1. law, govt and politics

DOES GOD EXIST?
How do I know if God exists? Can anyone know if God exists? An agnostic (a, not + gnosis,
knowledge) believes that God may exist, but humans are incapable of knowing whether there is
a god. Even if there is a God, humans are not able to know anything of that God for certain. An
atheist (a, without + theos, god), on the other hand, outright denies there is a God. Since no
one alive today has seen God - setting aside for the moment those who think they are God - it is
necessary to indirectly determine His existence. A few of the best known arguments for God’s
existence are the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, and the moral argument.
One lesser known, the argument from desire, is rather elegant and is also discussed here.
There are others which will be covered on other pages. It is unlikely that any one argument will
be completely convincing; however, the cumulative case becomes very compelling.
I. The Teleological Argument (or the Argument from Design)
Someone walking through a field who sees a bird may believe it evolved through natural
processes. But, if that same person finds a wristwatch lying in the grass, he would immediately
know an intelligent being purposely made the watch, even though the watch is vastly less
complex than the bird. The teleological (from telos, end or result) argument, also known as the
argument from design, states that because the universe displays design, there must be a
designer. When we look at a painting, even a simple one, we know someone created that
painting. The watch example was made famous by William Paley (1743-1805), who expounded
upon this example in his book Natural Theology. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) also used the
teleological argument as one of five ways he demonstrated God’s existence.
Scientific advances in very recent history indicate that even simple, single-cellular organisms
are incredibly complex, raising serious challenges to undirected origins of life and naturalistic,
Darwinian evolution. Darwin’s ideas were very ingenious, but at the time he wrote, microscopes
were not advanced enough to see the inner workings of a living cell. Ernst Haeckel, a great
admirer of Darwin and popularizer of his theory, believed that a cell was a “simple little lump of
albuminous combination of carbon”.1 He couldn’t have been more wrong. The probability of
even one protein forming by chance is astronomical, to say nothing of all the other necessary
components of a single cell. In fact, this one aspect of cellular development has been
addressed by chemists Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen.2 They determined
that, in the absence of any chemical competition with non-amino acids and nonbiologically
relevant amino acids – in other words, an ideal situation – the probability of aligning the correct
amino acid in a specific position in a protein molecule is 1.25%. Calculating from there the
probability of correctly aligning at least one hundred amino acids necessary to form even one
simple protein, is roughly one chance in 10191. This does not even address the numerous other
requirements for the formation of even one single cell, such as: nucleic acids (RNA and DNA),
homochirality of amino acids, cellular membrane, transport mechanisms, lipids, and so on.
Scientific evidence is solidly in the court of intelligent design, leaving the burden of proof in the
court of those who advocate undirected, naturalistic origins.
The teleological argument is not only greatly bolstered by technological developments on the
microscopic level, but also on the astronomic scale. Carl Sagan believed that Earth is an
ordinary planet circling an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy. He proposed the idea that if there
is life on Earth, then many other planets probably also have life. Is that true? People have for
years worked under the auspices of the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) Program
to find signs of life on other planets. However, when we begin to examine the narrow
parameters necessary for life to exist, suddenly it is evident that this planet is anything but an
Copyright © 2008 by InformationaboutGod.com. All Rights Reserved.
ordinary pale blue dot in the vast universe. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross, president of Reasons to
Believe, has listed 154 parameters necessary for life as we know it to exist on a planet.3 The list
is obviously much too lengthy to quote here, but suffice to say, Earth is significantly more unique
that previously thought. To give one example, too few gamma-ray burst events in the galaxy
would lead to insufficient production of copper, scandium, titanium, and zinc for complex life to
exist. Too many gamma-ray bursts would result in too many mass extinction events on earth.
Astronomical parameters, combined with microscopic biological observations, present very
strong arguments for intentional design and hence an intelligent designer. As tourists recognize
the purposeful design in the painting of the Sistine Chapel, study of the universe, and the
exponentially higher level of design, leads one to agree with Paul: “since the creation of the
world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being
understood through what has been made” (Romans 1:20).
II. The Cosmological Argument
Anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else. The universe has a
beginning; therefore, the universe must have been caused by something (or someone).
Something cannot cause itself to come into existence. For example, I could not have caused
my own birth (time traveling in science fiction films notwithstanding). The law of causality states
that every finite thing was caused by something else. Working backwards in time from each
effect to its cause, we eventually arrive at a first effect. What was the first cause? Most would
probably agree to call that first effect the Big Bang. The logical question then is what caused
the first event? Because the universe adheres to certain physical laws, such as cause and
effect, something outside of the natural, physical universe must have been the cause. Because
matter and time began at some point in the past, something different from physical matter and
time must have been the cause, such as an eternal, non-physical creator.
Red Shift
A note must be made here that, for those of us in the 21st century, the big bang theory appears
to be very reasonable and well established. However, this theory has only become generally
accepted in recent history. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) believed the universe was eternal and, even
as recently as the 1920s, most astronomers also believed the universe had always existed.
Two discoveries made in the early part of the 20th century provide scientific evidence for a
beginning to the universe, contradicting the notion of an eternal universe. When Albert Einstein
published his equations of general relativity, it was realized that they predicted an expanding
universe. Einstein, by his own account was “irritated” by the notion of an expanding universe
and devised a number called the “cosmological constant”, a fudge factor, in an attempt to
disprove the idea of an exploding universe. Later Einstein admitted this was a mistake and
called his cosmological constant the biggest mistake of his life.4 A Belgian mathematician
Georges Lemaitre proposed the idea that the universe was expanding like a burst of fireworks in
a 1927 journal article. Credit should also be given to Alexander Friedman who, in 1922,
proposed the notion of an expanding universe. Edwin Hubble published a paper in 1929
explaining that distant galaxies are receding from us. He determined this by noticing a
consistent red shift in the light spectra. This phenomenon is like the Doppler effect with sound,
in which a train moving quickly toward you has a higher pitch (shorter wavelengths) than a train
traveling quickly away from you (longer wavelengths). The same thing happens with light and
fast-moving objects, with the light spectra from those moving away from the observer shifting
toward the red end of the spectrum. Galactic redshift does suggest expanding space-time,
indicating that matter in the universe is moving apart very quickly, as if there was a gigantic
Copyright © 2008 by InformationaboutGod.com. All Rights Reserved.
explosion long ago. This was the first solid evidence indicating the universe may have not
always existed, but had a beginning at some finite point in the past.
Cosmic Background Radiation
A second key piece of evidence for a beginning to the universe appeared in a brief paper by
Soviet astrophysicists in 1964. It was proposed that, if the universe had a beginning with a
massive explosion, there should be detectable cosmic background radiation still evident even
this many millennia later. Working at Bell Labs in 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were
experimenting with communication satellites. To measure these faint radio waves, they had to
eliminate all recognizable interference from their receiver. When Penzias and Wilson reduced
their data they found a low, steady, mysterious noise that persisted in the receiver. This residual
noise was much more intense than they had expected, evenly spread over the sky, and present
day and night. After thoroughly checking their equipment, removing some pigeons nesting in
the antenna and cleaning out the accumulated droppings, the noise remained. Both concluded
that this noise was coming from outside our own galaxy. At that same time, astrophysicists at
Princeton University were preparing to search for microwave radiation in this region of the
spectrum. They reasoned that the Big Bang must have scattered not only the matter that
condensed into galaxies but also must have released a tremendous blast of radiation that
should still be detectable. Penzias and Wilson at Bell Labs began to realize the significance of
their discovery. The characteristics of the radiation detected by Penzias and Wilson fit exactly
the radiation predicted by researchers at Princeton University. They met and interpreted this
radiation as a signature of the Big Bang. In 1978, Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel
Prize in Physics for their joint discovery.
So what? Everyone knows the universe began with a big bang, right? The point is that many
scientists and philosophers for thousands of years believed that the universe was eternal. Only
recently has evidence – such as the red shift and the cosmic background radiation – shown that
the universe had a beginning. This fact significantly supports what the Bible has stated for
3,400 years: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Scientific evidence and
philosophy support the cosmological argument for God’s existence.
III. The Moral Argument
Simply put, this argument states that since there is an objective moral law, there must be a
moral lawgiver. There are valid reasons the connection can be made between the objective
moral law and the lawgiver. For example, all different human cultures throughout different time
periods and even different religions have developed similar standards regarding absolutes of
right and wrong. For example, robbery, fraud, murder, and other similar offenses are
considered wrong in all cultures in all time periods of human existence. Of course, there are
disagreements on some issues, but a comparison of criminal law codes across different nations
today reveals significant similarity. Burglary, assault, and bank robbery are universally
considered to be criminal behaviors. The moral argument may seem to be vulnerable to attack
on the basis of a few actions that are considered to be criminal in some locations, but not
others. For example, smoking marijuana is legal in Amsterdam. Certainly, there are variations
regarding acceptable behavior, but every human being knows there are some things which are
just plain wrong. Some simple examples show the strength of the moral argument. If I break
into a man’s home, beat him, then assault his wife or daughter, that would be considered wrong
in any culture at any time. If I steal something that belongs to another person, that would be
considered wrong at any time in any culture. The considerable agreement of unacceptable
actions indicates a higher standard than simple human consensus. If there was no higher moral
Copyright © 2008 by InformationaboutGod.com. All Rights Reserved.
law than human consensus, how could anyone condemn the Nazi murder of six million Jews or
slavery or racism? Why is this so? If morality is simply made up by each person or society,
then people could decide that anything is acceptable and not feel any pangs of conscience.
But, we do have a conscience. As Romans 2:14-15 states, “For when Gentiles who do not have
the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to
themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience
bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.” Because there
is a higher moral law, there must be an external source for this law. One may also add here
that, because this moral law is only understood by sentient beings, there must be an intelligent
source for the law. There must exist a moral lawgiver, also known as God.
IV. The Argument from Desire
Every desire we have corresponds with something or some way that can satisfy the desire. For
example, physical desires such as hunger, thirst, and sleepiness can be met with food, drink,
and sleep. Even non-essential physical desires, such as those associated with drug use and
sex, have objects that can fulfill those desires. Non-physical desires, such as for power, love,
revenge, friendship, and others, are all capable of being met. This does not mean they will be
met or that it is proper to meet them, but it is possible. Because some desires humans have
cannot be met by anything on earth, and since all desires correspond with something that can
satisfy them, there must be something beyond this life. Throughout history, humans have
consistently exhibited a desire to know God and the spirit world. Though many different ideas of
God’s nature have been conceived, there is a universal desire among people to know what else
is out there beyond this life and beyond this world. People have varying levels of inquisitiveness
of the supernatural, but everyone at some time wonders, “Is this life all there is?” Because we
all have a desire to know God (in some form), there must be a real God. Because we all desire
to live beyond this life, there must be another life after death, since all desires correspond with
something real that can meet the desire.
C. S. Lewis explained this argument by saying, “Creatures are not born with desires unless
satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A
duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well,
there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can
satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my
earthly pleasures satisfy it that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly
pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.”5
Someone may offer the rebuttal that they desire to see a unicorn or a round square or travel to
another galaxy. Since these things are impossible, one could say it is not necessary that God
exists or there is life after death. In response to this, it may be stated that these types of desires
are simply absurd extrapolations from things that already exist. Besides, no one really wants to
see a round square, this is merely a statement made for the sake of argument. However, the
desire to know and please God is very real, particularly if we look at the things people have
done in the name of pleasing God: building pyramids to offer human sacrifices, burning heretics
at the stake, and flying airplanes into buildings. The intent here is not to bash other religions,
but to make the point that people throughout history and even today have been very serious
about their desire for God and the afterlife. We humans sometimes inappropriately seek
fulfillment: overeating, spiritual perversions, and looking for love in all the wrong places. This
does not mean the desires themselves are inherently wrong. Desires for water, food, sex, and
love are not wrong if met appropriately. The desire to know God and life after death is valid and
Copyright © 2008 by InformationaboutGod.com. All Rights Reserved.
good. The Bible indicates that God himself has placed this desire in us: “He has also set
eternity in their heart” (Ecclesiastes 3:11).
The real issue?
The purpose of this website, informationaboutgod.com, is to discover the truth about God.
Many people, perhaps you the reader, are honestly open-minded and willing to accept the truth
when you find it. Congratulations and welcome to the site. Others, unfortunately, use the claim
that there is no god or that god is unknowable as a smokescreen for the real issue. What is the
real issue? My unwillingness to accept the fact that, if I believe in God, I know I will need to
change the way I live. So, because I don’t want to give up (insert sin of choice), I attempt to
deny the existence of God; while in my heart, I know He’s there. The sad thing about this
reasoning is that, whatever God wishes us to give up is destructive anyway and God will replace
it with things that are much better. It is incredibly illogical to hold on to my pet sin when God is
offering to give me everything! As Paul said more eloquently, “He who did not spare His own
Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?”
(Romans 8:32)
Selected Bibliography:
Behe, Michael, Darwin’s Black Box, New York, NY: The Free Press, 1996.
Gonzalez, Guillermo, and Jay Richards, The Privileged Planet, Washington, DC: Regnery
Publishing, 2004.
Kreeft, Peter, and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1994.
Lewis, C. S., Mere Christianity, New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1943.
Rana, Fazale, and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life, Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004.
Strobel, Lee, The Case for a Creator, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004.
[All Biblical quotations are from the NASB version.]
1
Farley, J., The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin, (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1979), 73.
2
Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories
(Dallas, TX: Lewis and Stanley), 113-166.
3
Hugh Ross, Fine Tuning for Life on Earth, at: www.reasons.org, 2004.
4
Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great About Christianity (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2007), 117.
5
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1943), 120.
Copyright © 2008 by InformationaboutGod.com. All Rights Reserved.