Essay, Research Paper: Does God Exist?

In order to defend the Christian faith, one must obviously start with the premise that there is a God! Although this sounds elementary, it is extremely important, because an individual with an atheistic world-view will be unpersuaded by the objective facts underlying Christianity. He will simply attempt to interpret these facts within his atheistic framework. For instance, an atheistic geologist will interpret the fact that we find billions of dead things buried in sedimentary rocks (i.e., laid down by moving water) all over the earth as the proof of death, bloodshed, and the survival of the fittest over millions of years. In contrast, a Bible-believing geologist, having a belief in God, will interpret this same objective fact as evidence for the Genesis flood, which does seem to provide a better explanation for this phenomenon [1]. The atheistic scientist, however, will not even consider this alternative because of his pre-conceived notion that there can be no God. Therefore, it is important to begin a study of Christian evidences with arguments in favor of the existence of God. For if one does not have a theistic world-view then Christianity will be meaningless to Him. We must admit, however, that the existence of God cannot be proven by the scientific method. Since God cannot be "tested" or "observed" one must necessarily resort to some sort of philosophical arguments in order to argue for God's existence. Furthermore, there must always be an element of obedient faith involved before the evidence for God's existence is accepted. One can be overwhelmed by the arguments for God's existence and still have an unbelieving heart. This is because many men correctly discern that if there is a creator-God, then they would be accountable to Him. Many of these individuals, especially in our humanistic society, are unwilling to submit themselves to such a God. Therefore, for many, the existence of God is a question of the will and not of the intellect. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" [2]. However, for those who are willing to believe and are sincerely searching for the truth, there is abundant evidence for the existence of God.
Traditional Arguments for the Existence of God
The ontological argument Ontology is the study of being. This argument, which is purely philosophical (and purely philosophical arguments never prove anything) states, in essence, that the existence of the idea of God (i.e., He is the greatest of all conceivable beings) can only be explained if He really exists [3]. This is probably the least convincing of the traditional arguments because skeptics can rightly reply that it is logically possible that nothing ever existed, including God.
The moral argument This argument states that due to the fact that all men possess a "moral impulse" and at least a relative or subjective awareness of right and wrong, there must be an ultimate and absolute standard of morality. This ultimate standard would, of course, be God. Otherwise, what defines right and wrong, good and bad, etc.? Certainly moral behavior does not always pay off in this life. Why then do men even try to live morally?
The teleological argument Teleology is the study of goals or ends. This argument focuses on the orderliness and apparent design in nature and the universe that seems to imply design and a designer. For instance, if we were to find a watch lying on a beach, we would probably not assume that it just evolved out of the sand. We would rightly assume that it had been made by an intelligent designer and somehow transported to that particular spot. Similarly, the orderliness of nature and the universe point to an intelligent designer because orderliness is always indicative of intelligent design and not chance, random processes. British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle states concerning the possibility of the spontaneous generation of life:
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a 'tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'" [4]
Returning to the watch analogy, a non-Christian Ph. D. in biochemistry writes:
"The eerie artifact-like character of life and the analogy with our own advanced machines has an important philosophical consequence, for it provides the means for a powerful reformulation of the old analogical argument to design which has been one of the basic creationist arguments used throughout western history going back to Aristotle and presented in its classic form by William Paley in his famous watch - to - watchmaker discourse.
According to Paley, we would never infer in the case of a machine, such as a watch, that its design was due to natural processes such as the wind and rain; rather, we would be obliged to postulate a watch-maker. Living things are similar to machines, exhibiting the same sort of adaptive complexity and we must, therefore, infer by analogy that their design is also the result of intelligent activity." [5]
"...Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?" [6]
The first and second laws of thermodynamics also support the teleological argument.
The first law (Law of conservation of energy) states that the total quantity of energy in the universe is always constant-it can neither be created or destroyed. (See Nehemiah 9:6)
The second law states that the amount of unavailable energy or "entropy" is always increasing. In other words, the universe is running down and constantly becoming more disorderly. (See Psalm 102:25-27)
The second law contradicts evolutionary cosmogonies (theories of origins) because matter does not naturally become more orderly. In fact, the universe started orderly but is now running down! In addition, since the universe is not dead yet, it must have had a beginning. Therefore, the second law proves that the universe must have been created. The first law, however, stipulates that it could not have created itself! Therefore, there must have been a creator (Genesis 1:1). Therefore, God must exist!
The cosmological argument Cosmology is the study of the "cosmos" or the world. It could also be stated as the law of "cause and effect". In reality, both the moral and teleological arguments are based on this argument. We know that every finite thing or effect must have a cause either within itself or beyond itself. However, something that is self-caused is impossible and contradictory. Furthermore, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes, because the whole series of causes would never have begun without some sort of "Prime Mover" or "First Cause". Therefore, we must conclude that there must have been an infinite, un-caused "First Cause" or "Prime Mover" who initiated the chain of secondary causes and effects. If we look at the world around us we can see the evidence of the scientific law of cause and effect. The vastness of the universe and the wonder of creation point to an infinite creator God. The Bible itself makes mention of this. For instance:
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. (Psalm 19:1-3)
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:19-20)
Traditional Arguments Against the Existence of God
Atheistic arguments Although theism must admit that there is no way to scientifically prove the existence of God, atheism must admit that there is no way to disprove His existence. Most atheists would likely acknowledge this fact, but would still scoff at the concept of an infinite, eternal, omnipotent God. Unfortunately, what they fail to realize (or admit) is that if we don't start with an infinite, un-caused God, then we must start with finite, un-caused matter! "In the final analysis atheism must hold the absurd conclusion that something comes from nothing, that is, that non-being is the ground upon which being rests. This seems highly unreasonable" [7]. Furthermore, for an atheist to assert dogmatically that there is no God, then he must be omniscient, and therefore God! Therefore, his assertion contradicts itself!
Agnostic arguments An agnostic is one who claims that the existence and nature of God is either unknown or unknowable. The first type presents no real threat to the claims of Christianity because it leaves open the possibility of finite knowledge about an infinite God. The second type, however, is contradictory and self-defeating because it makes a dogmatic statement about reality in order to deny the possibility of making dogmatic statements about reality! In other words, if nothing can be known about God, how did we come to that conclusion? One would have to be omniscient (and hence God) to make such a statement. Therefore, the agnostic has no basis to make the claim that nothing can be known about God. Furthermore, the fact that the agnostic himself exists is a fact he cannot deny without contradicting himself (i.e., a non-existent person can't deny anything). This should lead him to the conclusion that God could exist and, in fact (based on the cosmological argument), must exist.
Conclusion: We can confidently state that the evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming. As the Psalmist stated in Psalm 14:1 and 53:1, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."