Thursday, 9 April 2009

What?! Rational Arguments for God?!

This is not a comprehensive list of arguments for the existence of God I shall go over each individually later.

Cosmological Argument
* (I) Everything that begins to exist had a cause.
* (II) The Universe began to exist.
* (III) Therefore the Universe had a cause.

This is universally accepted by Physicists and Astronomers. So, what caused the Universe to exist?

There cannot have been an infinite chain of events before this time, as, quite simply, we would have never arrived at this time in the present. If you have a domino named X, and you need an infinite chain of dominos falling over to knock over domino X then that event will never happen. Therefore, the universe had a finite beginning.

The universe also cannot "explain itself". Everything that exists physically began to exist, and is or was reliant on something else to bring it in to existence. If you picked up an apple, you would not conclude it has always existed, it came from a tree. You would not be able to conclude that that tree could explain itself, as it came from a seed and so on. As aforementioned, you cannot have an infinite chain of events. Ultimately, everything came from something. What did the universe come from? I shall now attempt to explain the Big Bang Model to you: -

The Big Bang Theory is as follows: -
The universe began from a hot dense state, known as a singularity, and expanded, and is still expanding from, that hot dense state. It is at this point that the laws of physics, or in other words the very laws of nature themselves, as well as time, matter, space and energy all came into existence. In other words, even an Atheist’s starting point is not natural.

Evidence for the Big Bang: -
* Red Shift between galaxies
* Amounts of Chemical Elements in the Universe
* Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation

The question then, is not "What caused the Universe?" but "What caused the Big Bang?". Richard Dawkins admits that we cannot known what happened beyond the Big Bang. All we can do is speculate, as we cannot go further back than the Plank Epoch. Since the big bang is when space, time, matter, energy and the laws of physics came into existence, we can conclude that whatever caused the big bang must have the following attributes: -

* Whatever caused the big bang exists outside of time and space. That is, timeless and transcendent.
* Whatever caused the big bang is "super-natural" that is, independent of the laws of physics.
* Whatever caused the big bang is powerful. The big bang started at such a hot and dense state that no current technology can simulate them. Not even our most powerful particle accelerators can simulate the vast amounts of energy that were present at the moment of the big bang.
* Whatever caused the big bang is intelligent and personal. The sheer improbability of everything in the universe, including the laws of physics, arranging themselves by chance is overwhelming at best and damn right impossible at worst.

The Christian God fulfils this criteria, therefore the Christian God exists.

The Axiological Argument
* (I)A moral order requires an objective moral lawgiver.
* (II)There are objective moral laws.
* (III)Therefore there is an objective moral lawgiver.

Is there a moral order in the world we live in? In other words, is there objective good and evil? I think it is safe to say that there is good and that there is evil, unless, of course, you are willing to argue that a man drunk on snake's blood and hard liquor ravishing an 18-month baby girl is not evil. Cultures may vary on what constitutes good, but there are certainly universal morals regarding evil. I think the most obvious evil is murder. There is an objective sense of right and wrong.

As the Apostle Paul stated in Romans 2:12-16: -

12 People who do not have the law and who are sinners will be lost, although they do not have the law. And, in the same way, those who have the law and are sinners will be judged by the law.13 Hearing the law does not make people right with God. It is those who obey the law who will be right with him.14 (Those who are not Jews do not have the law, but when they freely do what the law commands, they are the law for themselves. This is true even though they do not have the law.15 They show that in their hearts they know what is right and wrong, just as the law commands. And they show this by their consciences. Sometimes their thoughts tell them they did wrong, and sometimes their thoughts tell them they did right.)16 All these things will happen on the day when God, through Christ Jesus, will judge people's secret thoughts.The Good News that I preach says this.

In other words, all human beings have a sense of right of wrong. Although, sometime we do not listen to that sense.

Good and evil exists, but how do we determine what is good and evil? How do we determine what is right and wrong? Bertrand Russell said that he distinguished right and wrong the same way he distinguished red and blue. When asked how he distinguished between colours, he replied "My sight". When asked how he distinguished from good and evil he said: "My feelings". What should have then been asked is: "In some cultures, they love their neighbours, in others, they eat them. What are your personal preferences?".

Do we simply pick and choose for ourselves what is wrong? If so, then you have no right to say Hitler was wrong in doing what he did. In fact, many of the Nazi's involved with orchestrating and performing the Holocaust along with Hitler, stated that they were doing what they believed to be right.

Richard Dawkins has stated that Science cannot tell us what is good and evil. Reason alone cannot tell us what is good and evil. As aforementioned, we cannot pick and choose moral values for ourselves. We need an objective moral lawgiver. What would such a moral lawgiver be like?

* They would be perfect. Without evil.
* All knowing.
* Wise
* Loving

The Christian God meets this criteria, therefore, the Christian God exists.

The Teleological Argument
Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA structure, when asked how he thought life began on earth he replied: "Probably because a spaceship from another planet bought spores to seed the earth". Carl Sagan stated that he viewed the universe as nothing more than molecules in motion.
If that is "reason" then give me faith any day.

Most Atheists tend to misrepresent the design argument, contending that we are trying to "disprove evolution" or some such rubbish. Arguments for God do not hinge on debunking abiognesis, evolution or anything else for that matter. The Bible does not mention how God made everything and does not give an age of the universe or the earth. Furthermore, the Hebrew word used to mean "day" in Genesis can mean a literal 24 hours or it can mean an indefinite period of time. The sole purpose of the Genesis account is to establish one thing: -

In the beginning God

If you interpret Genesis, literally, figuratively or as a mixture of both, you can never find specification of how and when, only WHO. Arguments for God also do not hinge on proving miracles. Since the Bible states that the laws of physics and all reality are dependent on the existence of God in order to function. That is, God operates and acts through nature. A "miracle" is simply God doing something in an out of the ordinary way. In short, Genesis is not a science book, and nor is it meant to.

On to the argument! In order for evolution and abiogenesis to even be possible, it requires two things.
1) Materials. In other words, in order for these processes to occur, the neccessary elements need to be in place.
2) Physical laws. In other words, it is not enough to simply dump a load of chemicals and hope they form something, they need to be able to interact, and in a way that these life-giving processes can occur.

For anybody who knows anything about science, it is blatantly obvious that these things exist, afterall we are here, and we can observe how the universe works and how things within the universe interact with one another, in order to formulate scientific hypotheses, theories and laws. When people ask: how can evolution be possible? We can point them to the various mechanisms that allow evolution to take place. We can then explain how these mechanisms are possible and so on until we get to the big bang. As aforementioned, the big bang marks the beginning of the universe as we know it. Our planet existing and having the ability to bring forth life is dependant on a set of natural laws and contants, in fact,
everything in nature is dependant upon the natural laws, constants etc. that 'formed' after the moment of the big bang. The important question to ask is: how did these laws/constants etc. come about? Victor Stenger, in an ironic attempt to disprove the existence of design in the universe in his book God: The Failed Hypothesis showed that various patterns occur naturally. Now, the obvious implication is that a designer is not neccessary, however, upon further contemplation, one realises the absurdity of this. For the very laws and constants that allow these processes and patterns to occur, came into being completely unguided by any law or constant.

There is order in the universe, yet this order came into being from complete chaos. There was no naturalistic law or constant that oversaw how the natural laws etc came into being. The big bang occured, and then these laws and constants came into operation a short time later. If these laws and constants had been different, then not only would life be impossible, but the universe would have then imploded in on itself instead of continuing to expand as it does today. Whilst there are various hypotheses to try and explain the big bang, i.e. M-Theory, multi-verse theory and so on, these are all purely speculative and are needlessly complex explanations. A further problem arises in that they don't provide a final explanation but carry on ad infinitum, whereas God does not. Following on from the cosmological argument, the teleological argument logically follows and the two combined provide an adequate and satisfying answer.

The Superiority of Christianity
If life is random, then life is ultimately and inescapably meaningless. If life is meaningless, then we have climbed the evolutionary ladder to find nothing at the top. For most, pain is the evidence of meaningless of life, however, pleasure, not pain is the death knell of meaning. G.K. Chesterton remarked that meaninglessness comes from being weary of pleasure, not weariness of pain. This is the lonely planet problem. The belief that we are alone in our personal pains and pleasures and ultimately have no real impact on anybody else. In other words, it’s all about me. When the pleasure button is pressed incessantly, then we are left feeling bewildered and betrayed. Oscar Wilde wrote many passages of despair despite his pursuit of pleasure. Some of the loneliest people in existence are those who have everything and experience little to no real pain. Pleasure without boundaries produces a life without purpose. That is real pain. Nothing really matters. Life is empty and hollow.

Voltaire reportedly said that he believed the Bible would be forgotten in a hundred years of his life, yet one his homes became part of the Geneva Bible Society where many Bible have been printed and distributed. Voltaire, Sartre and Nietzsche were consistent in their views, they admitted the ridiculousness of life and the pointlessness of everything in an Atheist world. Contemporary Atheists such as Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens are so blind as to try and present Atheism as a triumphant liberation. Sartre renounced Atheism as philosophically unliveable on his deathbed. Anthony Flew who was a renowned Atheist philosopher is now a Deist. Atheism taken to its logical conclusion leads to insanity and self-destruction. One such example is that of Michael Foucault, who lived a life of mindless abandon and eventually ended up ravished with AIDS. Life without God is a life without any point of reference other than what one decides at the time. Our fate is what we make for ourselves. To live otherwise is to borrow from the very worldview you seek to disprove. Foucault told his students to take chances, that there are no solutions and that there is no meaning. At least he was honest about life's lack of meaning for those who reject God. Atheism is a false comfort with no point of reference.

Atheists often argue that Atheists should not be classified as such, but don't you think it is funny how they avoid being labelled to escape counter-arguments all the whilst labelling and accusing theists? They look for a universal solvent for which to dissolve the notion of God, yet they end up dissolving their own worldview. Furthermore, in their assault on Christianity, they end up borrowing from the worldview they are trying to disprove. Atheism can provide no basis for meaning or objective morality, which is humorous as many of Atheism's "arguments" rely on these two principals.

Atheism denies God, yet without God they have no basis for objective morality. If there are no objective morals then their view of right and wrong is subjective and they have no right to criticise Christians, or anybody else for that matter, for doing what they perceive as evil. The only difference between Atheism and Christianity is that when an Atheist does evil, they are living consistently with the fact that Atheism cannot provide any source or measuring stick for objective morality, whereas the Christian who does wrong is violating the basic precepts of Christianity. Furthermore, Atheism has contributed to more death and destruction than any religion. Atheist regimes have killed around 140,000,000 in 90 years. Whereas, the Spanish Inquisition, often cited by Atheists as having been responsible for the deaths of millions, killed around 2,000 people in 300 years. The Crusades? 1,000,000 and the reformation 5,000,000.

Sam Harris argued that the first four commandments in the Bible to teach nothing about morality, whilst the others can be found in other religions anyway. Really? The first commandment, "I am the Lord your God, who bought you out of Egypt... You shall have no other gods before me", is the crux of Christian morality. The other nine commandments hinge on the first. In this first commandment, two precepts are being taught: -

* (I)All moral reasoning is based on the actuality of God
* (II)Righteousness and morality cannot be achieved without redemption.

The Mosaic precepts had 613 commandments. David summarised them into 15 core commandments, Isaiah to six, Micah to three and Jesus to two: -

* (I)Love the Lord your God with all you heart and with all your souls and with all your mind.
* (II)Love your neighbour as you love yourself.

Where can you find this anywhere else? In Buddhism there is no self, in Jainism we are of the same value as insects. Do I really need to go on? Without God, the other commandments are merely prescriptive without meaning or basis.

What else dies if we remove God? Hope, Love, Intrinsic Worth and Value. In fact, without God, we have no basis for reason other than what we perceive to be reasonable. If God exists, then our minds are made in the images of God's mind. We are capable of abstraction and reason. If there is no God, then our minds are merely atoms in motion. A mere bundle of neurons. What we perceive to be reality is subjective and not the same as objective reality. If our reality is not the same objective reality, then our reason is not the same as objective reason. Quite simply, God is the source of objective reality and objective reasoning. If there is no God, then we cannot trust our own minds.


  1. Bravo RG. I saw that you had a new blog so I had to pay a visit and have a look. I have to say I like it. You're writing style is good and the arguments are strong.

    God Bless