us the universe has not always existed but began to exist at the Big Bang. Philosophically, the universe could not have always existed either, because of the impossibility of traversing an Actual Infinite to get to our present time (or any specific time).

Given the two premises are shown, the conclusion, the universe has a cause, is shown. Some might object, saying the law of causation (cause and effect) does not hold outside time or gets you into an infinite regress. One type of causation, called "state to state" causation,¹³ would get you into trouble when supporting this argument if it was the only type that exists. An objection to this conclusion on the grounds of the law of causation ignores the existence of another type of causation, called "agent causation." Agent causation is not tied to time like state to state causation. An example of agent causation is when one has a thought, for example, to raise his or her arm. The thought to raise the arm was caused by the agent and not anything else, nor must it be dependent on time or a previous external cause. Agent causation must have been the method used to bring the universe into existence because time did not exist until the Big Bang, so the conclusion stands.

Often when arguments like the above are presented, they are dismissed out of hand with the claim they have been refuted a long time ago, which is untrue. Among those who are said to have refuted the above arguments are David Hume (1711-1776) and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Actually, Kant did not object to the power of the teleological argument itself but to the idea that the argument shows an infinite God. If the teleological argument is combined with the cosmological and moral arguments, Kant’s objection would certainly be satisfied. Of course, the argument does not lose any of its strength if one thinks it does not show an infinite God. It does show a powerful, purposeful and intelligent God exists, which is the argument’s purpose. A few of Hume’s objections to the teleological argument were based on the idea the universe is infinite and with an infinite amount of time, anything is possible or the universe is simply a "happy accident." Science and logic show that the universe has not been around for infinite amount of time, as mentioned previously. There is also a lot of doubt that any amount of time could produce the universe as it exists today. As far as "happy accidents" go, assuming absurdities or extremely improbable events without evidence or support of any kind is the last resort of a weak argument and has no basis in reality, science or logic. Assuming impossibilities is even more baseless. Yet this is what many are willing to do in order to avoid the best conclusion based on the evidence. Some claim Hume refuted William Paley’s (1743-1805) famous watchmaker argument. They often seem to ignore that Paley did answer Hume and Paley wrote the watchmaker argument after Hume’s death. Additionally, Hume is said to have refuted the cosmological argument when he attacked the law of causation. As previously mentioned, he could not even accept his own attack on causation.

[ Go to chapter 2 ]

___________

1. This is a common explanation given by Mormons as the basis for belief in their doctrine and/or writings.

2. The law of non-contradiction states: A is not non-A.  In other words, two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time in the same sense.  For example, if someone says, Jesus is the only way to Heaven and someone else says there is more than one way to Heaven, they cannot both be correct.

3. Total nothingness is devoid of not only matter but of space, time and any other thing physical or not.  Total nothingness should not be confused with empty space, which is still under natural laws and time and is within the universe itself.  Nothingness is no laws, no matter - nothing.  It cannot ever change and something (non-nothing) can never arise from it.

4. Total randomness has no order in it.  It also implies no laws that can order exist in it.  There are no examples of total randomness in the universe.  There are examples of randomness in the universe but such randomness has the ability for order to be imposed on it at some point.  Total randomness can never change or have order arise from it or be imposed upon it.

5. See: James Gleick, Chaos: Making a New Science (Penguin Books, 1987)

6. Evidence for a Big Bang beginning of the universe has been mounting, especially with the discovery of cosmic background radiation that is uniform in all directions.  Further evidence tells us the universe is most likely open, and even if closed, would not oscillate long, which rules out theories dealing with an endlessly oscillating universe (Joseph Silk, The Big Bang, W.H. Freeman and Co., 1989, p.390).  In addition, we know from the Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) that all matter, space and even time came about at the Big Bang.  More recently, cosmologists like Stephen Hawking have attempted to do an end-run around a beginning by throwing out unsupported speculation that, in Hawkings own words, “…cannot be deduced from some other principle.” (Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, 1990, p.136).  Such blind speculation has no support and must be discarded given the evidence.

7. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Crossway Books, 1994), pp. 94-100

8. Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Baker Books, 1999), pp. 277-278

9. Just to inform the reader: the author in no way endorses the SETI project and would love to recover the part of his taxes that went toward that project.

10. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (NavPress, 1995), pp. 118-121, 138-141

11. David Hume, The Letters of David Hume, 1:187

12. Ross, pp. 95-97

13. State to state causation is where one event causes the next event which causes the next....  This type of causation is tied to the linear passing of time such that an event (A) that causes another event (B) must come before the event caused (A must come before B).
 
 

© Mark Harpt, 2003